Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar highlights that nearly half of government cases are pending and urges settling disputes through mediation to reduce litigation and save public funds.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bhubaneswar: The Supreme Court of India continues to push for judicial reforms, and one of its senior judges, Justice Aravind Kumar, recently made a compelling case for rethinking how the government approaches litigation. Speaking at the National Mediation Conference 2025 in Bhubaneswar, Justice Kumar highlighted a critical statistic:
“Being conscious of the fact that 46.78 percent of the litigation pending in all the forums relates to the State, either the Union government or State governments or statutory bodies, it is high time that we think of settling disputes through mediation.”
According to Justice Kumar, this is not just a numbers problem; it’s a mindset problem. He urged governments to embrace mediation as a practical, cost-effective method for settling disputes rather than automatically resorting to litigation.
Justice Kumar illustrated his point with personal experiences from his tenure as Assistant Solicitor General in Karnataka. He recalled a land acquisition dispute involving over 390 landowners. After nine rounds of mediation talks, a settlement could have saved approximately ₹280 crores for the exchequer, while avoiding an additional potential cost of ₹400 crores.
“I said, by this process, do you know that you will be saving around approximately ₹280 crores to the exchequer? If you don’t settle, additionally you will be paying around ₹400 crores more. That is, in the process, ₹680 crores is lost to the exchequer,”
Justice Kumar explained.
Unfortunately, the settlement fell through because one senior bureaucrat refused to sign, fearing vigilance action near retirement. Justice Kumar noted:
“This is the basic mindset in majority of the officials in State litigation.”
The judge also cited a striking example from the COVID-19 period. While reviewing execution petitions in land acquisition cases, he found one case lingering for 27 years, with the original award of ₹23,000 escalating to ₹1.85 lakh. By the time execution was filed, the government had already paid ₹72 lakh—but the matter remained unresolved.
“When I told the Chief Secretary, this is what we have done and there are so many number of cases pending, he said, ‘Sir, please give me the list. I will see that the amount is deposited.’ … Though it was COVID, the Chief Secretary then was very kind enough and he agreed and they deposited somewhere around ₹56 crores, which disposed of around 7,000 execution petition cases,”
Justice Kumar recounted.
This example clearly showed that delays are often due to reluctance, not incapacity.
Justice Kumar emphasized that mediation could help transform the government from being the largest litigant in the country to a leader in dispute resolution. Tools like the Legal Information Management and Briefing System (LIMBS), which tracks and monitors pending cases, could help target areas with excessive litigation and suggest simple mediation solutions.
“When such data is available, the government can target the biggest contributors and ask, why are we litigating so much in this particular area? Can we not resolve this? My answer is, ‘yes, it can be resolved by simple mediation,’”
he said.
Justice Kumar urged both government officials and mediators to collaborate actively, stressing that success depends on the State machinery’s willingness to engage in resolution rather than prolong disputes.
“Only thing is, the State and its official machinery has to make up its mind to engage these mediators in ensuring that the government disputes also can be resolved,” he added.
The session brought together top judges, senior law officers, and mediators from across India, exploring themes like dispute management, policy implementation, and lessons from global best practices.
“The government disputes linger not because they cannot be resolved but because of the reluctance of officials to act decisively,”
Justice Kumar stressed.
