The law on the arbitrability of disputes involving allegations of fraud in India-seated arbitrations has long been in a state of flux, with several Supreme Court judgments laying down different categories or tests to determine which kinds of disputes involving allegations of fraud would be non-arbitrable, and would have to be decided by the courts. This article analyses the categories of non-arbitrable disputes involving allegations of fraud set out in the preeminent judgments of the Supreme Court of India on the subject in the last decade: Ayyasamy v. Paramasivam, Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar, and Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. The article postulates that the tests as set out in Ayyasamy and Avitel are unsound in their reasoning, and vague and unnecessary, respectively, and lack an intelligible basis for courts to determine the arbitrability of fraud, at the reference stage. The article proposes that the categories of arbitrable cases identified in Rashid Raza should be adopted when determining the arbitrability of disputes involving allegations of fraud, in order to promote objective and simplified decision making by the courts on whether to refer the dispute to arbitration.