Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant emphasized the growing importance of mediation as an effective tool for resolving commercial disputes, noting that arbitration is increasingly burdened by procedural complexities. Addressing the topic, ‘Mediation, Arbitration, and the Courts: Converging Trends in the Indian and English Approaches to Commercial Dispute Resolution,’ Justice Kant remarked that arbitration is creating a parallel layer of litigation, which often compromises its intended efficiency.
Speaking at an event hosted by the UK Supreme Court and Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji, Justice Kant expressed, “It is my earnest belief that as international arbitration has increasingly mirrored the procedural complexities it sought to escape, mediation emerges as the authentic frontier of commercial ease.” His comments were introduced by UK Supreme Court Judge Lord George Leggatt, who highlighted the vast workload handled by the Indian Supreme Court compared to its UK counterpart.
Lord Leggatt noted, “The UK Supreme Court, with 12 justices, handles around 250 cases annually, while the Supreme Court of India, with roughly three times as many judges, disposed of about 75,000 cases last year.” He expressed amazement at Justice Kant’s ability to manage such a workload while accepting the invitation to speak.
Justice Kant further elaborated on the challenges arbitration faces, including issues related to the validity of agreements, arbitrator appointments, and jurisdictional disputes, often leading to prolonged procedural battles. He emphasized that mediation, rooted in India’s civilizational traditions, should not be seen merely as a Western import but as a revitalization of indigenous dispute resolution methods.
Citing the Mediation Act, 2023, Justice Kant stated, “This statutory milestone is frequently mischaracterized as a mere imitation of Western corporate trends. In truth, it represents an act of jurisprudential repatriation, harmonizing ancient civilizational wisdom with the demands of global commerce.” He referenced traditional Indian institutions like Kula (family councils), Shreni (merchant guilds), and Puga (territorial assemblies) as evidence of India’s longstanding tradition of consensual dispute resolution.
The enactment of the Mediation Act marks a significant shift, elevating mediation to a central role in commercial justice. The Act mandates pre-litigation mediation, ensures confidentiality, and grants mediated settlements the status of enforceable court decrees. Justice Kant urged commercial entities to focus on ‘process conveniens’ over ‘forum conveniens,’ advocating for the assessment of whether disputes require court adjudication, arbitration, or mediation.
While acknowledging advancements in arbitration in India and the UK, Justice Kant cautioned that arbitration is increasingly resembling the procedural burdens it was meant to alleviate. He recognized similar concerns in other jurisdictions, including the UK, which is addressing these through reforms in the UK’s Arbitration Act, 2025.
Justice Kant advocated for strengthening mediation through professional accreditation, institutional support, and a cultural shift within the corporate sector. He stated, “We must cultivate a new paradigm where opting for mediation is recognized as a hallmark of commercial sophistication, financial wisdom, and strategic maturity.”
The Chief Justice concluded by emphasizing that courts, arbitration, and mediation should not be seen as competing systems but as complementary. “While the court provides the architecture of certainty, mediation serves as the adaptive mechanism for private commercial harmony,” he said, highlighting their mutual sustenance.
