- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Moti Ram (Dead) Through Lrs. And Another v. Ashok Kumar And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
On 31 August 2010 the Supreme Court referred an ongoing landlord–tenant dispute to the Mediation Centre at Chandigarh. A report dated 29 September 2010 from the mediator was subsequently placed before the Court. The report reproduced the parties’ settlement offers, including proposed monetary payments and willingness to purchase or sell the property. The present order addresses the Court’s reaction to that report and provides guidance on the proper handling of mediation confidentiality. Procedurally, the matter has been relisted for hearing in January 2011.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a mediator’s report to the court may disclose offers, counter-offers, or other details discussed during mediation, or should be limited to stating only the outcome of the mediation.
- What directions, if any, should be issued to mediation centres nationwide regarding the confidentiality of mediation proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasised that mediation is intended to be a confidential, private process, distinct from open court proceedings. It noted that negotiations frequently involve tentative offers that do not crystallise into binding agreements unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties. Public disclosure of these negotiations could undermine the efficacy of mediation by deterring frank discussion. Consequently, the Court held that mediators must confine their reports to a single line indicating success or failure. Details of discussions, proposals, or concessions are impermissible in any report forwarded to the court.
Holding and Implications
ORDER ISSUED: The Court directed that mediators should report only the fact of success or failure of mediation and not include substantive details of the discussions. Copies of the order are to be circulated to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and all High Court and District Court Mediation Centres, including the Chandigarh Mediation Centre. The substantive landlord–tenant matter is scheduled to be listed in January 2011.
Implications: The order standardises reporting protocols for mediators across India, reinforcing the principle of confidentiality in mediation. While it does not create new substantive law, it clarifies procedural expectations and may influence mediation practices nationwide.
Order
1. On 31-8-2010 we had referred the matter for mediation to the Mediation Centre at Chandigarh to attempt to resolve the dispute between the parties. Today, when the matter was called out, our Court Secretary placed before us the report dated 29-9-2010 received from the mediator, which is as follows:
“Mr Ashok Kumar states that he would be ready and willing to vacate the shop on receipt of 1/3rd of the value of the shop which according to him is worth approximately 50 lakhs and he be paid an amount of 15 lakhs (approx.). The appellant landlord is not ready and willing to offer the said amount and has extended the concession by giving up on the pending rent only which according to him is pending for last 28 years. The tenant has also expressed his willingness to purchase the property for an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs but the landlord has refused to dispose of the same on the ground of personal necessity.”
2. In this connection, we would like to state that mediation proceedings are totally confidential proceedings. This is unlike proceedings in court which are conducted openly in the public gaze. If the mediation succeeds, then the mediator should send the agreement signed by both the parties to the court without mentioning what transpired during the mediation proceedings. If the mediation is unsuccessful, then the mediator should only write one sentence in his report and send it to the court stating that the “mediation has been unsuccessful”. Beyond that, the mediator should not write anything which was discussed, proposed or done during the mediation proceedings. This is because in mediation, very often, offers, counter offers and proposals are made by the parties but until and unless the parties reach to an agreement signed by them, it will not amount to any concluded contract. If the happenings in the mediation proceedings are disclosed, it will destroy the confidentiality of the mediation process.
3. We are compelled to observe this because the mediators should know what kind of reports they should send to the courts. The report sent in this Court should not have mentioned the proposals made by the parties, but should only have stated that the mediation was unsuccessful.
4. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and the Mediation Centres in all the High Courts and District Courts in the country, including the Chandigarh Mediation Centre.
5. So far as this case is concerned, at the request of the counsel for the appellants, list this matter in January 2011.
Alert