By Sanjay Raman Sinha
Over two addresses delivered at the Commonwealth Peace Mediation Conference 2026 in Jaipur recently, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant articulated an ambitious vision for the future of justice. His central proposition was both simple and profound: mediation is not a substitute for the courts, but a fuller expression of the rule of law itself.
“Peace is not the absence of law. Peace is one of law’s finest achievements,” the CJI observed, framing mediation not as an informal compromise, but as a principled legal process that advances justice by resolving disputes through consensus rather than confrontation.
Taken together, his speeches sought to reposition consensual dispute resolution at the very centre of India’s justice system. More significantly, they carved out a distinct constitutional and statutory space for mediation within the existing judicial architecture. What the CJI proposed is an evolving vision of mediation as a justice system in its own right, functioning alongside the courts rather than beneath them.
To illustrate the philosophy underlying mediation, the CJI narrated the familiar parable of two sisters quarrelling over a single orange. Instead of deciding who had the stronger legal claim, a mediator discovers that one sister wants the fruit while the other needs only the peel. The dispute dissolves once the parties’ underlying interests—not merely their competing claims—are understood.
The story encapsulates the essence of mediation: it seeks not merely to determine rights, but to satisfy legitimate interests while preserving relationships.
The CJI also traced mediation’s deep historical roots in Indian civilisation. From the Mahabharata to Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of reconciliation, India has long recognised the value of dialogue over discord.
Even though Lord Krishna’s mission to Hastinapura as a shanti doot ultimately failed to prevent the Mahabharata war, its moral significance remains undiminished. Likewise, Kautilya placed sama—conciliation—as the first among the four upayas or instruments of statecraft, underscoring the primacy of persuasion before coercion.
By invoking these traditions, the CJI demonstrated that mediation is not an imported legal concept, but one deeply embedded in India’s jurisprudential heritage.
Modern India has gradually translated that heritage into statutory law. The Mediation Act, 2023, for the first time, provided a comprehensive legislative framework encompassing voluntary, court-referred, institutional and community mediation. It transformed what had earlier been a fragmented collection of procedures into a coherent legal regime. Judicial precedents further strengthened this framework.
The Supreme Court first breathed life into the long-neglected Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure through Salem Advocate Bar Association vs Union of India, before laying down practical guidelines in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co (P) Ltd on identifying disputes best suited for mediation rather than prolonged courtroom battles.
The CJI also highlighted two important decisions that broadened mediation’s reach. In MR Krishna Murthy vs New India Assurance Co Ltd, the Court encouraged mediation in motor accident and insurance claims. In Moti Ram vs Ashok Kumar, it recognised mediation’s value in matrimonial disputes, where preserving relationships can often be as important as resolving legal rights.
These decisions reinforce rather than dilute the rule of law. As the CJI observed: “The rule of law does not demand that every grievance be adjudicated; it demands only that every citizen enjoy timely, accessible, and dignified recourse to justice.”
This marks an important conceptual shift. Mediation is no longer viewed as litigation’s lesser cousin, but as an independent pathway to justice—one that complements judicial adjudication while reducing unnecessary conflict.
The CJI linked this evolving philosophy to practical implementation through Samadhan Samaroh, the Special Lok Adalat scheduled from August 21 to 23, which aims to resolve pending matters before the Supreme Court through consensual settlement. The initiative directly addresses one of the judiciary’s greatest institutional challenges—the mounting backlog of cases—by encouraging resolution rather than prolonged adjudication.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the CJI’s thesis is the positioning of mediation alongside litigation and arbitration as one of the three principal models of justice delivery.
Unlike litigation, which necessarily produces winners and losers, mediation seeks mutually acceptable outcomes. Unlike arbitration, which culminates in a binding adjudicatory award, mediation allows parties to craft solutions tailored to their own needs.
Its greatest strength lies in preserving relationships—particularly in family disputes, workplace conflicts, neighbourhood disagreements and commercial partnerships where parties must continue to coexist long after the dispute is resolved.
Equally noteworthy was the CJI’s advocacy of environmental and climate mediation. As ecological disputes become increasingly complex, involving governments, industries, local communities and future generations, consensual resolution could prove particularly valuable in balancing competing public interests where rigid adjudication may not always provide durable solutions.
Yet, mediation is not without limitations.
Unlike judicial decrees or arbitral awards, mediated settlements ultimately depend upon voluntary participation and good faith. Although settlements can be given legal enforceability through court decrees or statutory mechanisms, the mediation process itself may expose weaker parties to unequal bargaining power unless adequate safeguards exist. The absence of active judicial oversight during negotiations can sometimes allow stronger participants to exert subtle pressure on vulnerable parties.
This raises an enduring question: can voluntary compliance consistently deliver substantive justice?
The answer lies not in replacing courts, but in integrating mediation more deeply within the justice system while retaining judicial supervision where necessary. Properly designed, mediation can reduce delays, lower costs, preserve relationships and produce more enduring settlements without compromising access to formal adjudication.
The CJI’s Jaipur addresses, therefore, represent something larger than an endorsement of Alternative Dispute Resolution. They advance a jurisprudential shift—from viewing mediation as an alternative to litigation to recognising it as an integral pillar of the rule of law itself.
If that vision takes root, India’s justice system may become not only faster, but also more humane, participatory and responsive to the realities of modern conflict.
The post Mediation At The Heart Of Justice appeared first on India Legal.