The success of the Supreme Court’s ‘Samadhan Samaroh’ initiative should not be judged merely by the number of cases settled, but by whether it helps institutionalise mediation as a continuous process, Supreme Court Judge Justice P.S. Narasimha has said.

Speaking to Akashvani’s News On AIR, Justice Narasimha said the initiative was aimed at addressing two issues: the large pendency of cases and the need for a simpler way of resolving disputes.

The Supreme Court of India is organising the ‘Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonization Across Nation’ to advance the vision of ‘participative justice’ and ‘doorstep delivery of justice’.

‘Samadhan Samaroh ’, which commenced on April 21, 2026, will culminate in the holding of a Special Lok Adalat on August 21, 22 and 23.

“The essence of this resolution is informality. That’s the big distinction between court cases and resolutions,” he said.

Justice Narasimha said mediation differed from regular court proceedings because it gave the parties themselves the power to decide the dispute. “The advantage of mediation is that the resolution is arrived at through a voluntary process of those who are involved in it,” he said.

He said mediation could help litigants avoid the time, expense and uncertainty associated with prolonged litigation. Court cases were “long drawn”, expensive and uncertain, he said.

The initiative covers a wide range of disputes, including land acquisition, matrimonial and property matters, commercial disputes, motor accident claims and cheque-bouncing cases.

However, Justice Narasimha identified the shortage of trained mediators as one of the key challenges. Lawyers who take up mediation, he said, would have to “shed a great number of techniques” learnt as lawyers and “relearn the techniques of mediators”.

He also stressed the need for a permanent body to handle mediation and for mediators to have expertise in the relevant subject.

Reflecting on the progress of ‘Samadhan Samaroh’, Justice Narasimha said several stakeholders, including Chief Justices of High Courts, Advocates-General, district judges and government officials, had been consulted.

He said the long-term objective was to build “institutional memory” and strengthen mediation within the working of the court.