The Advocate General of Orissa High Court, Pitambha Acharya recently kicked off the 2nd National Mediation Conference in Bhubaneswar.

During the inaugural session, Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant said that the true measure of justice lies not in verdicts delivered by courts, but in the peace created when disputes are resolved through dialogue.

Bar & Bench's Pallavi Saluja caught up with Justice Kant during the conference for a short exclusive conversation on mediation. The judge offers his insights on how public trust in mediation can be built, how global standards can be adopted in the Indian mediation sector and more.

Edited excerpts follow.

[Watch Video]

Pallavi Saluja: This is the 2nd National Mediation Conference. What are your key takeaways? How do these conferences further the cause of mediation?

Justice Surya Kant: These kinds of conferences are very important for popularising mediation as a preferential mode of adjudication of disputes and that too in a win-win situation, maintaining peace, harmony and cordial relationships among the society. The conference provides a platform where all stakeholders - whether the mediators, the judiciary, the academicians, members of the Bar - get an opportunity to interact with each other and share their experiences. This is how you identify the challenges and when you identify those, then you have the way forward and the solutions also.  

PS: Then how do you build public trust in mediation?

Justice Kant: We need to strengthen our mediation institutions. We also need to develop the mediation Bar, which has already been set up by the Attorney General; maybe we need to expand it. We also need periodical orientation programmes, training programmes - we need to provide robust online training programmes to our mediators. The quality of mediators will improve public confidence.

PS: How do you bring international standards of mediation to India?

Justice Kant: India is the oldest civilisation where mediation really grew and was conceptualised, but in terms of structured mediation as a mode of adjudication, some of the other jurisdictions started before us. I think we can maybe go through the international platforms and have an idea about the best of global practices. We can then suitably modify, keeping in view our local conditions and local requirements, and we can follow those practices.

PS: At the opening ceremony, you said “The true measure of justice lies not in verdict but in peace it creates”.

Justice Kant: This is what i spoke from my heart. I say so because any verdict is the adjudication of the dispute - one party will win and the other will lose. One party will always have a grievance that something wrong has happened. Even the winning party might say that the verdict took 10-20 years and our time has been consumed by the conventional system.

But in mediation, you win the heart, you win the relationship, there is a bond. The social fabric not only remains intact, but is further strengthened, and that is what is needed for any society to live in peace and harmony.

PS: One last question, do you prefer mediation over arbitration?

SK: Yes, surely. Not that there is anything wrong I find with arbitration. Conventional modes of adjudication include arbitration. These have an outcome where one party loses while the other party wins, which also happens in arbitration, with the passing of the award. In mediation, you avoid that situation.

The second reason is that arbitration is also a costly affair. I have been professing, propagating and advocating affordable adjudication systems and access to justice to the marginalised, to the poor strata of society. There, we have to provide a mechanism which is low-cost, society-friendly and where everybody feels happy, and for that, mediation is the best answer.