In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India underscored that mediation cannot be imposed without the mutual consent of all involved parties. This decision came as the Court set aside an order from the Calcutta High Court, which had unilaterally directed mediation in a contempt proceeding, despite objections from one of the parties.
The case originated when the Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO) allotted a plot of land to the appellants in 2011 on a freehold basis for ₹4,00,92,000. Subsequently, in 2012, HIDCO altered the terms, converting the allotment to a 99-year leasehold, citing the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct during the West Bengal Assembly Elections as the reason for this change. Challenging this modification, the appellants filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. While a Single Judge initially dismissed their plea, a Division Bench later ruled in favor of the appellants, declaring HIDCO's actions arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Despite the High Court's clear directive, HIDCO did not execute the sale deed on a freehold basis. Instead, it proposed a new sale price of ₹12,51,47,722, a figure significantly higher than the original amount. This prompted the appellants to initiate contempt proceedings against HIDCO for non-compliance with the court's order. In response, the High Court suggested mediation to resolve the dispute, even though the appellants opposed this route.
The appellants then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision to mandate mediation without their consent. The Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih, observed that mediation is fundamentally a voluntary process that necessitates the agreement of all parties involved. The Court stated, "Mediation cannot be thrusted upon either of the parties." It further criticized the High Court's approach, noting that after having previously recognized the State's obligation to comply with its mandamus and even issuing a notice to the Chief Secretary for enforcement, the High Court erred in referring the matter to mediation without unanimous consent.
The Supreme Court emphasized the sanctity and authority of judicial mandates, asserting that once a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution and remains unchallenged, it must be executed in full, adhering to both its letter and spirit. The Court highlighted that the State's attempt to renegotiate terms, especially after a clear judicial directive, amounted to an aggravated form of contempt. By proposing a new sale price and altering the agreed terms post-judgment, the State was effectively undermining the authority of the judiciary and the finality of its decisions.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order that directed mediation. This ruling reinforces the principle that mediation, as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, hinges on the voluntary participation and mutual consent of all parties. Imposing mediation unilaterally not only contravenes the foundational tenets of the process but also risks diluting the authority of judicial pronouncements. The judgment serves as a crucial reminder that while alternative dispute resolution methods are encouraged, they cannot supplant the imperative of upholding and enforcing clear judicial orders.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.