Interpretation Of The Supreme Court's View On Confidentiality In Arbitration

INTRODUCTION

Arbitration has consistently regarded confidentiality as a key determinant in commercial disputes for parties to choose arbitration over traditional litigation. In Kamal Gupta v. M/s L.R. Builders Private Limited¹, the Supreme Court affirmed this principle, holding that confidentiality is not simply a matter of procedural flexibility, but a statutory obligation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"). Through this order, the Supreme Court reinstated the privity of participation in arbitration proceedings and clarified that only those that are parties to an arbitration agreement may participate in arbitration proceedings.

In this judgment, the Court ruled that allowing the non-signatory to participate in proceedings would be a violation of Section 42A of the Act. Furthermore, the judgment also highlighted the principle of functus officio that once an arbitrator has been appointed, the court ceases to possess jurisdiction over