Mediation Cannot Be Forced, Must Be Based on Mutual Consent: Supreme Court
- Lawttorney.ai
- Feb 25
- 4 min read
Updated: Mar 12
Supreme Court Mediation and Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that mediation cannot be imposed upon any party without their consent. The ruling came in the context of a land dispute where the High Court had referred the matter to mediation, despite one of the parties—Rupa & Co. Limited—opposing it. The Court emphasized that mediation must be voluntary and not forced, even if a High Court has previously issued a binding order in the matter.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolved around a land allotment to Rupa & Co. Limited, a publishing company, by the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO) in New Town, Kolkata. Although the company had fulfilled all the necessary conditions, it faced delays in obtaining the formal lease deed for the land.
In response, the Calcutta High Court issued a writ of mandamus, directing the state authorities to execute the land transfer on a freehold basis. However, HIDCO failed to comply, citing the Model Code of Conduct as an obstacle and requesting additional payment based on current market rates. When Rupa & Co. sought enforcement of the mandamus order, the High Court referred the matter to mediation, despite the company's objections.
Legal Background: Writ of Mandamus
A writ of mandamus is a judicial order that compels a public authority, government, or subordinate tribunal to perform a legal duty it is obligated to carry out. Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, High Courts have the power to issue writs, including mandamus, to ensure the compliance of legal duties. The Supreme Court can also issue mandamus under Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Supreme Court, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih, strongly criticized the Calcutta High Court for referring the matter to mediation after it had already issued a clear writ of mandamus. The bench observed that mediation should always be a voluntary process, and one party's opposition must be respected.
The Court emphasized:
“Mediation has to be by the consent of both parties. It cannot be thrust upon either of the parties.”
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision to refer the case to mediation as legally untenable. The Court noted that the High Court’s previous issuance of a mandamus was a binding judicial order, and mediation could not be used to bypass or delay its enforcement.
The bench further pointed out that the High Court had already acknowledged HIDCO's failure to comply with the order and issued a notice for non-compliance. Referring the matter to mediation after such clear findings undermined the High Court’s authority and the integrity of the judicial process.
Criticism of the State’s Actions
The Supreme Court also criticized the state authorities for attempting to bypass the judicial order through the mediation process. Despite a binding court order, HIDCO and the state government sought to delay compliance, which amounted to aggravated contempt of court.
The Court reaffirmed the binding nature of writs issued by High Courts under Article 226, reiterating that authorities are obligated to follow such orders unless the Supreme Court intervenes.
Importance of Voluntary Mediation
The ruling reiterated the Supreme Court’s stance on mediation in earlier judgments, emphasizing that mediation must be a consensual process. Supreme Court mediation should not be used as a tool to delay or obstruct the enforcement of judicial orders.
In previous cases, the Court had established that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, including mediation, can only be pursued if both parties agree. Courts cannot impose mediation against the will of one party.
Relevant Precedents
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010): The Court held that mediation is a voluntary process and cannot be mandated against the will of a party.
Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India (2005): This case emphasized that ADR mechanisms like mediation can only be encouraged when both parties agree.
K.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar (2011): The Court reaffirmed that writs issued under Article 226 are binding and must be complied with in full. Authorities cannot introduce new conditions after an order has been passed.
Supreme Court's Verdict
In light of the High Court's improper referral of the matter to mediation, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court found the decision to refer the matter to mediation unsustainable in law, leading to the acceptance of Rupa & Co.’s appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others
Arising from: Special Leave Petition (SLP) (C) Nos. 5517-5519 of 2024
The verdict reinforced the importance of adhering to binding judicial orders and emphasized that mediation, as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, should not be used to bypass or delay the enforcement of such orders.
Empower Your Legal Practice with AI
Are you a legal professional? Stay ahead with our innovative LawTech AI tool. Streamline your legal processes, enhance productivity, and gain a competitive edge. Experience the future of legal technology—try our free Webinar session today!
Comments