A parliamentary panel has recommended a singular controlling authority for all types of mediation service providers and mediation institutes, instead of multiple authorities proposed in a bill.
The Department-related Standing Committee on Law and Personnel also recommended that the time limit provided for the completion of a mediation process should be capped at 90 days with an extended period of 60 days, instead of 180 days.
The committee headed by Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) Sushil Kumar Modi submitted its report to Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu.
It noted that the Mediation Bill provides for multiple controlling authorities for various mediation service providers — the authority constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, a mediation centre annexed to a court or a tribunal, besides the Mediation Council of India.
"The Committee, therefore, recommends that instead of having multiple controlling authorities for various mediation service providers and mediation institutes, there should be only one controlling authority for all types of mediation service providers and mediation institutes.
"The Committee also recommends that the provisions should be made to authorise Mediation Council of India only as the single nodal authority to control mediation service providers and mediation institutes," a statement issued along with the report said on Wednesday.
The committee observed that making pre-litigation mediation mandatory may actually result in delaying cases and prove to be an additional tool in the hands of the litigants to delay the disposal of cases.
The panel said not only pre-litigation mediation should be made optional but also be introduced in a phased manner, instead of bringing it with immediate effect for all civil and commercial disputes.
The committee also noted that the time limit provided for the completion of a mediation process in the bill is "too long". Though some of the stakeholders felt that there should not be any time limit prescribed for the completion of a mediation process, the committee was not in agreement with this "open-ended" clause.
"The Committee, therefore, recommends that it would serve the object of the bill better if the time limit is reduced, say to 90 days plus an extended period of 60 days, instead of 180 days and further extension of 180 days with consent of parties (as stipulated in the bill)," it said.
The committee has recommended that the provisions of the bill may be suitably amended.
