Disputes are part of human life. Courts exist to resolve them, but not every dispute belongs inside a courtroom. Long-drawn trials drain time, money, and relationships. Over the last few decades, India has increasingly explored ways to resolve conflicts without clogging courtrooms. Among the various mechanisms of Alternate Dispute Resolution, mediation has emerged as one of the most promising.
At its heart, mediation is simple. It involves a neutral third party who helps disputing sides talk, listen, and, if possible, settle. Unlike litigation or even arbitration, mediation does not impose a binding decision. Instead, it guides parties to find common ground themselves. The emphasis is on conversation, compromise, and preserving relationships rather than handing out a winner-loser verdict.
The concept of mediation is far from alien to India. Traditionally, village panchayats, elders, and community leaders often stepped in to mediate family, property, and community disputes. This local model worked because it relied on trust and social cohesion. However, with urbanisation and formal legal systems taking centre stage, these informal practices lost ground, giving way to congested court dockets and endless adjournments.
Modern mediation in India gained structured shape with the introduction of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in 2002. This provision empowers courts to refer cases for settlement through arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, or mediation. It marked a crucial policy push, recognising that courts must promote settlements where appropriate.
Despite its promise, mediation faced teething troubles. For one, many lawyers saw it as a threat to their litigation-based practice. Clients, too, were wary. For centuries, the popular image of justice meant a judge and a formal trial. The idea of sitting across the table to negotiate seemed, to some, like a sign of weakness or compromise on legal rights.
Yet, over the years, perceptions have shifted. The judiciary’s endorsement of mediation has been a big reason for this change. Courts across India have set up mediation centres attached to court complexes. Judges have encouraged disputing parties to explore settlement first, before locking horns in trial. Several landmark judgments by the Supreme Court and High Courts have highlighted mediation as an effective and preferred method to unclog courts and promote access to justice.
The Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) of the Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in spreading awareness and building capacity. With training workshops, panel mediator appointments, and public outreach, the MCPC has gradually normalised mediation as an acceptable part of legal culture.
Another milestone was the introduction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It mandates pre-institution mediation for certain commercial disputes. In other words, businesses must first try to talk and settle before dragging each other to court. This idea has saved countless hours and crores in litigation expenses.
Recognising the rising relevance of mediation, India finally moved to codify a standalone law. The Mediation Act, 2023, aims to consolidate and strengthen mediation practice. It provides a legal framework for institutional mediation, mediator accreditation, enforceability of mediated settlement agreements, and a system for online mediation. The Act signals India’s commitment to making mediation mainstream and reliable.
However, a law alone cannot transform ground reality. Mediation’s success depends heavily on mindset. Lawyers must understand that a satisfied client who resolves a dispute swiftly is likely to return for future advice. Parties must trust the process. Mediators need rigorous training—not just in law but in human psychology, communication, and negotiation. Courts must proactively screen cases suitable for mediation and nudge parties accordingly.
Family disputes, in particular, are fertile ground for mediation. Matrimonial cases often involve emotions too complex for adversarial trials to address. Mediation gives space for anger, sorrow, and grudges to be heard without the rigidity of cross-examination. Many family courts in India have shown that trained counsellors and mediators can help couples and families find closure—sometimes even reconciliation.
Another arena is commercial conflict. Companies dread long litigation. Mediation, when conducted confidentially and efficiently, helps preserve business relationships and reputation. In cross-border trade, mediation is increasingly being recognised as a tool for fast, cost-effective settlement.
Community and neighbourhood conflicts also benefit from mediation. Minor civil disputes, landlord-tenant disagreements, and local disagreements can be resolved with community mediation centres. Some states, like Delhi and Maharashtra, have experimented with community mediation pilots to good effect.
Technology has widened the horizon further. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) combines mediation with digital tools. Parties no longer need to be physically present. Virtual meetings, e-documents, and digital signatures make mediation accessible even across cities or countries. The COVID-19 pandemic proved that ODR is not just convenient but essential in a modern, globalised world.
Despite these developments, hurdles remain. Many mediation centres lack trained mediators. Institutional mediation bodies are still finding their feet. Some settlement agreements face enforcement hurdles, although the new Act aims to address this. Moreover, unequal bargaining power between parties can derail mediation unless the mediator actively balances dynamics.
One pressing need is awareness at the grassroots. People must know that they have the option to mediate, and that choosing it does not mean giving up on their rights. Schools and colleges should teach negotiation and conflict resolution as life skills. Law schools must produce mediators as much as they produce litigators. Bar associations should encourage their members to diversify into mediation practice.
India can also learn from global experiences. Countries like Singapore and Australia have robust mediation frameworks supported by active court referrals, trained professionals, and cultural acceptance. Singapore’s success story, in particular, shows that mediation can become the first port of call if the system makes it credible and attractive.
The benefits are clear: faster resolutions, lighter court dockets, reduced legal costs, and less emotional strain. More importantly, mediation preserves dignity. In a trial, parties stand on opposite sides. In mediation, they sit across the same table, working together—however reluctantly—towards a solution they can both accept.
In the coming years, India’s challenge will be to move from policy and law to implementation and practice. Courts must embrace the spirit of Section 89 CPC wholeheartedly. Mediators must build trust through skill and impartiality. Governments must ensure adequate funding and infrastructure for mediation centres. Businesses, communities, and individuals must view mediation not as a last resort but as a first step.
Ultimately, the goal of any justice system is not just to decide disputes but to resolve them in a way that restores peace. Mediation, when done right, achieves this quietly but powerfully. The promise is immense; the path ahead needs careful walking. But every settlement reached through conversation rather than conflict brings us a step closer to a more harmonious society—one where justice is not merely delivered but genuinely felt.
Contributed By: Saksham Tongar (intern)