The Supreme Court hailed Justice Kurian Joseph’s “extraordinary artistry” in mediation after he resolved a 27-year-old property dispute. The landmark settlement showcases mediation’s rising power in ending long-running legal battles.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India this week delivered two important rulings that highlight how the Court works both to promote quicker settlement of disputes and to ensure that governments follow basic rules to protect people’s rights.
In one case, the Court praised the successful mediation of a 27-year-old property dispute, calling it a shining example of how mediation can end long-running fights.
In another, the Court strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh government for not putting into place the required rules for medical check-ups of people who leave police custody, a safeguard meant to prevent custodial violence.
These two matters, decided by different benches, show how the Supreme Court continues to push for faster justice and stricter protection of fundamental rights in a system that faces many delays.
The mediation matter began decades ago and involved a family property dispute that had stretched on since 1998. The fight related to whether a 1968 sale deed was valid when it had been signed without the consent of a co-parcener—a common issue in Hindu joint family property cases.
Over the years, the case travelled through several courts, including the Telangana High Court, and despite the legal arguments, no final resolution emerged. To break this deadlock, the Supreme Court earlier encouraged the parties to try mediation before retired Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph.
The mediation worked, and the parties signed a full and final settlement on November 22, 2025, agreeing that the respondents would pay ₹2.5 crore to the appellants.
When the settlement came before the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the judges went beyond simply approving the agreement.
They praised Justice Kurian Joseph’s skill in unusually warm terms. The Court said:
“That the parties have been able to arrive at such harmonious accord is a testament to the extraordinary artistry and refined skill of the mediator.”
The bench added that resolving the dispute required
“a rare combination of insight and sensitivity, a capacity to discern unspoken concerns, and a patience that remains steady even as emotions swell.”
The Court also appreciated how mediation allows parties to settle matters with less court involvement and more personal control.
As the order noted, mediation
“allows the parties to find common ground through minimal court involvement while retaining ownership over the outcome they ultimately arrive at.”
The judges further remarked that
“This case serves as an example of how profoundly effective and deeply preferable mediation can be in the resolution of property disputes.”
These observations underline how useful mediation can be in emotionally complicated family property disputes, where long litigation often worsens tensions.
It also shows why retired judges like Justice Joseph are often chosen for mediation, as they bring experience, neutrality and an understanding of human behaviour. For the justice system, such settlements also help reduce the massive backlog of cases pending in Indian courts.
Many legal experts note that the case could have turned into a major judgment on coparcenary rights—especially after landmark rulings like Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma in 2020—but through mediation, the parties avoided years of more litigation and the uncertainty of a court verdict.
Instead, they chose a practical settlement that closed a dispute stuck in courts for almost three decades.
In another major order this week, a separate bench of the Supreme Court—Justices K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti—expressed strong disappointment with the Uttar Pradesh government for not framing the required Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for medical examinations of people when they leave a police station after interrogation or detention.
This direction stems from State of U.P. v. Ramadhaar Kashyap Minor through Brother Divyanshu, a case where the Allahabad High Court had earlier ordered that medical check-ups must be conducted to prevent custodial torture.
The Supreme Court had agreed with the High Court in February 2024 and had permitted Uttar Pradesh to prepare its own SOP, giving the State eight weeks’ time.
Even after several extensions, including a written promise on February 28, 2025, the State still had not produced the SOP. Only a committee had been formed.
The bench’s frustration was clearly reflected when it observed:
“It is disappointing to note that the Standard Operating Procedure, as undertaken by the State, has not been filed. The matter pertains to conducting medical examination of persons called to the police station at the time of their exiting the police station.”
The Court has now given time until December 31, 2025, and has warned that if the State fails again, the Home Secretary will have to file an affidavit explaining the delay. The matter will next be heard on January 5, 2026.
The case is significant because medical examinations at the time of release can help prevent torture and ensure accountability of police officers. These requirements come from Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
They are also based on earlier Supreme Court rulings like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, which laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths. Human rights bodies have repeatedly reported custodial abuse in Uttar Pradesh, making the Court’s directions even more important.
Legal observers say that if Uttar Pradesh continues to delay, the Supreme Court may issue wider directions that could also influence other states. Uniform procedures for documenting injuries, the role of government doctors, and proper record-keeping could strengthen transparency in policing.
This would bring India closer to global human rights standards and reduce the number of complaints and cases about custodial violence.
These two rulings together show how the Supreme Court is trying to improve both sides of the justice system—civil and criminal. The success of the mediation highlights a path that can cut down on decades-long legal battles and reduce the huge burden on courts.
The sharp warning to Uttar Pradesh shows that the Court will not tolerate delays in protecting basic rights, especially when they involve allegations of torture or abuse. Lawyers handling property matters may see these developments as a signal to encourage clients to opt for mediation early.
Criminal lawyers and rights advocates may view the UP matter as a reminder that courts are watching and that governments must act responsibly.
Both matters also reflect the Supreme Court’s broader philosophy that justice must be not only effective but also humane.
As seen from its poetic praise of mediation turning conflict into understanding, and its strict insistence on safeguards against custodial violence, the Court is pushing for a justice system that is faster, fairer and more sensitive.
With new laws like the Mediation Act, 2023, and ongoing debates on police reform, these rulings may shape policymaking in the coming months.
For now, they serve as a clear reminder: justice in India must protect both efficiency and human dignity, and the Supreme Court is prepared to intervene wherever necessary to ensure that balance.
Read More Reports On Sunjay Kapur
