There is a growing rhythm in Pakistan’s legislative and judicial discourse, one that carries the steady drumbeat of “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (ADR) as a modern solution to the persistent strain on our justice system. With the passage of time, however, that rhythm is becoming more directive than persuasive.

Mediation, once introduced as a parallel pathway, is now increasingly treated as a procedural station through which parties are expected, and in some cases, required, to pass. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, and the rules made by respective High Courts in supplementation to the same, reflect a broader institutional shift; courts are no longer merely encouraging ADR; they are embedding it into the litigation process itself.

To be clear, the merits of mediation as a dispute resolution tool are not in doubt. For many categories of disputes—commercial disagreements, family settlements, long-standing civil claims—it can be faster, less adversarial, and more efficient. But the growing practice of judicially nudging, and occasionally requiring, parties to attempt mediation raises important questions about consent, timing, and suitability.

© The Nation