New Delhi: When the Supreme Court appointed former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud as a mediator this month in a family dispute between late industrialist Sunjay Kapur’s mother, Rani Kapur, and his wife, Priya Sachdev Kapur, the decision put the spotlight on more than just the inheritance battle.
At stake is a Rs 30,000-crore inheritance linked to the Sona Group and the Rani Kapur Family Trust. As the bitter succession battle intensified in court, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan passed an order referring the parties to mediation, emphasising the need for privacy, confidentiality, and an amicable settlement to avoid the dispute becoming public “entertainment”.
For at least two decades, arbitration has been the preferred avenue for judges post-retirement, especially retired Supreme Court and High Court judges who were frequently appointed as arbitrators in high-stakes disputes.
But, the Kapur family feud case highlights a new trend in India’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system. From sensitive cases such as the Ayodhya dispute and multi-crore inheritance battles to trademark wars and conflicts over temple rituals, courts are routinely appointing retired judges as mediators.
Both arbitration and mediation fall under the ADR system but they are different.
In arbitration, the parties effectively surrender decision-making authority to the arbitrator. An arbitral award is directly binding and executable, subject to limited judicial challenges.
In mediation, parties attempt to reach an amicable settlement with the assistance of a neutral third person, or mediator, who does not have the authority to impose a settlement. A mediated settlement derives its force from mutual consent. In such court-annexed mediations, the mediator’s fee is also decided with the parties’ consent.
“Mediation is a process to which the parties submit voluntarily. The mediator’s role is limited to assisting the parties in understanding the underlying dispute and arriving at the best solution that’s a win-win situation for all. It’s an entirely different ballgame vis-à-vis judging,” former Supreme Court judge Justice Hima Kohli told ThePrint.
At the same time, judges ThePrint spoke to insisted that the bulk of mediation work across the country is still handled by trained lawyers and institutional mediation centres rather than retired judges.
Mediation Act
Mediation has gathered pace after the enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023, which seeks to formalise mediation as a mainstream dispute resolution mechanism and explicitly encourages “institutional mediation”.
It also comes after arbitration’s mixed record, which prompted caution within the government.
In a 2024 Finance Ministry memorandum laying down ‘Guidelines for Arbitration and Mediation in Contracts of Domestic Public Procurement’, the central government noted that the process of arbitration had often failed to meet expectations.
“The actual experience of arbitration in respect of contracts where the Government (or a Government entity or agency, such as a public sector enterprise) is a party have been, in many cases, unsatisfactory in meeting the expectations,” it said.
According to the 2024 guidelines, “as a norm”, arbitration clauses in contracts should be restricted to disputes valued at less than Rs 10 crore. It clarified that the figure referred to the value of the dispute and not the value of the contract, which could be much higher.
The Mediation Act, 2023, explicitly promotes institutional mediation through the Mediation Council of India, which differs significantly from traditional court-referred mediation.
Section 32 of the Act proposes a seven-member council comprising a chairperson, one member with expertise in mediation or ADR law, one member with experience in research or teaching mediation and ADR laws, three ex officio members (representing the ministries of finance, and law and justice, and the Department of Consumer Affairs), and one representative of a recognised commerce and industry body.
So far, one representative each of a recognised commerce and industry body and the Department of Expenditure has been nominated to the council. The chairperson and other members have yet to be appointed, as per the law ministry’s reply to a parliamentary question in March 2026.
From Ayodhya to family feuds
While the Act envisages a formal institutional architecture for mediation, Indian courts have increasingly turned to retired judges to mediate some of the country’s most politically and commercially sensitive disputes. The outcome of mediation efforts in some high-profile cases has been mixed. Some have been resolved while others are still pending.
In one of the most sensitive cases, in March 2019, a five-judge constitution bench referred the Ayodhya dispute to mediation and appointed retired Supreme Court judge Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla as the chairperson of the panel of mediators. The other two members were Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu.
The case was ultimately resolved through a court judgment.
In another case in 2022, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli appointed former Supreme Court Justice R.V. Raveendran as mediator to resolve a family property dispute involving former IPL chief Lalit Modi, his mother Bina Modi, sister Charu, and brother Samir.
The dispute involving the Modi family, promoters of Godfrey Phillips India, concerns assets estimated to be worth around Rs 11,000 crore.
Earlier attempts, under the mediation of two former apex court judges, Vikramjit Sen and Kurian Joseph, had failed to resolve the dispute between the trustees over the sharing of assets after family patriarch K.K. Modi’s death in 2019.
The case remains unresolved.
In another prominent dispute, in December 2023, the Delhi High Court’s Justice Prathiba M. Singh appointed former Supreme Court judge Nageswara Rao as mediator in a case involving a cricket helmet manufacturer, Kohli Sports, which accused Ashi Sports of infringing its distinctive registered shape mark.
Then, in January, 2025, the Delhi High Court appointed former Supreme Court judge A.K. Sikri as mediator to resolve a dispute between On4Off Trading and the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) regarding the alleged unauthorised use of patented technology for aggregating Unified Payments Interface (UPI) payments via credit cards.
On4Off Trading is seeking to restrain NPCI and others from infringement and is claiming compensatory damages.
However, subsequent court proceedings indicate that the dispute is still ongoing and has not been resolved through mediation. The court noted that Justice Sikri’s mediation report stated that “the mediation proceedings were a ‘non-starter’”.
In another high-profile case, in January 2025, the Bombay High Court appointed retired Supreme Court Justice R.V. Raveendran as the sole mediator for disputes arising from a family arrangement between brothers Abhishek Lodha and Abhinandan Lodha. The two are sons of property magnate and South Mumbai MLA M.P. Lodha.
Abhishek Lodha of Leading Macrotech Developers (formerly known as Lodha Group) filed a trademark infringement suit against his younger brother Abhinandan Lodha’s firm, House of Abhinandan Lodha (HoABL), alleging unauthorised use of the ‘Lodha’ brand name.
According to public reports, the Lodha brothers reached a settlement that stated their clear brand ownership: Macrotech Developers now retains exclusive rights to the ‘Lodha’ and ‘Lodha Group’ trademarks, and Abhinandan Lodha has exclusive rights to the ‘House of Abhinandan Lodha’ (HoABL) brand.
More recently, in September 2025, a Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan appointed former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud as mediator in a commercial dispute between Euro Pratik Ispat and Geomin Industries involving an agreement for the transportation and sale of 1.7 lakh metric tonnes of iron ore.
Justice Chandrachud’s mediation report noted that the parties could not reach a consensus despite best efforts, which the Supreme Court took on record on 10 April.
These are not the only cases.
In November 2025, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi appointed ex-Supreme Court judge Nageswara Rao as mediator in a massive trademark dispute involving John Distilleries, makers of ‘Original Choice’, and Allied Blenders, makers of ‘Officer’s Choice’.
In February this year, the court recorded that the “settlement has almost taken place”, and in April, the time was extended by three months as the mediation was still ongoing.
In December 2025, Justices Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as a mediator in a case where both the husband and wife wanted dissolution of marriage. The husband is a computer engineer in Muscat and the wife a doctor. No other details are available.
This year, in January, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi appointed former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul as principal mediator to settle a 120-year-old dispute between two sects of Sri Vaishnavas over the performance of rituals at the Sri Devarajaswamy Temple at Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu.
In February 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi appointed former apex court judge Kurian Joseph as mediator on a plea filed by journalist Benazeer Heena challenging validity of a Talaq-e-Hasan given by her husband.
In February 2026, another top court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan appointed former apex court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka as mediator to explore the possibility of settlement between IMAX Corporation and the E-City Group in their dispute concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
In April 2026, Karnataka High Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka as mediator to resolve a dispute between Union minister H.D. Kumaraswamy, his son Nikhil, and Janata Dal (Secular) leader Suresh Babu and Senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer M. Chandrashekar. The dispute arose after Chandrashekar, who heads the Lokayukta SIT probing illegal mining cases, accused the minister and others of threatening and intimidating him during press conferences, leading to registration of an FIR.
What former judges say
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Hemant Gupta said such appointments of former judges as mediators in high-profile disputes are often driven by the nature of the dispute, the stakes involved, and the confidence parties repose in the individual chosen to mediate.
Referring to the appointment of former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as mediator in the dispute concerning late businessman Sanjay Kapur’s will, Justice Gupta said certain disputes, especially those with significant stakes, require individuals with exceptional credibility and stature.
He rejected the suggestion that mediation in India is becoming excessively dependent on retired judges. According to him, the bulk of mediation work across the country is actually handled by trained lawyers and institutional mediation centres rather than former judges.
Justice Gupta also cautioned against extrapolating trends from Delhi-based cases into a national pattern.
“To be very frank, Delhi thinks that we are the mediators, we are the trendsetters. Delhi is not India; one or two cases, if the judges have been appointed, that doesn’t mean that it is a pan-India scenario. Pan-India, it is the lawyers who do the mediation,” he told ThePrint.
According to him, the perception that former judges dominate mediation is distorted because only a handful of celebrity or high-profile disputes receive media attention.
Former Supreme Court judge A.S. Oka also rejected the perception that retired judges are dominating India’s mediation ecosystem, stressing that lawyers continue to remain the backbone of mediation practice in the country.
“Traditionally, whatever little success mediation has had, that is due to lawyers who are going out of their way to do mediation,” he told ThePrint.
“Without disturbing the role played by lawyers, there should be more judges acting as mediators in selected cases,” he added, even though he believes that more judges are interested in arbitration than mediation.
Justice Oka, who has decided not to take up arbitration post-retirement, also said that the number of judges being appointed as mediators is negligible compared to lawyers appointed as mediators.
He added that judges often informally perform conciliatory functions even while presiding in court. “In many cases, instead of appointing a mediator, in the open court we do mediation,” he said.
“In high courts, you will find that whenever there are family court appeals, normally judges would call the parties to chambers. They will try to work out a negotiation. Judges are experienced with it,” he added.
However, Justice Oka acknowledged that the dynamics change once a judge retires and formally acts as a mediator. “Sitting in the chair of a judge and just suggesting a settlement has a different impact than a retired judge suggesting it. But still, judges are well equipped to do the job of mediator,” he told ThePrint.
At the same time, Justice Oka emphasised that mediation appointments should ordinarily flow through institutional mechanisms rather than direct judicial nominations.
Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court and former Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, told ThePrint that former judges can make “valuable mediators”, given their legal knowledge, experience, neutrality, patience, ability to listen, and the public confidence they command.
The question, she said, is not whether former judges should mediate, but how the mediation process can best retain its distinct character.
“Mediation is a distinct process. A judge is trained to decide; a mediator is trained to facilitate. Where former judges take on this role, structured orientation and training can help ensure that the process remains facilitative, voluntary and party-centred,” said Justice Mittal.
Despite the strengths, she said it was important to ensure that court-referred mediation is not limited to a narrow pool.
As mediation grows in India, it is necessary to build a broad, trained and diverse pool of mediators, including but not limited to former judges. This, according to her, would help ensure that mediation remains accessible, cost-effective, flexible and responsive to the needs of parties.
Justice Mittal also stressed that litigant confidence is central to mediation. Since the success of mediation depends significantly on trust, she said, parties should ordinarily have a meaningful say in the choice of mediator, while courts may assist in identifying suitable names depending on the nature and complexity of the dispute.
‘Training and qualification needed’
Senior advocate and senior mediator Sriram Panchu told ThePrint that party autonomy is the most important thing in mediation, meaning that the parties have autonomy over the outcome of the mediation. “It also means the primary choice of determining who the mediator is should rest with the parties,” he said.
He also suggested that courts and other institutions maintain a list of mediators with their profiles, including qualifications, experience, and fee-charging basis, which would help parties choose.
Panchu pointed out that for mediating complex and high-value cases, “one should have undergone training, be qualified, and have experience”. This includes being mentored and acting as a co-mediator with a senior mediator.
“This is standard practice world over. This is what we owe the parties in conflict,” he said.
For judges to become good mediators, according to Panchu, there must be “a process of unlearning and the acquisition of an attitude and approach which is diametrically different to what they have been doing during the course of their judicial career”.
“I have seen judges become competent mediators. But I have also seen enough of the contrary to seriously worry me,” he added.
Panchu said mediators must reflect upon whether the increasing trend of courts appointing retired judges as mediators in high-value disputes reflects a lack of faith in the capacity and quality of the current lot of mediators.
Justice Hima Kohli told ThePrint that training is a pre-requisite for mediation, even for judges.
Justice Kohli, also a former chairperson of the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Committee, said mediators must understand the discipline and structure of the process, including the importance of maintaining neutrality and the point beyond which a mediator must not intervene.
“While a judge has the legal acumen to understand the nuances of a dispute, mediation involves a human aspect. Merely because, as a judge, one has been adjudicating matters and delivering judgments does not translate into a judge necessarily becoming an effective mediator,” she said.
Recalling her own experience, Justice Kohli said while she was a Supreme Court judge, she underwent training at the Singapore International Mediation Centre and obtained certification as a specialist mediator, to upskill herself.
Before that, as a sitting judge of the High Court of Delhi, she participated in several workshops for training lawyers as mediators.
“Such experience and exposure give one an understanding of how mediation works in practice. On demitting office, if a judge who has received training in the process of mediation is requested to mediate a dispute, then the skills acquired as a mediator would come in handy to expeditiously resolve the disputes between the parties,” she said.
Justice Kohli added that judges without mediation training may not always be effective mediators because mediation requires a different set of skills.
“Judging needs adjudication of disputes, whereas mediation requires a different set of skills that can draw the parties to understand their strengths and weaknesses, and come up with offers/counter-offers leading to the resolution of their disputes,” she said.
“It is not for the mediator to exercise the authority of a judge and push solutions onto the parties that they may be unwilling to accept,” she added.
On the question of a fee or honorarium in mediation, she said much depends on the nature of the dispute. For instance, in a private matrimonial between a husband and wife, where the mediator knows the parties may be financially stressed, they must be given some concession. “I would rather promote the cause of mediation for a nominal fee as long as the disputes can be amicably resolved with my assistance.”
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)