Jivesh Jha
Arbitration and mediation as a legal means of dispute resolution was in practice in Nepal much before the country welcomed democracy and a codified judicial system. During the Panchayat era, for example, the Panchayat was an informal tribunal of five gentlemen chosen from among the electorate of a village to settle disputes between local people and deliver justice. However, it was subordinate to the court of law. In the Licchavi period, the Panchali, also called Pancha Sabha, had the power to issue judgments on local disputes. The concept of arbitration in its modern sense was first found in government contracts. Currently, we have a plethora of laws promoting amicable settlement of disputes.
Cases of civil nature can be mediated at any stage even if they have entered the court of law. Mediation can happen before evidence collection, after evidence collection or even during the implementation of judgements. If the Bench has reasons to believe that the dispute can be resolved through mediation, the judge can pass an order, directing the parties to sit for mediation before the mediation center of the concerned District Court or the High Court.
Court procedure
The Mediation Act, 2068 BS (2011) and its rules framed in 2070 BS (2013) provide for the procedure of mediation to settle a dispute in a speedy and simple manner. Section 3 of this Act provisions that if parties intend to settle a case pending in the court through mediation, the adjudicating authority may pass an order to refer it to a mediation center for reaching a compromise.
After passing the order, the court officials engaged in providing dates of appearances to the parties would request the parties to appear before the mediation center on a specified date. Then, the parties themselves, not their legal representatives, would (in person) have to appear before the center on a specified date to participate in a discussion for reaching a negotiated settlement.
Before entering the mediation process, the parties must choose a mediator from a roster of mediators maintained at the District Court. After the selection of a mediator, the mediation process formally begins. Discussions can happen in phases—up to three phases. In case of failure on the part of the mediator to facilitate a unanimous decision despite rounds of talks between the parties, the center must furnish a report announcing the termination of the mediation process. Afterwards, the court itself should hear the case under normal proceedings.
The District Court Regulations, 2075 empowers the District Court Registrar to maintain a roster of mediators. Any individual from the legal fraternity, teaching, social service or other sector may be enlisted as a mediator, provided that the person has received training on mediation and has not been convicted under offenses involving moral turpitude. Rule 52 of the regulations has given the judges the authority to initiate a case for mediation by passing an order to that effect.
In order to resolve disputes through mediation, judges may give the parties concerned up to three months of cooling period for reaching an amicable settlement. Rule 53 of the regulations prescribes that the Registrar of the District Court should facilitate the selection of the mediator on the basis of consensus among the parties, whereas Rule 57 prescribes procedures for mediation. If a party or parties fail to appear before the mediation center on a stipulated date, and the mediation process cannot proceed as a result, officials of the center should furnish a report to the court, stating that the mediation could not proceed.
However, if the parties reach an amicable settlement, the mediator should prepare a compromise document by duly stating the details of adjustment. Later, the compromise document is presented before the bench and the presiding judge approves the document through consent of the disputants in writing along with their signatures. This document is also a form of court verdict, which is duly archived in court case file. Both High Court and Supreme Court Regulations recognise mediation as an agreeable means for dispute resolution and the arrangements are at par with District Court Regulations.
Mediation under major laws
The National Civil Code, 2017, a general substantive law in Nepal, has provisions for mediation in civil matters. Take divorce, for example. Section 97 of the Code, 2017 provides that if a husband or wife has filed a petition for divorce in district court, the court must pass an order, directing the parties to sit for mediation. If the court fails to make conciliation between husband and wife through counseling, it must issue a divorce order within a year of the petition. There can be a compromise deed for divorce, of course.
Under Section 193, the Civil Procedure Code stipulates that if a case is sub-judice and the parties wish to reach a compromise at any stage, they may make a joint petition, mentioning the bases for the resolution of the case. Section 194 clarifies that disputes may be settled through mediation. However, there are cases that cannot be mediated. Per Section 195, there can be no mediation in cases that have the government of Nepal as a plaintiff. It states that cases related to public, government or community property shall not be settled through compromise or mediation. However, for protecting the property of the government, mediation can be undertaken.
Cases like dishonor of cheque, forgery, criminal trespass and looting mentioned under Schedule 4 of National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017 can be mediated. In addition to this, cases of cheating (which is a matter of Schedule-1 of the National Criminal Procedure Code) instituted by an individual can be mediated. But cases related to looting or misappropriation of government property cannot be mediated. In cases concerning misappropriation of state properties, the government should initiate legal action. Cases of contempt of court and public interest litigations cannot be resolved through mediation.
Mediation saves money
Most importantly, the laws in Nepal provide financial benefits to the litigants if they manage to settle disputes on their own. If the parties reach a compromise before a court of law passes orders for evidence collection, then the disputants can get away by bearing only 25 percent of court fees. But if compromise is reached after evidence collection, the parties have to foot 50 percent of the fees. So, dispute settlement through compromise is a better option financially as well.
Gray areas
Mediators from law, social service or teaching background can help settle disputes. Still, the law is silent on the expertise of mediators, allowing the latter to mediate in civil as well as criminal matters without taking their areas of expertise and interest into consideration. There is a practice of maintaining a single roster of mediators instead of keeping separate rosters of mediators for civil, matrimonial matters, or criminal cases. Mediation will be more effective if mediators choose specific areas of specialization and limit themselves to those areas.
In the state’s interest
Yet, Nepal’s law appears to be progressive for a number of reasons. Firstly, the laws intend to promote amicable settlements through compromise. Second, it gives a strong and clear message that dispute resolution through compromise is better than the disposal of cases through court proceedings. Moreover, the deed of compromise is cost-effective, speedy and agreement ad idem. Also, alternate dispute resolution mechanism is in the interest of the state as it helps to end litigations (Interest rei publicae ui sit finis litium). It’s high time to promote mediation, instead of recourse to court cases. The governments—federal, provincial and local bodies—need to invest in promoting mediation mechanisms. Such type of intervention is more needed in Madhesh as courts there are flooded with litigations.
The author is a Judicial Officer at Dhanusha District Court, jhajivesh@gmail.com
https://theannapurnaexpress.com/news/mediation-can-help-ease-court-case-burden-36441
No comments:
Post a Comment