Why Forcing Settlement Can Backfire In Indian Courts
Have you ever tried to force two arguing friends to shake hands before they are ready? It rarely works. The same rule applies in Indian courtrooms and legal disputes.
Recently, Delhi High Court judge Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani stated that forcing parties into mediation is always a bad idea. Speaking at the Commercial Mediation Conclave 2026, he explained that there is no universally correct stage to attempt a settlement.
According to the report, the right time for mediation depends entirely on the nature of the dispute. It also depends on whether both sides genuinely want to resolve the matter out of court.
When Does Mediation Actually Work?
Litigation in India is often long, expensive, and emotionally exhausting. Justice Bhambhani noted that parties usually become receptive to mediation only after suffering from litigation fatigue.
Once court cases drag on for years, it finally dawns on people that they might be walking down the wrong road. Furthermore, parties may open up to settlement once the true strengths and weaknesses of their cases become clearer.
In ongoing business relationships, such as construction contracts, parties often have practical reasons to save their association. However, pushing them into a mediation room too early achieves very little.
What The Law Says About Mediation
Under Indian civil law, courts have the power to encourage settlements out of court. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) allows courts to refer disputes to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, including mediation and arbitration.
While Section 89 promotes speedy justice and reduces the burden on courts, legal experts argue that the process must remain voluntary. Forcing an unwilling party into mediation often turns the session into a mere formality rather than a genuine attempt at peace.
Why Government Officers Fear Settlements
Settling commercial disputes involving government bodies and Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) comes with unique hurdles. Former Supreme Court judge Justice Hima Kohli pointed out that government officers are often petrified of taking independent calls on settlements.
Officers frequently worry about audit inquiries, future corruption allegations, and harsh career consequences. Because of this fear, they often prefer to pass the buck by saying, Let the court decide.
To fix this, experts suggest that high-powered committees of senior officers should provide institutional backing. Giving officers proper financial authority and institutional support can reduce individual fear and encourage fair settlements.
Do Judges Make Good Mediators?
Another major debate at the conclave was who should act as a mediator. Former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph noted that merely wearing a judge’s robe does not automatically qualify someone to be a mediator.
Justice Hima Kohli added that being a judge requires a completely different mantle than being a mediator. A mediator’s role should never overlap with judicial authority.
Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya raised concerns about using generalist retired judges for highly technical commercial matters, such as power-sector tariff disputes. He argued that statutory mediation institutions must build a pool of specialist commercial experts rather than relying solely on judges experienced in family or matrimonial disputes.
Why This Matters For You
Mediation is a powerful tool to save time, money, and mental stress. However, as top legal minds point out, it cannot be treated as a one-size-fits-all box to tick. True resolution requires the right timing, willing participants, and experts who truly understand the underlying business problems.
Voluntary mediation saves court resources, but forced mediation only delays justice.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
