Mediation for the Nation Campaign: An Overview
The Mediation for the Nation was a joint initiative between the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC). It was conceptualised under the leadership of the then Chief Justice of India Justice B. R. Gavai and the present Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant – who then served as the Executive Chairman of both NALSA and the MCPC. The aim was to promote mediation as a practical and pragmatic dispute resolution mechanism across the different levels of the judiciary, starting from the taluk-level courts to the High Courts.
Phase 1 of the campaign, designated as Mediation for the Nation 1.0, ran from 1st July to 30th September 2025. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was circulated to all judicial officers, requesting them to make extra efforts to identify suitable pending cases and refer the maximum number to mediation under the campaign[1]. The courts listed the eligible cases under the heading “For Referral to the Special Mediation Drive” and referred these cases to mediation. The mediation sessions were conducted throughout the week, including the weekend, and were conducted offline, online, and in hybrid modes.
The following categories of cases, among others, were identified as eligible for referral under this drive:
1. Matrimonial disputes.
2. Motor accident and insurance claims
3. Domestic violence cases
4. Cheque bounce cases
5. Commercial dispute cases
6. Service-related matters.
7. Consumer disputes.
8. Debt recovery.
9. Partition suits.
10. Eviction cases.
11. Land acquisition disputes
12. All civil and criminal compoundable matter with a potential for amicable settlement.
The first phase of the drive was followed by the second phase called the Mediation for the Nation 2.0 commencing from 2nd January 2026.
The Data: A Fragmented Picture
The MCPC, which is the authoritative data repository for the campaign, has not published any consolidated national report in the public domain. Though under Phase 1, the SOP required all High Courts to transmit data regarding total matters referred to mediation and total matters settled to the MCPC on designated fortnightly dates – August 4, 11, 18 and 25 and September 1, 8, 15 and 22, 2025 – and a final compilation was to be submitted to the MCPC by October 6, 2025, the MCPC has not published a consolidated national report in the public domain. According to reports, given the volume of information, MCPC has been able to analyze data from only 14 high courts while analysis of the rest is pending.[2] Even NALSA has not published a dedicated post-campaign report specifically on the Mediation for the Nation drive. However, some State Legal Services Authorities have published their own data through press releases or on their websites. Sikkim (SLSA) has reported that 213 cases were referred, out of which only 43 settled; 170 remained unsettled and were referred to the courts[3]. Nagaland (NSLSA) reported that 397 cases were referred by the District Legal Services Authorities and the High Court Legal Services Committee, out of which 90 matters were amicably settled.[4] Telangana (TSLSA) reported through the press that 42,129 cases were identified under the drive, out of which 12,891 were referred for mediation and only 1,416 cases were settled – a settlement rate of approximately 11%[5].
The only near-national figure comes from an investigative report published by The Print on October 23, 2025[6]. It reports that 5 lakh cases were sent to court-attached mediation centres after being identified as having the “potential for settlement” out of 1.68 crore cases. Out of these 5 lakh cases, 1 lakh cases are reported to have been settled, with matrimonial cases being the highest number of settled cases, followed by cheque-bounce cases.
Challenges and Concerns:
The Mediation for the Nation (MFN) was a laudable initiative from the highest court of the land, which has been at the forefront of the mediation movement in India. The Supreme Court of India takes credit for transforming mediation – once perceived as a threat to lawyers and a poorer cousin of arbitration and litigation – into a legitimate, essential and integral part of the dispute resolution landscape. The success of the Mediation for the Nation drive cannot be measured in terms of statistics. In fact, statistics cannot be the yardstick for measuring the success of any mediation. However, a campaign like the Mediation for the Nation does invite statistical analysis, as the focus here is more on the disposal rate rather than on the qualitative appraisal of the process and the role it can play in transforming the dispute resolution paradigm of India. Viewed from this perspective, the well-intentioned MFN campaign has thrown up some challenges that may be enumerated as follows:
Judges and court systems are under pressure to reduce backlog; therefore, mediation referrals become target-driven, with success measured by settlement statistics. By making “settlement numbers” the primary goal, this has created a perception that mediation is a disposal mechanism for court pendency rather than a genuinely consensual dispute resolution process.
The philosophy of mediation is built on party autonomy, informed consent and self-determination. Though mandatory mediation is generally accepted as the norm of court-referred mediations, and some statutes (e.g., the Commercial Courts Act) do mandate mediation, this does not extinguish the right of the parties to walk away from the process or decline to settle during the mediation. However, the intensity of the MFN drive was such that there was a fear of the voluntariness being weakened, mediators prioritizing closures over quality outcomes and apprehension in the minds of the parties that they may be indirectly pressured to settle.
The specific inclusion of domestic violence cases poses the risk of survivors being coerced into settlements that may be potentially injurious to their well-being while facilitating the perpetrator to escape the consequences. This is particularly harmful when the ambit of what is covered under domestic violence, particularly with reference to marital rape, remains an unsettled question in law. With mediators focusing on settlements rather than a qualitative process that considers the welfare of the survivors, the risk to the lives and safety of the survivors is real.
There is no gainsaying the fact that the quality of mediators and of the mediation process are essential for mediation to become an effective tool for timely and amicable settlement. Public awareness, sensitization of all stakeholders and trust-building are the prerequisites that cannot be short-circuited. Due to a dearth of suitably trained and experienced mediators in the court-annexed mediation centres, heavy reliance was placed on newly minted, freshly trained mediators who were instructed in fast-track mode to meet the demand. This creates a concern that using inexperienced and insufficiently trained mediators in high volumes may produce settlements that may be technically recorded as successes but may not be durable or fair.
The infrastructure and logistics of existing mediation centres and their staff have been severely strained – with the personnel working through the week and over weekends, resulting in physical and mental burnout. Many district centres lack dedicated space, confidentiality infrastructure, adequate staffing and proper scheduling systems, unlike urban mediation centres that are highly sophisticated, professionally administered and technologically equipped. Regional disparities in outcomes can be attributed to these factors too.
The uneven statistical data, inconsistent user experience and poor-quality risk can cast the mediation process in a poor light, entrenching the perception that mediation is an ineffective process.
The Path Forward: A Case for Collaboration
Notwithstanding all the challenges that the campaign has faced, the focus must be on what can be done to make it work better. The burden on the judiciary, charged as it is with delivering justice to the citizens of this country, is immense. Given the formidable challenges that it faces – burgeoning caseloads, poor infrastructure, a skewed judge-population ratio, to name a few – the judiciary has been discharging its role effectively, upholding the rule of law and safeguarding civil liberties. The judiciary has also engaged itself in exploring other mechanisms to deal with these challenges, and one of them is the recourse to ADR mechanisms like mediation. Recognizing these challenges, the legislature introduced section 89 in the Civil Procedure Code and passed the Mediation Act in 2023. However, due to the delay in notifying the Act, the onus has fallen back on the judiciary to address the twin challenges of increasing case backlog and eroding public faith in the justice delivery system.
The larger question is, should the judiciary continue to trudge alone on this path? It is important to take note of the fact that India has been witnessing the growth of a credible private institutional ecosystem of dispute resolution. Several stakeholders, such as lawyers, mediators and other professionals, have recognized the need for adoption of ADR mechanisms and have established ADR institutions that not only have world-class infrastructure but also well-trained and experienced dispute resolution professionals. These institutions have been quietly rendering world-class dispute resolution services through both mediation and arbitration. The Mediation Act, 2023, recognizes the role of such institutions and provides for the establishment of Mediation Service Providers (MSPs). Additionally, these institutions have been providing world-class training to mediators. The long-term success of India's mediation movement ultimately depends upon the systematic creation of public trust in mediation. Equally important is the need to move beyond the perception of mediation as being confined primarily to matrimonial and family disputes and to develop confidence in its utility for commercial and business disputes.
These institutions have been awaiting official recognition under the Mediation Act, which has been long in coming. But is the wait necessary? Can the judiciary further strengthen the dispute resolution ecosystem by actively engaging with credible ADR institutions in the administration of dispute resolution services? The only requirement would be for the judiciary to evolve clear standards and parameters to assess the integrity, credibility and capability of these institutions – standards that inspire confidence in the minds of the litigants and ensure efficient, credible and effective dispute resolution.
The way forward would be for the judiciary to step forward, identify these institutions and onboard them as mediation service providers. In appropriate cases, where the parties are ready to proceed to arbitration should the mediation fail, the judiciary can also consider directing the parties to those institutions that offer both services.
To start with, the Hon'ble Supreme Court may constitute a committee of mediation experts to discuss and formulate the criteria for the recognition of the institutions and to frame the rules for the referral of cases. The criteria should not only cover the institutional infrastructure and process standards but also geographical reach and accessibility; fee structure and affordability, track record and verifiable performance data; and, most important, quality and qualification of the mediator panel. Based on the committee's suggestions and in consultation with the MCPC, a Supreme Court-issued Practice Direction or Administrative Circular prescribing a comprehensive empanelment process and the kind of cases that can be referred can be implemented. The next step would be to formulate the SOP for the process of referrals, monitoring of referred cases, fee structures where applicable and reporting of settlements or failures.
Taken together, these steps would advance the laudable objectives of the MFN campaign, build a credible institutional dispute resolution ecosystem and – most critically – ensure that mediation is used as a qualitative process rather than merely as a disposal mechanism.
'Standard Operating Procedure for “Mediation for the Nation” Campaign' (Delhi District Courts, 9 July 2025) <https://delhicourts.nic.in/> accessed 18 May, 2026. ↑
Bhadra Sinha, 'SC Panel, NALSA Mediation Drive: 1 Lakh Cases Resolved; Matrimonial Disputes Make Up Biggest Chunk' The Print (23 October, 2025) <https://theprint.in/judiciary/sc-panel-nalsa-mediation-drive-1-lakh-cases-resolved-matrimonial-disputes-make-up-biggest-chunk/2769028/> accessed 18 May, 2026. ↑
'Mediation Activities' (Sikkim State Legal Services Authority) <https://sikkim.nalsa.gov.in/mediation-activities/> accessed 18 May, 2026. ↑
'Mediation for the Nation 2.0 Launched' (Department of Information & Public Relations, 16 February, 2026) < https://ipr.nagaland.gov.in/MEDIATION-FOR-THE-NATION-2.0-LAUNCHED#> accessed 18 May 2026. ↑
'Mediation for the Nation 2.0 Settles 98% Cases in One Month' The Hans India (14 February, 2026) <https://www.thehansindia.com/telangana/mediation-for-the-nation-20-settles-98-cases-in-one-month-1048381> accessed 18 May, 2026. ↑
Sinha (n 2). ↑
Author is a Lawyer with 37 years of standing in the Bar and a trained and accredited mediator by the MCPC, Supreme Court of India, currently serving as the Registrar and CEO of the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Hyderabad (IAMCH). Views are personal.