Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dealt with a criminal writ petition challenging a trial court order that directed issuance of witness summons to an advocate who had represented the petitioners in mediation proceedings. The underlying dispute arose from an application filed by the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act seeking return of Streedhan. During the pendency of that application, the matter was referred to mediation by an earlier court order dated 25.10.2021. Mediation proceedings were undertaken, and proposals were exchanged between the advocates of both parties, but no settlement was reached. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application at Exh.49 seeking examination of the advocate who appeared for the petitioners before the mediator. The trial court allowed that application on 12.06.2026 and directed issuance of witness summons, which were issued on 15.06.2026. The petitioners challenged these orders on the ground that mediation communications are confidential and inadmissible under Rule 20 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules, 2006, and Sections 22 and 23 of the Mediation Act, 2023. The petitioners argued that an advocate is a participant under Section 3(r) of the 2023 Act and cannot be compelled to disclose mediation communications. The respondent contended that the information sought related to domestic violence and fell within the exception under Section 23(2)(b), and that the proposals were not submitted before the mediator, thus not part of mediation. The respondent also questioned the locus standi of the petitioners. The court considered the rival submissions and examined the relevant provisions. It noted that mediation is a confidential alternative dispute resolution mechanism intended to encourage open dialogue and settlement. The court framed the issue as whether an advocate can be summoned to disclose mediation information. After analyzing Rule 20 of the 2006 Rules and Sections 22, 23 and 3(r) of the Mediation Act, 2023, the court held that mediation communications, including proposals exchanged during mediation, are confidential and inadmissible. The court found that the advocate, being a participant, could not be compelled to give evidence about such communication, and that the statutory exceptions did not apply to the facts of the case. The trial court's order was therefore erroneous. The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 and the witness summons issued on 15.06.2026. It emphasized that maintaining confidentiality is essential for the effectiveness of mediation and that allowing disclosure would frustrate the very purpose of the process.
Headnote
A) Alternative Dispute Resolution - Mediation Confidentiality - Rule 20 of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules, 2006 - Parties shall maintain confidentiality of events that transpired during mediation, including views expressed, documents, proposals, admissions, and willingness to accept proposals, and shall not rely on or introduce such information in any other proceedings - The trial court's direction to summon an advocate to prove exchange of proposals during mediation violated this rule, and the court held that such information is inadmissible and cannot be compelled - Held that mediation communications are protected from disclosure (Paras 8-11). B) Mediation Law - Admissibility and Privilege Against Disclosure - Sections 22, 23 and 3(r) of Mediation Act, 2023 - An advocate is a participant under Section 3(r) and is barred from disclosing any mediation communication, including offers, counter-offers, conduct of parties, and details of negotiations, in any court or adjudicatory proceeding - The court held that summoning an advocate to give evidence would defeat the purpose of mediation and is impermissible; the exceptions under Section 23(2) were not applicable to the present case - Held that confidentiality must be maintained by all participants including advocates (Paras 5, 10-11). C) Mediation Law - Exceptions to Confidentiality - Section 23(2) of Mediation Act, 2023 - The respondent argued that the exception under Section 23(2)(b) relating to domestic violence applied, but the court found that the information sought to be proved related to mediation communication and did not fall within the statutory exceptions - The court reasoned that proposals exchanged between advocates during mediation are protected even if not directly submitted to the mediator, as they form part of the mediation process - Held that no exception permitted disclosure of such confidential mediation communication (Paras 7-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an Advocate can be summoned to give evidence to disclose information received during mediation proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 passed below Exh.49 in Misc. Criminal Application No.885/2017 and the witness summons issued on 15.06.2026 to the advocate who represented the petitioners in the mediation proceedings, holding that mediation communications are confidential and inadmissible and the advocate cannot be compelled to disclose them.
Law Points
- Mediation communications are confidential and inadmissible
- Advocate is a participant in mediation and cannot be compelled to disclose mediation information
- Rule 20 of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules
- 2006
- Sections 22 and 23 of Mediation Act
- 2023
- exceptions under Section 23(2) not applicable
