The Kerala High Court on Monday took up a rare suo motu writ petition after noting serious shortcomings in the State’s mediation and alternative dispute resolution centres. The bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. appeared visibly concerned during the short but pointed hearing, saying the situation “affects the very purpose of mediation,” according to courtroom exchanges heard by this reporter.
Background
The issue surfaced through reports placed before the court indicating that many mediation centres across Kerala lack even the most basic requirements for fair and confidential dispute settlement. As the bench noted, several centres do not have proper rooms, soundproofing, digital facilities, or adequate staff. Some centres, surprisingly, struggle even with stationery and basic infrastructure.
The court initiated the case on its own motion, observing that mediation-now pushed strongly under national ADR policy-cannot function if people don’t feel safe sharing sensitive information. “If privacy cannot be guaranteed, parties won’t open up. Then what remains of mediation?” a senior lawyer whispered outside the courtroom, summing up the sentiment.
Appearing for the Union Government, Deputy Solicitor General O.M. Shalina was present along with State Attorney N. Manoj Kumar. Advocate Adarsh Kumar also joined as Amicus Curiae after the bench appointed him to assist in the matter.
Court’s Observations
From the very beginning, the bench kept returning to one word: confidentiality. Mediation fundamentally depends on trust, and the court didn’t hide its displeasure over how casually this aspect has been handled in many districts. “The bench observed, ‘The failure to ensure proper confidentiality impedes the mediation process,’” as recorded in the order.
The judges expressed concern that several centres were functioning in temporary areas such as unused courtrooms or shared office spaces. In a few places, ongoing mediation was audible in adjacent corridors.
The court also noted gaps in digital infrastructure-video conferencing, record maintenance, and secure communication-essential in the post-COVID mediation ecosystem. Another recurring issue was shortage of staff, leaving mediators to manage paperwork and logistics on their own.
After hearing the initial submissions, the State Attorney requested time to gather instructions. The bench agreed, but not before stressing that both the High Court administration and the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KELSA) must participate fully in proposing solutions.
The court formally appointed Advocate Adarsh Kumar as Amicus Curiae to examine the infrastructure requirements (listed in Exhibit P3) and assist the court with a consolidated view before the next hearing.
Decision
The bench granted time to the State to provide instructions, allowed deletion of one exhibit (Ext P1), directed the Registry to hand all relevant documents to the Amicus Curiae, and posted the matter for further hearing on 1 December 2025. With that, the court concluded the brief session-leaving the clear message that mediation in Kerala cannot run on goodwill alone; it needs real infrastructure to survive.
Case Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition Regarding Lack of Proper Infrastructure in Mediation Centres Across the State
Case No.: WP(C) No. 42844 of 2025
Case Type: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil)
Decision / Order Date: 17 November 2025