Mediation in India: Can Learnings from Other Jurisdictions Help?

Introduction

Mediation is steadily emerging as a credible dispute resolution mechanism in India, particularly following the enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023¹. While the country has taken admirable steps to institutionalise mediation, however, a more robust, holistic and proactive approach is essential. Without it, mediation risks falling prey to the same inefficiencies and procedural complexities that have long affected other dispute resolution mechanisms. A critical measure to achieve and strengthen India’s mediation framework is to draw insights from jurisdictions where mediation has evolved into a mainstream and well-recognised process. These jurisdictions have not only employed mediation effectively for conventional disputes but have also successfully extended its use to specialised contexts thereby alleviating judicial burdens and facilitating timely resolution in emerging areas. This article offers a legal analysis of key mediation practices in jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore with the objective of identifying lessons that can support the growth and institutional development of India’s mediation landscape.

Key features and recent developments in:

(A) The United States (US)

(1) Mandatory mediation disclosure: Courts, legislations and Bar Associations are increasingly requiring lawyers to inform clients about mediation before initiating litigation, promoting early and cost-effective dispute resolution. In Texas, litigants must file an affidavit confirming that they have been advised on mediation, while Colorado imposes a similar duty through Bar Rules. Voluntary alternative dispute resolution (ADR) pledges adopted by bodies like the Beverly Hills Bar Association and various corporations, further encourage lawyers to discuss and use mediation where appropriate. These pledges also serve as positive public signals of a commitment to collaborative dispute resolution.

(2) The Multi-Door Courthouse Model: Harvard Law School’s Professor Frank Sander’s 1979 vision of a “Multi-Door Courthouse” proposed that courts offer various dispute resolution options mediation, arbitration and conciliation tailored to each case, rather than defaulting to litigation. Over time, courts have adopted this approach, with many now providing facilitators to guide parties toward appropriate alternatives. Innovative models like Arizona’s Maricopa Superior Court Self-Service Center offer user-friendly, multilingual resources and access to mediators and legal support. Similarly, the US Department of Justice piloted “Neighbourhood Justice Centers” in 1977 to divert suitable cases from traditional prosecution, laying the groundwork for community-based mediation programs that continue to influence ADR development today.

(3) Mediation as legal reform: States such as Oregon have employed mediation as a tool for systemic legal reform. For instance, the State’s family law system was restructured based on core principles of mediation, namely, facilitating the meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders through the provision of a neutral, respectful and secure environment, enabling constructive dialogue and the progressive exploration of resolution options.

Key takeaways: The US has led the mediation movement since the 1970s with strong support from the judiciary, lawyers and litigants, making mediation a core part of its justice system. India can learn from this by mandating mediation disclosures in professional conduct rules, adopting the Multi-Door Courthouse Model at the district level, and integrating mediation into broader judicial reforms, especially in family and civil courts.

(B) The United Kingdom (UK)

(1) Institutional growth and data collection: The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) in the UK conducts regular audits and publishes empirical data on mediation outcomes, thereby enabling evidence-based policy formulation.

(2) Legislative framework: The UK’s pre-action protocols require parties to consider ADR before initiating litigation, promoting early settlement and judicial economy.

(3) Online mediation: The Covid-19 Pandemic significantly accelerated the adoption of digital mediation in the Uk, establishing its practical viability and effectiveness.

(4) Reframing ADR: In the UK, there is growing discourse among legal scholars questioning the appropriateness of the term “alternative dispute resolution” to describe mediation, given its increasing centrality in the justice system.

Key takeaways: India must develop a robust institutional framework for empirical data collection to inform mediation policy, close systemic gaps and measure efficacy. Despite Section 12-A² of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, pre-institution mediation is often bypassed via interim relief applications; legislative reforms should mandate mediation regardless of such filings. Further, India must invest in expanding and integrating online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms across diverse sectors, thereby enhancing accessibility, reducing logistical constraints, and bridging geographic disparities in access to justice. Lastly, India should consider repositioning mediation as a primary, not alternative, dispute resolution method to foster wider recognition.

(C) Australia

(1) Statutory mandates: The Civil Dispute Resolution Act, 2011³ requires parties to file a “genuine steps” statement before litigation.

(2) Sector-specific models: New South Wales provides a compelling model of legislative support for mediation across diverse sectors, aimed at ensuring efficient and equitable dispute resolution. The Farm Debt Mediation Act, 1994⁴ mandates that creditors offer mediation before initiating enforcement actions against farmers, thereby safeguarding agrarian interests. Similarly, the Succession Act, 2006⁵ requires mandatory pre-trial mediation in family provision claims, with courts reporting significant settlement rates. The Retail Leases Act, 1994⁶ also bars litigation in tenancy disputes unless parties have first attempted mediation. These statutory frameworks reflect a deliberate legislative policy prioritising early, cost-effective and relationship-preserving alternatives to litigation.

Key takeaways: Australia, in an innovative manner, has used mediation as a tool for dispute resolution in very niche areas such as debts owed by farmers and tenancy disputes, both can be successfully adopted in India with suitable customisation given the enormous pending disputes before courts, on these issues alone. Further, India may introduce practice of filing a “genuine steps” statement before litigation to encourage pre-litigation resolution.

(D) Singapore

(1) Institutional support and judicial integration: Singapore has successfully embedded mediation within its legal and commercial landscape through institutions such as the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC), the Rules of Court 2021⁷ and structured dispute resolution clauses. Notably, the Rules of Court 2021 impose a legal obligation on parties to consider amicable settlement before initiating litigation.

(2) International legal framework: The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (commonly referred to as the Singapore Convention on Mediation, 2019)⁸ addresses a core concern of international commerce — enforceability of mediated settlements. With 57 signatories and 14 ratifications, including India, the Convention reflects a growing international consensus on the legitimacy and utility of mediation in resolving cross-border disputes.

(3) Hybrid dispute resolution models: Singapore has pioneered integrated processes such as Arb-Med-Arb and Lit-Med-Lit, which allow disputes to transition between arbitration/litigation and mediation, depending on resolution progress. These hybrid models provide procedural flexibility while retaining enforceability mechanisms and are particularly well-suited for complex commercial and cross-border matters.

(4) Cultural and commercial acceptance: In Singapore, mediation is increasingly viewed by legal practitioners and commercial parties as a primary mechanism for dispute resolution. Its appeal lies in its confidentiality, procedural adaptability and potential for preserving long-term commercial relationships features particularly valuable to entities engaged in continuing business arrangements.

(5) Technological advancement: In 2024, SIMC introduced an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tool for automated case presentation, significantly improving procedural efficiency and reducing costs.

Key takeaways: In addition to adopting a proactive institutional approach, the integration of technology into the mediation process could prove transformative within the Indian context. Properly leveraged, it has the potential to further enhance the inherent efficiency and cost-effectiveness of mediation. India should accordingly implement formal mechanisms to embed mediation within its commercial dispute resolution framework, ensuring it becomes a default rather than an alternative pathway. Moreover, the adoption of hybrid models particularly for business-to-business (B2B) disputes can provide a pragmatic balance between adjudicative finality and consensual settlement. Finally, India must actively pursue technological innovations to improve the scalability, accessibility and overall usability of its mediation infrastructure, thereby strengthening public trust and institutional reliance on mediation.

Conclusion

India’s mediation regime stands at a critical juncture. The experiences of jurisdictions such as the US, the UK, Australia and Singapore offer a valuable repository of legal, institutional and cultural insights. As India moves forward with the implementation of the Mediation Act, 2023, it must prioritise not only the codification of procedures but also the cultivation of a sustainable and robust mediation ecosystem.

As highlighted above, mediation has proven to be an effective and efficient tool for dispute resolution in these jurisdictions, significantly reducing both time and costs. India is uniquely positioned to adopt and adapt these time-tested best practices, with appropriate modifications to address its distinct legal, social and economic contexts. Whether applied to sector-specific disputes such as agricultural debt, tenancy conflicts, or complex multi-party commercial matters, mediation holds the potential to not only resolve disputes efficiently but also to foster a less adversarial and more progressive environment in our country.