Key Developments in Judicial Mediation Overview During the 1st Supreme Court Bar Association National Conference, Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court highlighted the government's reluctance as a major obstacle to effective mediation . He argued that a change in attitude could resolve numerous petty disputes—pension, medical reimbursement, and family matters—without over‑loading the judiciary. Key Points Raised by Justice Mehta Government officers fear committing to settlements, fearing later criticism. Pre‑litigation mediation sessions in National Lok Adalat have seen minimal participation from government departments. Judicial intervention—showing parties the real cost of litigation—can turn the tide in favour of settlement. Illustrative Cases Shared by the Judge Case 1: Matrimonial Dispute – After three failed mediation attempts, Justice Mehta asked the husband to list legal expenses incurred over nine years. Confronted with the figure, the husband admitted he had spent more than the value of the apartment he was reluctant to give. The judge persuaded the wife to lower her demand from Rs 25 lakhs to a modest amount, leading to a settlement. Case 2: Anticipatory Bail & 498A Claim – In an anticipatory bail application, the wife demanded Rs 80 lakhs . Justice Mehta painted a realistic picture: a decade‑long fight under Section 498A IPC for the wife versus a quick bail for the husband. Within two hours, the wife withdrew her monetary claim, seeking only her documents and a swift divorce. Important Facts Both incidents underscore the power of “showing the mirror” – making parties aware of financial, temporal, and emotional costs. Judicial officers can act as facilitators, not just adjudicators, to promote settlement culture. Government’s fear of “compromise” hampers the potential of mediation in minor disputes. UPSC Relevance The discussion touches upon several GS topics: the functioning of the Supreme Court and its role in judicial reforms (GS2), the concept of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation and National Lok Adalat , and the impact of administrative attitudes on legal efficiency—an important governance issue (GS1 & GS4). Way Forward Encourage government departments to adopt a proactive mediation stance through policy directives. Train judicial officers in facilitative techniques to “show the mirror” effectively. Integrate mediation outcomes into performance metrics for ministries to reduce case pendency. Promote public awareness about the benefits of out‑of‑court settlement to build societal confidence. Adopting these steps can help decongest courts, reduce litigation costs, and align India’s dispute‑resolution framework with international best practices.