“Confidentiality In Arbitration How Far Protected Under Indian Law”

Abstract

Confidentiality is widely regarded as one of the cornerstone advantages of arbitration over traditional court litigation. Parties often choose arbitration with the expectation that their disputes, sensitive commercial information, and the final award will remain private and shielded from public scrutiny. However, the legal protection afforded to this expectation varies significantly across jurisdictions. In India, the position on confidentiality is complex, nuanced, and not explicitly codified in a comprehensive manner. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is largely silent on the issue, leading to a reliance on judicial interpretation and inherent principles of arbitration. This article undertakes a meticulous examination of the current legal landscape of confidentiality in Indian arbitration. It begins by delineating the conceptual distinction between privacy and confidentiality. It then analyses the limited statutory underpinnings, followed by a critical review of the evolving jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which has oscillated between recognizing an implied duty of confidentiality and carving out significant exceptions in the public interest. The article further explores the contractual avenues for reinforcing confidentiality and contrasts the Indian position with leading international arbitration regimes. Ultimately, it concludes that while a general principle of confidentiality is recognized in India, its protection is not absolute and is increasingly being balanced against competing values such as transparency, public policy, and the interests of justice. The article argues for legislative clarity or robust institutional rules to provide parties with greater predictability and to bolster India's standing as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

1. Introduction

International commercial arbitration has emerged as the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border business disputes, prized for its neutrality, party autonomy, and efficiency. Among its most lauded attributes are its private and confidential nature. In an era where corporate reputation and proprietary information are invaluable assets, the ability to resolve contentious matters away from the public eye is a significant strategic advantage. This expectation of secrecy—encompassing the existence of the arbitration, the documents disclosed, the evidence presented, and the final award—forms a compelling reason for parties to opt out of national court systems, where hearings and records are typically open to the public.

The Indian arbitration ecosystem, revitalized by the landmark amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in 2015 and 2019, has been striving to position itself as a hub for international and domestic arbitration. A critical component of this aspiration is providing a legal framework that aligns with global best practices, including the robust protection of confidentiality. However, the Indian approach presents a paradox. On one hand, the judiciary has repeatedly acknowledged the confidential character of arbitration. On the other, the statutory text of the Act itself offers little explicit guidance, creating a regime built largely on judicial precedent and implied terms.

This article seeks to answer the central question: To what extent is confidentiality in arbitration protected under Indian law? The analysis proceeds in several parts. First, it clarifies the fundamental, yet often conflated, concepts of privacy and confidentiality. Second, it scrutinizes the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for any express or implied statutory basis for confidentiality. The third and most substantial part delves into the Indian case law, tracing its trajectory from the initial recognition of an implied duty to the contemporary era where significant inroads have been made in the name of public policy and transparency. The fourth section examines how parties can contractually fortify confidentiality, while the fifth provides a comparative glance at international standards. The article concludes by summarizing the current legal position and proposing recommendations for a more coherent and predictable framework.

2. The Conceptual Distinction: Privacy vs. Confidentiality

A clear understanding of the issue necessitates distinguishing between two interrelated but distinct concepts: privacy and confidentiality.

Privacy refers to the right to exclude strangers and the general public from the arbitration proceedings. It is a procedural attribute that ensures the hearing is attended only by the parties, their legal representatives, the witnesses, and the arbitral tribunal. It is about the physical or virtual access to the proceedings. This principle is well-established in Indian law and finds indirect support in the Act, which does not mandate public hearings for arbitrations.

Confidentiality, a broader and more substantive concept, imposes an obligation on the participants (parties, arbitrators, witnesses, and institutions) not to disclose any information relating to the arbitration to any third party. This covers the very existence of the dispute, pleadings, documents produced during discovery, witness statements, transcripts of hearings, and the arbitral award itself.

In essence, privacy protects the proceedings from unwanted attendees, while confidentiality protects the information generated in those proceedings from unwanted disclosure. A proceeding can be private (no outsiders present) but not confidential if the parties are free to publicize the details afterward. The Indian legal framework has struggled with upholding the latter, more demanding, obligation.

3. Statutory Framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, is conspicuously silent on the general principle of confidentiality. Unlike the statutes of some other jurisdictions (e.g., Singapore, New Zealand), it does not contain a blanket provision imposing a duty of confidentiality on all participants.

However, a closer examination reveals a few isolated provisions that touch upon aspects of confidentiality:

» Section 42A: Introduced by the 2019 Amendment Act, this is the only explicit statutory provision addressing confidentiality. It states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the arbitrator, the arbitral institution and the parties to the arbitration agreement shall maintain confidentiality of all arbitral proceedings except the award where its disclosure is necessary for the purpose of implementation and enforcement of the award." While a welcome step, this provision is critically limited. It applies only to arbitrations with an arbitral institution and leaves out ad-hoc arbitrations entirely. Furthermore, it protects the "proceedings" but does not explicitly extend to the vast universe of documents, evidence, and pleadings generated therein.

» Section 75: This provision, falling under Part III of the Act concerning conciliation, imposes a clear duty of confidentiality. It mandates that the conciliator and the parties, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, shall keep confidential all matters relating to the conciliation proceedings, including the settlement agreement. The stark contrast between the robust confidentiality in conciliation and the near-absence of it in arbitration highlights a legislative gap.

» Second Schedule (Section 38(1)) and Seventh Schedule (Section 12(1)(b)): These schedules, outlining grounds for the termination of an arbitrator's mandate and circumstances rendering him ineligible, respectively, include a scenario where the arbitrator "has committed a breach of the confidentiality provisions in section 42A." This reinforces the sanctity of the limited confidentiality introduced by Section 42A.

The legislative intent appears to have been to allow the principle to develop through judicial interpretation and party autonomy, rather than through a rigid statutory mandate. This has, however, led to uncertainty.

4. The Judicial Interpretation: From Implied Duty to Public Interest Exceptions

The Indian judiciary has been the primary architect of the law on confidentiality in arbitration. The courts have moved from recognizing an implied duty to meticulously defining its boundaries and exceptions.

4.1. The Foundation: Recognizing an Implied Duty

The seminal case that laid the foundation for confidentiality in India is Oxford Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha (The "Eastern Saga") [1984]. While an English decision, it has been extensively relied upon by Indian courts. The court held that an implied obligation arises from the nature of the arbitration agreement itself, obliging a party not to disclose or use for any other purpose any documents prepared for and used in the arbitration.

The Indian Supreme Court, in TDM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. UE Development India Pvt. Ltd. (2008), observed that confidentiality is an inherent attribute of private arbitrations. This principle was more firmly established by the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Dabhol Power Company (Unreported, 2005), where it was held that documents produced by one party in an arbitration cannot be used by the other party for any collateral or ulterior purpose, as an obligation of confidentiality is implicit in the arbitration agreement.

4.2. The Watershed: The Supreme Court's Balancing Act in M/S Emkay Global

The most significant and authoritative pronouncement on the subject came from the Supreme Court in M/S Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi (2018). The Court was confronted with the question of whether documents generated in a prior arbitration could be relied upon in a subsequent court proceeding under Section 34 (challenge to the arbitral award).

The Supreme Court made several crucial observations:

• It affirmed that confidentiality is an implied condition of every arbitration agreement.

• However, it categorically stated that this duty is not absolute.

• It held that disclosure of documents and proceedings is permissible where it is "under the order of the Court" or is "necessary to protect the lawful interests of a party" to the arbitration.

The Court reasoned that a party challenging an award under Section 34 must necessarily place the award, and often the evidence and record of the arbitration, before the court. To hold otherwise would render the statutory right to challenge an award nugatory. This judgment was a pragmatic one, acknowledging that the need for effective judicial oversight trumps the duty of confidentiality in certain circumstances.

4.3. Expanding the Exceptions: Public Policy and Transparency

Following Emkay Global, Indian courts have consistently expanded the exceptions to confidentiality, particularly in matters involving public interest, state entities, or allegations of fraud.

» Public Interest and State Funds: Courts have repeatedly held that when an arbitration involves a state entity or public funds, the veil of confidentiality can be lifted. The rationale is that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing how state resources are being utilized and defended. For instance, in petitions under Section 9 (interim measures) or Section 34 (challenge to award) involving public sector undertakings, courts routinely examine the entire arbitral record without being constrained by confidentiality.

» Allegations of Fraud and Misconduct: In cases where a party alleges fraud, bias, or misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or the other party, courts have permitted the disclosure of arbitral materials to establish such claims. The interest of justice in uncovering illegality is considered paramount.

» Enforcement of Rights: As recognized in Emkay Global, a party may disclose confidential information to a third party if it is necessary to protect or enforce a legal right. For example, a party may need to disclose the arbitral award to its bankers or insurers, or in a separate litigation to prevent a conflicting judgment.

The Delhi High Court, in Amit Sibal v. Arvind Kejriwal (2017), powerfully articulated this limitation. The Court held that while confidentiality is an essential characteristic of arbitration, it cannot be used as a "veil to hide the truth" or to "defeat the larger public interest." This underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that confidentiality does not become a tool for injustice.

4.4. The Contemporary Position: A Fragile Equilibrium

The current legal position, therefore, is a delicate balance. There exists a general, implied duty of confidentiality arising from the arbitration agreement. This duty binds the parties, the tribunal, and the institution. However, this duty yields in the face of:

• The requirements of court proceedings (Sections 9, 34, 37).

• The demands of public interest, especially when state entities are involved.

• The need to establish a legal right or defend against a claim.

• Allegations of fraud, corruption, or serious irregularity.

This judge-made framework, while flexible, creates significant uncertainty for parties. It is difficult to predict in advance whether a particular disclosure will be held to be a breach of the duty or a permissible exception.

5. Contractual and Institutional Fortification of Confidentiality

Given the ambiguities in the statutory and judicial framework, parties seeking robust confidentiality must take proactive measures. The principle of party autonomy, enshrined in Section 2(6) of the Act, provides the most effective tool.

» Express Confidentiality Clauses: The most reliable method is to incorporate a detailed confidentiality clause in the arbitration agreement or the terms of reference. A well-drafted clause should:

• Define the scope of "Confidential Information" broadly to include the existence of the arbitration, pleadings, evidence, transcripts, and the award.

• Identify the parties bound by the duty (the parties, counsel, witnesses, experts, tribunal, institution).

• Specify the permitted disclosures (e.g., to legal advisors, insurers, for enforcement purposes, as required by law).

• Stipulate the duration of the obligation.

• Outline the consequences of breach.

» Institutional Rules: Choosing arbitration under the rules of a reputed institution can automatically import strong confidentiality obligations. For example:

• The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules (Article 30) impose a broad duty of confidentiality on the parties and the tribunal.

• The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules (Article 22(3)) empower the tribunal to make orders concerning the confidentiality of the proceedings.

• The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules (Rule 39, 40, 45) contain comprehensive provisions protecting the confidentiality of both the proceedings and the award.

While Indian institutions like the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) and the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) have confidentiality provisions in their rules, the protection is ultimately subject to the overriding exceptions developed by Indian courts, particularly concerning court intervention.

6. A Comparative Perspective: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

A brief comparative analysis highlights the relative position of Indian law.

» England & Wales: English law, similar to India, recognizes an implied duty of confidentiality but subjects it to numerous exceptions, as laid down in Ali Shipping Corporation v. Shipyard Trogir (1998). The exceptions are broadly similar to those in India, including consent, court order, and the interests of justice.

» Singapore: Singapore takes a more pro-confidentiality stance. The International Arbitration Act (IAA) explicitly provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, all proceedings are confidential. The exceptions are narrower and more specifically defined, providing greater predictability.

» United States: The approach in the U.S. is mixed. There is no uniform federal law on confidentiality. While privacy of hearings is respected, confidentiality is often treated as a matter of contract between the parties rather than an implied legal duty. The default position is arguably less protective than in India.

This comparison shows that India's approach is closer to the English "implied duty with exceptions" model than the Singaporean "statutory default" model. However, the Indian judiciary's emphasis on public interest, especially in government contracts, is particularly pronounced.

7. Conclusion and the Path Forward

The protection of confidentiality in Indian arbitration is a tale of judicial craftsmanship in the face of legislative silence. The law has evolved to recognize a general, implied duty of confidentiality, but this duty is fragile and porous. The Supreme Court's decision in M/S Emkay Global correctly established that confidentiality cannot be an impediment to justice or statutory rights. The subsequent jurisprudence has rightly prioritized public interest and transparency in disputes involving state resources.

However, this state of affairs creates a dilemma. For commercial parties, the uncertainty surrounding the scope of confidentiality can be a disincentive to choosing India as a seat. The very advantage they seek—secrecy—is conditional and subject to judicial discretion.

To strengthen the Indian arbitration regime and enhance its global competitiveness, a more structured approach is needed:

» Legislative Intervention: Parliament should consider amending the Act to incorporate a comprehensive provision on confidentiality, applicable to both ad-hoc and institutional arbitrations. This provision should explicitly state the general duty and provide a closed, exhaustive list of exceptions, drawing from the existing jurisprudence (e.g., court proceedings, public interest, protection of legal rights). This would provide the predictability that parties crave.

» Judicial Restraint: While courts must intervene where necessary, a doctrine of minimal intervention should be practiced. Courts should be reluctant to lift the veil of confidentiality unless a compelling case falling within the recognized exceptions is made out.

» Party Autonomy: Parties must be proactive. They should not rely on implied terms but should negotiate and draft precise confidentiality clauses tailored to their specific needs and risks.

In conclusion, confidentiality in Indian arbitration is protected, but not absolutely. It is a principle that exists in a dynamic tension with other fundamental values of the legal system. The journey from an implied assumption to a clearly defined, predictable legal rule remains incomplete. Until such clarity is achieved, either through legislative action or a consolidated judicial restatement, the protection of confidentiality in India will remain a qualified promise, its extent determined on a case-by-case basis in the delicate scales of justice.

Here are some questions and answers on the topic:

1. What is the fundamental difference between privacy and confidentiality in arbitration, and why does it matter under Indian law?

The fundamental difference lies in their scope and objective. Privacy is a procedural right that restricts physical or virtual access to the arbitration hearings, ensuring that only the essential participants—the parties, their lawyers, the arbitrators, and the witnesses—are present. It is about excluding the public and the media from the room. Confidentiality, however, is a much broader and substantive obligation. It imposes a duty on all those participants not to disclose any information related to the arbitration to any third party. This covers the very existence of the dispute, all pleadings, disclosed documents, witness statements, transcripts, and the final award. This distinction matters profoundly in Indian law because while the principle of privacy is well-established and generally uncontested, the protection of confidentiality is ambiguous and not absolute. Indian courts have consistently upheld the private nature of hearings, but the duty to maintain the secrecy of the information generated within those hearings is riddled with exceptions, making it a far more complex and less protected aspect of arbitration in India.

2. Does the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, explicitly provide for a general duty of confidentiality in arbitration proceedings?

No, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not explicitly provide for a general, overarching duty of confidentiality for all arbitrations. The statute is largely silent on this issue, which is a significant legislative gap. The only explicit mention is found in Section 42A, which was introduced by the 2019 Amendment. This section states that the arbitrator, the arbitral institution, and the parties must maintain confidentiality of all arbitral proceedings, except the award, which can be disclosed for its implementation and enforcement. However, this provision has a critical limitation: it applies only to institutional arbitrations and not to the vast number of ad-hoc arbitrations in India. This stands in stark contrast to the law on conciliation, where Section 75 of the same Act imposes a clear and strong duty of confidentiality on all matters relating to conciliation proceedings. Therefore, for most arbitrations in India, the protection of confidentiality is not derived from a clear statutory mandate but has been developed by the judiciary through case law.

3. How have Indian courts balanced the implied duty of confidentiality with the need for transparency and public interest?

Indian courts have performed a delicate balancing act by recognizing an implied duty of confidentiality while simultaneously carving out significant exceptions to protect larger interests. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of M/S Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi (2018), affirmed that confidentiality is an implied condition of every arbitration agreement. However, the Court crucially held that this duty is not absolute. It established that disclosure is permissible where it is under the order of a court or is necessary for a party to protect its lawful interests. This principle has been expanded to prioritize transparency and public interest, especially in arbitrations involving state entities or public funds. Courts have ruled that the use of public money is a matter of legitimate public concern, and therefore, the veil of confidentiality can be lifted in court proceedings related to such arbitrations. Furthermore, allegations of fraud, corruption, or arbitrator misconduct are also considered valid grounds for disclosure, as the interest of justice in uncovering the truth is deemed paramount over the parties' private agreement to secrecy.

4. What was the significance of the Supreme Court's judgment in the M/S Emkay Global case for the law on confidentiality?

The Supreme Court's judgment in the M/S Emkay Global case was a watershed moment that provided much-needed clarity and a pragmatic framework for confidentiality in India. Its primary significance lies in moving the law from a theoretical implied duty to a functional one with defined limits. The Court authoritatively settled that an obligation of confidentiality is indeed inherent in an arbitration agreement. More importantly, it delineated the boundaries of this duty by holding that it is not an absolute right. The Court reasoned that a party's statutory right to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act would be rendered meaningless if it could not present the award and the associated arbitral record before the court. This judgment effectively established that the need for effective judicial oversight and the enforcement of legal rights constitutes a legitimate exception to confidentiality. It thus created a precedent for future courts to balance the private nature of arbitration with the necessities of the public justice system.

5. What steps can parties take to ensure stronger protection for confidentiality in their arbitration, given the uncertainties in Indian law?

Given the uncertainties in the statutory and judicial framework, parties cannot rely solely on implied terms and must take proactive measures to fortify confidentiality. The most effective tool is the principle of party autonomy. Parties should negotiate and incorporate a detailed, express confidentiality clause within their main arbitration agreement or the subsequent terms of reference. A well-drafted clause should broadly define what constitutes "confidential information," explicitly list all parties bound by the duty including lawyers, witnesses, and experts, specify the permitted disclosures such as to financial advisors or insurers, and outline the consequences for a breach. Secondly, parties can opt for institutional arbitration under rules that have robust confidentiality provisions. Rules from international institutions like the LCIA, ICC, and SIAC, or even leading Indian institutions like the MCIA, contain explicit and comprehensive duties of confidentiality that bind the parties and the tribunal. By contractually agreeing to these terms, parties can create a more secure and predictable confidentiality regime for their dispute, which, while still subject to the overriding exceptions of Indian courts, provides a much stronger layer of protection than the default legal position.

Disclaimer: The content shared in this blog is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. It provides only a basic understanding of the subject and should not be considered as professional legal advice. For specific guidance or in-depth legal assistance, readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified legal professional.