Confidentiality in Arbitration from the Indian perspective By- Ananya Mohindra

Confidentiality in Arbitration from the Indian perspective

Authored By- Ananya Mohindra

Introduction

Even though Arbitration is steadily becoming a leading alternative to litigation for settling conflicts, particularly concerning commercial issues, confidentiality still stands as arbitration's most striking characteristic.  Contrary to traditional litigation, arbitration is considered to be a private interaction between the parties to a dispute. Accordingly, by signing an arbitration agreement, the parties consent to a mutual understanding not to reveal any information pertaining to the dispute and the arbitral proceedings, consisting of documents, transcripts, notes of the evidence presented during the arbitration, and the award.[1] Even though the term "confidentiality" is not uniformly understood, authorities generally concur that it refers to the duty not to reveal information or documents pertaining to an arbitration to a third party.[2]  Confidentiality is popularly termed as the concept of being entrusted with another person's confidence or with a piece of confidential information that must be kept private.  It describes a circumstance where one person is required by another to keep a certain piece of information confidential.[3] As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that parties have a realistic expectation that proceedings will impose a duty of confidentiality on all persons present. The contesting parties, the arbitrator, the arbitral institution, and interested parties such as witnesses, etc. are all subject to a duty of confidentiality.[4]

Arbitration proceedings are based on the idea of "Party Autonomy," parties can always incorporate confidentiality clauses in their arbitration agreements. However, in cases where there is no clear confidentiality obligation between the parties, every jurisdiction must determine an "implied duty of confidentiality." The policy goal in this process must unavoidably evaluate the terms of the arbitration agreement, the interests of the parties, and the nature of the issue at stake at the outset.[5] Needless to say, the parties may demand varying levels of anonymity. For example, a party who has won an arbitration might want to reveal information about the arbitration that is required for the arbitral award to be enforced.[6] Often, particularly well-known businesses would prefer to keep their conflicts private in order to avoid exposure that could damage their reputation or help their rivals. The parties to a case, however, generally enjoy little to no confidentiality during national court proceedings. As a result, the hearings are mostly accessible to the general public, rival companies, press representatives, and regulators from many other nations, which could prevent negotiations from reaching an agreement and lead to a "trial by press release".[7]

Privacy vs confidentiality

Confidentiality and privacy are strongly linked ideas. In many instances, privacy has been related to confidentiality. Several jurisdictions have followed that privacy and confidentiality are presumed terms of the arbitration agreement. This stance persisted up until the 1990s when it was widely accepted that arbitration is a private, confidential process. This viewpoint, meanwhile, has now been shown to be false. Although relatively absolute, confidentiality does not accompany privacy in arbitral procedures. Privacy refers to the party’s ability to prohibit or restrict others from participating in the arbitral process. Contrarily, confidentiality is a more constrained idea. It imposes a duty on the individual to refrain from publicly disclosing "any information relating to the arbitration, any information obtained via the arbitral procedures, and any award or decision given by the arbitral tribunal."[8] Confidentiality goes one step ahead to make sure that parties do not reveal information that is related to the subject of the proceedings, whereas privacy in arbitration procedures gives the parties a feeling of security. However, the simplicity with which parties can hold closed-door arbitration hearings might give the impression that the processes are confidential.[9]

Importance of Confidentiality

Confidentiality has indeed been placed at the forefront of dispute resolution through arbitration. This is due to the fact that some accusations of misrepresentation, incompetence, a lack of funds, and trade secrets are not made public throughout the dispute settlement process.[10] If there is (obscene) content present, or even in cases where participants' reputations would be at stake if the conclusion of a dispute were made public, confidentiality can help such parties involved avoid unfavourable outcomes. Parties engaged in various such confrontations, in particular, usually want to keep the results hidden. In such cases, parties prefer dispute resolution via arbitration, owing to the confidentiality it promises to offer.[11]

Importantly, confidentiality is among the most notable characteristics of commercial arbitration. Despite the necessity for transparency being supported due to the major element of public interest, international commercial arbitration continues to be protected due to the private character of the conflicts and party autonomy.[12]  Arbitral proceedings are almost always closed to the press and public, and in reality, both submissions and awards are frequently kept confidential, if not private. Confidentiality responsibilities are implicit in international arbitration agreements as a matter of law in several nations, while some institutional arbitration rules expressly impose such duties. Nonetheless, there is no clear duty of confidentiality in many countries, and even when such responsibilities exist, they are subject to exceptions that result in awards being made public, either through enforcement actions or otherwise.[13] Because of a variety of reasons, keeping commercial arbitration confidential has indeed been deemed necessary. Allegations of bad faith, misinterpretation, a lack of sufficient financial resources, wilful contract breach, or terms of the agreement may not be made public by a party since doing so could damage the party's reputation and future commercial interests. The confidentiality of the process, as contrasted to "trial by press release," has been believed to have enabled an effective and impartial dispute resolution.[14] Because it is considerably easier to preserve a commercial partnership if the media keeps the conflict out of the public eye. The details of any settlement, including its terms, shall remain confidential. This moves the process along since parties are reluctant to publicly acknowledge the concessions. In the absence of public scrutiny, there is a fair and impartial adjudication, and the confidentiality of the arbitral proceedings is encouraged due to minimal public posturing. Additionally, in some circumstances, confidentiality motivates the parties to express their opinions and tell the truth because there will not be any repercussions for doing so beyond the arbitration. This indicates that tribunals might get more evidence of a higher calibre than would have been disclosed in open court. It is safe to assume that maintaining some level of confidentiality is necessary to safeguard commercial interests as well as the integrity of the arbitral process. Maintaining confidentiality in arbitral procedures, therefore, has resulted in arbitration being an opaque decision-making process. But still, Redfern and Hunter mention, though confidentiality still remains a key attraction of arbitration '… the once general confidentiality of arbitral proceedings has been eroded in recent years …'[15]

Sections discussing confidentiality and their efficacy

A committee chaired by one of the Retire Supreme Court judge Justice B.N. Krishna in July 2017, issued suggestions to the Indian legislature to codify confidentiality obligations in arbitration processes. The ACA, 1996, was deemed to have no provisions for confidentiality in arbitration hearings. The recommendation emphasized how common law jurisdictions such as Hong Kong guarantee secrecy through express statutory reference, whereas the United Kingdom provides for an inferred duty of confidentiality that is read into case laws. Based on this observation, the HLC proposed the inclusion of a model clause ensuring the confidentiality of arbitration procedures. Furthermore, the HLC advised that exceptions to releasing sensitive information be necessary by a legal responsibility, to safeguard or enforce legal rights, or to enforce or contest an award in front of a competent court. The HLC's model recommendation, in effect, attempted to establish an express duty of confidentiality in arbitration procedures.[16] Instead of adopting the HLC proposal, Section 42A essentially replicates the language of Section 75 of the Arbitration Act regarding confidentiality in conciliation.[17] It makes it clear that confidentiality in arbitral proceedings will still be ensured subject to barring a contrary (or "opt-out") agreement by the parties.  The award can only be made public if there exists an exceptional circumstance such as when it is required to disclose the award for its implementation and enforcement.

Sections 42A and 43K were added to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by the 2019 Amendments. They intend to support data confidentiality in arbitration. The arbitrator, the parties to the arbitration, and the arbitral institution are all subject to Section 42A's data confidentiality obligations.[18] It states that regardless of any other laws currently in effect, the arbitrator, the arbitral institution, and the parties to the arbitration agreement must retain the confidentiality of all arbitration processes, with the exception where disclosure of the award is required for its implementation and enforcement.[19] The Arbitration Council of India (the "ACI") is authorized by Section 43K to serve as the repository for arbitral records. However, because the ACI regulations have not yet been declared, an opportunity exists for Indian policymakers to offer a robust statutory structure under the ACI rules.[20]The boundaries and exceptions to section 42A's data confidentiality requirements, however, have not yet been examined, and the ACI's data security procedures' regulating rules have not yet been announced.[21]

Problems with the section on confidentiality

Although the Indian Arbitration Act included the idea of confidentiality, it only applied to conciliation processes.  An explicit clause relating to confidentiality in arbitral proceedings was inserted with the addition of Section 42A to the Arbitration Act.[22]  This section's narrow scope and lack of party autonomy are both drawbacks. Above all, there was little to no direction on the limitations of confidentiality in the Srikrishna Committee Report. While section 42A of the Arbitration Act refers to the confidentiality clause in the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance and the presumed duty of confidentiality in Singapore and the United Kingdom, it does not set forth the common law confidentiality exceptions or permit the courts to create such exceptions.

1. The non-inclusion of third parties

The absence of including third parties in the arbitral proceedings is one of the primary issues that have been brought up in relation to this clause, which has received harsh criticism for a number of other shortcomings.[23] Just the arbitral institution, the arbitrator(s), and the parties to the arbitration are subject to the duty of confidentiality imposed by Section 42A. However, it makes no mention of the witnesses, stenographers, transcribers, or any other individual who attends or participates in the arbitration processes and may come into contact with any sensitive information, omitting them from its scope. This alone demonstrates the disparity.[24]

1. Limited scope for disclosure of Arbitral award

The sole circumstance in which section 42A's confidentiality prohibition does not apply is where the award must be disclosed for the purposes of implementation and enforcement. The requirements placed on a party seeking to provide privileged information out of an arbitration to a court, however, are still up for debate. The parties to the arbitration may ask the court to intervene in the case in order to obtain injunctive relief, temporary relief, or to revoke an arbitrator's appointment, among other things.[25] The fact that this clear and specific exception undercuts the autonomy of the parties by not addressing situations in which parties may wilfully consent to the publication of arbitral awards or the disclosure of any document by forwarding their disputes to an arbitral institution that allows the publication of redacted awards. The regulation fails to consider the many scenarios in which the disclosure of arbitral proceedings may be required for an efficient resolution of the dispute. For instance, disclosing arbitral proceedings would be mandatory if parties wanted to ask Indian courts for help gathering evidence, contesting an arbitral award, or getting temporary relief while arbitral proceedings were ongoing. In any case, arbitral awards made in India are subject to becoming a matter of public record because they are often contested by the parties in court. As a result, they inevitably end up in the court's records, and judgments frequently restate the pertinent sections of the arbitral award (without any redactions). It is crucial to note that the Srikrishna Report also recommended an exception to Section 42A called "challenge [to] an award before a court or judicial authority"; but this suggestion was ultimately rejected in the provision's final text.[26]

Similar circumstances concerning the obligation of confidentiality extending to the arbitral award arose in the current Amazon vs. Future Group[27] arbitration dispute. Once made, an arbitral award may need to be disclosed to a court for enforcement. In addition, the information that the responsible party must pay damages may need to be revealed to regulatory bodies and maybe financial supporters. The parties' agreement to maintain confidentiality is severely hampered by this. Similar to this, concerns over the release of information or documents gathered during the arbitration may come up while or after the procedures are over, for instance, in later arbitral or court proceedings. Thus, a selected group of people will also constantly be aware of the award. Consequently, if the award is contested in court, this group could multiply, as a result, making the award public.[28]

1. Proceedings in Court

The provision fails to take into account such instances in which parties may seek judicial intervention in regard to an arbitration case. When there are many arbitrations involving the same or comparable parties stemming from a related dispute, it is possible that there may be disagreements about the consolidation of arbitration processes.[29] The need to disclose information pertaining to these arbitration proceedings may arise in the case of a petition for defying the arbitral award, an application for interim measures, an appeal challenging interim measures allowed by the tribunal, a request for the termination of the arbitrator's order, etc. The restricted exemption provided herein may conflict with this need to disclose information.[30] This could create the conditions for a potential confidentiality violation. In each of these circumstances, there is a good chance that parties requesting judicial intervention may need to rely on privileged information from the arbitration proceedings that are taking place in the courtroom. But section 42A does take into account any such possibilities. As a result, parties are free to submit and rely on pleadings from arbitral proceedings in court. In other words, under the ACA, 1996, the revelation of information relevant to the arbitration is not qualified by any exceptions.[31] It could be claimed that under the terms of reference of an arbitration, parties are free to agree on confidentiality rules.[32] In Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Canara Bank[33], for instance, the Indian Supreme Court permitted non-signatories to request access to arbitration proceedings by proving their extent of involvement in the role and execution of the contract. Information from the arbitration processes that is confidential may need to be disclosed in such reference proceedings. Determining the parameters of disclosing confidential information in legal procedures would therefore be necessary for Indian courts. They will need to weigh the interests of a party attempting to argue for a deviation from section 42A against the general need to uphold the confidentiality of the provision. [34]

1. Obligations Under Regulation

Additionally, outside parties are permitted to ask the court to refer to an existing arbitration procedure. [35] This provision is likely to result in a major conflict of interest between the existing laws in such cases. Section 42A of the ACA of 1996 does not account for regulatory duties that may necessitate information sharing. For example, publicly traded corporations make explicit disclosures about current litigation in their annual reports, including, when applicable, a reasonably extensive account of its legal issues. This is governed in India by the Securities and Exchange Board of India listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements, 2015. Because Section 42A has a non-obstante clause, it is likely to conflict with most regulations, proceedings, and obligations that require sensitive information to be disclosed.[36] It is also crucial to notice that the non-obstante phrase at the beginning of the enactment supersedes any sections that are opposed to it. This is likely to have a negative impact on the mandatory disclosure rules that corporations and other entities must abide by. For instance, businesses have disclosure duties to a range of stakeholders who, while not parties to the arbitration, have a stake in its progress and resolution. Similarly, a business is required by law to disclose essential information via the board of directors.

1. Non-compliance

The fact that there are not any consequences for violating Section 42A casts doubt on its efficacy and is another worthy cause for concern. To ensure that the specific requirement is complied with, there must be a provision allowing action against such non-compliance. As a result, each jurisdiction must gradually adapt its law governing arbitration confidentially to take into account its citizens' evolving needs.[37]

1. The general public's interest

It is widely argued that it is not ethical to advocate for confidentiality blindly; instead, transparency and confidentiality need to be balanced while still considering the latter's value. While promoting openness in commercial arbitration, it is crucial to remember that this is different from the idea of public access. While public access is a right of all citizens to guarantee fairness and justice in the decision-making process, transparency entails information regarding a decisional process that is offered to interested parties. The wider concept of public access can be thought of as a subset of the more specific concept of transparency.[38]But there may be times when the public has a genuine interest in knowing what happened in an arbitration, and in such cases, a "public interest" exception to the duty of confidentiality applies. In the instance of Esso[39], the "public interest" entailed an arbitration proceeding between a state-owned utility and gas suppliers. As a result, it was determined that the outcome of the dispute would have an influence on the general population.

In the Indian context, we have seen a rapid increase in construction arbitration disputes involving several parties, high stakes for a quantum of damages, and frequent projects conducted for the public good. In this context, the publishing of arbitral rulings in such cases spotlights the conduct of public utilities, and a prohibition on publication may generate a legal challenge.[40] Though Section 42A contains a non-obstante clause, in my opinion, the public interest may also be added as an exemption. In the case of R.S. Sravan Kumar v. Central Public Information Officer[41] information about the team of lawyers representing Antrix Corporation Ltd., (the commercial wing of the Indian Space Research Organization), in international arbitration and the expenses incurred, among other things, was requested through an application under the Right to Information Act of 2005. Since the material related to public authority expenditures was questioned, the Central Information Commission approved the application.[42] Another case in which the exception of "public interest" to permit disclosure of confidential information was examined in the case of The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators v. B.[43] It is a 2019 decision of the English Commercial Court in which The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators was given access by the Court to private records needed for an arbitrator's disciplinary action. Therefore, preserving the level and calibre of arbitrators served the public interest better than the requirement to maintain confidentiality. The court took into account the harm which may be suffered by the institute if they were not allowed access to the confidential information.[44]

Conclusion

Legislative intent to formalize confidentiality obligations in arbitration proceedings can be seen in the addition of Section 42A to the 1996 Arbitration Act. However, without defining its exclusions or scope of application, Section 42A has imposed a general duty of confidentiality. On the other hand, as a backup plan, it is anticipated that Indian courts will have to weed out exceptions to confidentiality under the ACA, 1996 if the legislature neglects to account for such pertinent modifications.

Through this essay, I have attempted to draw attention to the specific flaws in the confidentiality concept, thus paving the way for urgently required measures that must be implemented. It is evident that the introduction of a statutory need for confidentiality in arbitration proceedings has advanced the Indian arbitration regime in the correct direction. However, since Section 42A is a non-obstante clause, its language is certain to face legal scrutiny and, as a result, be subject to interpretation to take into account a variety of circumstances in which disclosing confidential information is justified. As noted, it is predicted that Indian courts will have to create exemptions to the strict provisions of Section 42A that include "The non-inclusion of third parties", "Limited scope for disclosure of Arbitral award”, “Proceedings in Court”, “Obligations Under Regulation”, “Non-compliance”, “The general public's interest”.[45] Both the parties and the relevant authorities can reduce the likelihood of disclosures by adding comprehensive confidentiality provisions in their agreements and by guaranteeing unambiguous legal confidentiality rules. Confidentiality is also often undermined by enforcement and challenge proceedings in national courts. The concerns unless addressed properly would consequently deliver us a promise of confidentiality, inherently broken. To restore trust in arbitration as a successful method of resolving international disputes, it is critical to carefully address these issues.[46]

[1] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[2] Hans Bagner, Confidentiality—a fundamental principle in international commercial arbitration?, 18 Journal of International Arbitration , 243–249 (2001)

[3] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[4] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[5] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[6] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[7] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[8] Hans Bagner, Confidentiality—a fundamental principle in international commercial arbitration?, 18 Journal of International Arbitration , 243–249 (2001)

[9] Arpit Guru & Asmita Patel, Confidentiality under arbitration proceeding: A valid argument? A proposed solution!, SSRN Electronic Journal (2013).

[10] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[11] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[12] Hans Bagner, Confidentiality—a fundamental principle in international commercial arbitration?, 18 Journal of International Arbitration , 243–249 (2001)

[13] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[14] Katie Chung & Michael Hwang, Defining the indefinable: Practical problems of confidentiality in arbitration, 26 Journal of International Arbitration , 609–645 (2009)

[15] Hans Bagner, Confidentiality—a fundamental principle in international commercial arbitration?, 18 Journal of International Arbitration , 243–249 (2001)

[16] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[17] Avlokita Rajvi, Tejas Karia & Amee Rana, NPAC's Arbitration Review: New confidentiality provision in the indian arbitration act Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/npac-arbitration-review-confidentiality-provision-indian-arbitration-act (last visited Nov 2, 2022).

[18] Data confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime: Challenges and opportunities IndiaCorpLaw, https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/07/data-confidentiality-under-the-indian-arbitration-regime-challenges-and-opportunities.html (last visited Feb 12, 2023)

[19] Avlokita Rajvi, Tejas Karia & Amee Rana, NPAC's Arbitration Review: New confidentiality provision in the indian arbitration act Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/npac-arbitration-review-confidentiality-provision-indian-arbitration-act (last visited Nov 2, 2022).

[20] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[21] Data confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime: Challenges and opportunities IndiaCorpLaw, https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/07/data-confidentiality-under-the-indian-arbitration-regime-challenges-and-opportunities.html (last visited Feb 12, 2023)

[22] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[23] Aditya Singh Chauban & Aryan Yashpal, Change to Improve, Not to Unhinge - A Critique of the Indian Approach to International Arbitration, 10 INDIAN J. ARB. L. 1 (2022).

[24] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[25] Data confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime: Challenges and opportunities IndiaCorpLaw, https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/07/data-confidentiality-under-the-indian-arbitration-regime-challenges-and-opportunities.html (last visited Feb 12, 2023)

[26] Binsy Susan & Amogh Srivastava, Publication of Arbitral Awards: Balancing Confidentiality and Transparency in Arbitration, 4 IND. ARB. L. REV. 13 (2022).

[27] Future Coupons Private Limited and Ors. vs. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC and Ors. SC 0120 (2022)

[28] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[29]Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[30] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[31] Data confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime: Challenges and opportunities IndiaCorpLaw, https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/07/data-confidentiality-under-the-indian-arbitration-regime-challenges-and-opportunities.html (last visited Feb 12, 2023)

[32] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[33] Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs. Canara Bank and Ors. SC 1057 (2019)

[34] Data confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime: Challenges and opportunities IndiaCorpLaw, https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/07/data-confidentiality-under-the-indian-arbitration-regime-challenges-and-opportunities.html (last visited Feb 12, 2023)

[35] Data confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime: Challenges and opportunities IndiaCorpLaw, https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/07/data-confidentiality-under-the-indian-arbitration-regime-challenges-and-opportunities.html (last visited Feb 12, 2023)

[36] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[37] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).

[38] Hans Bagner, Confidentiality—a fundamental principle in international commercial arbitration?, 18 Journal of International Arbitration , 243–249 (2001)

[39] Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman AUSH 0011 (1995)

[40] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[41] R.S. Sravan Kumar vs. CPIO and Asst. Commissioner, Hyderabad CI 0997 (2019)

[42] Aditya Singh Chauban & Aryan Yashpal, Change to Improve, Not to Unhinge - A Critique of the Indian Approach to International Arbitration, 10 INDIAN J. ARB. L. 1 (2022).

[43] The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators v B and Ors UKCM 0034 (2019)

[44] Data confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime: Challenges and opportunities IndiaCorpLaw, https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/07/data-confidentiality-under-the-indian-arbitration-regime-challenges-and-opportunities.html (last visited Feb 12, 2023)

[45] Jaideep Khanna, Confidentiality under the Indian Arbitration Regime, 3 IND. ARB. L. REV. 84 (2021).

[46] Niharika Julka & Malika Bhasin, Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Broken Promise, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 3763 (2021).