2013

BANGALORE MEDIATION CENTRE

MEDIATION DATA ANALYSIS
Internship Report

Sachin Tiwari
Azim Premji University, Bangalore
01-Jan-13
Contents
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2. Recommendations .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4
5. Mediation Process ................................................................................................................................. 5
6. Judicial Data Management ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7. Observations & Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
 Acknowledgement

This work wouldn’t have been possible without the generous support of the staff at Bangalore
Mediation Centre (BMC) and the Karnataka High Court’s CPC team. Many names would be left
unmentioned in the limited space that a report’s opening page typically offers. Therefore, at the
outset I would like to thank the personnel at both these places who were forthcoming with
information and necessary documents related to their work. In particular, I would like to thank
Justice Chandrashekhar (Director, BMC) and Ms. Laila Ollapally (Co-ordinator, BMC) for being
generous with their time, guidance and making the time spent at BMC comfortable. The
internship program at BMC was a learning experience on every single day spent at the centre. I
owe a great deal to all the mediators at the BMC without whom this work couldn’t have been
possible. Much of the work is based on observing mediation sessions and conversations with the
mediators after the sessions. I thank them for helping me with their time.

Back at Azim Premji University, I thank Prof. Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Peter Shaji for helping
me through the uncharted terrain of law, to which I claim no familiarity. All that is presented in
this report is owed to the people mentioned above.
1. Background
This is a brief study on mediation as a method of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) which was
done as a part of internship offered by BMC. It involved study of functioning of BMC and
observations on the mediation sessions that were conducted by the mediators between the
litigating parties. These observations then inform the overall understanding of the flow of
processes in a typical mediation centre such as BMC and how this could be improved further.
Improvements are suggested in the form of recommendations which when realized are likely to
improve the quality of collected data and efficiency of the operational processes at the centre.

Mediation is seen as an emerging method of dispute resolution in India over the past few years
mainly due to its potential in relieving the overburdened courts. It is seen as an answer to the
courts clogged with cases much beyond their capacity because mediation is observed to be a
faster process. While this is an attractive feature, the primary reason for preferring mediation is
lies in the fact that mediation can be used to resolve a wide variety of disputes – divorce cases,
money suits, injunction suits, suit for damages, partition suits, IPR related claims etc.1

On the large number of pending cases in the courts and reforming the legal system, a stream of
thought suggests that what is to be done is clearly known – that the legal system faces capacity
and resources issues and therefore open up more courts and modernize the courts to be able to
handle such a heavy case load. The other approach however suggests that we must look at
alternatives to the traditional approach to dispute resolution. Why is it necessary that every case
must be adjudicated i.e tried in a court of law where a judgment is handed over to the parties and
they live with it? An alternative approach involves – mediation, conciliation, arbitration and
counseling. These means are different from a trial in the way that it doesn’t involve a judgment
of what is right or wrong (primarily) and instead focuses on what are the disputing parties’
interests and how to achieve a state where both the parties’ interests are met by negotiation. The
neutralizing communication skills and powerful bargaining strategies (as stated above) of
facilitated negotiation can strengthen the system’s capacity to bring justice to the society.2

ADR is not new to India. It existed as a part of the Arbitration Act of 1940. Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and the National Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 (under which the Lok
Adalats were constituted) are provisions which offer alternatives to a regular trial in court. Also,
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for Mediation as an Alternative Dispute
Resolution mechanism in India. However, with the increasing pendency of cases there is an
increasing thrust on ADR as the legal processes in India proceed at a very slow pace. In 2007,
High Court of Karnataka set up Bangalore Mediation Center (BMC) to mediate cases that would
be referred to it from various courts in the state. The center is overseen by a director, a
coordinator and a team of 82 trained mediators who are all practicing lawyers. BMC is widely

1
Manual for the Training of Mediators, Laila Ollapally and Shiv Kumar, Published by BMC
2
Mediating Mediation in India, Hiram Chodosh, http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/adr_conf/chodosh4.pdf (Date
accessed: 20-07-2-13
perceived as a successful initiative because of the high number of cases it has mediated as well
as for its high settlement rate. 31,882 cases were referred to BMC over a period of five years
from January, 2007 to July, 2013. Of these 25,209 cases were mediated by the centre and of
which 18,774 cases were settled.

The enthusiasm towards mediation is high at BMC. One lawyer even suggests that “this is a
silent revolution going on in the Indian courts”.

2. Methodology
The study employed a mixed method approach with qualitative and quantitative components
together guiding the enquiry.

Quantitative component of the study –

From the mediation database a spreadsheet of all the cases from 1/1/2007 to 18/7/2013 was
obtained. The dataset contains the following variables –

Date of Nature of
Case_no Year Cluster Stage
Reference case
(V1) (V3) (V4) (V5)
(V2) (V3)
Date of Settle/ Not
Mediator Gender Status Reason
Filing settled
(V7) (V8) (V10) (V11)
(V6) (V9)

The analysis was performed under four sections and each discussed as the patterns emerged.

a) Case flow

- Total volume of cases

- Cases mediated, not fit for mediation and cases settled
b) On settlements
- Overall rate
- Case type rate
- Settlement rate by sex
- Settlement rate by mediators
- Settlement rate by age of the case

c) On mediators

- Age profile
- Gender profile
- Professional experience vs case settlement rate
- Age vs case settlement rate
The type of cases as recorded in the BMC database is clustered into 6 major types and included
in the appendix –

1. Appeals
2. Criminal
3. Family
4. OS
5. Writ Appeals & Petition
6. Miscellaneous

Mediation sessions were closely observed to identify interests of both the parties. What kind of
motivations do they hold and how does the mediator figure these out. The concerns, goals,
priorities and means through which a resolution is achieved are of critical importance in
understanding mediation as a process. And then how does all of these differ across various types
of cases like matrimonial cases, family disputes etc.

3. Mediation Process
This sections concerns itself with the operation details of how cases flow from the various courts
where there are first filed (or originate), their transfer to BMC and back to the court whether
settled or not settled.

The model of mediation followed at BMC is termed ‘court-annexed mediation’ wherein cases
pending in the court are referred by the court for mediation, with the consent of both the parties,
under Sec 89 of the Civil Procedure Court.

The concern in this section is to take a systemic view and map the entire flow of cases and
decision making from the moment a case originates in a court and returns back to it. This is
illustrated in schematic 1.
Schematic 1: Case flow diagram from court to BMC and back to court

Mediation process is typically conducted in the following stages3 –

i) Seating of parties, counsel and mediator in the mediation room

ii) Introduction of parties/counsel
iii) Introduction of mediator
iv) Opening statement
v) Joint session
vi) Private caucus
vii) Settlement and conclusion

4. Observations & Analysis

i) The case flow at the mediation centre over the period January 2007 t0 July 2013 is
shown in graph 1. . It is pertinent to note that in 2008, with a total of 4362 cases
brought for mediation, a 127% increase in case inflow is recorded. This initial peak

3
Manual for the Training of Mediators, Laila Ollapally and Shiv Kumar, Published by BMC
 represents the highest percentage increase in cases referred to the BMC since its
inception. The graph illustrates a small increase in case inflow from 2008 to 2009,
2009 to 2010 and then a small dip from 2010 to 2011. Interestingly, however, the
number of referred cases in 2012 peaks to 6361- the highest in the history of the
BMC. From 2011 to 2012, therefore, a 27% increase in case inflow is recorded.

Case flow at BMC during 2007 - 2013

6361

4913 5100 5017

4362
3996

2517

Cases per year

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Graph 1: Cases mediated every year from 2007 to 2013. Year 2013 is a half year period, until July 18, 2013.
A total of 32,266 cases were referred to BMC during this period.

ii) The aggregate of cases brought for mediation to the BMC have been broken into six
categories based on subject-matter. The categories are: family matters, criminal
matters, original suits, appeals, writ petitions and miscellaneous. The figure above
illustrates the trends followed by each of these case-categories, with a focus on family
matters, original suits and criminal matters -the three largest clusters.
 Typewise case split for each year 3924
4000

3500

3000
2651
2524 2512
2500 2236
2043
2000
1700 1714
1519 1552
1500
1163 1111
1000 757
635 691
564 550
459 446
500 259 285 349
191 230
103 132 114
66 290 11 88 205 48 84 248 67 141 151 195 91 114 53
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Appeals Criminal Typewise case split for each year Miscellaneous OS Writ Appeals & Petition

Graph 2: Type wise break up of cases per year

First, we deal with the trend followed by family matters. It can be observed that from
just 259 family matters referred in 2007, the number spikes exponentially to 1519 in
2008. This shows that there has been a 486% increase in family matters brought for
mediation. There is then a much smaller, yet significant increase of 47% from 2008 to
2009. Thereafter, small increments can be observed from 2009 to 2011. Once again,
the greatest peak is observed in 2012 which accounts for 3924 referrals. In other
words, the number of family matters brought for mediation in 2012 is more than 15
times higher than in the first year of the BMC’s operation. It also is revealed that the
case inflow from January to June, 2013 is very closely comparable to the total inflows
of 2010 and 2011. This half-year trend indicates that 2013 may well be poised to
bring in the highest number of family matters to the BMC till date.

Original suits (it might to useful to describe this as cases marked under O.S), on the
other hand, appear to follow a very different trend. In 2007, with 1700 entries, the
number of original suits strongly overshadows other categories. However, after an
initial peak, the inflow steadily declines. The only time period in which original suits
show an increase (20%) in inflow is 2007 to 2008. Figure 2 illustrates steady decline
from the highest point, 2043, in 2008 until eventually reaching the lowest point, 1111,
in 2012. In other words, there has been 45% decrease over the course of five years.
Interestingly, though 2012 saw a record-high number of total referrals to the BMC,
 the inflow of original suits is at its lowest. This indicates that single most prominent
factor in 2012’s heavy case traffic the rapid surge of family matters brought to the
BMC. In fact, from 2008 onwards, the graph suggests an inverse relationship between
the number of family matters and original suits.

Finally, the largest minority of cases referred to the BMC is represented by the
criminal matters category. It is important to note that this category is populated
primarily by cases of maintenance and domestic violence, both intrinsically
connected with family matters. Inflow of criminal matters follow an upward trend
from 2007 to 2009, dips slightly in 2010, and then resumes its rise, peaking with 691
entries in 2012. A 262% increase in criminal referrals is recorded between 2007 and
2012. From January to June, 2013, there have already been a sizeable number of
criminal matters referred for mediation.

iii) The yearly settlement rate is calculated by dividing the number of cases settled by the
number of cases mediated, per year. The cases referred for mediation to the BMC
may be deemed fit or unfit for mediation. Those cases which are mediated may
ultimately result in one of three outcomes: settled, not settled or pending.

Settlement rate for each year

60% 56%
55%
52% 53%
50%
50%
40% 41%
40%
Settle rate for each year

30%

20%

10%

0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Graph 3: 3 Settlement rate of cases for each year from 2007 to 2013 (2013 is a half year)

The graph indicates that the yearly settlement rate follows a steady trend only from
2007 to 2009. There is an increase in settlement rates from 40% in 2007 to 50% in
2008 and then to 55% in 2009. However, afterwards, there is a dip to 52% in 2010.
 The highest settlement rate (56%) since the commencement of the BMC is recorded
in the year 2011. It is interesting to note that in 2012, the year of highest case inflow,
the settlement rate is at a relatively low 53%. In that vein, in spite of the especially
dense case inflow from January to June, 2013, settlement rates remain low at 41%.

iv) From table 1, it is instantly noticeable that family matters enjoy the highest rate of
settlement. From 2007 to 2012, family matters have seen an average settlement rate
of 72%. The highest settlement rate for family matters is recorded in 2011. After this
peak in 2011, it appears that with 67%, the settlement rate in 2012 has come down
significantly. Furthermore, from January to June, 2013, out of a total of 3996 cases,
only 52% have been settled. The settlement rates of original suits have shown
decrements from 2007 to 2012. The highest rate of settlement of OS was in 2007 and
2008 with 37%. The settlements rates have been relatively stagnant at an average of
33%. The six month period of January to June, 2013 reveals a significant dip in the
settlement rate of OS, with 24%.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Appeals 20% 14% 25% 13% 15% 16% 8%
Criminal 43% 42% 41% 36% 37% 32% 26%
Family 61% 73% 77% 74% 79% 67% 52%
Miscellaneous 44% 51% 43% 35% 44% 41% 26%
OS 37% 37% 34% 34% 32% 33% 24%

Writ Appeals
& Petition 18% 15% 24% 14% 17% 19% 9%
Yearly
Settlement
rate 40% 50% 55% 52% 56% 53% 41%
Table 1: Case settlement rate according to the case types for each year

The settlement rate of criminal matters shows small, steady decrements from 2007 to
2009 (43% to 41%), then registers a relatively steep dip to 36% in 2010. Interestingly,
in terms of full calendar years, 2012 has had the lowest settlement rates for criminal
matters since the commencement of the BMC. On that note, the first half of 2013 has
shown a criminal matter settlement rate of merely 26%.

v) Correlation of gender and case outcome :

Gender Case Outcome

0 1 2 Grand Total
F 570 8462 6432 15464
 M 479 7871 6177 14527
NYA 609 60 1606 2275
Grand Total 1658 16393 14215 32266
Table 2: Gender wise breakup of cases. 0- cases not fit for mediation, 1 – settled, 2 – not settled

The figures indicate that the female mediators have settled more cases than male
mediators. However, with female mediators laying claim to 8462 settlements, and
male mediators settling 7871 cases, the difference in settlement rates is very small. In
terms of percentages, female mediators have a 57% mediation settlement rate out of
the cases deemed fit for mediation, while male mediators have a settlement rate of
56%. It must also be noted that female mediators have a slightly wider gap between
rate of settlement and rate of non-settlement, further indicating a frugally better
overall performance.

Result of “gender” and “case outcome” correlation:

Case
Gender Outcome
Gender 1
Case Outcome -0.01187 1

Correlation coefficient for “gender” and “case outcome” correlation is – 0.01187.

Referring to Table 2, the value suggests that there is no correlation between
gender of the mediator and the outcome of the cases.

Further, we try to explore if there is any relation between “gender” and “family” cases
under type of cases. Although the larger trend of gender and case outcome bear no
relationship, we still pursue a category wise correlation. This will serve as a second
test as well as an enquiry if there is evidence of any relationship between the gender of
mediator and outcome of family cases. Family cases are chosen for a specific enquiry
because it is hypothesized that female mediators are more likely to settle matrimonial
cases (divorce) which forms the bulk of “family” cases.

When we do a Pearson’s product-moment correlation test for “gender” and

“family” cases we obtain correlation coefficient of -0.00571. Referring to Table 2,
we can see that this value indicates no correlation between the gender of mediator
and outcome of family cases.

Case
Gender Outcome
 Gender 1
Case Outcome -0.00571 1

vi) Correlation of mediator settlement rate and no. of cases mediated:

First let us examine the aggregate mediator performance of each mediator using a
scatterplot as shown –

Scatterplot of Individual Mediator's Aggregate Settlement

Rate
100
Indivdual Mediator Settlement Rate

90
80
70
60
50
40 S.R. - 1
30
20
10
0
-15 5 25 45 65 85 105
Mediator

Graph 4: A scatter plot of aggregate settlement rate (SR) of each mediator. The red line indicates the mean SR of the entire
dataset of 105 mediators

Mean 34.55238
Standard Error 1.555622
Median 36
Mode 33
Standard
Deviation 15.94038
 36
32
28
Frequency

24
20
16
12
8
4
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Graph 5: Histogram of the aggregate mediator settlement rate. There are 67 mediators whose SR lies between 30% and 45%.
2 mediators have a SR of 100% and that is because of very few no of cases mediated by both of them. Bulk of SR lies between
20% - 50%.

Finally, when we perform a pearson’s test to check for correlation between aggregate
mediator performance and the total number of cases mediated by the mediator we
obtain the following score, which suggests a weak positive correlation.

Agg
Total Settlement
Mediated Rate
Total Mediated 1
Agg Settlement
Rate 0.289921 1

This means that as the number of cases mediated by a mediator increases his
likelihood of settling the case will also increase.

vii) Mediation as a process besides being driven towards a negotiation is also influenced
by the fact that it promotes information sharing between the opposite parties. This has
social and emotional consequences which then impact the case outcome, particularly
in matrimonial and partition cases. The process brings the two parties together
physically in a room as well as presents an opportunity for both of them to address
each other directly and talk. This small facilitation works in breaking the animosity
and litigation oriented behaviour of the parties and consequently directs them towards
reconciliation.
viii) The allotment of new cases that arrive at BMC to mediators is currently involves
some discretion or perhaps a rough assessment of who (mediator) is more likely to
handle the case better. The allotment is not completely arbitrary. This discretion in
mediator allotment appears to have a bearing on the case outcome. This is an aspect
which needs study over a longer duration in order to understand the relationship. At
the moment it can be said that the selective allotment of mediators is likely to
influence the case outcome.
Appendix

Clustering of case types into 6 major categories –

Code Type Cases

1 Appeals Appeal
M.F.A.
M.F.A. ()
M.A.
M.A.(Appeal under Corporation ACT, PPE ACT, Village Office
Abolition Act,Education Act)
R.A.
R.A.(Regular Appeal)
R.F.A
R.F.A()
R.S.A.
R.S.A.()

G & W.C.
2 Family G & WC
G & WC(Guardians & Wards Act)
M.C.
M.C.(Divorce)
M.C.(Judicial Seperation)
M.C.(Restitution of Conjugal Rights)

3 OS O.S.
O.S.(DECLARATION & INJUNCTION)
O.S.(DECLARATION & POSSESSSION)
O.S.(DECLARATION & COMPENSATION)
O.S.(EJECTMENT)
O.S.(INJUNCTION SUIT)
O.S.(MONEY SUIT)
O.S.(MORTGAGE SUIT)
O.S.(Other Civil)
O.S.(PARTITION)
O.S.(POSSESSION)
O.S.(SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE)
O.S.(TRUST U/SEC.92 CPC)

4 Criminal Crl.Misc.
Crl.Misc.(Bail Matters)
CRL.A
CRL.A(Criminal appeals)
CRL.M.A
Crl.Misc.(DVA)
 Crl.Misc.(U/S 125 (Maintenance))
CRL.P
CRL.R.P.(Criminal revision Petition)
C.C.(U/s.138 NI Act)
C.C.

Writ Appeals &

Petition CRP
CP
5 S.L.A
S.L.P(Special Leave petition)
W.A.
W.A.(Writ Appeal)
T.P.
W.P.
W.P.(Writ Petition)

6 Miscellaneous A.C.(ARBITRATION ACT)

A.S.(ARBITRATION SUIT UNDER ARBITRATION ACT)
AA(ARBITRATION APPLICATION)
APPL.33(C)(2)
APPLN
C.O.A.
C.O.A.(COMPANY APPEALS)
C.O.P.(COMPANY PETITIONS)
C.O.P.
DRI.F.No S/IV
EX
EX(Ex.Petition)
EX(H.R.C.)
FDP(Final Decree Proceedings)
H.R.C.
HRRP
I.C.(INSOLVANCY)
IDact-S.33
IDact-S10(1)(d)
KID 10-4(A)
L.A.C.(Land Aquisition Case)
M.V.C.(MV COMPENSATION/DAMAGES)
MA(EAT)
Misc
Misc(H.R.C.)
Misc(Miscellaneous)
Misc(S.C.)
MUN.A
P & SC(Probation and Succession Certificate)
P and Sc
P.C.R.
P.MIS.(Petition Filed Indigent person)
R.P
REF.No.(LABOUR COURT CASE)
S.C.(SMALL CAUSES )
SC(Sessions Case)