Community Mediation in India: Strengthening Grassroots Justice Mechanisms

Introduction

The Indian judiciary today faces one of the most daunting pendency crises in the world, with more than 52 million cases pending across all levels of courts as of 2023.¹ For many citizens, particularly those living in rural or semi-urban areas, formal litigation is not only a slow and expensive process but also alienating, given its technical procedures, adversarial character, and unfamiliar legal jargon. Access to justice, constitutionally guaranteed under Article 39A of the Constitution, therefore remains a distant reality for large segments of society. Against this backdrop, community mediation has emerged as a promising tool to bridge the gap between people and the justice system.

Community mediation is not new to India. Long before the introduction of statutory frameworks such as the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, local disputes in villages and neighborhoods were resolved informally through mechanisms such as Panchayats and caste councils.² While these bodies were often criticised for perpetuating hierarchical biases, their emphasis on consensus and reconciliation reflected deep cultural roots of mediation within Indian society. Today, community mediation seeks to revive this ethos in a more structured and inclusive manner, allowing disputes involving families, neighborhoods, tenancy, land, and small commercial dealings to be resolved at the grassroots level with minimal cost and maximum participation.

This paper examines the current state of community mediation in India by situating it within its historical trajectory, statutory frameworks, and institutional experiments. It argues that while community mediation holds immense promise as a cost-effective and culturally sensitive form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), its success will depend on addressing challenges such as lack of trained mediators, patriarchal biases, and weak enforceability. Drawing on comparative insights from Singapore and Africa, the paper makes the case for statutory recognition, mediator training, and integration of community mediation into India’s broader ADR ecosystem.

The Evolution of Community Mediation in India

Historically, the most visible form of community dispute resolution in India has been the Panchayat system. Village elders, chosen on the basis of social standing or customary authority, would gather to resolve disputes concerning land boundaries, water usage, tenancy disagreements, or domestic conflicts.³ This process, though informal, prioritised consensus over adjudication and sought to restore community harmony rather than declare legal winners and losers. However, Panchayats often reflected entrenched caste and gender hierarchies, meaning that women and marginalised castes frequently found themselves disadvantaged.⁴

The post-independence era witnessed a gradual institutionalisation of informal justice. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 marked a significant milestone by creating a framework for Lok Adalats. Lok Adalats function through conciliation and compromise, disposing of millions of pending cases, particularly traffic challans, motor accident claims, cheque dishonour disputes, and petty civil matters. In November 2022, for instance, National Lok Adalats disposed of over 7.5 million cases in a single day, demonstrating their scale and efficiency.⁵ While Lok Adalats remain closer to conciliation than mediation, their community-centric nature reveals the state’s acknowledgment of non-adversarial grassroots dispute resolution.

In urban centres, the judiciary has experimented with court-annexed mediation centres such as the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (Samadhan) and the Bangalore Mediation Centre, which not only handle referred civil and family disputes but have also piloted community mediation projects.⁶ These initiatives bring mediation into neighborhoods, schools, and residential associations, directly engaging communities in conflict resolution outside the court system. They illustrate the adaptability of mediation from courtrooms to community halls, thereby broadening access to justice.

Advantages of Community Mediation

Community mediation holds particular value in the Indian context where formal justice often feels inaccessible. Its most obvious advantage is cost-effectiveness. Unlike litigation, which requires court fees, lawyer fees, and extensive procedural compliance, community mediation is free or affordable, supported either by NGOs, local bodies, or Legal Services Authorities. For marginalised groups such as small farmers, laborers, and street vendors, this reduction of financial barriers is crucial.

Equally significant is cultural sensitivity. Mediators drawn from the community or trained to understand its socio-economic context are better positioned to frame settlements that reflect local realities. For instance, in tenancy disputes within urban slums, parties may prefer solutions involving staggered payments or shared community responsibilities rather than rigid legal orders. By incorporating cultural norms and values, community mediation achieves resolutions that are not only legally sound but also socially acceptable.

Community mediation also embodies principles of restorative justice. Unlike courts that focus on liability, fault, or damages, mediation prioritises dialogue and reconciliation.⁷ In family or neighborhood disputes, where relationships extend beyond the dispute itself, this restoration of trust is more valuable than punitive remedies. Importantly, community mediation also empowers marginalised voices by offering them a participatory forum. Women’s collectives and community mediation cells established by NGOs often provide women a safe platform to resolve domestic conflicts without the stigma of approaching police or courts.

Challenges in Practice

Despite its advantages, community mediation in India faces structural challenges that hinder its effectiveness. The most pressing issue is the lack of trained mediators. Many local mediators operate on goodwill and community trust but lack formal training in mediation techniques, negotiation strategies, or trauma-sensitive practices. This often leads to outcomes that may not reflect genuine consensus.

Another challenge is the persistence of patriarchal and caste biases. In some areas, mediation continues to be influenced by social hierarchies, with women or marginalized communities pressured into accepting unfavorable settlements.⁸ For example, domestic violence cases handled informally through community mediation sometimes result in coerced compromises that ignore women’s rights under statutory law, raising concerns about fairness and voluntariness.

A third difficulty is enforcement. Unlike arbitral awards, which are enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or settlements under the Mediation Act, 2023, outcomes of community mediation often lack binding force. Unless converted into consent decrees by courts, they remain moral rather than legal obligations. This undermines the credibility of community mediation, especially where one party refuses compliance.

Finally, the risk of informal coercion cannot be ignored. In small communities, social pressure often compels parties to settle, regardless of whether the outcome reflects genuine consent. Without safeguards, this threatens the voluntariness that is the cornerstone of mediation.

Comparative Insights

International models provide valuable lessons for India. Singapore offers perhaps the most structured framework, having enacted the Community Mediation Centres Act, 1997. These centres handle neighborhood disputes, minor commercial conflicts, and family disagreements, with mediators trained and accredited by the state.⁹ Though outcomes are not legally binding, institutional support ensures fairness and procedural integrity.

In Africa, customary mediation continues to be the dominant form of grassroots justice. Communities in Kenya and South Africa often rely on village elders or chiefs to mediate disputes involving land, inheritance, and domestic issues.¹⁰ Recent reforms in these countries seek to integrate customary mediation within formal legal frameworks, ensuring that community harmony is preserved without compromising constitutional rights. Both Singapore and Africa illustrate that community mediation works best when informality is balanced by institutional safeguards and state support.

Policy Framework in India

India’s statutory frameworks offer partial recognition of community-oriented dispute resolution but stop short of formalising community mediation. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers courts to refer disputes to mediation. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, under Section 12A, mandates pre-litigation mediation for commercial disputes. The Mediation Act, 2023, for the first time, provides a comprehensive legal framework for mediation, including community mediation under Section 44, though its implementation is still nascent.

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which underpins Lok Adalats, already brings millions of citizens into informal dispute resolution annually. Yet, unlike Lok Adalats or court-annexed mediation centres, community mediation lacks a clear statutory home; it operates instead through ad hoc NGO initiatives, pilot projects, or court outreach. Without formal recognition, scaling community mediation across India remains a challenge.

Recommendations

To strengthen community mediation in India, several reforms are necessary. First, statutory recognition must be provided, perhaps through detailed provisions within the Mediation Act, 2023, ensuring voluntariness, neutrality, and enforceability of outcomes. Second, capacity building through structured training and certification of mediators is essential, with emphasis on gender sensitivity and inclusivity. Third, enforcement mechanisms should be clarified by linking community mediation settlements with existing frameworks for conciliation and mediation under the 1996 Act and CPC, allowing their recording as consent decrees. Fourth, India should embrace digital innovation, using online platforms to extend community mediation to rural and semi-urban areas where physical infrastructure is weak. Finally, accountability mechanisms must be instituted through monitoring by Legal Services Authorities to guard against coercion and bias.

Conclusion

Community mediation in India represents a convergence of tradition and modernity. While rooted in the historical practices of Panchayats and local councils, it now has the potential to evolve into a structured, inclusive, and rights-sensitive mechanism that complements formal courts. By providing cost-effective, accessible, and culturally sensitive dispute resolution, community mediation can help restore harmony at the grassroots while easing the burden on the judiciary.

However, for this potential to be realised, India must move beyond pilot projects to a robust legal and institutional framework that recognises and regulates community mediation. Comparative experiences from Singapore and African countries show that informality must coexist with institutional safeguards. With statutory recognition, mediator training, and integration into India’s ADR system, community mediation can become not only a tool for dispute settlement but also a vehicle for social justice and democratic participation.

References

1. National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), Pendency Dashboard, 2023.

2. Marc Galanter & Jayanth Krishnan, Panchayats and the Politics of Dispute Resolution in India (1998) 33 Law & Society Rev 791.

3. M.P. Jain, Outlines of Indian Legal History (7th edn, LexisNexis 2014).

4. Pratiksha Baxi, Justice as Practice: Panchayats, Women and Rights in India (2006) 41 EPW 1523.

5. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Annual Report on Lok Adalats, 2022.

6. Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (Samadhan), Annual Report (2021).

7. Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Mediation and Restorative Justice: Promises and Limits (2016) 47 U Tol L Rev 1023.

8. Nandini Sundar, Legal Pluralism and the Politics of Rights in India (2004) 36 J Legal Pluralism 1.

9. Community Mediation Centres Act (Singapore), 1997.

10. Francis Kariuki, Customary Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Africa (2015) 2 Afr J Legal Stud 1.