Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday described mediation as the future of dispute resolution, emphasising that consensual mechanisms enable litigants to retain control over the outcome while promoting durable settlements, preserving relationships and advancing meaningful access to justice.
Delivering the keynote address at the Commonwealth Peace Mediation Conference on the theme Peace, Mediation and the Rule of Law , the CJI made a strong case for placing mediation at the centre of contemporary dispute-resolution architecture, both in India and across Commonwealth jurisdictions. The conference brought together judges, jurists, mediators, legal practitioners and policymakers to deliberate upon the evolving role of mediation in strengthening justice systems.
“Mediation alone permits the parties themselves to author their own resolution, in language of their own choosing, at a pace and cost proportionate to the dispute,” the CJI said, highlighting party autonomy, procedural flexibility and proportionality as some of mediation’s defining attributes.
Opening his address with the familiar “Orange Quarrel” parable, the CJI explained how two sisters fighting over a single orange could have arrived at a far more satisfactory resolution had the underlying interests behind their respective claims been identified. Rather than simply determining how the orange ought to be divided, an inquiry into why each sister wanted it would have revealed that both could have received the entirety of what they actually needed.
According to the CJI, the parable captures the foundational philosophy of mediation looking beyond the apparent legal claim to understand the interests, concerns and objectives that animate the dispute.
He observed that this instinct to inquire into the why behind a dispute is deeply embedded in India’s civilisational approach to conflict resolution and existed long before the modern doctrine of principled negotiation acquired formal terminology and methodology.
Referring to India’s historical traditions of conciliation, the CJI invoked the Bhagavad Gita, recalling Lord Krishna’s journey to Hastinapura as a Shanti Doot or emissary of peace. He noted that the episode demonstrated how conciliation was regarded as a preferred and honourable avenue even before resort to armed conflict.
“Even a divine emissary held conciliation to be the first and most honourable recourse,” he observed.
The CJI also referred to Kautilya’s Arthashastra, noting that conciliation figures as the first of the four upayas, or instruments of diplomacy. These historical references, he suggested, demonstrate that negotiated settlement and peaceful accommodation have long been integral to India’s jurisprudential and political traditions.
Turning to contemporary developments, the CJI highlighted the legislative and judicial measures that have progressively institutionalised mediation within India’s justice-delivery framework.
He noted that the Mediation Act, 2023 has, for the first time, provided a comprehensive statutory architecture encompassing voluntary mediation, court-annexed mediation and community mediation. The legislation, he said, marks an important development in providing mediation with a structured and coherent legal foundation.
The CJI further referred to the Supreme Court’s judgments in M.R. Krishna Murthy v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Moti Ram v. Ashok Kumar, which encouraged the use of mediation in appropriate motor accident, insurance and matrimonial disputes.
“I believe that each of these judgments was, at its core, a vindication of the Rule of Law,” the CJI said.
He underscored that the rule of law should not be understood as requiring every grievance to undergo adjudication. Rather, its true promise lies in ensuring that every citizen has access to justice that is timely, accessible and dignified.
The CJI contrasted mediation with conventional adversarial processes, pointing out that arbitration, notwithstanding its procedural efficiency, generally produces a winner and a loser. Litigation, he observed, derives much of its institutional value from the development of precedent, but the durability of human relationships may not necessarily form its principal measure of success.
Mediation, by comparison, allows disputing parties to participate directly in fashioning the terms of settlement and thereby creates a greater possibility of preserving relationships and securing compliance with the outcome.
The CJI also announced that the Supreme Court will organise “Samadhan Samaroh”, a Special Lok Adalat from August 21 to 23, aimed at facilitating consensual resolution of pending disputes before the apex court.
He expressed the hope that the initiative would enable matters pending before the country’s highest court to reach “final repose not through contest, but through consent”.
Concluding his address, the CJI commended the organisers for bringing together stakeholders from across Commonwealth jurisdictions and said such platforms provide an opportunity to preserve traditional wisdom while adapting it to contemporary demands of justice administration.
He expressed confidence that the deliberations would ensure that “old wisdom finds new custodians” and carry forward a tradition of consensual dispute resolution that remains rooted in India’s ancient heritage while responding to the pressing demands of modern judicial administration.
The post Mediation, not litigation, is the future of dispute resolution: CJI Surya Kant at Commonwealth Peace Conference appeared first on India Legal.