From Statute to Settlement: What India Must Do Next to Make Institutional Mediation Work

The notification establishing the Mediation Council of India is an important milestone—but it is the starting gun, not the finish line.

On 27 August 2026, the Central Government formally established the Council under Section 31 of the Mediation Act, 2023, with its head office in Delhi. The notification gives institutional form to the national body envisioned as the regulator, standard-setter and promoter of mediation in India. It does not, by itself, appoint the Council’s members, activate the remaining provisions of the Act or create functioning mediation institutions across the country.

That distinction is crucial. A statute can recognise mediation, but parties will use it only when the process is credible, accessible and professionally administered. India must therefore move quickly from establishing the Council to building a mediation market that businesses, citizens, lawyers and courts can trust.

Why institutional mediation matters

In ad hoc mediation, the parties and mediator must make their own arrangements for appointments, fees, meetings, conflicts, confidentiality and administration. Institutional mediation places these functions under a mediation service provider with published rules, trained case managers, a panel of mediators, conflict-checking systems, transparent fees and a complaints mechanism.

The Mediation Act expressly assigns mediation service providers responsibility for accrediting and maintaining panels of mediators, providing administrative infrastructure, promoting professional conduct and facilitating registration of settlement agreements. The Council, in turn, must recognise and supervise these providers and mediation-training institutes.

Institutionalisation should therefore mean more than compiling a national list of mediators. Its real purpose must be to assure parties that every recognised institution meets minimum standards of independence, competence, efficiency and accountability.

Constitute a functioning Council without delay

The first priority is to appoint the Chairperson and other members through a transparent, time-bound process. The Council will also need a professionally selected Chief Executive Officer, a permanent secretariat, an adequate budget and specialist divisions for accreditation, professional standards, digital systems, research and international cooperation.

Its expert and advisory committees should include practising mediators, users of mediation, corporate counsel, judges, lawyers, behavioural experts, consumer representatives and specialists in online dispute resolution. The Council should publish its meeting calendar, decisions, consultation papers and annual work programme.

The Council must also guard against regulatory conflicts. The teams that promote mediation should be distinct from those deciding recognition, disciplinary and accreditation matters. Reasoned decisions, natural-justice safeguards and a review mechanism will be necessary to prevent recognition from becoming arbitrary or dominated by incumbents.

Delhi may be the head office, but mediation cannot become a Delhi-centric profession. Regional offices or coordination nodes should be established with High Courts, State Legal Services Authorities, universities and recognised private institutions.

Bring the substantive Act into operation through a coordinated commencement plan

Only selected provisions of the Act were initially brought into force in October 2023. As recently as February 2026, the Government informed Parliament that provisions relating to mediation service providers, mediation institutes, community mediation and online mediation had not yet been notified.

The August 2026 notification establishes the Council, but does not itself commence all the remaining provisions. The next step must be a published implementation calendar covering:

• appointment and staffing of the Council;
• notification of the remaining provisions;
• publication of draft regulations;
• provisional recognition of existing institutions;
• commencement of mediator registration; and
• launch of the settlement-registration and data systems.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee has also recommended early notification of the remaining provisions and finalisation of regulations within a defined timeline.

Commencement should be coordinated with the regulations and transitional arrangements. Bringing legal obligations into force before institutions and systems are ready would create uncertainty; indefinitely delaying them would make the Act largely aspirational.

Frame regulations through open consultation

Section 52 gives the Council an extensive regulatory mandate. Regulations are required on the conduct of mediation, ethical standards, mediator registration, institutional recognition, fees, online mediation, settlement registration and the electronic depository.

The Department of Legal Affairs already has the benefit of a detailed working-group report containing draft rules and regulations. That report should now be updated and placed before the public through a structured consultation involving institutions, mediators, businesses, MSMEs, consumer bodies, lawyers, judges, technology providers and civil-society organisations.

The regulations should establish reliable minimum safeguards without converting mediation into a court-like process. Excessively prescriptive rules could destroy the flexibility that makes mediation attractive. The objective should be uniformity of quality, not uniformity of technique.

Generate demand instead of waiting for cases

Institutions cannot become effective without a steady caseload. Government departments, public-sector enterprises and large corporations should adopt well-drafted, multi-tier dispute-resolution clauses that require negotiation followed by institutional mediation before arbitration or litigation, where suitable.

Government disputes require special attention. Officials often lack clear authority to settle because of concerns about audit, vigilance or later allegations of having conceded public money. A government mediation protocol should define settlement authority, valuation methods, approval timelines and good-faith protection for reasoned decisions.

Courts should identify suitable cases early and refer them to recognised institutions. Commercial contracts, procurement documents, lending agreements and industry-standard forms should include model mediation clauses published by the Council.

The recent parliamentary recommendation to strengthen pre-institution mediation deserves consideration, but compulsion must be carefully designed. Parties may reasonably be required to attend an initial information or mediation session. They should never be compelled to settle. Cost consequences, if introduced, should target deliberate non-attendance or procedural abuse—not a party’s refusal to accept a proposal. Voluntariness and self-determination remain central to legitimate mediation.

Make digital mediation trustworthy and inclusive

India is particularly suited to hybrid and online mediation, but online dispute resolution cannot simply mean conducting a video call.

Minimum digital standards should cover identity verification, secure document exchange, electronic signatures, private virtual caucus rooms, breach reporting, platform neutrality, accessibility and business continuity. Parties must know where their data is stored, who may access it and when it will be deleted.

The electronic depository of settlement agreements must also be designed around privacy. Registration under Section 20 is optional, and non-registration does not defeat enforcement rights. A public database should therefore disclose only limited metadata, while the settlement terms remain encrypted and accessible only to authorised persons.

Digital access must be supplemented by assisted facilities at district-level centres. Otherwise, online mediation could widen rather than reduce the rural, linguistic and technological divide.

Complete the international framework

If India wishes to become an international mediation destination, foreign parties must have confidence in cross-border enforcement, institutional neutrality and the ability to appoint qualified foreign mediators.

India signed the Singapore Convention on Mediation in 2019 but, according to UNCITRAL’s current status table, has not yet ratified it.

Ratification, accompanied by appropriate implementing measures and clarification of the relationship between the Convention and the Mediation Act, would materially strengthen India’s international proposition. The Council should also enter reciprocal arrangements with established foreign institutions and promote Indian mediators through international panels, exchanges and joint training.

A practical first-year agenda

Within its first year, the Council should aim to deliver five visible outcomes: a fully constituted secretariat; commencement of the remaining statutory framework; regulations made after public consultation; provisional recognition of the first group of providers and institutes; and pilot institutional mediation programmes in selected commercial and public-sector disputes.

The success of the Mediation Act will not ultimately be judged by how many mediators are registered or how many centres display the Council’s logo. It will be judged by whether a business in Mumbai, an MSME in Coimbatore, a family in Guwahati or a consumer in a small district can enter a credible process quickly, participate on fair terms and leave with a settlement that is respected and enforceable.

The Council’s establishment creates the opportunity. The next task is to build confidence—one institution, one mediator and one successfully managed dispute at a time.