The panel headed by BJP MP Sushil Modi has noted that “unless specifically notified by the central and/or state governments, non-commercial disputes with government as one party are by and large outside the ambit of the Mediation Bill”. The panel has recommended that “in view of the current infrastructural and human resource constraints”, it would be advisable to modify the said provision so that government-related disputes become part of the bill.
Referring to the two components of commercial disputes – ordinary disputes and disputes of specified value – the panel has observed that keeping government-related disputes out of the bill’s purview will create a situation wherein commercial disputes of specified value are dealt with in a manner different from other commercial disputes that are not of specified value.
The bill, which was moved by the Centre in Rajya Sabha last December, proposes that civil or commercial disputes be settled through mediation before approaching any court or tribunal.
The panel has observed that the Singapore Convention should be ratified by the Indian government and has recommended that the present definition of “International Mediation” should be revisited so that the provisions of Singapore Convention can be incorporated in the enactment without any ambiguity.
By doing so, the panel has said, “the object of developing India into a robust centre for domestic and international mediation can be achieved”.
It might be mentioned here that the committee has differed with the present provisions of the bill on multiple counts, even recommending that the existing definition of “mediation” in the bill should be reframed.
With regard to multiple controlling authorities, the panel has recommended that “there should be only one controlling authority for all types of mediation service providers and mediation institutes”.
It has been recommended that provisions should be made to authorise the Mediation Council of India as the only nodal authority to control such service providers and institutes. The government “may consider not to restrict the scope of International Mediation to commercial disputes only”, the panel has suggested.
The panel has observed that “the committee fails to understand as to how the matter pending before a tribunal will be treated as pre-litigation mediation. The definition of pre-litigation mediation and court-annexed mediation needs further clarity… The committee recommends that the bill should have one clause focused on pre-litigation mediation as the spirit of the bill to unclog the pending cases before the courts”.
For all the latest world News Click Here
