Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has observed that mediation is increasingly emerging as the preferred mode of commercial dispute resolution, while arbitration is gradually becoming burdened with procedural complexities that often undermine the efficiency it was originally intended to provide.
Delivering a lecture at the United Kingdom Supreme Court during the London International Disputes Week on the theme “Mediation, Arbitration, and the Courts: Converging Trends in the Indian and English Approaches to Commercial Dispute Resolution” on Monday, the CJI said that international arbitration was increasingly generating a parallel layer of litigation, resulting in prolonged procedural contests and diminishing its effectiveness as a speedy dispute resolution mechanism.
The lecture was hosted by the UK Supreme Court in association with Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji. Introducing CJI Surya Kant, UK Supreme Court Judge Lord George Leggatt highlighted the scale and volume of work handled by the Indian Supreme Court. He noted that while the UK Supreme Court, comprising 12 judges, hears around 250 cases annually, the Supreme Court of India disposes of nearly 75,000 cases every year despite having only about three times as many judges. Lord Leggatt also remarked on Justice Kant’s willingness to address the gathering despite declining several other speaking engagements during his visit to the United Kingdom.
The CJI pointed out that arbitration proceedings frequently gave rise to disputes concerning the existence and validity of arbitration agreements, the appointment of arbitrators, the determination of the arbitral seat, jurisdictional objections, and challenges to arbitral awards. Such issues often reach courts at multiple stages of the arbitral process, thereby prolonging dispute resolution and defeating the objective of efficiency and expedition that arbitration seeks to achieve.
Against this backdrop, mediation has emerged as the next frontier of commercial justice, with its growing importance in modern dispute resolution frameworks, said Justice Kant. He further referred to India’s recently enacted Mediation Act, 2023, stating that the legislation should not be viewed as an adoption of Western legal concepts but rather as a revival and formal recognition of India’s longstanding indigenous traditions of consensual dispute resolution.
Justice Kant further observed that mechanisms resembling mediation have historically existed within Indian society through institutions such as Kula (family councils), Shreni (merchant guilds), and Puga (territorial assemblies). He said these traditional systems reflected a deep-rooted culture of resolving disputes through dialogue, consensus, and the preservation of relationships rather than through adversarial confrontation.
He referred to the ancient dispute over the waters of the Rohini River between the Sakyas and the Koliyas, observing that Indian civilisational traditions have long prioritised reconciliation, social harmony and human values over rigid assertions of legal rights.
The Chief Justice described the Mediation Act, 2023, as a significant legislative milestone that elevated mediation into an independent pillar of commercial justice. He highlighted key features of the statute, including provisions related to pre-litigation mediation, confidentiality of mediation proceedings and the enforceability of mediated settlement agreements as civil court decrees.
Justice Kant further advocated a shift in the approach adopted by commercial entities and legal advisers. He stated that businesses should move beyond the conventional concept of forum conveniens and instead focus on what he termed process conveniens.
According to him, the central question for commercial parties should no longer be where a dispute should be litigated but rather how it should be resolved most effectively. He suggested that legal advisers should evaluate whether a particular dispute requires adjudication by courts, determination through arbitration or resolution through mediation.
While acknowledging the significant development of arbitration jurisprudence in both India and the United Kingdom, the Chief Justice cautioned that arbitration was increasingly replicating the procedural burdens traditionally associated with court litigation. He observed that several jurisdictions are facing similar challenges and referred to reforms introduced under the United Kingdom’s Arbitration Act, 2025, aimed at addressing some of these concerns.
Justice Kant also called for strengthening the mediation ecosystem through enhanced institutional support, professional accreditation standards for mediators and broader cultural acceptance within the corporate sector. He stressed that mediation should be viewed as a marker of commercial sophistication, financial prudence and strategic maturity rather than as a sign of legal weakness.
At the same time, the Chief Justice clarified that courts, arbitration and mediation should not be seen as competing mechanisms but as complementary components of an integrated dispute resolution framework. He observed that constitutional courts and traditional judicial institutions must continue to serve as guardians of public law principles, legal certainty and constitutional accountability. Mediation, on the other hand, provides a flexible and relationship-oriented mechanism for resolving private commercial disputes. According to him, these systems operate in tandem and strengthen rather than diminish one another.
The Chief Justice noted that an effective commercial justice system required a balanced coexistence of adjudication, arbitration and mediation, each serving distinct yet interconnected functions within the broader legal framework.
The post Mediation emerging as preferred ADR mode amid growing procedural challenges in arbitration: CJI Surya Kant appeared first on India Legal.