Court Annexed Mediation Centre

Court-annexed mediation is a form of mediation conducted under the auspices of the court in the pre-trial stage of a case, giving the parties an opportunity to explore whether the dispute can be settled amicably before going to court. In court annexed mediation, the mediation services are provided by the court as a part and parcel of the same judicial system as against Court-Referred Mediation, wherein the court merely refers the matter to a mediator. In April 2005, the first court-annexed mediation Centre was set up at Madras High Court in Chennai followed by Samadhan in Delhi High Court, established in 2006. Today court-annexed mediation Centre(s) have been established in the Supreme Court and in almost all the High Courts across the country.

Legal provisions relating to Court annexed Mediation Centre

The court-annexed mediation centres function under their respective rules, which vary across different regions in India. Notable rules include the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004, Karnataka Civil Mediation Rules, 2005, Himachal Pradesh's rules from 2005, Andhra Pradesh's Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules, 2017, and the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010.

Some of its salient features are as follows:

• Enhanced Participation and Confidence in the Judicial System

In court annexed mediation, judges, lawyers, and litigants actively participate in the mediation process, fostering a sense of collaboration and ownership in reaching a resolution. This active involvement ensures that all parties feel their voices are heard and that they have a stake in the outcome, leading to a higher level of satisfaction with the judicial system.

• Seamless Integration with Existing Legal Framework:

Court-annexed mediation seamlessly integrates mediation services into the existing court structure, ensuring that the mediation process is seen as an extension of the judicial system rather than a separate entity.

Appointment and Qualification of Mediators:

Rules 3 to 5 of the Mediation Rules, 2015 delineates provisions pertaining to qualifications and criteria of appointment of Mediators in Court Annexed Mediation Centres. As per Rule 3(a), mediators are usually appointed by the coordinator of the mediation center. Under Rule 4, these mediators are then empanelled by the respective high court, which prepares a list of those empanelled. A panel of mediators is also prepared by the District Court with the approval of the High Court Mediation Committee. All such appointments under Rule 3(a) are subject to the qualifications under Rule 5, which specifies the following persons as eligible for training as Mediators:

(a) (i) Retired Judges of the Supreme Court of India,

(ii) Retired Judges of the High Court;

(iii) Retired District and Sessions Judges or retired Judges of the Courts of equivalent status.

(iv) Judicial Officers of Higher Judicial Service.

(b) Legal practitioners with at least 10 years' standing at the bar at the level of the Supreme Court or the High Court or the District Court or equivalent status;

(c) Experts or other professionals with at least fifteen years' standing; or retired senior bureaucrats or retired senior executives;

According to Rule 3(b), in exceptional circumstances, the mediator may be directly appointed by the High Court. Such mediators need not meet the aforementioned qualifications (Rule 5) nor should they have been empanelled prior to appointment (Rule 4).

Disqualification:

As per Rule 6 of the Mediation Rules, 2015, the following persons shall be deemed to be disqualified from being empanelled as mediators:

(a) any person who has been adjudged as insolvent or persons

(i) against whom criminal charges involving moral turpitude are framed by a criminal court and are pending; or (ii) persons who have been convicted by a criminal court for any offence involving moral turpitude.

(b) any person against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by the appropriate disciplinary authority which are pending or have resulted in a punishment.

(c) any person who is interested or connected with the subject matter of dispute(s) or is related to any one of the parties or to those who represent them, unless such objection is waived by all the parties in writing.

(d) any legal practitioner who has or is appearing for any of the parties in the suit or in other proceedings (s).

         

State-specific variations in Court-annexed Mediation Centres

Delhi

As per Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation rules, 2004, parties in a suit can mutually agree on a sole Mediator/Conciliator, eliminating the need for strict adherence to predetermined qualifications. Rule 2 further states that where the parties can't agree, the court may require each party to nominate a Mediator/Conciliator or appoint one as it sees fit. Unlike some other states' rules, where the court may appoint a mediator from the panel if parties fail to nominate, Delhi's rules don't specify this option. Additionally, Rule 3 extends the tenure of panels of Mediators/Conciliators to three years, with the possibility of further extension at the discretion of the High Court or District & Sessions Judge. As per Rule 4, Qualifications for mediators include retired judges, experienced legal practitioners, and experts in mediation/conciliation, with Delhi's rules also including Officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Another difference is Rule 18, which specifies the time limit for terminating mediation/conciliation as ninety days unless extended by the court. In some other states the time limit is sixty days.

Karnataka

According to Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, the court retains the authority to appoint one or more mediators, a commonality shared with Delhi and Tamil Nadu. Unlike Tamil Nadu, where parties can collectively agree on mediators without strict adherence to qualifications, Karnataka's rules diverge from this approach. Instead, they allow parties to nominate agreed mediators or have the court appoint them, setting Karnataka apart from Tamil Nadu. Additionally, Rule 3 outlines a comprehensive panel preparation process similar to Delhi's, involving the High Court and lower courts to ensure transparency and accessibility. Another distinctive feature of Karnataka's rules is the specific time limit for mediation. According to Rule 18, mediation terminates after sixty days from the initial appearance before the mediator, unless extended by the referring court for a maximum of thirty additional days. Qualifications for mediators under Rule 4 align closely with those of Delhi and Tamil Nadu, encompassing retired judges, experienced legal practitioners, experts in mediation, and recognized mediation institutions.

Himachal Pradesh

In Himachal Pradesh, the mediation rules stipulate a foundational framework akin to other regions but with distinct nuances. Notably, as per Rule 18, the time limit for mediation in Himachal Pradesh is set at ninety days from the date of the first appearance before the mediator, contrasted with the sixty days observed in regions like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The qualifications required for mediators in Himachal Pradesh defined in Rule 5 are robust, including retired judges from various levels of the judiciary, judicial officers from the Higher Judicial Service, legal practitioners with at least five years of experience, and other professionals with significant expertise. This spectrum of qualifications is broader and somewhat less stringent in terms of the required years at the Bar compared to the fifteen years mandated in states like Karnataka and Delhi. Disqualifications for mediators in Himachal Pradesh are listed under Rule 6. They align closely with those in other jurisdictions, covering insolvency, pending criminal charges or convictions for moral turpitude, pending disciplinary actions, and conflicts of interest that may bias the mediation process.

Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh's mediation regulations closely resemble those of other states in terms of mediator appointment, qualifications, disqualifications, and the time limit for completing mediation. However, there are slight variations; notably Rule 12 (2), which mandates a minimum of seven years of experience at the bar for mediators, diverging from the fifteen-year requirement in some other states.

One distinctive aspect is the oversight of mediator appointments by the High Court Mediation Centre and its Board of Governors as defined under Rule 11. This Board, composed of high court judges appointed by the Chief Justice, holds a pivotal role in ensuring the quality and integrity of the mediation process. They meticulously evaluate mediator qualifications and maintain updated lists of approved mediators, both at the High Court and District Mediation Centres. This centralized authority not only guarantees adherence to prescribed standards but also provides a mechanism for continuous improvement and accountability within the mediation system. While mediators typically serve for three years, the Board of Governors holds the authority to extend their tenure as deemed necessary, under Rule 11(3), reflecting a commitment to fostering excellence and efficacy in the field of mediation.

Tamil Nadu

As per Rule 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010, parties involved in a suit or other proceedings have the option to collectively agree on the appointment of one or more mediators to facilitate mediation. This process allows for flexibility, as the chosen mediator can either be an individual or an institution recognized by the High Court. If agreement cannot be reached on a sole mediator, and there are multiple sets of parties involved, the court may intervene by requiring each party to nominate a mediator or by appointing one as it deems suitable. Similar to other jurisdictions, as per Rule 3(2), the appointment of a mediator in Tamil Nadu need not necessarily be from the panel specified in the rules, nor do they need to possess qualifications outlined in the rules, provided they don't suffer from disqualifications as per the regulations. The process also outlines the creation of a panel of mediators by the High Court, containing details of their qualifications and experiences, to facilitate appointments. As per Rule 5, Qualifications for mediators in Tamil Nadu include retired judges of various courts, legal practitioners with significant standing, and experienced professionals, with provision for training if not falling under specified categories. Rule 6 enumerates disqualification for mediators, including factors like insolvency, pending criminal charges of moral turpitude, convictions, pending disciplinary proceedings, and other categories determined by the High Court. Moreover, according to Rule 19, the time-limit for completion of mediation is specified, with termination occurring after three consecutive meetings in the absence of parties or after sixty days, whichever comes earlier, unless an extension is requested and granted by the court.

Court annexed Mediation Centres in Official Database

Ministry of Law and Justice:

In a document provided by the Minister of Law and Justice, statistical data were shared about the number of cases that have been addressed and resolved through mediation over the last five years, starting from 2018-19 up to 2022-23, and including the ongoing year of 2023-24 up to May.

Details of cases received and settled by Court Annexed Mediation across India from FY 2018-19 to 2023-24 (upto May 2023). LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3903 TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 11-8-2023Retrieved from https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/AU3903.pdf

The following Court-Annexed Mediation Centres publish statistics relating to their case disposal and pendency-related information.

• The Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre:

The Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre publishes statistics relating to Referral and Disposal, Court cases referred, Pre-institution mediation. Pie Charts depicting referral and disposal of cases (March 2006-February 2003) in Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

• The Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre:

The Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre maintains statistics on cases through mediation, categorized as Referred cases, Settled cases, Cases with mediation failure, Cases where parties were unwilling to mediate

• Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre: Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre maintains statistics on cases referred, settled and pending.
  

Research that engages with Court annexed Mediation Centres

Strengthening Mediation in India: An Interim Report on Court Annexed Mediations:

This Interim Report, drawing from doctrinal studies across jurisdictions and partial empirical data from the Delhi and Bangalore Mediation Centres between 2011-2015, highlights key insights for enhancing India's mediation framework. It suggests legislative backing for mediation, government and judiciary collaboration for its institutionalization, ongoing training for mediators, and the introduction of penalties for mediation non-compliance. Data shows Bangalore's mediation practices outperforming Delhi's in terms of referral numbers, case handling, and settlement rates, underlining the need for a unified approach to improve mediation outcomes nationally. This serves as groundwork for a detailed reform strategy to be elaborated in the Final Report.

International experience

• Australia

Mediation in Australia was initially introduced through community justice centers and took a more formal shape with court-annexed programs starting in Victoria in 1983. It gained statutory backing in 1991, allowing courts to refer cases to ADR methods like arbitration or mediation. This evolved into the Civil Dispute Resolution Act of 2011, which mandated ADR before litigation. Australian mediation practices are also notable for the inclusion of specific tribunals with mediation mandates, particularly for family and native title disputes, where criteria for mediation referrals are judicially assessed. These developments highlight Australia's progressive approach to embedding mediation within the legal framework, promoting ADR as a preliminary step before courtroom proceedings.

• United Kingdom

Civil mediation in the UK was formalized in the 1980s, inspired by Sander's multi-door courthouse concept, which heralded a shift towards institutionalized dispute resolution. Initially, mediation focused on family disputes, with practice directions issued by family courts and the establishment of the National Family Conciliation Council (NFCC) in 1981. The approach soon expanded to include civil and commercial disputes, supported by the broader legal community including lawyers, judges, academics, and government bodies like the Department of Trade and Industry.

The introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1998, following Lord Woolf's recommendations, marked a significant advancement in court-annexed mediation. These rules simplified procedures, encouraged out-of-court settlements, and promoted judicial case management, which required judges to actively recommend ADR methods. This framework significantly reduced court caseloads and underscored the efficiency of court-connected ADR systems over private mediation programs.