JSA Prism | Dispute Resolution | September 2026

Please click here to download the Prism as PDF.

Documents forming part of an arbitration are confidential and cannot be used in collateral proceedings

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”), in its recent judgment in JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited vs. Alstom Transport India Limited[1], held that disclosure of documents from an arbitration in separate proceedings would amount to a breach of confidentiality and destroys one of the fundamental features of the arbitration process. The Delhi HC upheld the preservation of arbitral confidentiality as mandated under Section 42A[2] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).

Brief facts

• The dispute arose from a contract awarded by Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (“DFCCIL”) to Alstom Transport India Limited (“Respondent”) in 2015 for construction of certain parts of the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor Project. The Respondent further subcontracted certain part of the works to JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited (“Petitioner”) and a back-to-back sub-contract was executed between DFCCIL, the Respondent and the Petitioner.
• While executing the works, several disputes arose between the Petitioner and the Respondent which were referred to arbitration under ICC Rules of Arbitration, 2021 (“ICC Rules”). The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent failed to provide certain foundational requirements, which in turn caused delays in the completion of the works. On the contrary, the Respondent claimed that it had provided all necessary information to the Petitioner in a timely manner, and that the delays and deficiencies in the execution of the works were solely the Petitioner’s fault.
• The Petitioner relied on a letter addressed by the Respondent to DFCCIL in June 2017 (“Letter”) as evidence of the Respondent’s admissions to its deficiencies. However, the arbitral tribunal refused to admit the Letter into evidence on the basis that the Letter was confidential and formed part of a separate arbitration between DFCCIL and the Respondent.
• Once the arbitral tribunal passed its award, the Petitioner challenged the award under Section 34[3] of the Arbitration Act.
• The Petitioner contended that the award is patently illegal and against the public policy of India, primarily on the ground of non-consideration of the Letter as crucial evidence. The Petitioner argued that the protection under Section 42A of the Arbitration Act did not apply since the Letter was already in public domain as it was part of the proceedings before the Delhi HC. Further, the Petitioner contended that Section 42A of the Arbitration Act only safeguards confidentiality and does not provide that any document produced in breach of such confidentiality obligation would be inadmissible.[4] The Petitioner also relied on Article 22(3)[5] of the ICC Rules to contend that the same did not prohibit the use of the documents emanating from arbitral proceedings as evidence.
• On the contrary, the Respondent contended that the arbitral tribunal had evaluated the circumstances under which the Letter was obtained and objectively rejected its admissibility and evidentiary value on the basis that it formed part of confidential arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the Petitioner could not rely on institutional rules to override the statutory mandate of confidentiality contained in Section 42A of the Arbitration Act.

Issue

Whether documents forming part of an arbitration can be relied upon in collateral proceedings?

Findings and analysis

Upholding the award, the Delhi HC dismissed the Petitioner’s challenge, holding as follows:

• Section 42A preserves the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings, and permitting use of such documents in collateral proceedings would erode this legislative mandate;
• while Section 42A of the Arbitration Act does not specifically address the issue of ‘inadmissibility’, the provision could not be interpreted in such a manner as to permit use of documents obtained in a confidential arbitration proceeding in collateral proceedings. This would erode the ‘confidentiality mandate’ and defeat the legislative intent behind Section 42A of the Arbitration Act;
• even assuming that Section 42A of the Arbitration Act did not create a rigid rule regarding inadmissibility, the arbitral tribunal indeed possessed the discretion to adjudicate on the issue of admissibility of the Letter after considering its provenance and the circumstances in which it was obtained. In this case, the provenance, admissibility and permissible use of the Letter had already been adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal, which had considered both parties’ contentions;
• the arbitral tribunal had evaluated the circumstances under which the Letter was obtained and that disclosure thereof would constitute a breach of confidentiality which cannot be permitted;
• the Petitioner’s argument that the Letter could be admitted as per the ICC Rules which governed the arbitration was not tenable. Since the arbitration was seated in India, the arbitral proceedings were governed by the Arbitration Act. Therefore, the statutory mandate of confidentiality under Section 42A of the Arbitration Act would prevail over the institutional rules;
• the Petitioner’s argument that the Letter formed part of the public domain was also rejected on the basis that merely because the Letter formed part of the judicial proceedings, it does not lose its confidential nature. This would have to be examined based on the circumstances in which access to the document was obtained and the legal regime governing such access; and
• the re-examination of the correctness of the arbitral tribunal’s evidentiary determination would not be permissible under the limited scope of judicial review in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Conclusion

The Delhi HC’s judgment is one of the very few under Section 42A of the Arbitration Act and reiterates that confidentiality cannot be breached merely because it may assist a party in strengthening its case. By safeguarding the legislative intent of Section 42A of the Arbitration Act, the Delhi HC has rightfully reinforced one of the very foundational pillars of arbitration. For parties engaged in arbitration proceedings in India, this judgment underscores the importance of treating all arbitration-related documents as strictly confidential and being mindful that any attempt to rely on such documents in collateral proceedings may be resisted and could expose the party to allegations of breach of confidentiality.

This Prism is prepared by:

Dheeraj Nair Partner

Anjali Anchayil Partner

Apurva Pandey Junior Associate

For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com.

[1] O.M.P. (COMM) 124/2024 (decided on May 12, 2026)

[2] Section 42A of the Arbitration Act requires maintenance of confidentiality in all arbitration proceedings except the award where its disclosure is absolutely mandatory for purpose of implementation and enforcement of award.

[3] Section 34 of the Arbitration Act deals with grounds of challenge to set aside an arbitral award on specific grounds of incapacity of a party, excess of jurisdiction, patent illegality, and invalidity of arbitration agreement. The provision doesn’t permit a review of merits of the arbitration award.

[4] Reliance was placed on the case of Global Aviation Services Private Limited vs. Airport Authority of India, 2018 SCC Online Bom 233 and Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1.

[5] Article 22(3) of the ICC Rules deals with the conduct of arbitration and passing of orders with regards to confidentiality of proceedings wherever deemed necessary.