1. Meaning of Mediation Centres

A Mediation Centre is a facility where a neutral third party (mediator) assists disputing parties to voluntarily reach a settlement.

Key features:

• Voluntary and consensual process
• Mediator has no decision-making power
• Focus on communication and negotiation
• Confidential proceedings
• Parties retain full control over outcome

The legal foundation is supported under:

• Section 89, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908
• Mediation Rules framed by High Courts

2. Meaning of Conciliation Centres

A Conciliation Centre facilitates settlement through a conciliator who plays a more active role than a mediator, including suggesting terms of settlement.

Key features:

• Slightly evaluative process
• Conciliator may propose solutions
• Still non-binding unless accepted
• Common in labour, commercial, and family disputes

Legal basis:

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 61–81)

3. Objectives of Mediation and Conciliation Centres

• Reduce burden on courts
• Provide speedy justice
• Maintain privacy and confidentiality
• Preserve relationships (especially in family disputes)
• Encourage amicable settlement
• Reduce litigation costs

4. Types of Cases Handled

Mediation and conciliation centres commonly handle:

• Family disputes (divorce, custody, maintenance)
• Matrimonial conflicts
• Commercial disputes
• Consumer disputes
• Land and property disputes
• Employer–employee disputes
• Bank recovery and cheque bounce cases

5. Role in Indian Legal System

These centres are often:

• Court-annexed mediation centres
• Lok Adalat-linked conciliation forums
• Private ADR institutions
• ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) platforms

They act as a bridge between informal negotiation and formal adjudication.

6. Important Case Laws (at least 6)

1. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344

• Supreme Court upheld Section 89 CPC and ADR mechanisms.
• Directed courts to actively refer cases to mediation and conciliation centres.
• Recognised ADR as essential to reduce judicial backlog.

2. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (2010) 8 SCC 24

• Landmark case defining when mediation/conciliation should be used.
• Held that non-adjudicatory disputes should be referred to ADR.
• Clarified procedure under Section 89 CPC.

3. M.R. Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 342

• Supreme Court stressed strengthening mediation institutions.
• Recommended establishment of permanent mediation centres nationwide.
• Highlighted need for structured ADR infrastructure.

4. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755

• Recognised conciliation as an effective dispute resolution method in commercial disputes.
• Held that settlement mechanisms must be encouraged in contractual disputes.

5. Haresh Dayaram Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 6 SCC 179

• Discussed the role of conciliators in helping parties reach agreement.
• Clarified that conciliation awards depend on mutual consent, not coercion.

6. K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226

• Strongly emphasised mediation in matrimonial disputes.
• Directed courts to refer family disputes to mediation centres before litigation proceeds.
• Recognised mediation as crucial for preserving family relationships.

7. B.S. Krishnamurthy v. B.S. Nagaraj (2011) 15 SCC 464

• Held that mediation should be first resort in matrimonial and family disputes.
• Encouraged High Courts to strengthen mediation centres.

7. Advantages of Mediation and Conciliation Centres

• Faster dispute resolution
• Reduced litigation costs
• Confidential process
• Less adversarial than court
• Preserves relationships
• Flexible and informal procedure

8. Limitations

• Depends on cooperation of parties
• No binding decision unless settlement is reached
• Lack of awareness among public
• Sometimes weak enforcement of settlements
• Quality of mediators may vary

Conclusion

Mediation and Conciliation Centres play a crucial role in modern justice systems by promoting amicable, voluntary, and efficient dispute resolution. Supported by statutory frameworks and reinforced by Supreme Court judgments, they have become essential tools in reducing judicial backlog and improving access to justice in India.