Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has asked to adopt a pro -mediation approach throughout the Judiciary, particularly in the early stages of litigation.
In a detailed four -page order written by Judge Miangul Hassan Aurengzeb, the Superior Court emphasized the importance of sensitizing judges and lawyers to identify appropriate cases for mediation and guarantee their timely reference.
“Judges and lawyers must be sensitized to identify cases suitable for mediation and facilitate their reference in a timely manner. In the same way, litigants must be encouraged to consider mediation and other methods of resolution of alternative disputes such as a first resource, instead of a last resort,” says the order.
The directive occurred during the hearing of a family dispute that the Court, on March 15, referred to mediation. Sara Tarrar, a Ombudsman of the Superior Court and an accredited mediator notified by the Division of Law and Justice under the 2017 alternative dispute resolution law, was appointed mediator.
According to the order, both parties actively participated in the mediation process and finally reached an agreement. Tarrar submitted his report, together with a copy of the conciliation agreement dated May 5, 2025, which was officially registered by the Court.
The lawyer of both parties requested that a decree be issued in accordance with the agreed agreement.
A bank of three members of the Apex Court, headed by the president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, heard the matter. The case implied a challenge to a decision of the Family Court that had increased monthly maintenance for each daughter of RS30,000 to RS150,000, in addition to educational expenses. The father had played the order in the Courts of Appeal, where his case was dismissed. He later approached the SC in June 2021.
After remaining pending for more than three and a half years, the bank finally sent the matter to mediation, which led to a successful resolution.
In its order, the SC stressed that mediation was “not only an alternative to litigation; it is a paradigm shift in the resolution of disputes, based on the principles of collaboration, confidentiality and autonomy of the party.”
Unlike traditional litigation, the order said, mediation empowers the parties to shape the results of their disputes through neutral facilitation instead of the adversary trial.
“It offers a non -adversary framework that allows the parties to shape the result of their own disputes, guided by a neutral facilitator instead of a judicial determination.” The order highlighted several advantages of mediation, including profitability, speed, reduced load of the Judiciary and greater privacy for the parties in dispute. Its informal configuration encourages open dialogue and solution -centered negotiation.
“The flexibility of the process allows the parties to explore creative and interest -based solutions that a court of justice may not be empowered to grant,” says the order. “These benefits were remarkably evident in the present case. What years of litigation could not solve, mediation achieved in a matter of weeks.”
The court observed that the appeal prior to mediation often results in substantial savings of time and cost, reduces emotional tolls and helps restore relationships.
The order cited the legal framework established under the 2017 alternative dispute resolution, and backed by several provincial laws.
In addition, the ADR mediation accreditation rules (eligibility), 2023 and mediation practice management rules (civil), 2023, have consolidated the place of mediation in the judicial landscape as a conventional tool for the resolution of disputes.
