'Mediation Cannot Be Forced Without Consent Of Both Parties' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC's Mediation Reference In Contempt Matter

The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise at the Calcutta High Court 'directing' parties to mediation without the consent of both the parties, that too in a contempt proceeding.  It emphasized that mediation is only permissible when both parties consent to resolving the dispute through that process. 

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was hearing a petition arising out of the Calcutta High Court's decision where, in a contempt petition, instead of holding the State guilty of contempt for not complying with the judicial order, it had referred the matter to mediation despite an opposition from the Appellant.

Aggrieved by the High Court's one-sided reference to the mediation, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court observed:

"When the High Court itself, on more than one occasions in the contempt proceedings, had found that the State was bound to comply with the writ of mandamus issued by it vide judgment and order dated 10th February 2020 and had also issued notice to the Chief Secretary of the State for complying with the directions issued by it, it could not have referred the matter for mediation. 

"It is further to be noted that mediation has to be by the consent of both the parties. Mediation cannot be thrusted upon either of the parties. The learned Division Bench of the High Court in the present case, in spite of the resistance of the learned counsel for the appellants herein, only on the basis of the statement of the learned Advocate General appearing in the matter whereby it was submitted that the State was willing to offer the appellants an alternative piece of land, has referred the matter to mediation.”

"We have no hesitation to say that the said approach of the Division Bench was totally untenable in law.", the Court added.

In a response to an offer made by the appellants herein, the respondent(s)/HIDCO by its letter dated 6th April 2011 promised to convey to them on freehold basis a piece of land. 

On 24th August 2012, HIDCO addressed a letter to the appellants stating that the earlier allotment was done during the period when Model Code of Conduct was in place on account of West Bengal Assembly General Elections, 2011. The said letter stated that due to those circumstances, the decision of allotment was reviewed. It was decided that the allotment would not be on a freehold basis but on leasehold basis for 99 years and the sale price was to be treated as a lease premium.

In 2019, a divsion bench of the High Court allowed the appellant's writ petition against the change of allotment, finding the State's actions to be arbitrary. The contempt petition was filed when the State failed to act as per the High Court's directions.

Disapproving of the High Court's approach for mediation in the contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court directed the State to comply with the judgment of the High Court, failing which the Chief Secretary was directed to remain present on March 3 before the Supreme Court.

"The majesty of law requires that due obedience has to be given to the command of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when it is not interfered with by this Court," the Supreme Court said.

Case Title: RUPA AND CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS FIRHAD HAKIM AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 233
Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar , AOR Mr. Animesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Animesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tanay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sandip Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar,Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Adv. Mr. Anant, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Akshay Luthra, Adv.