The need for trainers, training of mediators and some essential infrastructure and legal framework was emphasized by speakers at the second technical session of the Legal Leadership Conclave on Arbitration & Mediation organised by India Legal magazine and ENC group at Bengaluru today (Saturday, August 17).
The session was chaired by former Supreme Court judge, Justice RV Raveendran with Karnataka Lokayukta Justice PV Shetty as the co-chairperson.
Justice BV Nagarathna, speaking on Mediation: Achievements and Challenges, referred to Justice P V Shetty as “a progressive judge” to say “we have progressive judges on the bench, there will be progress in the bar also.”
She said the Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhiwas an effective mediator who, before coming to India, spent most of his professional life in South Africa, more as a mediator than as an advocate speaking for one side only.
To make a point on the importance and relevance of mediation, she quoted from his autobiography, “after a successful mediation, but both were happy over the result, and both rose in the public estimation. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite Parties riven asunder. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby- not even money, certainly not my soul.”
“This should be an inspiration for us in Mediation,” said Justice Nagarathna, “restricted not only to the learned mediators, message is more to our advocates – give Mediation as a process of alternative dispute resolution.”
Giving a little background of mediation in India, she said Section 89 of the court procedure, under which Mediation is recognized as the alternative to settlement of disputes between the parties, was there in 1908, but was deleted in 1940 and re-inserted in 2002.
Now SC has exhorted the state government and central governments to take action for bringing into effect alternative disputes resolution.
She said, “Legalfraternity talks of two concepts – Docket explosion and Docket exclusion. Today’s conclave is about Docket Explosion, how to curtail the Docket explosion in courts. One of the remedies found by legislature is Alternative Dispute resolution – by Mediation.”
She spoke of recognition of Mediation as an effective tool of dispute resolution, noting that the core challenge is to encourage the litigant public to mediate the disputes.
The second aspect relates to infrastructure for the mediation of disputes, which has two fold aspects: (i) software – we should have trained mediators and (ii) hardware – facilities and amenities.
Among other points she made were:
Training of the mediators and providing corresponding facilities to the trainers, the mediators and the litigants is a challenge.
Emphasis should be not only training mediators but updation of legal knowledge too is important.
Parliamentary recognition of Mediation is an achievement.
Corresponding implementation is a challenge.
United Nations Convention on International settlements, agreements resulting from mediation know as Singapore Convention on Mediation are only for international commercial disputes. This is a Pre-Arbitration Mediation proceedings but implementation is a challenge as far as India is concern.
Emphasis is on the need for a Pre-Arbitration Mediation.
Challenges of Mediation
Lack of trained mediators: content, schedule of training
Lack of trainers
Lack of referrals
Lack of infrastructure particularly in district levels.
Absence of suitable legislation – central/ parliamentary legislation on mediation
Resistance amongst basic actors and stake holders namely judges, lawyers and litigants towards mediation.
Lack of mediation managements.
Lack of adequate funds
Ending on a secular note, she said, “We are all warriors seeking justice, resolution of disputes, we want there should be peace in society and peace is now guaranteed through mediation because relationship is restored. “
Senior advocate Shiv Kumar spoke on “Med-Arb : Need for Statutory Reforms and Trainings” and talked about the gaps in the system.
“We do not have a definition of ADR we do not even have a definition of Arbitration, we also do not have a definition for Med-Arb or Arb-Med,” he said.
He said we need a definition “because in this country a lot of us believe that ‘khaap panchayats’ and ‘honor killings’ is also Alternative Dispute Resolution methods. “
What we really need, he said, is to recognize and accept Med-Arb (mediation-arbitration) as a form of ADR.
“So, the first Statutory Reform that we need is the amendment of section 89-1 which will record in addition to what is already recorded the concept of Med-Arb, Arb-Med and neutral evaluation as a form of dispute resolution,” he said.
He said what is needed as a Legislative Reform is a comprehensive Code not on Mediation but on ADR.
He ended by stressing that “what ae need is creation of an independent autonomous body outside of government control on the lines of the ISO 2000-2001organizations that certify quality, and also the creation of a Dispute Resolution Ombudsmen who will have powers to supervise and receive and deal with complaints against this process.”
Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu had as his topic “Arbitration and Mediation: strange bed fellows or harmonious partners “.
Panchu started with the observation that “In every litigation, relationship goes for a toss.”Mediation respects relationships, promotes them and tries to save and salvage every bit of harmony left.
Panchu quoted Chief Justice Menon of Singapore on the question of choice of mediation as dispute resolution mechanism – “What’s not to like about it?”
Pointing out a distinction between Arbitration and mediation, he said Arbitration is result oriented. “Combining mediation and arbitration has one hurdle – confidentiality of mediation proceedings is breached in arbitration. So, one way is a mediator should never become the arbitrator in the same case,” he said.
He suggested that the structure of contracts should be such as to place mediation clause before arbitration. Courts can then enforce the contract terms and contribute in effective dispute settlement. He said it was his experience that parties would want to mediate at any stage of arbitration.
He said an effective tool is the mediator sits with arbitrators while all arguments are put forth and gains complete knowledge of the case. And then, before the arbitral award is arrived at or declared, mediator speaks with parties to arrive at a mutually accepted decision.
He said mediation considers human factors like equity, fairness, family relations, emotions and sentiments that have no room in the adversarial process of litigation or arbitration where the binding verdict necessarily puts one party at a disadvantage. The basic philosophy underlying conflict resolution is “Consensus before adversarial”.
“Training is essential for mediators. Not every good arbitrator is a natural mediator. Mediation should be a professional career option. Else it will never flourish. It has always taken a backseat, which it shouldn’t. We must focus on supply of well-trained mediators as it will also bring down the case pendency scenario in India,” said Panchu.
“Then it is going to be Appropriate Dispute Resolution instead of Alternate Dispute Resolution,” concluded Panchu.
Prof. (Dr) Ashok R Patil, spoke on “Online Mediation: the Future Technique of Mediation”. He noted that as per the Supreme Court, access to Justice should satisfy four essential elements: (i) Effective adjuratory Mechanism (ii) Reasonable accessible in terms of distance (iii) Must be speedy (iv) Affordable
Online mediation is a better method to achieve justice with these elements.
Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is of two types: i) Synchronized interaction – like teleconferencing, and ii) Asynchronized – text based chatting.
All three parties have to be present at the same time in the first interaction, which is not so in Asynchronized interaction
An advantage of ODR is that information can be shared online, so that all privacy is ensured.
Prof Patil said there is huge scope for ODR in India. Citing a Government of India meeting last year, he said 3 crore pending cases can be solved by online mediation.
Deepak Sharma, Managing Director of North-Starcom MediaVest Group, talked about branding India as an International Mediation hub.
He started by noting that branding India in any way when our methodology and technology is still developing, could only result in failure. “Since the rise of consumerism, the aim of branding is to evoke response and engagement, mapping India on the global platform as an arbitration hub may not be best right now,” held Sharma.
Rahul Gandhi urges Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah to enact Rohith Vemula Act to end caste-based discrimination
“There was plenty of food with us… but we were to sleep without food; that was because we could get no water, and we could get no water because we were untouchables,” Gandhi quoted Ambedkar.
In a significant move aimed at addressing caste-based discrimination within the education system, Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and senior Congress leader, has written to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah advocating for the implementation of the ‘Rohith Vemula Act’. This proposed legislation aims to ensure that no student in Karnataka faces discrimination due to their caste.
In his letter dated April 16, Gandhi reflected on the struggles and indignities faced by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a key figure in India’s fight against caste discrimination. He recounted a powerful incident described by Ambedkar from his childhood, highlighting the harsh realities of being labelled an “untouchable” and the systemic barriers that prevented him from accessing basic necessities and an equal education.
“There was plenty of food with us… but we were to sleep without food; that was because we could get no water, and we could get no water because we were untouchables,” Gandhi quoted Ambedkar.
Gandhi emphasised that despite the progress made, millions of students from Dalit, Adivasi, and OBC communities continue to experience unjust discrimination within the educational framework. “It is a shame that even today, our educational system perpetuates such brutal discrimination,” he declared.
The Congress leader further expressed his grievances regarding the tragic losses of young lives due to caste-based discrimination, citing the suicides of students like Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi, and Darshan Solanki as evidence of the urgent need for legislative action. “Such horrific incidents cannot be tolerated at any cost. It is time to end this cycle of injustice,” he stated.
Gandhi shared his thoughts on the social media platform X, revealing insights from recent discussions he had with students and teachers from underprivileged backgrounds in Parliament, who recounted their ongoing experiences of discrimination in higher education. He reaffirmed Ambedkar’s belief that education is a vital tool for empowerment and breaking the caste system, a principle he feels remains unfulfilled.
Expressing the need for immediate action, Gandhi urged the Karnataka government to prioritise the enactment of the Rohith Vemula Act, ensuring that no child in India endures the discrimination and hardships experienced by Ambedkar, Vemula, and countless others.
Rohith Vemula, a Dalit student, tragically took his life in 2016 due to the pressures of caste-based discrimination, igniting a national conversation about the urgent need for reform within educational institutions to protect vulnerable student populations. The push for the ‘Rohith Vemula Act’ has gained momentum among Dalit and student groups seeking systemic changes to safeguard against discrimination in education.
Opposition leaders on Thursday fiercely criticised Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for his recent statements on the judiciary, accusing him of undermining its authority and veering close to contempt.
Leaders from the Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and notable legal figures condemned Dhankhar’s remarks as disrespectful to constitutional principles.
Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala emphasised the supremacy of the Constitution, stating, “In our democracy, no office—whether President, Prime Minister, or Governor—stands above constitutional accountability.”
He praised the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling, which set a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills reserved by governors, calling it a bold and necessary check on high offices.
TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee accused Dhankhar of repeatedly disrespecting the judiciary. “His comments on Supreme Court judges are unacceptable and nearly contemptuous. As a constitutional figure, he must respect other institutions,” Banerjee asserted.
DMK leader Tiruchi Siva labelled Dhankhar’s remarks as “unacceptable,” stressing that no one, regardless of their position, can delay legislative bills indefinitely. “The rule of law must prevail over institutional overreach,” Siva said.
Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal defended Article 142, which grants the Supreme Court authority to issue orders for “complete justice.” He questioned, “This power is enshrined in the Constitution to ensure justice. Who is obstructing the President’s authority?”
Dhankhar’s controversial remarks were made during an address to Rajya Sabha interns on April 17, where he called Article 142 a “constant threat to democratic forces” and challenged the judiciary’s right to impose deadlines on the President. He also questioned why judges require judicial approval for FIRs, noting that only the President and Governors enjoy constitutional immunity from prosecution.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) defended Dhankhar, accusing the opposition of hypocrisy. BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla retorted, “The opposition, which ignores parliamentary laws, mocks the Vice President, and shields rioters for votes, has no moral ground to lecture on constitutional propriety.”
FASTag won’t be discontinued from May 1: Govt clears rumours on new tolling technology
While new technological approaches are under consideration, MoRTH clarified that the ongoing pilot tests featuring Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems at selected toll plazas are meant to enhance, not replace, FASTag functionalities.
The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) has dismissed rampant rumours regarding the discontinuation of the FASTag system effective May 1, 2025. In an official statement released on Friday, the ministry reiterated that it has no intention of phasing out FASTag or replacing it with a satellite-based tolling system in the immediate future.
Authorities cautioned the public against believing misleading reports and viral messages that suggest FASTag will be eliminated, emphasising that the system remains active and mandatory for toll payments across the nation.
While new technological approaches are under consideration, MoRTH clarified that the ongoing pilot tests featuring Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems at selected toll plazas are meant to enhance, not replace, FASTag functionalities.
Understanding the hybrid tolling model
The proposed hybrid model seeks to combine the existing Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID)-based FASTag with ANPR technology. This innovative approach aims to facilitate barrier-less toll collection; sophisticated high-resolution cameras will capture vehicle number plates and link them with FASTag accounts for a more efficient toll payment process.
The ministry is currently assessing the hybrid system’s potential to:
Decrease congestion at toll plazas
Accelerate vehicle flow
Provide motorists with a smoother, uninterrupted tolling experience
However, MoRTH has confirmed that the hybrid model is still in the pilot phase and no final decision regarding its nationwide implementation has been established.
Although FASTag will not be replaced, the ministry stressed the importance of compliance under the hybrid system. Vehicle owners who neglect toll payment procedures may receive electronic notices, face suspension of their FASTag accounts, or incur penalties as per the VAHAN vehicle registration database.
The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways strongly urged motorists to disregard false information regarding the discontinuation of FASTag. Official updates on any changes to the tolling system will be communicated through trusted channels. The public is encouraged to stay informed by visiting the official websites at www.nhai.gov.in and morth.nic.in.
Fact Check: Claim: A satellite-based tolling system will replace FASTag starting May 1, 2025. Fact: This claim has been labelled false, as MoRTH has confirmed that FASTag will remain in use beyond the specified date.
APN News is today the most watched and the most credible and respected news channel in India. APN has been at the forefront of every single news revolution. The channel is being recognized for its in-depth, analytical reportage and hard hitting discussions on burning issues; without any bias or vested interests.