Back
Gen Z Lawyers More Open to Mediation, Supreme Court Justice Kotiswar Singh Urges Governments
Justice Kotiswar Singh of the has made a compelling case for a paradigm shift in how governments approach litigation and . Speaking at an event on the state of the nation's legal framework, the judge highlighted what he described as a "clear lack of responsibility" among government officials when it comes to settling disputes, and urged both the Union and state governments to delegate sufficient authority to enable meaningful participation in mediation and . His remarks come against the backdrop of a stagnant national litigation policy that, despite being conceived in , has failed to make a tangible impact in courtrooms across the country.
A Policy Without Teeth
Justice Singh's observations drew directly from his experience on the bench. Recalling a national conference held in
to formulate a comprehensive litigation policy, he expressed disappointment that its implementation has remained largely elusive.
"I frankly don't see, at least I have not seen in court, the impact of the policy,"
he stated, underscoring a persistent disconnect between policy formulation and ground-level execution. The judge's candid admission resonates with a broader critique frequently voiced by legal practitioners and scholars: that well-intentioned judicial reforms often wither on the vine due to bureaucratic inertia and lack of political will.
The national litigation policy was envisioned as a roadmap to reduce pendency, streamline government litigation, and promote alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution. Yet, according to Justice Singh, unnecessary appeals and review petitions filed by government departments continue to clog the judicial system. This not only burdens the courts but also delays justice for litigants who await resolution of matters that could have been settled long ago.
The Responsibility Deficit in
A particularly troubling aspect of the current scenario, Justice Singh noted, is the conduct of government officials during Lok Adalat proceedings. Frequently, these officials participate in settlement talks but refuse to take responsibility for agreeing to monetary or non-monetary terms, citing a lack of authority and the need for approval from superiors. This procedural paralysis defeats the very purpose of , which are designed to provide speedy and amicable resolution of disputes.
"So, there is a clear lack of a kind of responsibility to be given to certain official officers, stakeholders,"
he observed. The judge's critique extends beyond mere process inefficiency; it points to a deeper cultural resistance within government institutions to embrace collaborative problem-solving. Without genuine delegation of power, mediation initiatives risk becoming hollow exercises, more symbolic than substantive.
A Call for Structural Change
Justice Singh's prescription is direct: governments must formulate clear policies governing settlements and delegate sufficient authority to officials at various levels. He invoked the adage
"Charity has to begin at home,"
emphasizing that the government's role cannot be confined to providing infrastructure for mediation and other ADR mechanisms. Rather, its own conduct as a litigant demands the same standards of accountability and flexibility it expects from private parties.
This is a significant shift in emphasis. Historically, governments have been the largest litigants in Indian courts, and their intransigence often stems from a fear of setting precedents or misusing public money. However, Justice Singh argues that without a coherent settlement policy, the state inadvertently perpetuates the very backlog it claims to want to reduce. The solution lies in empowering officials with pre-approved parameters and clear guidelines, enabling them to make binding decisions during negotiations.
The Gen Z Factor: A Silver Lining
Amid these systemic challenges, Justice Singh found reason for optimism in the attitudes of younger lawyers. He specifically noted that Gen Z lawyers—those entering the profession in the past decade—are more open to mediation and collaborative dispute resolution than their predecessors. This generational shift could be a catalyst for change, as newer practitioners are increasingly comfortable with non-adversarial approaches and recognize the economic and psychological costs of prolonged litigation.
This openness, however, will only translate into practice if the institutional framework supports it. The judiciary, bar associations, and government bodies must work in tandem to create incentives for settlement, reduce adversarial posturing, and professionalize ADR services. For younger lawyers to embrace mediation, they must see that the system rewards such efforts—not just in theory, but in outcomes.
Legal Implications and the Path Forward
The implications of Justice Singh's remarks are profound for the legal community. First, they highlight an urgent need for the government to revisit its litigation strategy. The establishment of a dedicated mediation cell, the publication of settlement guidelines, and the authorization of senior officials to negotiate are practical steps that could yield immediate results. Second, the judiciary must continue to encourage settlement through , a move already gaining traction via the and the , though the latter has yet to see full implementation.
For practicing lawyers, the judge's words serve as a reminder to actively consider ADR options with clients before resorting to litigation. The profession's embrace of mediation as a legitimate and effective tool will be essential in transforming the culture of dispute resolution. Law schools and continuing legal education programs can also play a role by exposing students to negotiation and mediation skills early on.
Finally, the broader public stands to benefit from a more responsive state. When government bodies settle cases efficiently, they not only save taxpayer money but also restore faith in the justice system. As Justice Singh stressed, the impact of a litigation policy is ultimately measured not by the number of conferences held, but by the reduction in pending cases and the swiftness of justice delivered.
In conclusion, Justice Kotiswar Singh's observations are a clarion call for introspection and reform. The government's role as a litigant must evolve from that of a reluctant opponent to a responsible partner in dispute resolution. With Gen Z lawyers ready to embrace mediation, and a judiciary willing to nudge stakeholders, the time is ripe for the national litigation policy to finally deliver on its promise.
