Introduction
Backlogs are a well-known characteristic of the Indian Judiciary. In an attempt to reduce the same, mechanisms like Alternative Dispute Resolution have been an important tool to ensure timely justice as encapsulated in ‘Nyay Sab Ke Liye’ or Justice for All. Thus, the National legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) of the Supreme Court jointly launched an ambitious 90-day drive ‘Mediation “for the Nation” Campaign’, from 1st July, 2025 to 7th October, 2025. It aimed to promote amicable dispute resolution facilitating mass disposal of cases across all levels of the Judiciary to reduce burden.
After The Mediation Act, 2023[i] was enacted, which institutionalized mediation and promote Online Dispute Resolution thus strengthening the enforceability of Mediated Settlement Agreements, the drive served as a massive policy test. While the official narratives[ii] have emphasized on the success of the drive (some reports citing the resolution of over 1 Lakh cases across the nation) a thorough review necessitates moving beyond these statistics. However, the prioritization of volume with a rigid timeline over qualitative principles of mediation potentially dilutes the process quality due to various factors which are further discussed in the article thus evaluating the true effectiveness of the drive.
The official objective[iii] of the campaign was disposal of pending cases and promoting amicable dispute resolution. The campaign targeted a broad spectrum[iv] of civil, criminal and quasi-judicial matters which were deemed to be amenable to settlement. To maximize participation, the Comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)[v] mandated high accessibility, permitting mediation efforts on all days of the week as per the convenience of the parties. The campaign promoted hybrid mode, aligning itself with the objectives of the Act[vi] in making the concept of online mediation an acceptable and cost-effective process.
Institutionalization of Referral Targets
The High Courts adopted a strategy[vii] of systemic approach to generating referrals. The listing targets can be used as evidence of this pressure as the per day limit of cases required to be listed under the new heading viz “For Referral to the Special Mediation Drive-Mediation” was set at 200 cases per bench or division along with the regular docket. This is a clear institutionalization of numerical targets imposed directly upon the judiciary for inflating volume. This not only compromises the due process and quality as the rush to the mandated number may lead to hasty decision and insufficient consideration of the facts and arguments presented from both sides. It will also undermine the entire process of mediation as cases which may not even be suitable for mediation may be pushed into the referral list to achieve the quota, increasing the workload and stress on judiciary and potential for errors in the mediated settlement agreements.
Judiciary undertook extraordinary measures[viii] to feed the quota as Courts were directed to identify suitable cases from their database irrespective of the date fixed in the matter and were required to prepone all unlisted cases and those adjourned beyond 90 days for referral consideration. Judges sitting in Division benches were requested to sit singly every day to handle this specialized “For Referral” list.
Self-determination is adversely undermined as the operational focus is fixated on maximizing referrals. The parties often perceive the administrative push as a judicial mandate, forcing them to accept the mediation suggest even if it is against their volition. The resulting mediation is thus neither truly informed nor uncoerced, but is fundamentally compromising the integrity of the mediation process.[ix] This push inflates the volume of referrals and structurally focuses on prioritizing statistical success over qualitative integrity of the settlements. The lack of voluntariness especially in the matters of matrimonial disputes result in settlements formed under pressure instead of consent. These agreements formed under duress thus bear the risk of re-litigation which ultimately undermines the core objective of the campaign.
Compromise and Quality Control
As per the Comprehensive SOP, the directors acted to minimize the time spent on the case without compromising the quality of the mediation and to manage time on the basis of the number of cases pending for mediation. Imposing the requirement to reduce time investment while also demanding quality will exert undue pressure[x] on the mediator to prioritize efficiency and move towards a quick compromise, directly hampering and jeopardizing the qualitative sustainability of the settlements.
The Comprehensive SOP further permitted the use of professionals which go beyond the regular empanelled mediators. While this might seem to be a pragmatic solution to limited human resource, it dilutes the consistency and ethical standards of mediation as the temporary workforce does not necessarily fit the educational eligibility.
The pressure to settle compounds to ethical challenges[xi]. The rapid turnover of cases limits the time available for mediators to adequately assess and address existing power imbalances[xii] between the parties when combined with imperative to achieve high numbers. Thus, there is a clear bias towards volume.
Official Narrative vs. Reality
The operational blueprint is largely performance-driven and mandated frequent data transmission to the MCPC. The reports which were published after the conclusion of the drive hailed it as a major success.
To the contrary of the published aggregate national figure, local reports reveal the potential reality. Data provided by the District Legal Services Authority[xiii] (DLSA), Dhanbad, further highlight a major discrepancy between the settlements recorded and the documented referrals. As per the report only 18 referrals were settled out of the documented 96 referrals to mediation therefore resulting in an 18.75% of success rate. The calculated rate of settlement is lower than the historically reported national mediation resolution rate[xiv] which is between 24-29%. This significant discrepancy between the reported local resolution rate and the aggregate national settlement figure viz 1 Lakh raises significant questions regarding the qualitative success of the drive. If, for the sake of the argument it is considered, the report is statistically representative of the ground reality across India, achieving 1 Lakh settlements nationally would have necessitated a massive volume of referrals during the period of the campaign.
Comparatively, low settlement rate suggests that the campaign’s success was rather administrative and focused on moving the files out of the pending list rather than achieving quality resolution rates. The drive did succeed in maximizing referral intake, but the statistics suggest that the operational efficiency might have been low.
Policy Implications and Recommendations
Success should not be solely attributed to what the statistics indicate but also should factor in the longevity of the resolutions. Rushed and fragile resolutions inadvertently invite the chances of re-litigation which negate any effort made to clear the court docket. Thus, future policies must decisively pivot away from hailing quantitative outputs as a win and work towards focusing on securing qualitative results.
To ensure accountability, the MCPC has requested the National Judicial Academy (NJA) in Bhopal to conduct an intensive study on all aspects of the campaign, including its impact[xv]. This study must focus on the metrics that go beyond mere number of settlements such as re-litigation rates and judicial challenges faced during the mediation drive. Thus, the following recommendations may be considered in achieving the same for any such drives in the future :
Replace Statistical Targets with Process Integrity
The focus should not be on the referral volume quotas but rather on formulating a metric such as a ‘Referral Quality Score’, a system for Judicial officers which will be based on informed consent. The Score will verify whether the consent was given without coercion via ‘Declaration of Non-Coercion’ prior to referrals thus providing a basis for maintaining the quality of informed consent documents.
Enhance Durability via Post-Settlement Review
The Courts should institute a ‘Mandatory Post-Settlement Review’ for sensitive matters (matrimonial and domestic disputes) which would be conducted after 30-45 days of the settlement. This period will be observed without the pressure from the Mediation Centres, allowing the parties to reflect on the settlement and its effects on their lives. The Judicial Officer must individually confirm the finality of the settlement, verifying the absence of pressure, duress and complete comprehension of the terms by both the parties before issuing the decree.
Professionalizing the Mediator Pool
A compulsory ‘Certified Supervising Mediator Panel’ must be established to ensure that the non-empanelled mediators lacking crucial experience do not handle the cases all by themselves but are accompanied by the Panel members to co-sign and review them. This ensures that ethical standards are upheld when addressing complex issues, such as power imbalances that may be exploited under time constraints.
Segregation of types of cases
To ensure that the sensitive cases are not rushed, the policy makers may formalize a distinction between simple and sensitive disputes wherein simple disputes related to transactions may remain under the time-bound structure to quickly settle the cases with stricter deadlines and the sensitive cases involving major conflict such as matrimonial and domestic violence cases may be assigned a more lenient deadline, overriding the general SOP to lessen the investment of time in a particular case.
Conclusion
The Mediation for the Nation drive is undeniably an ambitious and institutionally coordinated effort to address one of Indian Judiciary’s biggest enemy, i.e backlogs. By banking on the framework of the Mediation Act, 2023 and organizing the courts across the country, the drive did demonstrate the State’s commitment to promoting alternative and efficient amicable dispute resolution. However, the true measure of success cannot be based on the headline figures or aggregate settlement statistics.
Multiple factors indicate that the design of the drive is towards administrative efficiency rather than sociable justice. These include imposed referral quota targets, rigid timelines and emphasis on volume. This hampers the core foundation of Mediation which are voluntariness and informed consent as they are subdued to favour statistical inflation. Settlements achieved under such pressure may temporarily relieve the docket but carry inherent risk of re-litigation. The highlighted discrepancy between locally reported settlement rates and nationally reported success further show the need for a re-evaluated framework. Success of a drive of this scale should be assessed with elevated standards such as durability of settlements, fairness and sustainability of outcome. Without incorporating these certain metrics, any declaration of success remains incomplete. However, it would be unfair to assume that the drive was a total systematic failure. It has rather served as an opportunity for the policy framers to learn as the drive has highlighted the potential of structured Alternative Dispute Resolution as well as the vulnerabilities that arise. This is an indication that the policy must shift its priorities to a more process-oriented approach that reinforce the core values of mediation. The challenge now lies in the pursuit of judicial efficiency which does not ignore ethical and qualitative foundations of mediation and only then it can truly fulfil its constitutiona
[i] The Mediation Act 2023.
[ii] Apurva Vishwanath, ‘SC Panel, NALSA Mediation Drive: 1 Lakh Cases Resolved, Matrimonial Disputes Make up Biggest Chunk’ ThePrint (15 October 2025) https://theprint.in/judiciary/sc-panel-nalsa-mediation-drive-1-lakh-cases-resolved-matrimonial-disputes-make-up-biggest-chunk/2769028/ accessed 19 October 2025.
[iii] National Legal Services Authority and Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee, ‘Comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Mediation “for the Nation” Campaign’ (1 July 2025) https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec04e846fb8a4f365ca8e84393d4f34e/uploads/2025/07/2025071040.pdf accessed 21 October 2025.
[iv] Delhi High Court, ‘Public Notice: Special Mediation Drive (1st July, 2025 to 7th October, 2025)’ (July 2025) https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/files/2025-07/public_noticemediation.pdf accessed 21 October 2025.
[v] High Court of Jharkhand, ‘Notice: Special Mediation Drive (1st July, 2025 to 7th October, 2025)’ (28 June 2024) https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3d04863f100d59b3eb688a11f95b0ae60/uploads/2024/06/202406282003491516.pdf accessed 22 October 2025.
[vi] High Court of Karnataka, ‘Notification: Special Mediation Drive-Mediation “For the Nation” Campaign (1st July, 2025 to 7th October, 2025)’ (June 2025) https://judiciary.karnataka.gov.in/pdfs/mediation-for-the-nation-notfn.pdf accessed 23 October 2025.
[vii] High Court of Punjab and Haryana, ‘Notice: Special Mediation Drive (1st July, 2025 to 7th October, 2025)’ (July 2025) https://highcourtchd.gov.in/sub_pages/left_menu/publish/announce/announce_pdf/strat_medi_05072025_5d30d.pdf accessed 23 October 2025.
[viii] High Court of Punjab and Haryana, ‘Notice: Special Mediation Drive (1st July, 2025 to 7th October, 2025)’ (July 2025) https://highcourtchd.gov.in/sub_pages/left_menu/publish/announce/announce_pdf/strat_medi_05072025_5d30d.pdf accessed 23 October 2025.
[ix] S Sreenivasa and M Santhosh, ‘Implementation of Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Legal Perspective’ (2022) 11(10) IJFANS https://www.ijfans.org/uploads/paper/88eb2ddd01637cec1facc2f4211f6de7.pdf accessed 24 October2025.
[x] Aiswarya S, ‘India Pushes to Fix its Dispute Resolution Gridlock with Mediation; Indian Mediation Week Returns with a Focus on Tech, Trust and Tangible Outcomes’ ETLegalWorld (4 September 2025) https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/law-policy/india-pushes-to-fix-its-dispute-resolution-gridlock-with-mediation-indian-mediation-week-returns-with-a-focus-on-tech-trust-and-tangible-outcomes/122993964 accessed 24 October 2025.
[xi] VIA Mediation Centre, ‘Ethical Dilemmas in ADR for Domestic Violence Cases’ <https://viamediationcentre.org/readnews/MTY1Nw==/Ethical-Dilemmas-in-ADR-for-Domestic-Violence-Cases#:~:text=The%20violent%20behaviour%20of%20an,inside%20the%20family%20as%20important.> accessed 28 October 2025.
[xii] Bernadette J Saunders, ‘Power Imbalances in Mediation’ (2018) ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323340195_Power_Imbalances_in_Mediation accessed 24 October 2025.
[xiii] National Legal Services Authority and Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee, ‘National Mediation Drive – Mediation “for the Nation” Campaign: Report of the 90-Day Special Drive (1 July 2025 to 7 October 2025)’ (2025) https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec052151b4c76b4dcb048d06a5c32942/uploads/2025/07/2025072589.pdf accessed 1 November 2025.
[xiv] Aiswarya S, ‘India Pushes to Fix its Dispute Resolution Gridlock with Mediation; Indian Mediation Week Returns with a Focus on Tech, Trust and Tangible Outcomes’ ETLegalWorld (4 September 2025) https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/law-policy/india-pushes-to-fix-its-dispute-resolution-gridlock-with-mediation-indian-mediation-week-returns-with-a-focus-on-tech-trust-and-tangible-outcomes/122993964 accessed 2 November 2025.
[xv] Prashant Kataria and others, ‘90-Day “Mediation for the Nation” Campaign: A Nationwide Initiative for Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (Mondaq, 24 October 2025) <https://www.mondaq.com/india/arbitration-dispute-resolution/1650344/90-day-mediation-for-the-nation-campaign-a-nationwide-initiative-for-alternative-dispute-resolution#:~:text=The%20final%20compilation%20of%20all,institutionalisation%20of%20mediation%20in%20India.> accessed 4 November 2025.
Author(s)
Vedant Sunil Khalapurkar
Student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai