Environmental disputes in India have proliferated in recent decades due to rapid industrialization, urbanization, and growing public environmental awareness. Traditional litigation – via Public Interest Litigations (PILs), High Courts, the Supreme Court, and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) – has played a pivotal role in enforcing environmental laws (such as the Environment Protection Act 1986) and developing principles like sustainable development and the polluter pays doctrine. However, court-centered resolution is often protracted and adversarial, leading to delays in environmental justice and mounting case backlogs. This review paper examines the potential of mediation as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism for environmental conflicts in India’s legal context. It provides an overview of existing judicial mechanisms and their limitations, discusses the concept and advantages of environmental mediation (drawing on global experiences and India’s own cultural history of consensus-building), and analyzes the current legal framework for mediation in India, including the recent Mediation Act 2023. Landmark instances – such as the Indus Waters Treaty (an internationally mediated water dispute), the Bhopal Gas Tragedy settlement, and the protracted Cauvery river dispute – are reviewed to glean insights into when mediation succeeds or fails. The paper further identifies benefits of mediation (speed, stakeholder participation, creative solutions) and challenges (power imbalances, public interest concerns, enforceability) specific to environmental disputes. It concludes with recommendations for integrating mediation into India’s environmental dispute resolution system, arguing that with appropriate legal safeguards and stakeholder engagement, “green mediation” can complement the courts and help resolve environmental conflicts more effectively without compromising environmental justice or development goals.
Sharma et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: