Supreme Court Judge Calls for Expanded Mediation in Family Courts to Ease Judicial Burden
Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court of India has called for greater reliance on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to address the mounting burden on family courts across the country. Speaking on Saturday, September 26, 2026, the judge emphasized the need to decongest family courts through mediation and other ADR processes, with the aim of reducing case pendency and providing faster resolution of family disputes including matrimonial and custody matters.
Family courts in India continue to grapple with substantial backlogs. Matrimonial disputes, custody battles, and related family law matters form a significant portion of the judicial workload, often taking years to resolve through traditional litigation. Justice Nagarathna's directive reflects growing judicial recognition that conventional court proceedings may not always be the most efficient or appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes of a personal and sensitive nature.
The Case for Alternative Dispute Resolution
Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution have long been recognized as tools to ease court congestion. Unlike adversarial litigation, which places parties in opposing camps and often exacerbates family tensions, mediation encourages dialogue and collaborative problem-solving. For family matters, this approach can be particularly beneficial, as it allows parties to preserve relationships where ongoing contact is necessary—such as in cases involving children.
The Supreme Court of India has previously recognized the value of ADR mechanisms. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Indian Penal Code contain provisions encouraging settlement and reconciliation. The Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee established by the Supreme Court has worked to promote structured mediation practices across Indian courts. Justice Nagarathna's recent statement builds on this institutional framework, signaling that the judiciary views ADR not as a peripheral option but as a core strategy for case management.
Family disputes often involve matters that are inherently private and emotionally charged. Custody arrangements, property division, and maintenance disputes frequently benefit from solutions crafted by the parties themselves rather than imposed by judicial order. When parents negotiate custody terms through mediation, they may arrive at arrangements better suited to their children's actual needs. Similarly, spouses negotiating property division may reach settlements that reflect their understanding of fairness, rather than strict application of statutory rules.
Reducing Court Backlogs
Congestion in family courts has real consequences for litigants. Cases that could be resolved in months through mediation often stretch across years in traditional proceedings. This delay compounds the emotional toll on families already in distress. Children caught in custody disputes suffer prolonged uncertainty. Spouses waiting for divorce finalization remain in legal limbo. Elderly parents seeking maintenance orders face years of litigation before receiving relief.
By channeling suitable cases toward mediation, courts can focus their limited judicial resources on matters requiring authoritative judicial determination. Cases involving complex legal questions, allegations of fraud, or disputes where parties cannot agree on basic facts remain appropriate for traditional litigation. However, many family disputes turn on factual questions and personal preferences that mediation can address effectively.
Justice Nagarathna's directive also reflects practical resource constraints. India's judicial system operates with finite numbers of judges and court staff. Family courts in particular often operate with insufficient infrastructure. By expanding ADR use, courts can serve more litigants without proportional increases in judicial personnel or courtroom facilities.
Existing ADR Frameworks
India already possesses statutory frameworks supporting mediation in family matters. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, all contain provisions encouraging reconciliation and settlement. The Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2016, established by the Supreme Court, provide a structured process for mediation in civil disputes, including family matters.
Many high courts have established mediation centers and trained mediators. Some state legal services authorities operate family mediation cells. However, utilization of these services remains uneven across jurisdictions. In some regions, mediation is routinely offered to parties; in others, it remains underutilized or poorly publicized. Justice Nagarathna's call effectively urges courts and bar associations to strengthen and expand these existing mechanisms.
The judge's statement also implies a need for judicial culture change. Some judges and lawyers remain skeptical of ADR, viewing it as soft or inadequate for serious disputes. Justice Nagarathna's intervention from the bench signals that mediation enjoys institutional support at the highest levels of the judiciary. This endorsement may encourage lower courts to more actively encourage mediation and may influence lawyer behavior, with advocates more readily suggesting ADR options to clients.
Implementation Challenges
Expanding mediation in family courts presents practical challenges. Effective mediation requires trained, neutral mediators with expertise in family law and interpersonal dynamics. India currently has a limited pool of such professionals. Scaling mediation services across all family courts would require significant investment in mediator training and certification.
Parties must also be willing to participate genuinely in mediation. Mediation cannot succeed if one party uses it as a delaying tactic or negotiates in bad faith. Courts must screen cases to identify those suitable for mediation—disputes involving domestic violence, for instance, may not be appropriate for mediation if power imbalances prevent genuine consent.
Cost considerations also arise. While mediation is typically less expensive than litigation, parties must still pay mediator fees unless services are subsidized. Legal services authorities can provide free or subsidized mediation to economically weaker litigants, but this requires budgetary allocation.
Global Trends in Family Law
Justice Nagarathna's call reflects a broader global trend toward problem-solving courts and therapeutic jurisprudence in family law. Courts in many jurisdictions have moved toward models emphasizing resolution and healing rather than purely adversarial determination. This approach recognizes that family disputes, particularly those involving children, require solutions focused on the parties' ongoing relationships and the welfare of dependents. The shift also has implications for how courts approach custody, maintenance, and property disputes.
The statement may also influence legislative reform. As courts demonstrate the effectiveness of mediation in family disputes, legislators may strengthen statutory support for ADR. This could include mandatory mediation before trial in certain family cases, expanded funding for mediation services, and clearer guidelines for mediator qualifications.
Next Steps
Justice Nagarathna's directive will likely prompt action at multiple levels. High courts may issue circulars strengthening mediation procedures and requiring judges to explain on record why mediation was not attempted in family cases. Bar associations may expand training in mediation skills. Legal services authorities may enhance their mediation infrastructure and publicity.
For litigants, the message is clear: family courts increasingly view mediation as a preferred pathway for resolution. Parties approaching family courts should expect to be offered mediation opportunities and should consider seriously whether mediation might serve their interests better than protracted litigation. The Supreme Court of India's emphasis on ADR reflects judicial pragmatism. Family courts cannot resolve every dispute through traditional litigation within reasonable timeframes. By promoting mediation, courts acknowledge this reality and offer parties a more efficient, dignified alternative.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.