90-Day ‘Mediation For Nation' Campaign To Resolve Pending Cases To Start Next Month
Last Updated:
The pan-India mediation campaign would commence on July 1 and will continue till September 30, 2025.
A 90-day long pan-India mediation campaign will be launched starting July 1 to settle pending legal cases across the country.
Titled 'Mediation For the Nation', the campaign will jointly be launched by National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Supreme Court's Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC).
The pan-India mediation campaign would commence on July 1 and will continue till September 30, 2025.
'Under the guidance of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Supreme Court Judge and NALSA executive chairman Justice Surya Kant, a 90-days long Mediation 'For the Nation' campaign has been conceptualised by the NALSA and MCPC," the release stated.
According to the press release, this campaign is being organised with an aim to settle suitable cases pending in courts right from taluka courts to the high courts and take 'mediation to every nook and corner" of the country as peoples' friendly mode of dispute resolution.
'Mediation 'For the Nation' campaign is being launched across India to settle the pending cases and make people believe that mediation as a mechanism for dispute resolution is peoples' friendly, cost effective and speedy with ability to save relationships, time and money," NALSA's press statement stated.
The nature of pending cases eligible for mediation include matrimonial disputes, accident claims, domestic violence, cheque bounce, commercial disputes, service matters, criminal compoundable cases, consumer disputes and eviction.
The press release said the special campaign intended to involve existing mediators, including professionals who have undergone the 40-hours mediation training recently. The mediation settlement efforts would continue throughout the week as per the convenience of the parties involved.
'The special campaign intends to involve all existing mediators including the mediators who have undergone 40 hours mediation training recently. The campaign will witness mediation settlement efforts on all 7 days of the week as per the convenience of the parties," NALSA said.
To ensure success of the special drive, the mediation process might happen offline, in the online mode or in the hybrid method to settle cases.
The campaign would be monitored by the Mediation Monitoring Committees of State High Courts.
(With inputs from agencies)
First Published:
June 28, 2025, 09:02 IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump Runs Up Supreme Court Winning Streak, Amassing More Power
The US Supreme Court's just-completed term had a clear winner: President Donald Trump. With a 6-3 ruling Friday restricting the power of judges to issue nationwide blocks on presidential initiatives, the court put an exclamation mark on a term dominated by Trump victories. The court's conservative supermajority sided with Trump on both broad legal questions and an unprecedented barrage of emergency requests to let his policies take effect right away. The end result was a stack of decisions deferring to Trump. The court let him discharge transgender people from the military, fire top officials at government agencies and open hundreds of thousands of migrants to deportation. The Supreme Court repeatedly reinstated Trump policies found by lower courts to be illegal, and it undercut judges who said the administration had violated their orders. At times, the court gave little if any explanation for its actions, even as liberal justices blasted the majority for rewarding what they said was Trump's lawlessness. 'The court treated him as if he were a normal president, and I think that was probably a mistake,' said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania. The court has yet to grapple with 'what to do with the president who does not seem to be motivated by public spiritedness or the good of the country and doesn't necessarily subscribe to American values like due process and liberty and equality.' The ruling Friday gives the administration a new tool to try to stop judges from putting policies on hold. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett faulted three trial judges for issuing so-called nationwide injunctions halting Trump's plan to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,' said Barrett, one of three Trump appointees on the court. Trump, who thanked by name the six Republican-appointed justices in the majority, declared the decision a 'monumental victory.' He said the administration would move to lift holds judges have placed on a number of his policies, mentioning fights over refugee resettlement, federal spending and so-called sanctuary cities. 'The Supreme Court has finally put a stop to this judicial activism, which has abused our constitutional separation of powers for too long,' Alabama's Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said in an emailed statement. The decision was one of five rulings the court released Friday as it issued the term's last opinions in argued cases. Among other decisions was one that backed Trump's position by declaring that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school lessons for religious reasons. Earlier in the month, the court agreed with Trump in another culture-war clash, upholding state bans on certain medical treatments for transgender children. The court on Monday and Thursday will likely indicate new cases the justices will hear in their next nine-month term, which will start in October. Trump suffered a rare setback in May when the court blocked the administration from using a rarely used wartime law to send about 176 Venezuelans to a Salvadoran prison before they had a chance to make their case to a judge. 'This ruling was particularly significant because it showed the court's willingness to enforce constitutional constraints even on immigration enforcement — typically an area where the court defers strongly to executive authority,' said Stephanie Barclay, a professor who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown Law School. But the following month, the court appeared to undercut the decision when it let the administration resume quickly deporting migrants to countries other than their own. The court gave no explanation for the decision, which lifted a judge's order that gave people 10 days notice and a chance to argue they would be at risk of torture. The birthright citizenship case didn't directly concern the legality of the restrictions, which would upend a longstanding constitutional right. Trump seeks to jettison what has been the widespread understanding that the Constitution's 14th Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone born on US soil. The executive order would restrict that to babies with at least one parent who is a citizen or legal permanent resident. The practical effect of the ruling remains to be seen. The 22 states challenging the citizenship plan can still argue at the lower court level that they need a nationwide halt to avoid the financial costs and administrative headaches that would result if the restrictions applied in neighboring jurisdictions. And Barrett explicitly left open the prospect that people challenging policies can press class action lawsuits. A prominent critic of nationwide injunctions, Notre Dame law professor Samuel Bray, hailed the decision — but also predicted a surge of class action suits and new court orders blocking the citizenship policy. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' Bray said in a statement. Barrett cast the ruling as a nonpartisan one, noting that the Biden administration also sought to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions. 'It's easy to see why. By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached 'a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act was immediately frozen by a federal district court,' Barrett wrote, quoting from a law review article co-written by Bray and University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude. Critics of the court said that characterization missed a key point. 'It is true, of course, that universal injunctions have bedeviled both prior Democratic and Republican administrations,' Michael Dorf, a professor who teaches constitutional law and federal courts at Cornell Law School, said in an email. 'But the court fails to recognize the fact that eliminating a tool for courts to rein in the executive branch is especially perilous at this particular moment, when we have an administration that is already inclined to take a casual attitude towards judicial orders.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Against Ambedkar's ideology': CJI Gavai on Article 370; says need 'one Constitution to keep country united'
NEW DELHI: The Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Saturday supported the abrogation of Article 370 and said that in order to keep the country united, "we need only one Constitution". Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He recalled when the case was brought before the Supreme Court, the five-judge bench unanimously upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370 citing it against BR Ambedkar's ideology. "When Article 370 was challenged, it came before us, and when the hearing was underway, I recalled Dr Babasaheb's words that one Constitution is suited for a country... If we want to keep the country united, we need only one Constitution," PTI quoted Gavai saying. On August 5, 2019, the Centre revoked 's special status and reorganised it into two Union territories. Justice Gavai noted that Ambedkar had faced criticism for including too much federalism in the Constitution, with concerns that it might weaken national unity during times of war. "See the situation in the neighbouring countries, be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Whenever our country faces challenges, it has remained united," he added. Gavai was speaking at the inauguration of the Constitution Preamble Park in Nagpur.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court orders release of law student from preventive detention under NSA
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the immediate release of a 24-year-old law student, who had been in preventive detention in Bhopal's Central Jail for nearly a year under the National Security Act. The student was detained after a disturbance at a university campus in Madhya Pradesh's Betul which reportedly occurred after he allegedly clashed with a professor on June 14, 2024, Live Law reported. The first information report filed in the case included charges pertaining to attempt to murder. The student surrendered on June 16 and was placed under judicial custody. When he was in jail, the authorities issued a preventive detention order under the National Security Act which kept getting extended every three months, the legal news outlet reported. The National Security Act allows the Central or state government to order the detention of a person 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations with foreign powers, or the security of India'. It may also order detention to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial 'to the security of the State', the 'maintenance of public order' or the 'maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community'. The police and district magistrates have the power to issue detention orders, subject to approval by the state government within 12 days. Rights bodies in India have criticised the National Security Act for vaguely worded charges, procedures that subvert the due processes of law, provisions that require courts to draw 'adverse inferences' against the accused, lack of mechanisms to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory detention, and sweeping immunities for government officials. During the hearing, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vinod Chandran found the reasons for his detention insufficient to meet legal requirements, calling his confinement 'wholly untenable'. The Supreme Court found invoking the National Security Act unnecessary saying that there was no proper reason to keep him in preventive detention while he was already being held under regular legal charges, Live Law reported. 'At the most, these are all issues of law and order,' the court verbally observed. ''Public order' is something bigger.'
