Asserting Confidentiality - Documents forming part of arbitration proceedings cannot be used in collateral proceeding

Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited vs. Alstom Transport India Limited (2026:DHC:5370) held that the disclosure of documents procured in an arbitration proceeding cannot be used as evidence in a collateral proceeding as it would constitute a breach of confidentiality which is a fundamental feature of the arbitration process. The Court held that the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings cannot be breached in light of Section 42A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Facts:

The dispute arose from a contract between Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India (DFCCIL) and Alstom Transport India Limited signed in 2015 for construction of Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor. Alstom subcontracted certain works to JPC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and another sub-contract was executed between DFCCIL, Alstom and JPC. During the execution of works, several disputes arose between Alstom and JPC which were referred to arbitration.

In the arbitration proceedings, JPC relied on a letter addressed by Alstom to DFCCIL in June 2017 as evidence in which Alstom had admitted its deficiencies to DFCCIL. The Ld. Tribunal refused to admit the letter into evidence stating that the Letter was confidential and formed part of a separate arbitral proceeding between DFCCIL and Alstom.

Once the final award was passed, JPC challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. JPC alleged that the award is patently illegal and against public policy on the ground of non-consideration of the Letter in evidence. It was argued that the protection of Section 42A did not extend to the Letter as it was already in public domain before the Hon’ble High Court. Further, it was argued that Section 42A does not provide that a document produced in breach of confidentiality would be 'inadmissible'. Lastly, reliance was placed on Article 22(3) of ICC Rules which does not prohibit admission of documents produced from arbitration proceedings in evidence. On the other hand, Alstom argued that the Letter was rightly rejected and institutional rules cannot override the mandate of Section 42A.

Therefore, the main issue which fell for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the documents which form a part of arbitration proceedings can be relied upon in collateral proceedings?  

Analysis and Findings:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award stating: 

1. Section 42A mandates the preservation of confidentiality of arbitral proceedings and permitting the use of such documents produced in a collateral proceeding would erode the legislative mandate.

2. Since the arbitration was seated in India, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply. Therefore, the statutory mandate of Section 42A would prevail over the institutional rules of ICC.

3. Though Section 42A does not explicitly state that such evidence from collateral proceeding would be ‘inadmissible’, the Hon’ble High Court interpreted the provision in a manner that if such documents were to be admitted, it would defeat the legislative intent behind Section 42A.

4. Section 42A does not explicitly state that all documents submitted in breach of confidentiality would be inadmissible. Therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal possesses the power to adjudicate upon the nature of the document and the manner in which it was obtained to ascertain any breach of confidentiality. Once such adjudication has been made by the Tribunal after considering the contentions of the parties, the Court need not interfere.

5. Lastly, the Hon’ble Court held that even though the Letter was in public domain as a part of judicial record, it would not lose its confidential nature. The Tribunal would still have to examine the manner in which the Letter was obtained.

Section 42A of the Arbitration Act still remains a provision which is rarely deliberated upon in judicial proceedings. As a result, the aforesaid decision reiterating the importance of confidentiality in arbitration proceedings strengthens one of the foundational pillars of arbitration and the legislative intent behind Section 42A.