SC judge advises wider use of mediation in family feuds

1. At a Glance

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Supreme Court judge and Chair of the SC's Committee for Family Court Matters, has called for greater use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), especially mediation and conciliation, in family disputes. [1]
• Her argument is that ADR complements courts and does not compete with them. It offers speed, privacy and confidentiality that ordinary litigation often cannot. [1]
• The topic sits where three syllabus areas meet: judicial pendency, access to justice and family law / gender justice. The statutory base is the Mediation Act, 2023. [1][2]
• It is useful for GS-II (Judiciary, Dispute redressal mechanisms) and as examples for the Essay and GS-IV papers.

2. Why in the News

• Justice Nagarathna gave the inaugural address on "ADR versus Adjudication in Family Disputes: Challenges and Way Forward" at the Eastern Zone Regional Conference of the Committee for Family Court Matters. The Supreme Court held the conference with the Gauhati High Court in Guwahati. [1]
• The article appeared in The Hindu on 27 September 2026. It says the address was given on "Saturday", which was 26 September 2026. [1]
• She cited Department of Justice data: 822 functioning family courts as of October 2024. [1]
• She also gave eastern-State pendency figures. Bihar has the most, with 70,365 pending cases. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• Mediation Bill, 2021: introduced in Parliament and referred to the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee, which reported on it in the Rajya Sabha. [4][5]
• Mediation Act, 2023 (Act No. 32 of 2023): a consolidated law on mediation. It is described as a pivotal reform that gives mediation full legal recognition and encourages out-of-court, amicable settlement. [2][6]
• Commercial Courts Act, 2015: provides pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes. This is an earlier sector-specific model of compulsory ADR. [8]
• National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms: a Union Government mission whose strategy stresses ADR and fast-tracking special categories of cases. [6]
• Family courts, technology: the Government has reported on video-conferencing facilities in family courts in Parliament/PIB. [7]
• 2026: the SC's Committee for Family Court Matters is holding zonal conferences; the Eastern Zone meeting was held in Guwahati. [1]

4. Core Static Facts

Eastern-State pendency in family courts (as cited by Justice Nagarathna) [1]:

Key terms

• ADR: ways of resolving disputes outside ordinary court adjudication, such as mediation and conciliation. [1]
• Adjudication: the court gives a binding decision after an adversarial process.
• Mediation: a neutral third party helps the parties reach their own settlement.
• Conciliation: a more active neutral who may suggest terms of settlement.

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The Mediation Act, 2023 gives mediation a single statutory framework. It covers pre-litigation mediation, a 180-day limit, and how mediators are appointed and mediation conducted. [2][6]
• The Act can be used for compoundable matrimonial offences, which links the criminal and family-law tracks. [2]
• Faster justice relates to the Article 21 reading of speedy justice and to Article 39A (equal justice and free legal aid). These Articles are standard constitutional background and are not in the retrieved sources.

Social / Gender

• Justice Nagarathna said long delay means "any semblance of subsisting familial bond" is lost by the time of judgment. [1]
• She warned that delay deepens existing inequalities within families. Economically dependent spouses, often women, and children bear most of the cost. [1]
• Privacy and confidentiality protect family dignity and reduce stigma. [1]

Administrative / Judicial

• There are 822 family courts (Oct 2024), yet pendency is high in eastern States. Bihar alone has more than 70,000 pending cases. [1]
• The SC committee's zonal conferences are organised with High Courts, so reform works through the judiciary's own administration. [1]
• Technology is part of the response, for example video-conferencing in family courts. [7]

Governance / Ethical

• ADR fits the idea of restorative, non-adversarial justice. The aim is to settle the dispute and preserve relationships, not to "win". [1]
• Main concerns: power imbalance between parties in mediation, coercion into settlement (especially in domestic-violence cases), and quality and accreditation of mediators.

Economic

• Lower litigation costs for families and less load on the courts.
• The Commercial Courts Act's pre-institution mediation is a working precedent for ADR that saves time. [8]

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• Oct 2024: Department of Justice records 822 functioning family courts. Cited in September 2026. [1]
• 6 Oct 2025: India Code publishes an updated text of the Mediation Act, 2023 ("as on the 6th October, 2025"). [2]
• PIB: Parliament answers on video-conferencing facilities in family courts and on commercial disputes settled through pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. [7][8]
• 26 Sep 2026: Justice Nagarathna's inaugural address at the Eastern Zone Regional Conference in Guwahati. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• The Mediation Act was enacted in 2023 as Act No. 32 of 2023. [2]
• Under the Mediation Act, 2023, mediation must finish within a maximum of 180 days. [2][6]
• The Act provides for voluntary pre-litigation mediation in civil or commercial disputes. [2][6]
• The Act lists disputes not fit for mediation. Not every dispute can be mediated. [6]
• Courts may refer compoundable matrimonial offences to mediation. [2]
• The Mediation Act is administered by the Ministry of Law & Justice. [2]
• The Mediation Bill of 2021 preceded the Act and was examined by a Parliamentary Standing Committee. [4][5]
• India had 822 functioning family courts as of October 2024 (Department of Justice). [1]
• Among eastern States, Bihar has the highest family-court pendency: 70,365 cases. [1]
• Eastern-State order of pendency: Bihar > Odisha > Jharkhand > Assam > Tripura. [1]
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna chairs the Supreme Court's Committee for Family Court Matters. [1]
• The Eastern Zone Regional Conference (2026) was held in Guwahati with the Gauhati High Court. [1]
• The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides pre-institution mediation. [8]
• The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms stresses ADR as a strategy. [6]

8. Why Mediation Is Not Safe for Every Family Dispute

• The weaker spouse has the least power at the table
• Justice Nagarathna said delay hurts economically dependent spouses, often women, and children the most [1].
• The same person is also the weakest in a negotiation. A spouse with no income may agree to a poor settlement just to get some money quickly.

• Mediation only works as well as the balance of power between the two sides allows. Speed does not fix that imbalance.

• The criminal and family tracks now overlap

• Courts can send compoundable matrimonial offences to mediation [2]. A compoundable offence is a crime the victim is legally allowed to settle with the accused.

• So a wife who has filed a criminal complaint can be pushed towards a settlement she does not really want. The pressure may come from family, from the husband's side, or from simple tiredness with the case.

• The law has a safety valve, but only a partial one

• Mediation is normally confidential. Under the Bill, however, no confidentiality applies to information about domestic violence or child abuse [4].
• That lets abuse be reported. It does not stop an abused spouse from being sent into mediation in the first place.
• The Act does list disputes that are not fit for mediation [6]. Whether an abusive marriage falls in that list depends on how each case is labelled at the start.

9. Should Families Be Forced to Try Mediation First?

• The original Bill made pre-litigation mediation compulsory
• Pre-litigation mediation means trying mediation before you file a case in court.

• The Mediation Bill, 2021 required parties to attend at least two mediation sessions. Anyone who skipped them without good reason could be made to pay costs [10].

• Parliament's committee pushed back, and the law changed

• The Standing Committee warned that people would have to wait several months before they could go to court. That could add to delay, not reduce it [10].
• It recommended making pre-litigation mediation optional and bringing it in step by step [10].

• The final Act made it voluntary [2].

• The same committee still saw value for families

• It noted that if matrimonial disputes were settled before litigation, many families would be spared hardship [10].

• The trade-off an aspirant should be able to state

• Voluntary mediation protects the vulnerable spouse from being forced into it. But the stronger side can also simply refuse, and then the case goes to a crowded family court.
• For commercial disputes, India chose the compulsory route: pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [8]. Family law has not copied that model. The reason is the power imbalance described in the section above.

10. Why 180 Days Can Still Be Too Long for a Family

• The time limit was cut, but Parliament's committee wanted it cut further
• The 2021 Bill allowed 180 days, plus a further 180-day extension. That is up to a year [10].
• The Standing Committee proposed 90 days, with at most a 60-day extension [10].

• The Act settled on a maximum of 180 days [2]. That is shorter than the Bill's full year, but longer than the committee's figure.

• In family cases, time changes the outcome itself

• Justice Nagarathna's point was that with long delay, "any semblance of subsisting familial bond" is lost by the time of judgment [1].
• A child's custody arrangement or a spouse's maintenance cannot wait six months the way a contract dispute can.
• So even a 180-day limit is quick only when compared with court. It is not quick for a child whose custody is undecided.

11. The Child Who Is Not a Party to the Case

• A rule meant to protect outsiders could block family mediation
• The 2021 Bill excluded disputes that affect the rights of third parties. A third party is someone who is not one of the two sides in the dispute [10].
• In a divorce, the children are exactly that: not a party, but deeply affected.

• The Standing Committee warned that this exclusion would hit matrimonial mediation where children are involved. It recommended allowing mediation in such cases [10].

• Why this matters for answers

• It shows a real design problem. A rule written for commercial disputes (protecting a stranger's property rights) does not fit family disputes.
• While revising, check how the final Act's list of excluded disputes deals with this point [2][6].

12. More Courts Will Not Fix This Without Mediators

• The pendency is concentrated, not spread evenly
• Among the eastern States, Bihar alone has 70,365 pending family-court cases. Odisha has 36,792 [1].
• Together these two States hold roughly three-quarters of the eastern pendency figures the judge cited [1].

• So the problem is less about the national count of 822 family courts [1] and more about where the cases pile up.

• Mediation needs trained people, and they come from institutions

• Sending cases to mediation only moves the queue unless there are enough skilled family mediators, especially in high-pendency States.
• The Standing Committee wanted the Mediation Council of India to be made up of people with real mediation experience. It also wanted Mediation Councils set up in every State [10].
• Without State-level bodies, the States with the worst backlog may also have the fewest accredited mediators.

13. Who Must Act, and How

• Union Government: build State-level mediation capacity

• Follow the Standing Committee's advice to create Mediation Councils in all States. Start with high-pendency States like Bihar and Odisha [10][1].

• Mediation Council: set a separate standard for family mediators

• Commercial mediation skills do not carry over to custody and maintenance cases. The committee's call for members with real mediation experience [10] should extend to specific family-law training.

• Family courts: screen for violence before sending a case to mediation

• The law already treats domestic violence and child abuse differently from ordinary disputes, since no confidentiality protects them [4].

• Courts should check for signs of abuse before referral, not after a settlement is signed.

• Legal services authorities: use Lok Adalats for pre-litigation settlement

• Lok Adalats already settle disputes at the pre-litigation stage [11]. They give poor litigants a free route before a family case is ever filed.

• SC Committee for Family Court Matters: turn zonal conferences into data

• The committee's zonal conferences with High Courts [1] can track how many referred cases settle, and how many settlements later break down. Nobody can judge whether mediation works without that data.

14. Anchors for Answers

• Data: 822 functioning family courts (Oct 2024, Department of Justice); Bihar has 70,365 pending family-court cases, the highest among eastern States [1]
• Report/Committee: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, report on the Mediation Bill, 2021 (July 2022): make pre-litigation mediation optional; cut the time limit to 90 + 60 days; allow matrimonial mediation where children are involved; set up Mediation Councils in all States [5][10]
• Law/Case: Mediation Act, 2023 (voluntary pre-litigation mediation; 180-day maximum; compoundable matrimonial offences can be referred) [2]; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (compulsory pre-institution mediation) [8]
• Comparison: Commercial disputes in India use compulsory pre-institution mediation [8], while family disputes stay voluntary under the 2023 Act [2]. The difference reflects the power imbalance in family disputes.
• Scheme: Lok Adalats run by Legal Services Institutions settle disputes at the pre-litigation stage [11]; the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms treats ADR as a strategy [6]

15. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary; Dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions; Mechanisms, laws and institutions for protecting vulnerable sections.
• GS-I: Social empowerment; role of women; changes in family structure.
• GS-IV / Essay: Restorative vs retributive justice; compassion and fairness in public institutions.

Possible question stems

1. "Alternative dispute resolution is meant to complement, not compete with, courts." Examine this statement for family disputes in India, with reference to the Mediation Act, 2023. (15 marks)
2. Delay in family litigation deepens inequalities within families. Discuss how mediation can address this, and what safeguards are needed for vulnerable parties. (10 marks)
3. Assess the effectiveness of family courts in India in reducing pendency. What reforms would make them more effective? (15 marks)

16. Related Topics to Study Next

• Mediation Act, 2023, full provisions (Mediation Council, online mediation, community mediation): the statutory core of this topic. [2]
• Commercial Courts Act, 2015, pre-institution mediation: a working model of mandatory ADR. [8]
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: the other main pillar of India's ADR law; learn how it differs from mediation.
• Family Courts Act, 1984: the legal basis for the 822 family courts.
• Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 / Lok Adalats: free legal aid and ADR for the poor.
• National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms: the Government's framework for reducing pendency. [6]
• e-Courts Mission Mode Project / video-conferencing: technology to speed up justice. [7]
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: explains why some family matters are not suitable for mediation.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Mediation ≠ Arbitration. A mediator helps the parties settle and does not impose a decision. An arbitrator gives a binding award under the 1996 Act.
• Pre-litigation mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023 is voluntary. Pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is the separate, sector-specific mechanism. [2][8]
• Time limit: the maximum is 180 days, not 90 or 120. [2][6]
• Only compoundable matrimonial offences can be referred to mediation. Non-compoundable offences cannot. [2]
• Wrong figures and bodies: the correct count is 822 family courts (Oct 2024), from the Department of Justice, not NCRB or NALSA. [1]
• The Committee for Family Court Matters is a Supreme Court body. It is not a Ministry committee. [1]