Mediation is meant to ease the judiciary’s burden while ensuring timely justice.
Published Jan 10, 2026 | 7:41 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 10, 2026 | 7:43 PM
Mediation services are offered free of cost, with a refund of court fees on settlement.
Synopsis: Principal issues confronting mediation centres include the lack of permanent and exclusive spaces for mediation, the inability to ensure confidentiality, inadequate physical and digital infrastructure, a shortage of trained and permanent staff, and the absence of basic amenities.
As courts across the country grapple with mounting pendency and delayed justice, mediation has steadily emerged as a quiet but powerful alternative—offering disputing parties a faster, consensual and less adversarial path to resolution.
Actively encouraged by the government and legally backed by Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, mediation is meant to ease the judiciary’s burden while ensuring timely justice.
In Kerala, this vision has taken institutional shape through 82 mediation centres functioning under the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre (KSMCC).
But beneath the promise of dialogue and confidentiality lies a stark reality.
A suo motu writ petition initiated by the Kerala High Court has brought to light serious infrastructural deficiencies plaguing these centres—ranging from the absence of permanent venues and basic amenities to a lack of privacy, staff and digital connectivity.
These shortcomings, the court observed, strike at the very core of mediation, where confidentiality and a conducive environment are essential for meaningful settlement.
Mediation is a voluntary and confidential mode of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in which a neutral third party facilitates dialogue between disputing parties to help them arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement, without imposing any decision.
The KSMCC, conceived as a progressive initiative of the Kerala High Court with the support and guidance of the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) of the Supreme Court of India, was envisioned as a cornerstone of judicial reform.
With 82 mediation centres spread across the state — including an ADR Centre in the High Court, 14 District Mediation Centres, 2 Additional District Centres, and 65 Mediation Sub Centres — the project aimed to institutionalise mediation as an effective, accessible and humane alternative to adversarial litigation.
However, the gap between vision and execution prompted judicial scrutiny.
On 17 November 2025, the Kerala High Court initiated a suo motu petition to examine the severe inadequacy of infrastructure at mediation and ADR centres across the state.
Recognising the gravity of the issue, the court appointed Advocate Adarsh Kumar as amicus curiae to assist in evaluating the on-ground realities and proposing remedial measures.
The findings reveal a system under strain.
The principal issues confronting mediation centres include the lack of permanent and exclusive spaces for mediation, the inability to ensure confidentiality, inadequate physical and digital infrastructure, a shortage of trained and permanent staff, and the absence of basic amenities.
The failure to guarantee privacy — a core principle of mediation — directly undermines the process, discouraging open communication and trust between parties.
The amicus curiae’s report painted a disturbing picture.
In many centres, even basic facilities such as fans, separate washrooms for men and women, drinking water and waiting areas are absent.
Several Sub Mediation Centres lack water purifiers altogether, causing significant discomfort to litigants.
The situation is worse in remote centres like Peerumedu, Idukki and Nedumkandom, where there is reportedly zero stock of computers, laptops, printers, UPS systems, scanners, furniture, fans or internet connectivity.
Alarmingly, this deprivation is not confined to rural areas alone.
Even urban centres such as Ettumanoor have no computers, internet, office furniture or basic amenities, despite having as many as 11 mediators attached to the centre.
Despite the growing reliance on technology-enabled dispute resolution, the lack of internet connectivity is a near-universal problem across mediation centres.
Only a handful — including the High Court Mediation Centre, District Mediation Centres at Ernakulam, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Thrissur, and Sub Centres at Cherthala, Vaikom and Changanassery — have functional internet facilities.
The High Court Mediation Centre remains the only centre with a full-fledged online mediation setup.
In most other centres, online mediation, when unavoidable, is conducted through the personal mobile phones of mediators and parties, severely compromising quality, confidentiality and effectiveness.
The Court noted the urgent need for dedicated rooms equipped with computers, cameras, sound systems and stable video conferencing facilities in every centre.
In several locations, old and unused courtrooms are being repurposed as mediation spaces, as seen in Karunagappally.
Most cubicles are narrow, congested and poorly ventilated, with malfunctioning fans aggravating discomfort during the summer months.
Such conditions not only deter participation but also erode the confidentiality essential to mediation, often resulting in dissatisfaction and failed settlements.
A significant proportion of mediation cases involve matrimonial disputes, with litigants often attending sessions accompanied by young children.
Yet, mediation centres lack designated waiting areas or child-friendly spaces.
This absence leads to frequent interruptions, heightened stress and emotionally charged environments that are fundamentally incompatible with reconciliation efforts, reducing the prospects of successful mediation even in otherwise resolvable cases.
The report also flags serious accessibility concerns.
Many mediation centres are located on upper floors without lifts or ground-floor facilities, making attendance difficult for senior citizens and persons with disabilities.
This directly contradicts the inclusive ethos of mediation as an accessible form of justice.
The staffing situation further compounds the crisis.
Permanent posts exist only in 14 District and 2 Additional District Mediation Centres, that too on a deputation basis.
None of the 65 Mediation Sub Centres have permanent staff.
Often, court staff or office attenders unfamiliar with ADR systems are assigned mediation-related duties temporarily, rotated every few months.
This lack of continuity and expertise affects both administration and service delivery.
Even where solutions have been identified, execution remains sluggish.
At Ernakulam, Thodupuzha and Ponnani, alternative buildings for mediation centres have been earmarked, but possession has not yet been handed over to the judiciary.
In Ernakulam, substantial renovation through the Public Works Department is still pending, delaying much-needed relief.
The High Court has taken serious note of the reports submitted by the Director of the Mediation Centre and the amicus curiae, observing that the situation calls for immediate and urgent intervention.
A priority list prepared by the KSMCC highlights multiple centres where infrastructure is grossly insufficient, with temporary arrangements continuing years after inception.
The Court underlined that mediation cannot succeed without adequate infrastructure, privacy and trained personnel.
In its order dated 6 January, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar VM underscored that the failure to ensure proper confidentiality strikes at the very heart of the mediation process.
The court observed that the absence of privacy discourages parties from engaging meaningfully in mediation, with the impact felt most acutely in sensitive matters such as matrimonial disputes.
When litigants are unable to speak freely due to inadequate spaces and compromised confidentiality, they inevitably withdraw from effective participation, rendering mediation a mere formality.
Emphasising that mediation cannot thrive on makeshift arrangements, the bench made it clear that the state carries a constitutional and institutional obligation to provide adequate infrastructure, including secure venues and facilities that guarantee privacy, dignity and confidence in the process.
Placing its position on record, the state informed the division bench that concrete steps have been initiated to address the long-standing infrastructural and staffing deficiencies of mediation centres across Kerala.
Pursuant to the court’s directions issued on 1 December 2025, a high-level joint meeting was convened on 22 December 2025 involving the Law Secretary to the Government of Kerala, the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, the Director of the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, and the Joint Secretary, Home Department.
The meeting comprehensively reviewed the ground-level challenges faced by various mediation centres and resulted in the preparation of a priority list identifying centres requiring immediate intervention.
It was acknowledged that both the Kerala State Legal Services Authority and the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre are currently constrained by inadequate funds to meet essential infrastructural and staffing needs.
The Law Secretary assured that steps would be taken to prepare detailed estimates through the Public Works Department for the construction of mediation cubicles and allied facilities, and to seek dedicated financial allocation from the Finance Department under a separate head, including annual provisions for recurring expenses.
Proposals were also mooted for the creation of Nodal Officer posts in Mediation Sub-Centres and for overall augmentation of facilities.
Taking note of these developments, the division bench on 6 January observed that the foundational groundwork had been laid and emphasised the need for sustained implementation and monitoring.
Acting on the State Attorney’s suggestion, the court approved the constitution of a committee comprising the officers present in the 22 December meeting, along with the Additional Chief Secretaries of the Finance and Public Works Departments, to ensure coordinated, time-bound execution of decisions and avoid procedural delays.
The division bench, in its order on 6 January, underscored that effective mediation cannot thrive without a strong institutional backbone and therefore issued comprehensive directions to address the long-standing infrastructural and administrative gaps in mediation centres across Kerala.
The court then ordered the constitution of a high-level Mediation Infrastructure Committee, bringing together the judiciary and key arms of the state administration.
By ensuring representation from the High Court, Legal Services Authority, Mediation Centre, and crucial government departments such as Law, Finance, Home and Public Works, the bench emphasised coordinated and accountable governance.
The court further directed that the Director of the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre act as the coordinator to ensure continuity and effective implementation.
Periodic meetings, preferably every two months, were mandated to enable joint decision-making and close monitoring of progress, with reports and minutes to be formally placed on record.
The bench also insisted on institutional oversight by requiring regular reporting to the Executive Chairman, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, who is the Patron of the KCMCC and the President of the Board of Governors, KSMCC.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
