Judiciary Not a Litigant’s Playground: Justice BV Nagarathna Warns Govt Against Wasting Resources, Calls for ‘Green Mediators'

Such an approach, she said, wastes the country’s resources, misallocates judicial time, and prevents mediation from gaining legitimacy as a serious dispute-resolution mechanism.

“If a governmental body keeps initiating another round of litigation only to exhaust judicial avenues where there exists no likelihood of success, our country’s resources will continue to be improperly used and judicial time misallocated,” Justice Nagarathna said.

She warned that unless state authorities and their successors stop treating mediation settlements with suspicion, government-private partnerships in mediation will never be able to gain ground.

Justice Nagarathna underscored that mediation in India must expand beyond commercial disputes. She stressed the need for specialised sector-specific mediation, particularly in:

1. Environment and climate conflicts

2. Healthcare and medical negligence cases

3. Intellectual property disputes

4. Corporate governance and start-up ecosystem conflicts

5. Juvenile justice matters

“Environmental disputes are multifaceted socio-ecological challenges that involve a delicate balance between development and preservation. Mediation, with its flexibility and participatory nature, can provide quick, consensual, and forward-looking solutions,” she said.

To institutionalise this, she urged the Mediation Council of India to set up a panel of accredited “green mediators” trained in environmental law, climate science, public policy, and socio-economic impact assessments. Drawing parallels with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution (ECCR) model, she suggested India could professionalise and train cohorts of such specialised mediators.

Highlighting the power asymmetry between patients and large hospitals, Justice Nagarathna proposed involving Patient Advocacy Groups in healthcare mediations to ensure patient voices are not drowned out.

On intellectual property disputes, she noted that unlike litigation, mediation’s confidentiality and flexibility can lead to innovative outcomes such as licensing agreements, phased rebranding, and joint marketing, solutions that preserve business value and relationships.

For corporate governance and start-up conflicts, she urged the inclusion of mediation clauses in founders’ agreements and term sheets, stressing that “a founder dispute resolved in weeks rather than years could mean the difference between success and collapse.”

Justice Nagarathna also advocated victim-offender mediation (VOM) under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, to give real effect to the principle of restorative justice. She said VOM provides a safe space for victims to express the impact of harm and for juvenile offenders to accept responsibility and remorse, achieving goals that punitive systems cannot.

The judge stressed that the success of mediation depends on public trust in mediators’ independence and impartiality. Most mediations in India are still ad hoc, she noted, and called for a formal code of conduct and a national curriculum for mediator training and certification.

“Every mediator functions as a spoke in the larger wheel of the Indian mediation ecosystem. Their conduct directly impacts public perception of mediation as a serious dispute-resolution mechanism,” she said.

Concluding her address, Justice Nagarathna invoked the Supreme Court’s rulings, reminding stakeholders that mediation offers a way out of “crippling costs, procedural wrangles, and delays” of litigation.

“Mediation must be seen not as a secondary option, but as a legitimate and powerful first resort in resolving disputes,” she declared.