In a legal landscape often marked by delay, cost, and complexity, Sri Lanka's proposed Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill of this year (2025) signals a striking pivot toward dialogue-driven justice. As litigation continues to swamp courts across the region, this proposed Legislation offers hope that parties in conflict may soon find resolution not in lengthy trials but in a neutral room guided by a mediator.

What might mediation look like in practice and how will it reshape Sri Lanka’s legal culture?

The need for reform: Litigation’s lingering shadow

For decades, Sri Lanka’s civil dispute-resolution process has relied heavily on formal litigation. Despite incremental improvements, the country’s judicial backlog persists, creating challenges not only for citizens but for commercial entities, investors, and governance-related advocates. It has been revealed recently at a meeting held by the Ministerial Consultative Committee on Justice and National Integration that the Sri Lankan judicial system has 1.1 million pending cases.

The Commercial Mediation Centre of Sri Lanka Act, No. 44 of 2000 that originally governed commercial mediation had become outdated and underutilised. Mediation remained a peripheral and procedural suggestion rather than a robust alternative. Legal scholars and practitioners frequently lamented the lack of standardisation, incentives, and public understanding.

In this context, the 2025 Bill, presented recently by the Minister of Justice and National Integration, emerges not just as legislative housekeeping but a bold assertion of intent. Mediation is no longer optional in many cases; in fact, it is the first stop before court.

What the Bill does and does not do

At its core, the new Law repeals the Commercial Mediation Centre of Sri Lanka Act, No. 44 of 2000, and establishes an integrated framework for resolving civil and commercial disputes. Mediation can be initiated voluntarily, contractually, or via court referral. Once initiated, litigation on the same matter is paused until a settlement or non-settlement certificate is issued.

• Structured initiation: Mediation can arise from a clause in a contract or mutual agreement even without prior arrangements
• Court referrals: Judges may refer disputes to mediation-service providers, who must conclude mediation proceedings within 60 days (extendable upon request)
• Direct party engagement: Individuals must participate directly, though legal counsel may assist
• Legal force of settlements: Settlement agreements, once approved by the High Court, carry the weight of court decrees
• Confidentiality and ethics: Mediators and participants must maintain confidentiality. Providers must implement codes of ethics and procedural rules

Limitations

While proposed mediation has been hailed as a powerful tool for decongesting courts and promoting amicable settlement, its reach does not extend to all types of disputes. Under the proposed legal framework, cases involving sensitive categories such as family law matters like divorce, guardianship, and adoption, probate and insolvency proceedings, admiralty disputes; and those involving constitutional violations and breaches of Fundamental Rights (FR) are explicitly excluded. These exclusions aim to preserve the gravity and complexity inherent in such cases, ensuring that they receive full judicial scrutiny rather than being navigated through alternative dispute channels. As the legal community continues to embrace mediation, clear boundaries remain essential to safeguard justice where it is most delicate.

Comparing global models: What SL can learn

Sri Lanka is not alone in this journey. Countries around the world have already embraced mediation, each offering valuable insights.

Singapore: A model of mediation architecture

From its humble start in the 1990s, Singapore has steadily built a reputation as a global frontrunner in alternative dispute resolution. The creation of the Singapore Mediation Centre, followed by the Singapore International Mediation Centre, laid the foundation for an innovative and culturally attuned mediation framework. Legislative milestones such as the Mediation Act of 2017 and the landmark Singapore Convention on Mediation have further solidified the nation’s dedication to promoting enforceable settlements across borders. This trajectory reflects Singapore’s strategic vision and commitment to fostering dialogue and harmony on the international stage.

Singapore did not treat mediation as an afterthought. They built stronger institutions to promote mediation in every possible aspect.

EU: Harmonised standards

The European Union (UN) Mediation Directive (2008) promotes mediator training, confidentiality, and enforceability. Member States integrate mediation into commercial procedures and incentivise parties to avoid trial. It focused on standardising qualifications and preserving party autonomy with legal safeguards.

USA: Technology takes the lead

Post-pandemic, States of the United States (US) have scaled online dispute-resolution platforms, expanding access and reducing costs. Platforms like Modria and Matterhorn facilitate resolution via digital interfaces. The US leverages technology not only for efficiency, but for inclusion.

Fiji: A bold step by a developing nation

The Fiji Mediation Centre (FMC) was initiated as a strategic response to the growing need for accessible, efficient, and amicable dispute resolution in the country. Spearheaded by the Judiciary of Fiji and supported by international partners, most notably Singapore, the Centre was officially launched in Suva to offer an alternative to costly and time-consuming litigation.

With the accreditation of local and international mediators and the adoption of best practices from global mediation leaders, the FMC quickly positioned itself as a trusted platform for resolving commercial, family, and small claims disputes. Its establishment marked a cultural shift in Fiji’s legal landscape, promoting dialogue, preserving relationships, and empowering communities to resolve conflicts constructively.

What makes mediation work?

Ask any successful mediator and they will tell you that beyond legal procedure, the magic lies in trust, autonomy, and the facilitation of the mediation process. The Sri Lankan Bill is commendable in how it foregrounds these principles. Party autonomy ensures that individuals retain control over outcomes. Confidentiality protections guard sensitive negotiations. Mediator neutrality avoids coercion and promotes voluntary resolution.

However, effective mediation also depends on the professional capacity, public perception, and institutional support.

Practical challenges ahead 

The proposed Law sets the stage but real-world implementation will determine its legacy. It would be worthwhile to consider the following looming challenges.

• Capacity gaps

Who trains the mediators? Currently, there is no national body for training or certification and the proposed Bill is silent on this point.

• How are ethical breaches addressed? 

The Bill states that service providers must self-regulate their practice, but there is no overarching regulatory authority to oversee the standards. This would also mean that different service providers might introduce different regulations. 

• Cultural perceptions

Mediation may still be seen as ‘lesser justice’ or unsuitable for complex disputes. Legal professionals may also resist uptake if incentives are not aligned. Therefore, training all the relevant stakeholders including judicial officers, court support staff, lawyers and professional and business entities prior to the implementation of the Law is very much required.

• Accessibility and inclusion

Direct engagement requirement at mediations may disadvantage unrepresented or marginalised individuals. Technology use is unclear; rural or underserved communities risk exclusion if digital solutions are not prioritised.

SC Determination

The Supreme Court (SC), in its Special Determination (SC SD 22 of 2025), ruled that the proposed Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill is not inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore does not require passage by special majority or referendum. The Court addressed concerns raised by the Bar Association, including the role of mediation service providers, limitations on legal representation, the ouster of court jurisdiction, and the enforcement of mediated settlements. It concluded that the Bill preserves party autonomy, aligns with existing legal frameworks, and promotes voluntary dispute-resolution without infringing on judicial power or FR.

Policy recommendations

To support long-term success, Sri Lanka may consider establishing a national mediation authority to ensure oversight, training standards, and accreditation. Sri Lanka must launch public awareness campaigns without any further delay to normalise mediation across cultures, businesses, and schools. Sri Lanka should also seek possibilities to facilitate international enforceability for commercial disputes.

Writing a new chapter

The proposed Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Act of 2025, is more than procedural reform, it is a reimagining of Sri Lanka’s approach to justice. By transforming disputes from win-lose battles into win-win resolutions, the new Law could usher in a future where equity is pursued through empathy, and litigation becomes the last resort, not the first instinct.

The road ahead will require institutional commitment with leaders who champion mediation, cultural change, and adaptive learning. If Sri Lanka leans into this opportunity with bold intent and strategic collaboration, it may soon become a regional leader in mediation and a global model for dialogue-based justice.

(The writer is a lawyer, judicial officer, and a law reformer in Sri Lanka, the Republic of Fiji, and the Republic of Seychelles)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication