By <\/strong>Intisar Aslam*<\/strong> <\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> Marriage is a sacred union between two spouses in India. It is a sacrament under Indian Hindu Law. It is a social institution: an indissoluble and eternal institution of memories and experiences. However, no marriage is immune to disputes between the two spouses. The only fine line that protects or breaks this union is the line of divorce.<\/p>\n The importance accorded to the dignity and reputation of a typical Indian family cannot be over emphasised. It places a strong reliance on collectivism where the act of a single family member may significantly affect the status of the family in society – both positively and negatively. It is also prevalent in India that families with similar status and standing in society tend to form marriage alliances with a family of similar status. Therefore, the interwoven nature of marriage and dignity of a family is evident and cannot be undermined.<\/p>\n Under Indian Law, the lawmakers have drafted exhaustive provisions to give the parties to the matrimonial dispute fair and equal opportunity to prevent the breakdown of a marriage. Along similar lines to avoid unnecessary litigation while preventing the breakdown, family dispute resolution comes into the picture. It is a peaceful way of settling matrimonial disputes without involving the court.<\/p>\n Mediation, a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), has emerged as one of the most prominent ways of resolving matrimonial disputes. Further, it is backed by laws of several jurisdictions. While the resolution of matrimonial disputes through arbitration is not allowed in countries like India, countries like the US, the UK, and Australia partially allow such a resolution.<\/p>\n In this paper, the author argues for the arbitrability of certain matrimonial disputes in India by taking a leaf from other jurisdictions. The paper begins with an introduction to Arbitration followed by a discussion of the position of Indian Courts vis-\u00e0-vis the arbitrability of matrimonial disputes. The paper goes on to discuss the position of resolving family disputes through arbitration in the jurisdictions of the US, the UK, and Australia. Lastly, the paper concludes by establishing how arbitration can not only act as a second layer for preventing the breakdown of marriage but also in protecting the privacy of individuals.<\/p>\n Family Law Arbitration: A Similar or Dissimilar Procedure from Commercial Arbitration?<\/strong><\/p>\n Family Law Arbitration is a process[1]<\/a> in which a husband and wife, or ex-husband and ex-wife, agree to submit one or more issues arising out of their present or prior relations as spouses and\/or their relations as parents of the same child or children, to a neutral third party or parties for a resolution that will be final and binding on them. It is akin to the normal process of commercial arbitration which is accepted internationally.<\/p>\n The process can occur at any stage of the dispute: before they are divorced; at or about the time they are divorced; or after their divorce. Once both parties agree to submit the dispute to arbitration, the arbitrator \u2212 after a hearing \u2212 makes a final and binding decision on the controverted matters. The arbitration is generally conducted informally and with relaxed rules of evidence. The arbitrator renders a decision called an \u201carbitration decision\u201d or \u201caward\u201d, which is submitted to the court for confirmation.<\/p>\n The parties and attorneys may agree that the arbitration award is final and binding, subject to very limited judicial review by the trial court, and with the limited rights of appeal provided in the arbitration statute in their particular state. The parties and attorneys may also agree to expand the limited rights of trial court review and appeal to an appellate court.<\/p>\n Generally, however, arbitration hearings result in final and binding determinations which stand in place of a trial at the lower court level, with very limited rights of review and appeal[2]<\/a>.<\/p>\n A Saga of Indian Courts: What Nature makes the Dispute Arbitrable?<\/strong><\/p>\n Arbitration, Conciliation, Judicial Settlement, and Mediation are all acceptable methods for resolving disputes outside of court, according to Section 89[3]<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[4]<\/a> (\u201cCode<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n The Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 89[5]<\/a> and Order 10[6]<\/a> Rule 1A[7]<\/a> of the Code, in the case of Afcons Infrastructure\u00a0and Ors. v. Cherian Verkay Construction and Ors<\/em>.[8]<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cAfcons Case<\/strong>\u201d) observed firstly that the court shall \u201cconsider and record the nature of the dispute<\/em>\u201d<\/a>\u201ctake note of their preferences<\/em>\u201d[10]<\/a> and finally refer the parties to one of the processes of dispute resolution.<\/p>\n In the same case, the court held that all cases of civil nature should be resolved through ADR processes and further declared unequivocally that all conflicts resulting from \u201cstrained or soured relationships<\/em>\u201d, such as issues related to matrimony, maintenance, custody of a child, etc., should also be resolved through the same procedures.<\/p>\n The court also ruled that while arbitration tribunals are a component of the private fora, the courts belong to the public fora. Thus, tribunals can only handle civil disputes involving parties who generate rights in personam<\/em> and not rights in rem<\/em> because they are a part of the private fora. A right in rem is a right exercisable against the world at large whereas a right in personam is an interest protected solely against specific individuals.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n Thus, rights in rem are adjudicated by public courts because (i)<\/em> these rights are against the world; (ii)<\/em> it affects the public at large. On the contrary, arbitration is a private settlement of disputes before a private forum whose proceedings and awards are never disclosed[12]<\/a>.<\/p>\n In another case of Booz Allen and Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance Limited and Ors.<\/em>[13]<\/a> (\u201cBooz Allen Case<\/strong>\u201d) the Supreme Court explicitly prohibited the arbitration of criminal issues. The court went further and declared that matrimonial conflicts cannot be arbitrated. The rationale behind such a ruling lay in the distinction between rights in rem<\/em><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n In Booz Allen, the court observed<\/a>. Further, since matrimonial disputes give rise to rights and titles against society as a whole, the court held that they must be resolved in a court of law.<\/p>\n Therefore, even though the Afcons case recognised the arbitrability of child custody issues and maintenance, etc., the Booz Allen case impliedly reversed that observation thus, cementing the argument against matrimonial arbitrations while creating a conflict between the two decisions simultaneously.<\/p>\n Foreign Jurisdictions: A Step Ahead of India?<\/strong><\/p>\n In the United Kingdom, the arbitration regulations are quite similar to those in India. In the United Kingdom, only a few matrimonial disputes merit their resolution through arbitration . The laws in the United States, on the other hand, differ depending on the State\u2019s jurisdiction and permit the arbitration of issues resulting from divorce applications. In contrast, Australia does not entirely permit the arbitration of family issues but has comprehensive and exhaustive regulations in place for matrimonial arbitration.<\/p>\n In the UK, family law arbitrations were started in 2012 by the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators. Couples are only permitted to arbitrate financial disputes in this situation i.e., they cannot seek a decree from a court. To put it differently, they are not permitted to decide on child custody or get a divorce decree. The arbitrations are typically only used for financial disputes resulting from a divorce or separation. Marriage-related property and inheritance problems are arbitrable in the same way.<\/p>\n Additionally, to encourage the use of arbitration in family disputes, the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA) introduced the Family Law Arbitration Children Scheme[17]<\/a> in 2016. Through this, families have the chance to settle disagreements over parental responsibility and other matters related to the well-being of children through child arbitration.<\/p>\n Conflicts over where a child should live, including shared housing arrangements, visiting schedules, holidays spent with a non-residential parent, disagreements over routine, and non-life-threatening medical treatment are among the issues that can arise between parents or other people who have parental responsibility or a sufficient interest in a child\u2019s present or future welfare.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n The American states have different laws governing matrimonial arbitration. In Washington, matrimonial arbitrations are optional[19]<\/a>, and the Washington Arbitration Act governs the arbitration of all types of legal issues, including those that involve divorce, child custody, support, and property.<\/p>\n Like other states, New York permits arbitration of matrimonial disputes. In actuality, it is the only State that has consistently used arbitration for marriage issues[20]<\/a>. In Sheets v. Sheets<\/em>[21]<\/a>, the court maintained its right to overturn the arbitrator’s ruling while praising the use of arbitration. Thus, the arbitrator\u2019s decision is subject to judicial review, particularly when minors are involved.<\/p>\n The roots of laying the foundation of arbitration in the US lie in the Uniform Arbitration Act, 1955 (\u201cUAA<\/strong>\u201d).[22]<\/a> In response to the growing acceptance of arbitration as a means of alternative dispute resolution, the Uniform Law Commission (\u201cULC\u201d<\/strong>) reformed[23]<\/a> the statute in August 2000 and named it the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (\u201cRUAA\u201d<\/strong>).<\/p>\n Later, the Uniform Law Commission established[24]<\/a> a Family Law Arbitration Study Committee in 2012, which unanimously recommended that a drafting committee be established to draft legislation on family law arbitration after considering the viability and desirability of a uniform or model act on family law arbitration. Thus, a uniform legislation was enacted: the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act (\u201cUFLAA<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n This Act incorporates a precise, thorough structure for the arbitration of family law disputes which include issues such as property, child support, and child-related conflicts which have recently started emerging on a faster pace. The UFLAA incorporates special requirements for the arbitration of child custody and support, safeguards for victims of domestic abuse, and more[25]<\/a>. It is partially based on the widely adopted Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA) and the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA).<\/p>\n The ULC also addressed the crucial issue of whether child support and custody should be decided through arbitration and came to the conclusion that despite disagreements between some states, most states allow arbitration of these issues so long as the right to meaningful judicial review is preserved. Further, courts in at least one state held that parents have a constitutional right to resolve their custody disputes through arbitration[26]<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Australian matrimonial arbitration procedures changed once the Family Law Amendment Act of 2000 came into force. As a result, arbitration cannot take place without both parties\u2019 assent. There may also be situations in which the Court recommends arbitration, but the parties decide against it.<\/p>\n Furthermore, only conflicts involving property or spousal maintenance are eligible for arbitration under the Family Law Act[27]<\/a>. Arbitration is not an option in cases involving children. In situations where the subject matter has a significant impact on children, the arbitrator\u2019s decision is conclusive. Only specific arbitrators are permitted to arbitrate, and the Family Law Act requires that the award be registered. The arbitral award once registered has the same legal force as a decree issued by the Family Court.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n An Assortment of Privacy and Information: Arb-Med v. Litigation<\/strong><\/p>\n In India, the Family Courts Act of 1984[29]<\/a> is a unique piece of legislation that established distinct Family Courts to handle family law cases. The Preamble[30]<\/a> to the Act states that \u201cconciliation\u201d of disputes is its main goal. In general, a step of mediation or conciliation is involved in the majority of family disputes.<\/p>\n Mediation is one of the prominent ways to settle family disputes in India. In a\u00a0mediation\u00a0procedure[31]<\/a>, a neutral intermediary, the\u00a0mediator, helps the parties to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement of their dispute. Mediation can also be private<\/a>Private mediation does not entail judicial interference unlike the court-annexed mediation where the mediator is appointed by the court.<\/p>\n Thus, it is evident that Mediation may also happen in a \u00a0<\/a>. Again, as discussed earlier, a private forum would only create rights in personam<\/em>. However, the court in the Booz-Allen Case refused to refer family disputes to arbitration as it creates rights in personam<\/em> whereas matrimonial disputes affect society at large.<\/p>\n Therefore, the negation of the arbitration procedure from the ambit of resolution of matrimonial disputes seems to be out of line when private mediation remains one of the ways[33]<\/a> to settle such disputes.<\/p>\n Matrimonial disputes are private in nature. In N.G. Dastane (Dr)<\/em> v. S. Dastane<\/em>[34]<\/a>, the court observed that \u201cto marry or not to marry and if so whom, may well be a private affair but the freedom to break a matrimonial tie is not. The society has a stake in the institution of marriage and therefore the erring spouse is treated not as a mere defaulter but as an offender<\/em>.<\/p>\n In another case of Preeti Archana Sharma<\/em> v. Ravindra Kr. Sharma<\/em>[35]<\/a>, the court observed that \u201cthe sanctity of the matrimonial relationship is a confidential and\u00a0<\/em>private\u00a0affair<\/em>, but the same does not remain so once the matter comes to Court.”<\/em><\/p>\n As an extension to the same, this clearly draws a line between two perspectives: (i) <\/em>Marriage is a private affair which is protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[36]<\/a>. The scope of Article 21 is wide enough to include the privacy of each individual which eventually constitutes a family. (ii)<\/em> This privacy can be kept aside where the marital dispute affects a larger part of the society. For instance, cases of dowry, domestic violence, cruelty, etc. fall under the ambit of criminal cases which is a crime against the society.<\/p>\n However, when a dispute concerns child-related issues, financial or property disputes, the same are personal and private to the family and do not constitute any criminal act affecting society at large. Thus, to settle such disputes in an open court is a blatant disregard for the privacy of the parties to the dispute and therefore, demand greater privacy. In the case of SL<\/em> v. SL<\/em>[37]<\/a>, it was observed that \u201cfinancial remedy proceedings are quintessentially private business and should be protected by the anonymity principle<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n Earlier, the Delhi High Court issued[38]<\/a> rules to family courts to stop a \u201cgrowing tendency\u201d in which litigants and their attorneys routinely disclose personal information in divorce and custody issues.<\/p>\n Due to open-court proceedings, the media can publish every piece of information related to the litigants – financial, familial, or personal – which not only threatens Article 21[39]<\/a> of the Indian Constitution but also might harm the dignity and reputation of a family. With respect, the argument of the Indian Courts that all matrimonial disputes affect society at large seems erroneous.<\/p>\n The reason for the same is that not every matrimonial dispute becomes a landmark precedent in the country. Thus, it does not affect the society at large. In Indian District Courts especially, such matters hardly set any precedent to be followed by the apex court.<\/p>\n Further, when the parties are willing to maintain their privacy to resolve their dispute to arbitration, there is no reason for holding open-court proceedings. Therefore, it is essential that the privacy of the parties is considered by the Indian Courts and that it offers an \u201calternate\u201d form of dispute resolution (in addition to mediation) \u2013 Arbitration.<\/p>\n In Sharad K Sanghvi<\/em> v. Central Public Information Officer<\/em>[40]<\/a>, the Central Information Commission of India refused to provide any information sought by the appellant as it concerned an arbitral award of which the appellant was not a party. This decision might be sound in a particular circumstance, but the courts or commissions cannot take a one-size-fits-all-approach: Section 42A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996[41]<\/a> provides for disclosure for implementation and execution of an arbitral award.<\/p>\n In another case[42]<\/a>, the Central Information Commission allowed the disclosure of the details having information about the representing team and the fees paid to them when the award was not finalised. It is also evident from the rules of different arbitration centres like the SIAC[43]<\/strong><\/a>, <\/strong>LCIA[44]<\/strong><\/a>, HKIAC[45]<\/a>, etc., that permit disclosure of the award for the enforcement of a legal right or claim. Thus, confidentiality is not absolute. Furthermore, it is well-settled by Section 8(1)(j)[46]<\/a> of the Right to Information Act, 2005 that personal information can be disclosed if it involves a larger public interest[47]<\/a>.<\/p>\n However, there might be ramifications that may ensue if there is no stringent criterion for considering a matter as affecting the public interest. Thus, courts and commissions must devise a formula, for instance, if the award substantially affects the rights of a large section of society thereby changing the complete landscape of the laws prevalent for a long period of time, it can be considered a matter of public interest. For e.g., The 2005 amendment[48]<\/strong><\/a> to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956[49]<\/strong><\/a> which gave coparcenary rights to a daughter since her birth.<\/p>\n Additionally, if the party is dissatisfied with the award, it can always be reviewed by the court in terms of modification or setting it aside. Therefore, the arbitral award is always subject to judicial review similar to the jurisdiction in Australia and must be employed in settling matrimonial disputes.<\/p>\n Privacy in India <\/strong>vis-\u00e0-vis foreign jurisdictions: An Interplay or a Disconnect?<\/strong><\/p>\n India has a rich history of recognising the privacy of an individual. It can be traced back to ancient texts such as the Manusmriti and Arthashastra which recognised that deliberations with the king must take place in a solitary place and the decisions made therein, must be disclosed only on a need basis.[50]<\/a><\/p>\n Privacy can be defined as a fundamental human right. It can further be traced[51]<\/a> as far back as 1361 when the Justices of the Peace Act in England provided for the arrest of peeping toms and eavesdroppers. In the case of Entick<\/em> v. Carrington<\/em>[52]<\/a>, the court had struck down a warrant to enter a house and seize papers. While pronouncing the judgment, it was noted:<\/p>\n “We can safely say there is no law in this country to justify the defendants in what they have done; if there was, it would destroy all the comforts of society, for papers are often the dearest property any man can have.”[53]<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n As a part of International Human Rights Law, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (\u201cUDHR<\/strong>\u201d)[54]<\/a>, specifically guarantees communication and territorial privacy. Article 12 of the UDHR states:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one should be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to attacks on his honour or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interferences or attacks.\u201d<\/em>[55]<\/a><\/p>\n In the United States, the US Supreme Court determined in Griswold[56]<\/a> that the right to privacy can be derived from the outlines of other clearly articulated constitutional guarantees. The Court determined that the Constitution establishes a \u201czone of privacy\u201d[57]<\/a> and thereby, an implicit right to privacy by referring to the explicit personal safeguards found in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Thereafter, the right to privacy for married couples was narrowly interpreted using the precedent set in Griswold[58]<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the United Kingdom, human rights are protected by the\u00a0Human Rights Act of 1998<\/strong>[59]<\/a>.<\/strong>\u00a0The Act gives effect to the human rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (\u201cECHR<\/strong>\u201d)[60]<\/a>. Article 8 of the ECHR states:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.\u201d[61]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n \u200bAdditionally, Australia recognises the right to privacy as a fundamental human right. The Privacy Act of 1988 governs how businesses and government entities must manage your personal information in Australia.<\/p>\n To decipher the analogy, India recognised the right to privacy under Article 21[62]<\/a> of the Indian Constitution through the Supreme Court judgment of KS Puttaswamy<\/em> v. Union of India[63]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>. Thus, the protection of one\u2019s privacy in India is not only a fundamental right but also a constitutional right, unlike several other jurisdictions.<\/p>\n Yet the irony looms over India that foreign jurisdictions such as Australia, which do not recognise privacy as a constitutional right, have upheld privacy to a far greater extent by permitting the resolution of certain family disputes through arbitration. Thus, India could make a distinction between arbitrable and non-arbitrable family disputes rather than rejecting their arbitrability altogether.<\/p>\n The Conclusion: Taking a Cue from a Model Act and Foreign Jurisdictions<\/strong><\/p>\n It has been seen that litigation increases the likelihood that parents may use their kids as objects[64]<\/a> in a court case. The detrimental consequences of divorce on children are exacerbated[65]<\/a> by the process. The \u201cbest interest of the child\u201d that the Court aspires to uphold is violated by the same.<\/p>\n Given the foregoing, it would seem sensible to provide a system of matrimonial arbitration that is voluntary and allows parties to arbitrate disputes instead of going to the courts. This facilitates quick outcomes while also saving[66]<\/a> the Courts\u2019 time.<\/p>\n Furthermore, there does not seem to be any reason to stop parties from using arbitrators to settle marital or divorce-related disputes if they are able and willing to do so. Arbitration appears to be a preferable approach to exercise discretion given the increase in the recognition of privacy rights[67]<\/a>. Even though courts provide private in-camera hearings, the process is time-consuming and mainly initiated at the discretion of the courts.<\/p>\n The Model Marital Arbitration Act by McGuane illustrates[68]<\/a> how such a law would look. This Model Act was created with American society in mind, but it can also serve as a model for other jurisdictions including India. A contract indicating the parties\u2019 intent to arbitrate and the parties\u2019 right to pick the arbitrator are two features of the Model Act that can be easily imported to Indian law.<\/p>\n The range of marital disputes that can be arbitrated can also be defined by the Act. This could include issues with child support, visitation rights, custody, debts, and property. The technique might also include an Arb-Med-Arb mechanism<\/a><\/p>\n This technique is useful as the employment of arbitration first facilitates the parties to know the merits of the case while presenting facts of the dispute from both the parties\u2019 perspective. Second, in mediation, the parties are provided with an opportunity to negotiate and come to an amicable solution which is favourable and acceptable to both the parties mutually. The mediated agreement between the parties may be noted as a consent award if the parties are successful in resolving their conflict through mediation. If mediation fails, the parties can simply resume the arbitration proceedings and get an arbitral award. The consent award is widely recognised as an arbitral award and, under the New York Convention[70]<\/a>, is generally enforceable in about 150 countries, subject to any applicable local laws and\/or regulations.<\/p>\n India is treading a path toward becoming a global arbitration hub. Although India became one of the first signatories to the New York Convention way back in 1960, it is yet to emerge as an arbitration centre which is preferred by foreign investors. On the other hand, Singapore, which signed the Convention in 1986 has emerged as one of the leading arbitration centres in the world.<\/p>\n The reason for India lagging behind is multi-fold[71]<\/a>: Lack of Infrastructure, enforcement of arbitral agreements and awards, etc. However, owing to a lack of arbitration experts, India is lagging behind in various forms of arbitration. One of these is Matrimonial Arbitration.<\/p>\n As discussed earlier in this paper, the US, UK, and Australia already have enacted laws, albeit with restrictions, to govern matrimonial disputes to some extent. To draw an analogy, it is also well known that a computer cannot function unless all its components work properly. By the same token, unless all the arms of arbitration are made to function in India, it shall remain behind in becoming a \u201cleading\u201d arbitration hub; a hub not only for foreign investors but also for its own people in India.<\/p>\n At the same time, India is known for its diversity and the importance it accords to matrimonial relationships. Additionally, the issue of privacy in India has gained traction after the Puttaswamy Case<\/em>[72]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Thus, employing arbitration in resolving matrimonial disputes shall prove to serve all three purposes: India\u2019s emergence as a global Arbitration hub, preservation of relations, and protection of privacy. India must not turn a blind eye towards Matrimonial Arbitration, so that it can preserve not only the privacy of the individuals but also the most sacred union: marriage.<\/p>\n ___________________________________________<\/p>\n <\/a>* Intisar Aslam is a former Intern with the Australian Disputes Centre and a third-year student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, India.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n [1] Institute of Family Law Arbitrators, https:\/\/ifla.org.uk\/what-is-arbitration\/faqs\/<\/a> (last visited Nov. 7, 2022).<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Joan F. Kessler, Allan R. Koritzinsky & Stephen W. Schlissel, Why Arbitrate Family Law Matters?<\/em>, 14 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law 333, 333-352 (1997).<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Civil Procedure Code, 1908, \u00a7 89, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Settlement of disputes outside the Court- (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for:<\/p>\n (a) arbitration;<\/p>\n (b) conciliation;<\/p>\n (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat: or<\/p>\n (d) mediation.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Direction of the Court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution- After recording the admissions and denials, the Court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt either mode of the settlement outside the Court as specified in sub-section (1) of section 89. On the option of the parties, the Court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted by the parties.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> (2010)\u00a08 SCC 24.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at \u00b6 24.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Id<\/em>. at \u00b6 24.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> (2011) 5 SCC 532.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Tariq Khan, The Who, Why and When of Confidentiality in Arbitration Proceedings<\/em>, SCC Online (Jul. 18, 2023, 02:47 PM), https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/21\/the-who-why-and-when-of-confidentiality-in-arbitration-proceedings\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> (2011) 5 SCC 532.<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> Right against the world.<\/p>\n [15]<\/a> Right against a person.<\/p>\n [16]<\/a> supra <\/em>note 13.<\/p>\n [17]<\/a> Children Arbitration, https:\/\/becket-chambers.co.uk\/2017\/05\/17\/2186\/<\/a> (last visited Nov. 7, 2022).<\/p>\n [18]<\/a> Children Arbitration, https:\/\/www.familylawpartners.co.uk\/how-we-work\/children-arbitration<\/a> (last visited Nov. 7, 2022).<\/p>\n![\"Intisar](\"https:\/\/disputescentre.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Photograph_Intisar-Aslam-jpeg.webp\")
<\/div><\/div>