The Debate on Mandatory Pre‑Institution Mediation

The Critique and Its Context

Sanyal argued that India’s judicial system is the single biggest hurdle to achieving a developed India. Some commentators extended this to oppose mediation mandates.

The editorial contends that Sanyal misplaces the blame: it is not mediation per se that slows courts, but infrastructure gaps, case backlog, and culture of litigation.

Understanding Pre‑Institution Mediation

A system wherein certain disputes (civil, commercial, family) must attempt mediation before filing formal litigation.

Goals: reduce court backlog, promote amicable resolution, lower costs, reduce adversarial burden.

Arguments in Favor

Faster resolution and reduced burden on courts.

Encouragement of compromise and preserving relationships (especially in family or commercial disputes).

Cost-effective and flexible compared to litigation.

Concerns and Limitations

Poor quality of mediation: untrained mediators, unequal bargaining power.

Coercion: parties may be forced into mediation even when legal principles should apply.

Infrastructure gap: lack of mediation centres, regulatory oversight.

Not all disputes are suitable for mediation (e.g., property rights, constitutional claims).

Editorial’s Middle Ground View

Mediation can be a tool, not a panacea — the system must upgrade infrastructure, judicial capacity, and legal culture.

Mandates must be contextual, with safeguards and opt‑out mechanisms.

Emphasis should be on systemic reforms: e‑courts, case triage, alternative dispute resolution frameworks.

Conclusion

Judicial reform demands holistic solutions. Mediation may help, but without addressing deeper structural inefficiencies, it risks becoming a token gesture rather than transformative change.