Arbitration has gained prominence as a preferred mechanism for dispute resolution, particularly in commercial and investment matters, due to its efficiency, flexibility, and enforceability. However, a persistent legal dilemma exists between the principle of confidentiality—a cornerstone of arbitration—and the demand for transparency, particularly in cases with implications of public interest. This paper critically examines the confidentiality-transparency paradox in arbitration, analyzing its implications from a legal researcher's perspective. Confidentiality in arbitration is often considered a defining feature that protects sensitive commercial information, preserves party autonomy, and encourages open negotiations. National legislations such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (India), the English Arbitration Act, 1996, and international frameworks like the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration emphasize party discretion in maintaining confidentiality. However, this secrecy raises concerns, especially in investment arbitration and disputes involving state entities, where transparency is essential for public accountability, judicial consistency, and fairness. The growing call for transparency is evident in instruments like the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (2014) and the ICSID Rules, which introduce mandatory disclosure norms. The paper explores judicial precedents and policy shifts that seek to balance these conflicting interests, assessing whether confidentiality should remain absolute or be subject to exceptions in matters of public interest, regulatory compliance, and enforcement proceedings. Further, it evaluates how emerging trends such as institutional arbitration rules (e.g., ICC, SIAC, LCIA) and technology-driven arbitration platforms are shaping this debate. By conducting a comparative analysis of global arbitration practices and legal frameworks, this research aims to propose a balanced approach that upholds the benefits of confidentiality while ensuring procedural fairness and legitimacy in arbitration proceedings. The study concludes with policy recommendations to harmonize these competing interests in arbitration law.