Can a Party Withdraw from Mediation?

Yes, a party can generally withdraw from mediation in India. Section 24 of the Mediation Act, 2023 recognises a party’s right to opt out of mediation by communicating the decision in writing to the mediator and the other parties. However, withdrawal may have different consequences where mediation is mandatory, particularly in commercial disputes requiring pre-institution mediation. Settlement itself always remains voluntary.

What Does Withdrawal from Mediation Mean?

Withdrawal from mediation means that a party decides that it no longer wishes to continue participating in the mediation process.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

Mediation is designed to help disputing parties communicate, negotiate and explore the possibility of settlement with the assistance of a neutral mediator. The mediator does not decide the dispute or impose a solution. Any settlement must ultimately result from the consent of the parties.

Because voluntary decision-making is one of the basic principles of mediation, Indian law recognises that a party may decide to discontinue the process.

Withdrawal may happen for several reasons. For example, a party may conclude that settlement is unlikely, negotiations may have reached a deadlock, the proposed terms may be unacceptable, or the party may prefer to pursue litigation or arbitration.

However, withdrawal from mediation should not be confused with withdrawal of a legal claim or defence. Ending mediation does not automatically mean that the underlying dispute comes to an end.

Discover the latest legal jobs and career openings.

View Jobs →

Can a Party Withdraw from Mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023?

Yes. The Mediation Act, 2023 expressly recognises the right of a party to opt out of mediation.

Section 24 of the Act deals with the termination of mediation proceedings. One of the circumstances in which mediation terminates is when a party or the parties communicate in writing that they wish to opt out of mediation.

This means that withdrawal from mediation is legally recognised and does not depend entirely on informal practice.

Under the statutory procedure for conducting mediation, a party seeking to withdraw is generally required to communicate the decision:

• In writing: The intention to discontinue mediation should be clearly recorded rather than communicated informally.
• To the mediator: The mediator must be informed so that the mediation process can formally come to an end.
• To the other parties: The parties involved in the dispute must also receive communication regarding the decision to opt out.

Once the communication contemplated under Section 24 is made, the mediation may be treated as terminated in accordance with the Act.

Does the Other Party Need to Agree to the Withdrawal?

Generally, no.

Section 24 of the Mediation Act, 2023 allows a party or the parties to communicate their intention to opt out. The provision does not state that all parties must agree before one party can discontinue mediation.

Therefore, one party can ordinarily decide not to continue even when the other party still wishes to negotiate.

Learn at your own pace with LawBhoomi's recorded law courses.

View Recorded Courses →

This reflects the voluntary nature of mediation. The distinction between voluntary and mandatory mediation becomes important where participation is required by law but settlement itself remains consensual.

Meaningful mediation is difficult where one party has completely withdrawn consent to participate in negotiations.

However, the legal consequences of withdrawal can differ where a statute requires parties to undergo a particular mediation procedure before approaching a court. In such cases, the right not to settle remains intact, but procedural requirements may still need to be complied with.

Does a Party Have to Give Reasons for Withdrawing?

The Mediation Act does not generally require a party opting out under Section 24 to justify the decision by proving a particular legal ground.

The important statutory requirement is communication of the intention to opt out in writing.

In practice, parties may give a brief reason, particularly where mediation is being administered by an institution or has been referred by a court. However, detailed reasons for abandoning negotiations are generally unnecessary.

This is also consistent with the confidential nature of mediation. Parties should normally be able to explore settlement freely without later being required to explain or defend every negotiating decision before a court.

Can a Party Be Forced to Settle Through Mediation?

No. A party cannot ordinarily be compelled to accept a settlement merely because mediation has commenced.

This is one of the most important principles of mediation.

Find the latest legal internship opportunities, updated daily.

Find Internships →

The role and duties of a mediator are facilitative rather than adjudicatory. The mediator may help identify issues, improve communication, explore possible solutions and assist parties in understanding settlement options. However, the mediator does not possess the same adjudicatory authority as a judge or arbitrator.

A mediator cannot impose:

• an amount of compensation;
• an admission of liability;
• transfer of property;
• withdrawal of proceedings;
• contractual obligations; or
• any other settlement term without the consent of the parties.

A mediated settlement becomes meaningful because the parties voluntarily agree to its terms.

Therefore, even where attending mediation may be required by law or ordered by a court, reaching a settlement remains voluntary.

What Happens If Mediation Is Court-Referred?

Courts and tribunals may refer suitable disputes to mediation.

Section 7 of the Mediation Act, 2023 recognises court and tribunal referral to mediation at appropriate stages of proceedings.

A court referral, however, does not mean that parties are required to settle the dispute.

The Mediation Act specifically preserves the distinction between participating in mediation and agreeing to a settlement.

A party may attend mediation sessions, consider settlement proposals and participate in discussions but ultimately decide that no acceptable settlement is possible.

In such circumstances, the dispute may return to the court or tribunal for adjudication.

The court will then decide the matter according to applicable law and evidence rather than forcing parties to accept a settlement discussed during mediation.

What Happens after a Party Withdraws from Mediation?

Withdrawal ordinarily brings the mediation proceedings to an end.

However, termination of mediation does not normally terminate the underlying dispute.

The parties may still have several legal options depending on the nature of the dispute.

Existing Court Proceedings May Continue

Where a pending case was referred to mediation, unsuccessful mediation normally results in the matter returning to the referring court.

The court proceedings then continue from the appropriate stage.

Arbitration May Continue

Where the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement and mediation was attempted during or before arbitration, the arbitral proceedings may continue if settlement is unsuccessful.

Although both are alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, there are significant differences between arbitration, conciliation and mediation. Arbitration ordinarily results in a binding decision by an arbitral tribunal, while mediation depends upon a mutually agreed settlement.

Fresh Proceedings May Be Filed

Where mediation occurred before litigation, a party may institute appropriate proceedings after the mediation process ends, subject to procedural requirements and limitation laws.

This issue becomes particularly important in commercial disputes governed by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

What Is a Non-Settlement Report?

Not every mediation results in a mediated settlement agreement.

Where settlement cannot be reached, the statutory framework recognises the preparation of a non-settlement report.

Section 21 of the Mediation Act, 2023 deals with situations where mediation concludes without settlement.

An important safeguard is that the report should not become a record of everything that happened during negotiations.

It should not normally disclose confidential details such as:

• which party made a particular settlement offer;
• admissions made during negotiations;
• reasons why one party refused a proposal;
• the mediator’s personal assessment of the merits; or
• conduct that occurred during confidential mediation discussions.

The purpose is to record that mediation did not result in settlement, rather than to create evidence that could later prejudice one of the parties.

Can a Party Withdraw from Pre-Institution Mediation?

Pre-institution mediation requires more careful consideration because some statutes make the process a procedural requirement before litigation.

The most important example is Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Under Section 12A, certain commercial suits that do not contemplate urgent interim relief cannot ordinarily be instituted without first exhausting the prescribed remedy of pre-institution mediation.

Therefore, a distinction must be drawn between two propositions:

1. no party can ordinarily be forced to enter into a settlement; and
2. a party may still be required to comply with a statutory mediation procedure before filing a suit.

This distinction is crucial.

Can a Plaintiff Simply Start Mediation and Immediately Withdraw?

In mandatory commercial pre-institution mediation, merely making a formal application and then refusing to participate may not always amount to proper compliance with the statutory requirement.

The Delhi High Court considered this issue in Kapil Goel v. Ram Dulare Yadav @ Gandhi Bhai.

The Court distinguished between situations where the defendant refuses to participate and situations where the plaintiff itself avoids the mediation process.

Where the plaintiff initiates mediation but subsequently refuses to participate meaningfully, questions may arise regarding whether the statutory requirement of pre-institution mediation has genuinely been exhausted.

Therefore, while settlement remains voluntary, a plaintiff should not treat mandatory pre-institution mediation as a purely technical formality.

What Happens If the Defendant Refuses Pre-Institution Mediation?

A defendant’s refusal to participate does not ordinarily give the defendant the power to permanently block the plaintiff from approaching the commercial court.

Under the Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018, notice may be issued to the opposite party inviting participation in the mediation process.

Where the opposite party refuses to participate or fails to respond in accordance with the procedure, the mediation may be treated as a non-starter.

The appropriate report may then be issued.

This allows the plaintiff to demonstrate that the prescribed mediation process was initiated even though mediation could not effectively proceed because of the opposite party’s refusal.

Is Pre-Institution Mediation Mandatory in Commercial Cases?

The Supreme Court dealt with the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

The Court held that pre-institution mediation in commercial cases is mandatory in cases covered by Section 12A.

A commercial suit instituted in violation of the mandatory requirement may face rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

However, Section 12A contains an important exception where the suit contemplates urgent interim relief.

Therefore, commercial pre-institution mediation illustrates why the expression “a party can withdraw from mediation at any time” requires qualification.

A party cannot be compelled to settle, but statutory procedural obligations may still affect when and how court proceedings can be instituted.

Does Withdrawal Affect the Limitation Period?

The Mediation Act contains protection relating to limitation where a dispute has undergone mediation.

Section 29 deals with exclusion of the period spent in mediation while computing limitation for appropriate legal proceedings.

Broadly, the period between commencement and termination of mediation is excluded in the manner contemplated by the Act.

This protection is important because parties should not ordinarily lose their right to pursue legal proceedings merely because time was spent genuinely attempting to resolve the dispute through mediation.

Therefore, withdrawal or failure of mediation does not necessarily mean that the entire period spent in mediation counts against the limitation period.

The precise limitation position must still be examined according to the nature of the proceeding and the applicable statutory framework.

Does Confidentiality Continue after Withdrawal?

Yes. Withdrawal from mediation does not ordinarily destroy the confidentiality attached to mediation communications.

Sections 22 and 23 of the Mediation Act, 2023 contain important protections concerning confidentiality, privilege and disclosure.

During mediation, parties may make settlement offers, concessions, suggestions, admissions or apologies in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

If every such statement could later be freely used in court, parties would be reluctant to negotiate openly.

Therefore, communications made for the purpose of mediation ordinarily receive significant statutory protection. However, confidentiality in mediation may be lifted in limited circumstances recognised by law.

For example, a party should not normally be able to argue before the court that the opposite party must be liable merely because that party offered to pay a particular amount during mediation.

An offer to settle may simply represent a commercial or practical attempt to avoid litigation.

Withdrawal from mediation does not ordinarily convert confidential negotiation material into admissible evidence.

Can Statements Made before Withdrawal Be Used in Court?

Generally, mediation communications receive protection from disclosure and use in subsequent proceedings, subject to statutory exceptions.

The principle is that unsuccessful mediation should not prejudice a party when the dispute later proceeds to adjudication.

Accordingly, statements such as the following would normally remain protected within the mediation framework:

• settlement proposals;
• possible compromises discussed during negotiation;
• admissions made solely for settlement purposes;
• apologies made during mediation;
• willingness to accept particular terms; and
• confidential documents prepared specifically for mediation.

The exact admissibility of a document or statement may depend on its nature and whether it existed independently of the mediation process.

A document does not necessarily become permanently protected merely because it was brought into a mediation session if it was otherwise independently available and legally admissible.

Can the Mediator End the Mediation?

Yes. Termination does not always result from withdrawal by a party.

Section 24 also contemplates termination where the mediator concludes that further efforts at mediation are no longer justified.

This may happen where negotiations have completely broken down or there is no realistic possibility of achieving settlement through further sessions.

The mediator’s role is not to keep mediation continuing indefinitely.

Where continued discussions serve no meaningful purpose, termination may be appropriate.

This is different from a party opting out. In one situation, termination results from the party’s decision; in the other, the mediator concludes that continuing the process is no longer justified.

Withdrawal by a Party and Withdrawal by a Mediator Are Different

The expression “withdrawal from mediation” can sometimes create confusion.

Withdrawal by a Party

A party may communicate that it no longer wishes to participate. This may result in termination under Section 24 of the Mediation Act.

Withdrawal by the Mediator

A mediator may also withdraw from acting as mediator in circumstances recognised under the Act.

This concerns the mediator’s mandate rather than the parties’ desire to terminate settlement negotiations.

Depending on the circumstances, another mediator may be appointed. The appointment of mediators under the Mediation Act, 2023 includes provisions dealing with termination of a mediator’s mandate and replacement of a mediator.

Therefore, withdrawal of the mediator does not always mean that mediation itself has permanently failed.

Can Withdrawal Have Adverse Legal Consequences?

Withdrawal from ordinary voluntary mediation does not automatically create legal liability simply because a party decided not to settle.

However, consequences may arise depending on the legal context.

For example:

• Mandatory statutory mediation: Premature refusal to comply with a statutory mediation requirement may affect the maintainability of subsequent proceedings.
• Contractual obligations: A contract may contain a mediation agreement or mediation clause requiring mediation before arbitration or litigation. The legal effect of bypassing such a clause depends on its wording and applicable law.
• Court directions: Where a court has directed participation in mediation, parties should comply with procedural directions even though they cannot be forced to settle.
• Commercial litigation: Failure to properly exhaust mandatory pre-institution mediation may affect institution of a commercial suit.

Therefore, the right to refuse settlement should not be confused with a general right to ignore procedural obligations associated with mediation.

Can a Party Withdraw after Agreeing to Settlement Terms?

This question depends heavily on whether the negotiations have merely produced a tentative understanding or whether a legally valid mediated settlement agreement has already been executed.

Before a binding settlement is concluded, parties generally retain freedom to reject proposals.

However, once a mediated settlement agreement has been validly signed and authenticated in accordance with the Mediation Act, the legal position changes significantly.

A mediated settlement agreement may have binding and enforceable consequences.

At that stage, a party cannot ordinarily avoid the agreement simply by stating that it no longer wishes to participate in mediation.

The issue then becomes one of the validity, enforceability or challenge to the settlement agreement rather than withdrawal from an ongoing mediation.

Can One Party Stop Mediation Even If the Other Wants to Continue?

Generally, yes.

Mediation depends on participation by the parties whose dispute is being negotiated.

If one party clearly opts out and communicates the decision in accordance with Section 24, continuation of the same mediation may become impossible.

The other party cannot ordinarily compel the withdrawing party to negotiate until a settlement is reached.

However, the non-withdrawing party may continue to pursue other remedies available under law, including litigation or arbitration.

Where the dispute is part of an existing court proceeding, the failure of mediation generally means that the dispute returns to adjudication.

Why Does Indian Law Allow Withdrawal from Mediation?

The right to withdraw protects the basic character of mediation as a consensual dispute resolution mechanism.

Mediation works effectively when parties participate genuinely and retain control over the outcome.

If parties could be forced to continue indefinitely or compelled to accept settlement terms, mediation would begin to resemble adjudication.

Allowing withdrawal serves several purposes. It preserves party autonomy, protects voluntary settlement, prevents unproductive negotiations and ensures that unsuccessful mediation does not permanently block access to courts or other legal remedies.

At the same time, Indian law increasingly encourages mediation by creating structured procedures and, in some areas, mandatory pre-litigation requirements.

The legal framework therefore attempts to balance voluntary settlement with procedural encouragement of mediation.

Key Points on Withdrawal from Mediation

The legal position can be summarised as follows:

• A party can generally withdraw from mediation. Section 24 of the Mediation Act, 2023 expressly recognises opting out as a ground for termination.
• The withdrawal should be communicated in writing. The communication should be made to the mediator and the other parties involved in the mediation.
• Consent of all parties is not ordinarily required. One party may opt out even where another party wishes to continue negotiations.
• Settlement can never ordinarily be forced. Court referral or statutory mediation does not empower a mediator to impose settlement terms.
• Mandatory mediation requires greater caution. In commercial disputes governed by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, procedural compliance with pre-institution mediation may be necessary before filing a suit.
• Confidentiality generally continues after withdrawal. Settlement offers and protected mediation communications do not ordinarily become freely usable in later court proceedings.
• The dispute itself usually continues. Withdrawal normally ends mediation, not the underlying legal rights or claims.

Conclusion

A party can withdraw from mediation in India because voluntary participation and consensual settlement are central features of the mediation process. Section 24 of the Mediation Act, 2023 expressly recognises a party’s right to opt out by communicating the decision in writing to the mediator and the other parties.

However, withdrawal must be understood in context. Where mediation is voluntary, discontinuing the process will usually bring mediation to an end without preventing further legal remedies. Where mediation forms part of a mandatory statutory procedure, especially pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, premature withdrawal may create procedural difficulties.

The law therefore protects the freedom not to settle while also ensuring that mandatory mediation requirements are not reduced to empty formalities. The key distinction is that a party may be required to participate in a prescribed mediation process in certain situations, but no party can ordinarily be compelled to accept a settlement against its will.