THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Law & Policy

2 min read

Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant mentioned that the Indian judiciary has consistently promoted mediation not merely as an alternative dispute resolution process, but as a robust and effective mechanism for resolving disputes. He emphasised that mediation offers significant advantages, including affordability, expeditious resolution, preservation of relationships and finality of outcomes.

Justice Kant made these remarks during a panel discussion on “Technology and the Future of Mediation” hosted by the Indian High Commission in London. The event brought together prominent members of the legal fraternity from India and the United Kingdom, including Lord Hamblen of Kersey of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, Kirsty Brimelow KC, President of the Bar Council of England and Wales, and Brett Dixon, Vice President of the Law Society of England and Wales.

Speaking on the evolution of mediation in India, the Chief Justice observed that its development can be viewed in two phases: before and after the enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023. He noted that even prior to the legislation, Indian courts had played an active role in encouraging mediation and institutionalising it as an effective means of dispute resolution.

Recalling his tenure as a High Court judge, Justice Kant highlighted the establishment of mediation centres at the district court, High Court and Supreme Court levels. He described the Mediation Act, 2023 as the culmination of a statutory and judicial framework that has evolved over several decades.

The Chief Justice also referred to various initiatives undertaken to strengthen mediation infrastructure in the country, including mandatory training programmes for mediators through State Judicial Academies, as well as awareness-building efforts carried out by the National Legal Services Authority and Lok Adalats.

Emphasising the growing acceptance of mediation in India, Justice Kant remarked that awareness of the process had expanded considerably across the country. He further noted that the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee has developed a substantial pool of trained mediators to facilitate effective dispute resolution.

Addressing a question on the relative merits of mediation and arbitration, the Chief Justice clarified that both mechanisms serve important functions, particularly in the context of increasing commercial and cross-border transactions. However, he suggested that parties should, wherever possible, first explore mediation owing to its cost-effectiveness, efficiency and ability to preserve commercial and personal relationships.

Drawing a distinction between the two processes, Justice Kant observed that arbitral awards are often followed by further rounds of litigation, whereas a successful mediation process generally brings finality to the dispute and enables parties to move forward without prolonged adversarial proceedings.

He concluded by underscoring the role of mediation as a consensual and constructive mechanism capable of delivering durable resolutions while reducing the burden on the judicial system.