New Delhi: The Indian judiciary has promoted mediation not only as an alternative but as a powerful dispute resolution mechanism, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said during a panel discussion conducted by the Indian High Commission in London.
Stating that mediation was very close to his heart, the CJI said the Supreme Court Legal Service Commission had created a huge team of trained mediators.
“I can proudly say that people in every city and on every street know what mediation is,” the ICJ said.
The High Commission in London on Wednesday hosted a high-level panel discussion on “Technology and the Future of Mediation” that included prominent judicial and legal figures from India and the United Kingdom, according to a press release.
Along with the ICJ, the committee included Lord Hamblin of Kersey, a judge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales; and Brett Dixon, Vice-President of the Law Society of England and Wales.
High Commissioner Kumaran P made opening remarks. The discussion was moderated by Tanvi Dubey, Advocate Registered with the Supreme Court.
Speaking about the role of the judiciary in promoting mediation, the International Commission of Justice explained the development of mediation in India, dividing it into two phases: that is, before and after the enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023.
The CJI said that before the legislation came into force, the courts had actively encouraged mediation as a robust dispute resolution mechanism.
Recalling his initial years as a Supreme Court judge in 2004, he highlighted the establishment of mediation centers at the lower court, high court and high court levels.
“The Mediation Law of 2023 is the culmination of a legal and judicial system that has developed over decades,” he said.
The ICJ highlighted judicial initiatives aimed at building mediation capacity, including mandatory training programs for mediators through government judicial academies and the role of the National Legal Services Authority and the Lok Adalats in familiarizing citizens with mechanisms for consensual dispute resolution.
Asked whether mediation should be preferred over arbitration, the CJI emphasized that both mechanisms have important roles to play.
“I do not encourage arbitration,” he said, adding that increased trade involvement between countries inevitably leads to disputes.
However, he stressed that parties should first try to resolve disputes through mediation because of its affordability, speed and ability to maintain business relations.
Distinguishing between the two mechanisms, the CJI said: “In arbitration, the issuance of an award is often the beginning of further litigation. In mediation, once the process concludes successfully, it leads to closure of the dispute. This is the beautiful difference between mediation and arbitration.”
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
