Supreme Court Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has observed that the younger generation of lawyers, particularly Gen Z, may be more receptive to mediation than previous generations if they receive proper training and are made aware of the professional opportunities available in the field. Speaking about the future of alternative dispute resolution in India, the Judge emphasised that mediation should not be treated merely as another compulsory subject in law school. Instead, law students should be exposed to mediation in a manner that allows them to understand its practical importance, professional potential and role in reducing the burden on courts. His observations highlight the need for a cultural shift in legal education and practice so that mediation becomes an integral part of the legal profession rather than remaining secondary to traditional litigation.
Justice Singh made these observations on August 8, 2026, during a fireside chat with Senior Advocate Rajeev Virmani at the International ADR Conference 2026 organised by the Maadhyam International Council for Conflict Resolution in New Delhi. The discussion focused on alternative dispute resolution and the potential of mediation in India's justice-delivery system. Justice Singh spoke particularly about the younger generation of lawyers and the need to introduce them to mediation at an early stage. According to him, Gen Z lawyers may be willing to embrace mediation more readily than older generations if the profession is presented to them properly and if they receive adequate education and training.
The Judge referred to his interaction with around 15 interns whom he had asked about the way mediation was taught in their law colleges. Their responses indicated that mediation was generally treated as a relatively insignificant subject, something taught “just like another” subject rather than an important component of legal education. Justice Singh contrasted this with the importance traditionally attached to moot court competitions. Moot courts are often actively promoted among law students because they provide practical exposure to courtroom advocacy, legal research, argumentation and litigation. Justice Singh suggested that a similar level of encouragement and institutional support should be given to mediation.
The comparison with moot court competitions is significant because it reflects a broader concern about the way law students are introduced to different career paths within the legal profession. Traditional legal education frequently places considerable emphasis on courtroom litigation and advocacy. While those skills remain important, the modern legal system increasingly requires lawyers who can also negotiate, mediate and resolve disputes without prolonged litigation. Justice Singh's remarks suggest that students should be exposed to these alternative professional pathways so that they can identify their own aptitude and interests. Some students may be naturally suited to litigation, while others may possess the communication, negotiation and problem-solving skills required for mediation.
Justice Singh expressed confidence that Gen Z could take mediation seriously if its positive aspects were properly demonstrated. In his view, younger lawyers should be shown that mediation can provide a meaningful and successful professional future. If students understand that mediation is not merely a compulsory academic requirement but a genuine career opportunity, they may be more inclined to develop expertise in the field. Proper training and an appropriate approach, therefore, could help create a new generation of lawyers and mediators who are more comfortable with consensual dispute resolution.
The Judge's observations also reflect the larger problem of judicial pendency in India. He noted that several disputes that ultimately reach courts do not necessarily need to be litigated and have a substantial possibility of being settled through alternative mechanisms. Mediation can provide parties with an opportunity to resolve their disputes through dialogue and negotiated settlement instead of engaging in lengthy adversarial proceedings. While Justice Singh acknowledged that Delhi has made considerable progress in promoting mediation, he stated that its potential remains largely untapped across the country. This indicates that mediation has not yet become an equally established component of dispute resolution throughout India.
The scale of the problem becomes more apparent when viewed against the enormous number of pending cases in Indian courts. Justice Singh referred to the pendency of more than five crore cases and pointed out that approximately 80 per cent of these matters are pending before the district judiciary. This observation underscores why mediation and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are important. The district judiciary handles a vast range of civil, criminal, commercial, family and other disputes. If matters capable of settlement can be resolved outside prolonged litigation, judicial time and institutional resources can be redirected towards disputes that genuinely require adjudication.
Justice Singh, however, cautioned that mediation initiatives would remain merely cosmetic unless the entire ecosystem surrounding mediation was strengthened. He referred to initiatives such as the Supreme Court's Samadhan Samaroh and suggested that such efforts could not achieve their full potential merely through isolated programmes. Courts, governments, mediators, trainers, lawyers, litigants and law students all need to be strengthened and properly integrated into the mediation system. The development of mediation therefore requires more than simply encouraging parties to settle. It requires trained professionals, institutional support, awareness among litigants and lawyers, effective court referral mechanisms and a broader acceptance of settlement as a legitimate form of justice.
A particularly important part of Justice Singh's remarks concerned the role of the government as a litigant. The government is one of the largest litigants in India, and its approach to litigation has a direct effect on judicial pendency. Justice Singh was critical of the government's continuing practice of pursuing unnecessary appeals and review petitions. According to him, these proceedings can unnecessarily add to the burden on courts. His comments suggest that the government should take a more settlement-oriented approach wherever disputes are capable of being resolved without prolonged litigation.
Justice Singh recalled attending a national conference in 2012 that was intended to develop a national litigation policy. However, he stated that even in 2026 he had not seen a significant impact of that policy in actual court proceedings. The observation highlights the gap that can sometimes exist between policy formulation and implementation. A litigation policy can be effective only if government departments and officials actually adopt practices that discourage unnecessary litigation and encourage appropriate settlements. Merely having a policy document does not automatically change litigation behaviour.
The Judge also identified a practical difficulty faced by government officials participating in Lok Adalats and settlement proceedings. According to him, government officials frequently hesitate to take responsibility for settlements because they may not have sufficient authority to make binding decisions and may need approval from senior officers. This lack of delegated authority can make settlement processes ineffective. Even where a dispute is suitable for compromise, the absence of decision-making power at the appropriate level may prevent a settlement from being reached.
Justice Singh therefore called upon both the Central and State governments to formulate clear policies governing settlements and to delegate sufficient authority to officials participating in such proceedings. Such delegation would allow authorised officers to take responsible decisions when settlement is appropriate. Without this structural change, mediation and Lok Adalats may continue to encounter difficulties when one party is a government department. His broader message was captured in his statement that “charity has to begin at home,” emphasising that the government must examine its own conduct as a litigant before expecting mediation to become a successful national movement.
The Judge further stressed that the government's role in promoting mediation cannot be limited to providing infrastructure or supporting mediation centres. As one of the country's largest litigants, the government's own conduct has to be examined. If government departments continue to file unnecessary litigation or refuse reasonable settlements because of internal procedural limitations, the overall objective of reducing judicial pendency will remain difficult to achieve. The government's participation in mediation therefore needs to be substantive and supported by appropriate internal policies, accountability and delegated authority.
Justice Singh also highlighted concerns regarding the implementation of the Mediation Act, 2023. He pointed out that the Mediation Council of India, which is expected to oversee the implementation of the legislation and frame standards for the mediation sector, has not yet been established. According to the Judge, the absence of the Council has resulted in a vacuum concerning important aspects such as uniform training and accreditation of mediators. This is a significant concern because the success of a mediation framework depends heavily on the quality, consistency and credibility of mediators.
Uniform standards are particularly important as mediation expands across different jurisdictions and dispute categories. If training and accreditation standards vary significantly, parties may have different experiences depending upon where mediation takes place or which mediator is appointed. A properly established regulatory and institutional framework can help ensure consistency in mediator training, professional standards and accreditation. Justice Singh's comments therefore underline the need for effective implementation of the statutory framework created by the Mediation Act, 2023.
The conference also included a discussion concerning the suitability of mediation and arbitration for intellectual property disputes. The panel featured experts from the legal and dispute-resolution fields, including Pravin Anand, Managing Partner at Anand and Anand; A.J. Jawad, Registrar of the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre; and Aakanksha Nehra, Partner at PSL Advocates & Solicitors. The discussion was moderated by Hemant Singh, Founder and Managing Partner of INTTL Advocare. The inclusion of intellectual property disputes in the conference reflects the expanding relevance of alternative dispute resolution to specialised areas of law.
The larger message emerging from Justice Singh's remarks is that India needs a fundamental change in its approach to dispute resolution. Mediation should not be regarded simply as a mechanism used after litigation has already become lengthy or expensive. Instead, it should be incorporated into the legal profession from the beginning. Law students should learn practical mediation skills, lawyers should understand when mediation is preferable to litigation, government officials should have adequate authority to settle appropriate disputes, and courts should be able to identify matters suitable for settlement.
Justice Singh's emphasis on Gen Z is particularly relevant in this context. A new generation of lawyers entering the profession provides an opportunity to establish mediation as a mainstream component of legal practice. If universities give mediation the same practical importance that they give advocacy exercises such as moot courts, students may develop an appreciation for negotiation and settlement at an early stage. Over time, this could contribute to a professional culture in which lawyers do not automatically treat litigation as the first or only method of resolving disputes.
In conclusion, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh's observations highlight both the promise and the challenges facing mediation in India. He believes Gen Z lawyers may be particularly receptive to mediation if they receive proper training and are shown that it can provide a viable and rewarding career. However, achieving this goal requires substantial institutional reform. Law schools must provide meaningful mediation education, governments must adopt effective settlement policies and delegate authority to officials, and the Mediation Act, 2023 must be implemented through an effective institutional framework. The enormous judicial pendency, with more than five crore cases and approximately 80 per cent before the district judiciary, demonstrates the urgency of developing effective alternatives to conventional litigation. Justice Singh's message is therefore broader than a simple endorsement of mediation: India must create a legal culture in which settlement, negotiation and mediation are treated as core elements of professional legal practice. The younger generation of lawyers could play a decisive role in bringing about that transformation, provided that institutions give them the training, exposure and professional opportunities necessary to make mediation a meaningful part of their careers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.