Voluntary and Mandatory Mediation

Mediation is a dispute resolution process in which a neutral mediator assists the parties in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement. Depending on the legal framework, participation in mediation may be voluntary or compulsory. Voluntary mediation begins through the parties’ consent, while mandatory mediation arises from a statute, court direction or binding obligation. However, even in mandatory mediation, the parties ordinarily retain the freedom to refuse settlement.

Meaning of Voluntary Mediation

Voluntary mediation is a process in which the parties willingly agree to refer their dispute to mediation. The decision to begin mediation is based on mutual consent rather than a statutory command or compulsory judicial direction.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

The parties may choose voluntary mediation before filing a case, during pending legal proceedings or after another dispute resolution process has commenced. Their agreement to mediate may be contained in the original contract or may be reached after the dispute arises.

For example, two business entities involved in a disagreement concerning payment may jointly decide to appoint a mediator instead of immediately approaching a court. Similarly, members of a family may voluntarily use mediation to resolve disputes concerning property, maintenance, custody or family arrangements.

Meaning of Mandatory Mediation

Mandatory mediation is a process in which the parties are required to attempt mediation because of a statutory provision, court or tribunal direction, or an enforceable contractual obligation.

In such cases, entry into the mediation process is not entirely based on the immediate willingness of the parties. The law or another binding authority requires them to take part in mediation before pursuing or continuing a legal remedy.

Mandatory mediation does not ordinarily mean mandatory settlement. It requires the parties to participate in the process, but it does not compel them to resolve the dispute or accept particular settlement terms.

This distinction is essential. Participation may be compulsory, while the final decision to settle remains voluntary.

Difference Between Voluntary and Mandatory Mediation

The main difference between voluntary and mandatory mediation lies in the manner in which the process begins.

Voluntary mediation begins because the parties independently agree to mediate. Mandatory mediation begins because participation is required by law, a court, a tribunal or an enforceable contractual process.

This difference concerns entry into mediation. It does not necessarily affect the voluntary nature of the final settlement.

Basis of Commencement

Voluntary mediation commences through the mutual decision of the parties. They evaluate the dispute and independently choose mediation as the preferred method of resolution.

Mandatory mediation commences because a legal or procedural obligation requires the parties to attempt mediation. This obligation may arise under a statute, judicial direction or contractual clause.

Therefore, voluntary mediation is consent-based at the entry stage, while mandatory mediation is obligation-based at that stage.

Role of Consent

Consent is required both for entering the process and accepting the settlement in voluntary mediation.

In mandatory mediation, consent may not be required for the initial referral or participation. A party may be directed to attend mediation despite being reluctant to do so.

However, consent remains necessary for the final settlement. Mandatory mediation cannot ordinarily be converted into compulsory compromise.

Source of Mediation

Voluntary mediation arises from the independent choice or agreement of the parties. The source of the process is their mutual willingness to explore settlement.

Mandatory mediation arises from an external or pre-existing obligation. Its source may be:

• A statutory provision;
• A court or tribunal direction;
• A mandatory contractual clause; or
• A procedural rule governing a particular category of disputes.

The source determines whether non-participation may produce legal consequences.

Freedom to Select the Mediator

In voluntary mediation, the parties generally enjoy broad freedom to appoint a mutually acceptable mediator. They may consider the mediator’s experience, subject expertise, language skills and professional reputation.

In mandatory mediation, the choice may be more restricted. A court may refer the matter to a court-annexed mediation centre, or a statute may require the parties to approach a designated authority or mediation service provider.

Even in mandatory mediation, party preference may be considered where the governing procedure permits it.

Control Over the Procedure

Voluntary mediation is usually highly flexible. The parties may decide the schedule, venue, mode of communication, language, representation and broad procedure.

Mandatory mediation may be governed by statutory rules, institutional regulations or directions issued by a court. The parties may therefore have less control over procedural matters.

However, the mediation itself generally remains informal and flexible compared with litigation.

Freedom to Withdraw

In voluntary mediation, a party may ordinarily withdraw when it considers that the process is no longer useful. Since participation began voluntarily, discontinuation usually does not attract a statutory penalty.

In mandatory mediation, withdrawal or refusal to participate may have procedural consequences. A party may be required to complete certain formalities or attend a minimum number of sessions before the mediation is treated as exhausted.

For example, where pre-institution mediation is a statutory condition for filing a suit, the plaintiff must comply with the prescribed process before approaching the court.

Consequences of Non-Participation

Failure to participate in voluntary mediation generally does not prevent a party from pursuing litigation or another lawful remedy, unless the parties are bound by a contractual mediation clause.

Failure to comply with mandatory mediation may have serious consequences. These may include:

• Rejection of a plaint;
• Delay in institution of proceedings;
• Adverse orders relating to costs;
• A direction to return to mediation; or
• An objection that the proceeding is premature.

The consequence depends upon the statute, contract or judicial direction that makes mediation mandatory.

Position Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that a commercial suit that does not contemplate urgent interim relief shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts pre-institution mediation.

In Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, the Supreme Court held that Section 12A is mandatory. A suit instituted in violation of the provision may be liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The ruling confirms that pre-institution mediation is not merely optional in covered commercial disputes. It is a legal condition that must ordinarily be satisfied before filing the suit.

However, Section 12A does not require the parties to reach a settlement. If mediation fails, the plaintiff may institute the suit after completing the prescribed process.

Urgent Interim Relief

The mandatory requirement under Section 12A does not apply where the commercial suit contemplates urgent interim relief.

Urgent relief may be necessary where delay could cause immediate or irreversible harm. Examples may include threatened infringement of intellectual property, disposal of disputed assets, breach of confidential information or destruction of important evidence.

The exception depends upon the real nature of the dispute and the relief claimed. Merely describing a matter as urgent does not automatically permit the plaintiff to avoid pre-institution mediation.

A court may examine whether the request for urgent interim relief is genuine or has been included only to bypass the statutory requirement.

Nature of Participation

Participation in voluntary mediation is normally cooperative from the beginning because the parties have chosen the process themselves.

Participation in mandatory mediation may initially be reluctant. A party may attend only because of a legal obligation or judicial direction.

Nevertheless, compulsory attendance can sometimes lead to meaningful negotiations. Parties who initially oppose mediation may discover that settlement offers a faster and more practical solution than prolonged litigation.

Role of the Mediator

The mediator’s role is substantially similar in both forms of mediation. The mediator:

• Facilitates communication between the parties;
• Identifies the issues in dispute;
• Helps the parties understand their interests;
• Encourages the development of settlement options;
• Conducts joint or separate meetings where appropriate; and
• Assists in recording agreed terms.

The mediator does not act as a judge and cannot impose a binding decision. This limitation applies to both voluntary and mandatory mediation.

Freedom to Settle

In voluntary mediation, the parties are free to accept or reject settlement proposals. The same principle applies to mandatory mediation.

The law may require participation, but the settlement must result from free consent. A party cannot be compelled to surrender a legal right merely because the dispute has been referred to mediation.

A settlement affected by fraud, corruption, impersonation or other serious illegality may be challenged under the applicable legal framework.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality is an essential feature of both voluntary and mandatory mediation.

Statements, offers, admissions and proposals made during mediation are generally protected from disclosure, subject to statutory exceptions. Confidentiality allows the parties to discuss possible solutions without fear that every statement will later be used in court.

The mediator must also protect information received during joint and private sessions. Information shared by one party in a private meeting should not ordinarily be disclosed to the other party without permission.

Settlement Agreement

A successful voluntary or mandatory mediation may result in a mediated settlement agreement.

The agreement should clearly state:

• The names and details of the parties;
• The issues that have been settled;
• The obligations accepted by each party;
• Payment amounts and timelines, where applicable;
• The method of performance;
• The treatment of pending proceedings; and
• The consequences of non-compliance.

The binding effect of the agreement depends upon compliance with the applicable law. The Mediation Act, 2023 provides a framework for the recognition and enforcement of mediated settlement agreements.

A settlement reached in pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act receives the legal status provided by that Act.

Suitability of Disputes

Voluntary mediation may be used for a wide range of disputes where the parties are willing to negotiate. It is particularly useful in commercial, contractual, family, partnership, employment, property and community disputes.

Mandatory mediation is generally introduced in categories where early settlement is considered socially or institutionally beneficial. Commercial and family disputes are prominent examples.

However, not every dispute is suitable for mediation. Matters involving serious criminal allegations, public rights, coercion, incapacity or disputes expressly excluded by law may not be fit for mediation.

Relationship Between the Parties

Voluntary mediation is often preferred where the parties wish to preserve an existing relationship. Since participation begins through mutual agreement, the process may encourage a cooperative approach.

Mandatory mediation can also protect relationships by creating an opportunity for discussion before litigation becomes more hostile. However, unwilling participation may sometimes reduce the quality of negotiations.

The mediator must therefore create a balanced environment in which all parties can communicate without pressure or intimidation.

Cost and Time

Voluntary mediation may save considerable time and expense because it often begins before formal litigation. The parties can design an efficient process suited to the complexity of the dispute.

Mandatory mediation may also reduce litigation costs if it produces an early settlement. However, where the parties have no genuine intention to negotiate, it may become an additional procedural stage.

The effectiveness of mandatory mediation therefore depends upon proper case screening, trained mediators and sincere participation.

How to Decide Between Voluntary and Mandatory Mediation

The choice between voluntary and mandatory mediation depends mainly on the source of the obligation to mediate. Voluntary mediation is suitable where parties are free to decide whether they wish to negotiate, while mandatory mediation applies where a statute, court direction or contractual clause requires participation. The nature of the dispute, urgency of relief, willingness of the parties and procedural consequences of non-participation must also be examined.

When to Go With Voluntary Mediation

Voluntary mediation may be preferred when:

• Both parties are willing to discuss the dispute in good faith.
• There is a continuing commercial, family or professional relationship.
• The parties want greater control over the mediator, procedure and settlement terms.
• Confidentiality and a quicker resolution are important.
• No law or court order requires mediation before proceedings begin.
• The dispute can be resolved through flexible and practical arrangements.

When to Go With Mandatory Mediation

Mandatory mediation applies when:

• A statute requires mediation before filing a case.
• A court or tribunal refers the parties to mediation.
• A contract contains a binding mediation clause.
• Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act applies to a commercial suit without urgent interim relief.
• Non-participation may lead to rejection, delay or another procedural consequence.

Even in mandatory mediation, settlement itself remains voluntary.

Conclusion

Voluntary and mandatory mediation are distinguished mainly by the manner in which parties enter the process. Voluntary mediation begins through mutual choice, while mandatory mediation arises from a statutory provision, court or tribunal direction, or a binding contractual obligation.

Voluntary mediation gives the parties greater control over commencement, procedure and withdrawal. Mandatory mediation requires participation in the interest of early settlement, judicial efficiency and reduced litigation. Non-compliance with mandatory mediation may result in procedural consequences, particularly where mediation is a statutory precondition to filing a case.