Introduction
India demonstrated its desire to become a global center for mediation in August 2024 by depositing its instrument of ratification for the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention). However, despite the fact that court-annexed mediation centers show settlement rates in commercial disputes that surpass 60% (according to NITI Aayog’s 2023 predictions), a crucial gap remains: we know very little about howthese outcomes are obtained.
An important step toward institutionalizing mediation in India was taken with the passage of the Mediation Act, 2023. Although it correctly establishes anonymity as the cornerstone of the process, its almost absolute approach runs the risk of eroding institutional learning and public trust in a time when court-referred mediation is becoming more and more common. This article makes the case that while secrecy must continue to be strong, the Act’s preliminary opening under Section 22(4) should be used to create organized, anonymous transparency procedures, which are crucial to the long-term credibility of mediation.
The Indispensable Role of Confidentiality
The vital component of mediation is confidentiality. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (2010) 8 SCC 24, the Supreme Court acknowledged that parties would be reluctant to compromise or disclose underlying interests in the absence of a guarantee of privacy. This is further reinforced by Section 22 of the 2023 Act, which forbids the recording of sessions and prevents mediation communications from being used as evidence in later proceedings (subject to specific circumstances, such as threats of bodily harm or enforcement needs).
The features that set mediation apart from litigation or arbitrationparty autonomy and mediator neutralityare preserved under this provision.
The Act’s Cautious Opening: Section 22(4)
Notably, there is some transparency in the Act. As long as it does notidentify parties or disclose specifics of the dispute, Section 22(4) allows mediators and institutions to gather and distribute “general information” for research, teaching, or reporting. This clause reflects international best practices: The UNCITRAL Model Law changes and Singapore’s Mediation Act 2017 permit the publishing of anonymized data.
However, the Indian Act provides no guidelines on oversight, format, or scope. This clause is dormant in the absence of regulations established by the Mediation Council of India (MCI).
Why Absolute Opacity Is Unsustainable
Mediation increasingly settles conflicts with systemic outcomes, such as consumer claims, bankruptcy issues, infrastructure delays, and public interest litigation components, as it transitions from private conferences to court-mandated and pre-litigation stages (Sections 5–7).
Recurring patterns (such as power disparities in consumer disputes or delays in particular industries) go unnoticed when thousands of these cases disappear into private settlements without aggregate reporting. Over 15,000 cases were settled by the Delhi High Court’s mediation center in 2023–2024, however just the raw numbers are released; there is no breakdown by kind of dispute, trends in settlement rates, or average time.
Accountability is also required for public funding of court-annexed centers and mediator accreditation. Complete opacity raises questions about whether results are equal for all areas, genders, and socioeconomic classes. We can’t know without anonymized data.
Learning from Global Practices
Confidentiality and transparency have been harmoniously balanced by jurisdictions:
Every year, anonymized information on settlement rates, dispute categories, and mediator demographics are released by the International Mediation Institute (IMI) and CEDR (UK).
Aggregate mediation statistics, including success rates by case type, are made public by Hong Kong’s judiciary.
State courts in Singapore offer trend analysis with all identifying information redacted.
Without ever revealing the mechanics of negotiations, these methods improve institutional credibility and influence policy.
A Roadmap for India: Leveraging the Mediation Council
Section 22(4) can only be operationalized by the Mediation Council of India (Section 33). It might require authorized mediation service providers to produce yearly reports that are standardized and anonymous, covering:
- Settlement rates by general dispute type (consumer, family, commercial, etc.)
- Average time to settlement
- Source of referral (private, pre-litigation, or court-referred)
- Variations by region
While maintaining individual confidentiality, such data would allow evidence-based improvements, such as detecting training gaps or underperforming centers. Instead of making strict legislative revisions, courts and the MCI could gradually create templates through circulars and guidance.
Conclusion
Confidentiality is the cornerstone of mediation’s efficacy, not just a procedural safeguard. It is appropriately given priority in the Mediation Act of 2023. However, complete confidentiality runs the risk of shielding mediation from institutional development and public scrutiny as it becomes a cornerstone of India’s justice delivery system, possibly settling millions of pending cases.
India can accomplish what top jurisdictions already have by implementing Section 22(4) through organized, anonymous reporting: mediation that is credible for society and trustworthy for parties at the same time. The Mediation Council now has the authority and chance to spearhead this well-rounded change.
Author Name- Shubhi Priyadarshi, BA LLB GRADUATE (GGSIPU),
