The meaning of mediation is an informal process for helping people who have a dispute to sort it out for themselves without going to court and it is a process in which the parties to a dispute, with the assistance of a neutral third party (the mediator), identify the disputed issues, consider alternatives and endeavour to rear an agreement.

The mediator has no advisory or determinative role in regard to the content of the dispute or the outcome of its resolution, but may advise on or determine the process of mediation whereby resolution is attempted. Mediation can either be private or mandated by court. In both types, the initial stage or pre-mediation phase, may involve mediator informing parties about the mediation process. This may also involve mediator dealing with queries of disputants, making them understand about the particular models and approaches, checking the suitability of mediation, and helping parties reach the stage of readiness to commit themselves to signing up to the process."

Why Mediation is Advantageous Over Other Modes of Dispute Resolution

Mediation has long been practiced a method of dispute resolution whether in an organised capacity or unorganised capacity. Owing to the reason behind this perpetuity are the following reasons. However, it is important to note that just like any other procedure for dispute resolution, there is no assurances of specific outcomes.

1. Confidentiality:
   When one looks at the parties and cases generally associated with mediations, it is observed that usually these are conflicts between married couples over divorce or custody matters, disputes arising between family members, business partners, neighbours, corporations and unions, etc. These cases often have matters which both parties would prefer being unknown to public ears. In the mediation process, the environment itself plays a huge role in achieving an amicable outcome. Parties and a mediator converge to mutually talk out the conflict and negotiate a solution which is equitable for the parties involved. Any matter discussed between parties and the mediator are not disclosed to any member of the public or press unless both parties expressly request for the same.
    
2. Convenience:
   Mediation as a method of dispute resolution by its very nature one which seeks to constructively adjudicate the matter. It is above all, a voluntary process which can be set in a nominal amount of time due to the absence of requirements such as filing court documents in order to get a date. This is of particular importance, once again in conjunction with the particular types of cases opting for this method of dispute resolution, time is of essence. Furthermore, as a technique of dispute resolution, mediation represents a system without any procedural complications and no compliance requirement with regards to rules of evidence.
    
3. Collaborative:
   Mediation truly encapsulates one of the most important concepts of law, resolution. Since the parties are in a position where they do not seek to punish the other rather come to a middle ground in order to pacify matters furthermore. This results in an adjudication which is much more suitable and agreeable than other forms of dispute resolution. This flexibility is a major contributor to the popularity of mediation in the first place.

From the concept of three Cs, we begin to look into the more practical aspects of mediation. The very first thing that has to be understood is that mediation is often portrayed as the best form for dispute resolution. However, it is imperative to understand, that statement doesn't stay true for all applications. For conflicts between parties where the concern is a civil suit and there has been no claim for damages or none of the parties are seeking punitive damages, mediation is slowly but surely turning out to be one of the most favourable options.

This is due in parts thanks to the immense use of mediation across all stages in the corporate domain. As a matter of fact, Business Mediation is the most rapidly growing approach for resolving business disputes. The swiftness of adjudication coupled with the positive outcome is a massive attractor for business executives.

Scope of Mediation

Mediation has been in practice since ages. It is a process where an impartial outsider helps the parties to a suit to determine their disputes and contrast of opinion resulting into a meeting of minds. In mediation, an unbiased mediator works with discussion between the parties permits the parties to think twice about resolve their dispute and misunderstandings by arriving at an arranged settlement.

The choices of the mediator, notwithstanding, are not binding on the parties and this is one of the significant constraints of mediation. Mediation permits the threatening parties to discuss their issues with one another through the mediator which in any case wouldn't occur in the typical litigation process. Mediation is one of the most adaptable alternatives of dispute resolution as it doesn't follow any of the courtroom conventions and there is extension for the parties to haggle with one another.

Other than this, it likewise maintains the privacy of the subtleties given by the parties consequently making it a more dependable alternative. The arranged settlement showed up at are more pleasing to the parties than the judgment conveyed by the court.

In mediation, the parties retain the right to choose for themselves whether to resolve a dispute and furthermore the particulars of any settlement and moreover, any party might pull out from the mediation proceedings at any stage before its termination and without assigning any explanation. As it is exceptionally apparent that court proceedings are extended as well as costly and that makes it unreasonably expensive for certain segments of society.

Mediation, then again, is a straightforward and inexpensive recommendation. Mediation doesn't generally bring about a settlement agreement and it is exceptionally subjective depending upon the idea of cases and parties involved in the equivalent subsequently making it difficult to start legal precedents and trends.

The Courts at different level refer cases for mediation in the respective legal services authorities that fall within their jurisdiction. The cases are alluded during the pendency of the judgment and keeping in mind that the proceeding is as yet going on in that specific court. Mediation focuses at different legal services authorities add generally in reducing the weight of courts.

The process of mediation for settlement of disputes in Legal Services Authorities is embraced with the sole reason for relieving the High Courts of the cases that can be settled external the court. Courts are overburdened with many such cases that have a chance of being settled external the courts, so why not essentially endeavour to determine such cases through mediation.

In Afcons infrastructure Limited and another v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and others, the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows:
"Resort to alternative disputes resolution processes is necessary to give speedy and effective relief to the litigants and to reduce the pendency in and burden upon the courts."

The cases pertaining to matrimonial disputes, property disputes, business transactions, tenders etc. are referred for mediation by the courts. NALSA is bound to promote all forms of dispute settlement mechanisms. Accordingly, NALSA has taken steps for the setting up of Mediation Centres in all States.

The Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee of the Supreme Court of India (MCPC) conducts training programmes on mediation for lawyers and judicial officers, in furtherance of the newly added Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, Legal Services Authorities are supposed to organize training programmes for mediators as well as referral judges to make the mediation process more efficient.

I shall further explain the scope in points.

1. Binding Nature of Mediation in India:
   It is exceptionally pertinent to take note of that once a settlement is finished by the mediators at Legal Services Authorities, it is binding on the parties and the litigation proceedings that are consequently going on in the courts reach a conclusion. Ony a decree is passed by the referral judge according to the agreements of the arranged settlement. Since mediation at legal services authority is alluded to by the courts, there can't be any appeal or revision against the decree based on such settlement.
    
2. Attempts to Regulate Mediation in LSA
   The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India ruled that when the parties come to a settlement upon a reference made by the Court for mediation and the parties want the same, there has to be some public record of the manner in which the suit is disposed off, and, therefore, the Court must first record the settlement and pass decree in terms thereof and, if necessary, proceed to execute it in accordance with law.
   
   The need for some sort of regulation was recognized by the Supreme Court in this case that mediation was majorly an informal proceeding, and that modalities for the manner in which proceedings must take place needed to be formulated. Pursuant to this, the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee was formed.
   
   This led to the formulation of the Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules, 2003 which are non-binding in nature. As a result, the success of mediation as an alternative form of dispute resolution has been different for different state Legal Service Authorities. This is the reason why no uniformity could be achieved in mediation in Legal Services Authority even though an attempt was made to regularize the process.
    
3. Nature of cases that can be referred for mediation in LSA
   Matters pertaining to matrimonial disputes such as cruelty, custody and maintenance of child, dowry, divorce, judicial settlement, etc., property dispute cases, torts, consumer disputes, partnership, trade, commerce and contracts disputes, etc. Aside from these classified cases, every one of those that the reference judge thinks appropriate to be settled through mediation can be shipped off the mediation centres of legal Services Authorities.

More than 1 lakh 7,000 cases have been settled through mediations by State Legal Services Authority in India from April, 2017 to March, 2018 when contrasted with approx. 22 thousand cases that were gotten comfortable 2016-17. According to the information accessible on National Judicial Data Grid, the all out number pending cases in India till date is more than two crores 87 lakhs. It is extremely apparent from these measurable records that there is a critical requirement for the reception of alternative dispute resolution procedures in India.

Judges, leading lawyers, and policymakers talk in an exceptional light with regards to mediation. Notwithstanding this, mediation is yet to get on significantly in the private field. With the achievement of court-adjoined mediation in India, consideration is currently being centered around private business mediation. Pioneer business associations and industrial pioneers are getting involved for something similar. In this manner, the extent of mediation in India is exceptionally high since the ordinary court techniques require a very long time to determine a case and there are lakhs of cases pending in Indian courts.

Mediation has risen above limits and has crossed different fields identified with law. Presently, mediation is utilized to settle various disputes in the national and international level which include conjugal, corporate, business, insurance-related, disputes identified with sea issues, issues of partners in a working environment.

Culture and language recently represented an issue in the process of mediation. Through research and the utilization of different contemporary advances, the extent of mediation has augmented to the degree that the mediation is liked as a method for resolution of disputes over some other technique.

The extent of mediation has been additionally increased by the complex associations providing mediation offices at the national just as the international level. At the national level, the ADR cells in the respective region courts fill in as an effectively open wellspring of mediation to the country populace. At the international level the associations like PCA, WIPO, ICC give cutting edge mediation services.

As rightfully said, mediation is the past the present and absolutely the future of amicable dispute settlement.

Role of Mediators

"The role of the mediator is to remove obstacles in communication, assist in the identification of issues and the exploration of options and facilitate mutually acceptable agreements to resolve the dispute. However, the ultimate decision rests solely with the parties. A mediator cannot force or compel a party to make a particular decision or in any other way impair or interfere with the party's right of self-determination."

Functions of a Mediator

The functions of a mediator are to:

1. Facilitate the process of mediation; and
2. Assist the parties to evaluate the case to arrive at a settlement.

Facilitative Role:

A mediator facilitates the process of mediation by:

• Creating a conducive environment for the mediation process.
• Explaining the process and its ground rules.
• Facilitating communication between the parties using the various communication techniques.
• Identifying the obstacles to communication between the parties and removing them.
• Gathering information about the dispute.
• Identifying the underlying interests.
• Maintaining control over the process and guiding focused discussion.
• Managing the interaction between parties.
• Assisting the parties to generate options.
• Motivating the parties to agree on mutually acceptable settlement.

Evaluative Role

A Mediator Performs An Evaluative Role By:
Helping and guiding the parties to evaluate their case through reality – testing. Assisting the parties to evaluate the options for settlement. The facilitative and evaluative roles of the mediator have been already explained. The evaluative role of mediator is limited to the function of helping and guiding the parties to evaluate their case through reality testing and assisting the parties to evaluate the options for settlement.

But in the process of a conciliation, the conciliator himself can evaluate the cases of the parties and the options for settlement for the purpose of suggesting the terms of settlement. The role of a mediator is not to give judgment on the merits of the case or to give advice to the parties or to suggest solutions to the parties. A mediator is not an adjudicator. Adjudicators like judges, arbitrators and presiding officers of tribunals make the decision on the basis of pleadings and evidence.

The adjudicator follows the formal and strict rules of substantive and procedural laws. The decision of the adjudicator is binding on the parties subject to appeal or revision. In adjudication, the decision is taken by the adjudicator alone and the parties have no role in it. In mediation the mediator is only a facilitator and he does not suggest or make any decision.

The decision is taken by the parties themselves. The settlement agreement reached in mediation is binding on the parties. In court referred mediation there cannot be any appeal, or revision against the decree passed on the basis of such settlement agreement. In private mediation, the parties can agree to treat such settlement agreement as a conciliation agreement which then will be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Qualities of a Mediator:

It is necessary that a mediator must possess certain basic qualities which include:

1. Complete, genuine and unconditional faith in the process of mediation and its efficacy.
2. Ability and commitment to strive for excellence in the art of mediation by constantly updating skills and knowledge.

Ethics and Code of Conduct of a Mediator:

1. Avoid conflict of interest A mediator must avoid mediating in cases where they have direct personal, professional or financial interest in the outcome of the dispute. If the mediator has any indirect interest (e.g., he works in a firm with someone who has an interest in the outcome or he is related to someone who has such an interest) he is bound to disclose to the parties such indirect interest at the earliest opportunity and he shall not mediate in the case unless the parties specifically agree to accept him as mediator despite such indirect interest.
   
   Where the mediator is an advocate, he shall not appear for any of the parties in respect of the dispute which he had mediated. A mediator should not establish or seek to establish a professional relationship with any of the parties to the dispute until the expiry of a reasonable period after the conclusion of the mediation proceedings.
    
2. Awareness about competence and professional role boundaries Mediators have a duty to know the limits of their competence and ability in order to avoid taking on assignments which they are not equipped to handle and to communicate candidly with the parties about their background and experience. Mediators must avoid providing other types of professional service to the parties to mediation, even if they are licensed to provide it.

Communication in Mediation

1. Communication is the act of conveying intended meanings from one entity or group to another through the use. Communication is sending and receiving information between two or more people. The persons sending the message are referred to the sender, while the person receiving the information is called the receiver. The information conveyed can include facts ideas, concepts, opinions, beliefs attitude intimation and even emotion.
    
2. Communication is initiated by a thought or feeling or idea or emotion which is transformed into words/ gestures/ acts/ expressions. Then, it is converted into a message. This message is transmitted to the receiver. The receiver understands the message by assigning reasons and attributing thoughts, feelings/ideas to the message. It evokes a response in the Receiver who conveys the same to the sender through words/ gestures/ acts/ expressions.

Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication

Verbal Communication is transmission of information or message through spoken words. Non-verbal communication refers to the transmission of information or message from sender to receiver without the use of spoken words. It includes written communication, body language, tone, demeanour, attitude and other modes of non-verbal expression. It is often more spontaneous than verbal communication and takes place under less conscious control.

Therefore, it can provide more accurate information. It is important for a mediator to pay adequate attention to nonverbal communications that take place throughout the mediation. It is also important for a mediator to analyse the message sent by the parties through such nonverbal communication.

Stages of Mediation

Introduction and Opening Statement:
Mediator enters a dispute by court referral or by direct choice of the participants. The commencement of the mediation is typically marked by an 'opening statement' of the mediator. This introductory stage is vital to the establishment of a relationship that will facilitate the rest of the mediation process. The mediator must provide initial structuring; gain the participant's trust and cooperation in the process by highlighting the advantages of mediation.

Even if the parties have participated in mediations before, it is not advisable to skip the opening statement. The mediator's opening statement should be clear and concise." A mediator should try to avoid using 'jargon' or technical words that the disputants are unlikely to understand (e.g., plaintiff, defendant, claimant, respondent, perse, or other difficult legal terms).

Even if the parties are represented by advocates the advocates are present, it is a good idea for the mediator to focus the opening statement on the parties, to talk directly to them, and to ensure their understanding of the process. Although delivering an opening statement should not consume a lot of time, a mediator should not rush through it. The mediator's opening statement is important- it must be long enough to cover all of the elements clearly and completely, and short enough not to lose the interest of the parties.

Disputant's Opening Statement

The stage is also called 'ventilation' as the parties, locked in bitter dispute, is likely to furiously air his/her grievances. The mediator should calm things down and request parties not to lose their composure while making the opening statement. The parties and/or their representatives should be able to ventilate their views of the case or dispute.

The opening statement stage provides a time for parties to fully express and explain to the mediator, and more importantly, to each other, how they view the dispute in their own words. The mediator must listen carefully the statements of the parties, the manner in which the information is shared, and the order of presentation is all important pieces of information. The mediator should usually let each disputant take as much time as needed without interruption from the other party or the mediator.

When the first party is finished, the mediator should not ask the other to 'respond', but rather should invite a description or explanation of that party's issues and concerns. The second person to speak often feels defensive- the mediator's job is to put the parties at ease enough to share what is important to them. After each party has spoken, the parties often will look to the mediator to identify the next step in the process.

The mediator could then identify and summarize the issues as the parties have put them forth. To perform that important task requires a mediator to organize the information accurately and constructively. For this purpose, mediator may take 'notes' after letting parties know about the purpose of such note-taking. Parties should re-assured that such notes will remain and cannot be used as evidence in formal proceeding."

Joint Session

After all participants and/or their representatives have presented their views through their opening statement, at this point, the mediator may try to lead the disputants to joint discussion and get them talking directly with each other in his presence. This phase may come before or after the separate meeting between a party and mediator.

Generally, the mediator has a tough time during this phase as parties are likely to engage in bitter accusation and counter accusations. He has to ensure that parties engage in constructive talks. To this purpose, he has to try to get the parties away from their stated positions to the ones which are workable and future-oriented.

Separate Session

"A caucus is a common step or procedure in mediation. It is a private meeting that each party holds with the mediator during the mediation. These private meetings give participants a chance to talk to the mediator freely, without the pressure of the other party being there. Anyone participating in a mediation may request a caucus, including the mediator." Other names for caucus include "individual meeting", private meeting" or "time out".

Typically, a caucus is a "confidential process, however, a party may want the mediator to relay some or all of the caucus discussions to the other party. As such, it is important to confirm expectations at the beginning of a caucus. During the caucus, the mediator may seek clarification on issues of concern, and explore creative ways of resolving the conflict. The need for caucus or separate meeting between the mediator and a party (accompanied with or without advocate) may arise in certain situation. It involves private discussions about issues, interests, and options for resolution.

The call for caucus has to come from the mediator in a scenario when parties have reached an impasse. Speaking privately to the parties will allow the mediator to discuss issues that the parties may be uncomfortable talking about in front of each other. The separate session can alleviate such concerns and, at the same time, give the mediator an understanding of what is really driving the dispute.

Another important use for separate sessions is the discovery of the best alternative to a negotiated settlement BATNA and/or the worse alternative to a negotiated settlement (WATNA). BATNAs are a vital piece of information for the mediator as they disclose when a settlement is better or worse than the parties' best alternative to a negotiated settlement. If the options being proposed as a settlement are worse than a party's BATNA, then the chances are that the party will not settle i.e., he or she would be better off walking away from mediation and 4 living with his or her BATNA.

The converse is also true, in that if the options being proposed as a settlement are better than a party's BATNA, then the chances are the party will agree to accept the settlement.

Once the mediator has had one or more separate sessions with one party to settle the issues and interests and to generate the first set of options, he or she may conduct the next separate session with the other party and follow the same process of option generation with that party. This repeat exercise depends on the situation, and may see mediator going back and forth, shuffling between the parties, seeking agreement on the various options being suggested by the parties."

Final Negotiation

Final negotiation stage involves activities initiated by both the parties and the mediator to reduce the scope of substantive and procedural differences between parties, so to move toward a formal agreement leading to the termination of conflict. This is the final joint meeting between the parties in the presence of mediator before the closure of mediation. In this round, the results of the separate meeting are carefully considered.

If there remains any miscommunication or misunderstanding, then those are discussed and removed, before parties reach the resolution of the disputes. If deadlock worsens, then they may, however, take a realistic decision to discontinue mediation and settle their dispute in other forum like court.

Closure

It is important that a process initiated, must end finally. Closure is the last process in mediation. Mediation may terminate in a number of circumstances. It terminates when the parties have resolved all their issues, or when they have resolved some issues and decided to take the others into a different forum such as arbitration or litigation.

It may come to an end when one party simply walks out of it saying that he/she does not want to continue with mediation; or when the mediator decides that it is inappropriate to continue with mediation as there is no reasonable prospect of resolution, or otherwise, unethical to continue with mediation. Hence, closure envisages both, successful and unsuccessful outcome.

In case of successful outcome, settlement terms are reduced to writing leading to a formal agreement between the parties. In order that this mediated agreement becomes legally enforceable, it must be duly signed by the parties and mediator." The settlement may also contain an implementing or monitoring mechanisms for the current as well as future differences or conflicts that may arise.

Differences Between Communication Techniques and Negotiation Techniques (Bargaining Methods)

Communication techniques are methods implemented for the mediator to communicate or talk to the parties in a more effective manner. On the other hand, negotiation techniques are used to get the two parties to reach a common solution that both the parties agree to and this also done by focusing on the interests of the parties.

Bargaining Methods (Negotiation Techniques)

• Rights Based Bargaining:
  This method focuses on the rights of the parties. It focuses on which party is at fault and which isn't. An example is, there are two parties. Party A has a contract with Party B. According to the contract, Party A has to make x amounts of showpieces and the showpieces need to meet a certain standard, but they don't and cause certain losses to Party B. Rights based bargaining would focus on who had violated the terms of the contract. The mediator would, thus focus on Party B's right to be recompensed due to Party A violating the terms of the contract.
   
• Positional Bargaining:
  This method focuses on the position of the parties. In this method, the parties would focus on their positions, for example the offers and counter offer they make and the mediator would use this method with Rights based bargaining to help the parties reach a common solution.
   
• Distributive Bargaining:
  This method is used usually in family matters where the distribution of properties or assets need to be done. This method is as its name suggests, focuses on dividing the assets between the two parties.
   
• Integrative Bargaining:
  The mediator uses this method by attempting to expand the resources that can be used in the negotiation and may be outside the scope of the original negotiation. This method is usually employed near the end of the negotiation and is used to, 'sweeten the pot', and finalize the deal.
   
• Interest Based Bargaining:
  This method is broken into three steps. The first step is to identify the interests or underlying desires of the parties, the second step is to prioritize the said interests of the parties and lastly to help the parties meet their interests whilst reaching a common ground.

Communication Techniques
The mediator in general will be empathetic and patient when listening to the two parties without any bias. The mediator's aim is to also create a safe space for the parties in order to ensure that the conflict or issue can be resolved in a peaceful manner.

• Reflection - this is called reflection
• Summarizing.- the mediator has to briefly and accurately state the statements made by the parties – has to be very accurate and utilize words and terms that are neutral in nature
• Setting of an agenda - establish the order of the issues, claims and defenses or proposed terms of settlement will be addressed. Listen to the parties first and then explain the parties taking into consideration the positions, claims, defenses as to how the mediator will be planning to go ahead with the mediation and what are the proposed settlement terms for the parties.
• Redirecting - shift the focus of the party from one subject to another
• Deferring - the mediator uses this to postpone a response to a question or statement of the party for example where the party states that they are in the right – they will say things such as it is too early to come to a conclusion, Ix will need to look into the facts, not the right stage where I can answer your question
• Acknowledgement - acknowledge each and every emotion, statement, or anything made by the party – gives a sense of satisfaction to the parties and lead to a more peaceful and conducive mediation

Conflict Management Approaches/Mediation Techniques
Ignoring the Conflict

This method is utilized in the following situations:

• When the emotions are too raw and the parties are not able make rational decisions at that time
• When the conflict is insignificant and the other issues are more pressing
• When there isn't a positive and useful method of addressing the issue
• When it isn't the right time to discuss the issue as it can make the conflict worse

In this approach, the mediator through three ways. The first is by make the parties take a, "step back"[1]. In this method, the mediator will take the focus of the parties off the conflict as the parties may be engrossed in the details of the conflict. This is because many times parties lose themselves in the details of the conflict and lose focus of the main objective of resolving conflict. The technique to resolve this problem is by making the parties more empathetic and under the conflict through the other party's outlook. This is also important, as both the parties' views on the matter is correct. This technique is also important in cases where the parties may get emotional such as family matters.

The second method is by, "reframing the conversation"[2]. This method can be employed when one party is ready to move on from the details of the conflict whilst the other is not. In this method by bringing the other party to the present by asking what can be made to rectify the situation or what the other party can do to sort out the issue. The aim of this technique is also to stop the parties from seeing the other person as 'the other side', and rather get the parties on to the same page or wavelength.

The third method is by, "focusing on the interests"[3]. In this method the mediator will first identify the cause for the parties' actions. The reason and thus the interest behind their goals in the mediation. Then the mediator will help the party focus on the interest instead of focusing on the details of the conflict. This method can also be employed when one of the parties gets emotional, as the party in that state focuses on emotion rather than reason and thus this method can also be employed in conflicts such as family matters.

Avoiding the Conflict Producing Situation
This method is utilized in the following situations:

• When the emotions are too raw and the parties are not able make rational decisions at that time
• When there isn't a positive and useful method of addressing the issue
• When it isn't the right time to discuss the issue as it can make the conflict worse
• When the mediator wants to abstain from rushing in finding a solution and to allow a more comprehensive discussion
• When by addressing the conflict produced by the situation would lead to a tangent away from the actual issues that need to be solved

This method can be employed by the mediator by focusing on the positives of the situation. This can be done through a few ways. The first is by either finding or creating common ground between the two parties. The second is by being empathetic, as this will assure the party that the mediator is listening and understanding what they are going through. Empathy can also comfort the party or parties, as they will feel that they aren't alone in their journey and that others have been through it as well. The second is that it will also normalize the situation and the party or parties won't feel that what they're going through is abnormal but rather that it is something that is normal.

The second way of employing the method is by the type of questions the mediator asks. The mediator will ask questions that bring out desired information, by asking question that are open ended, clarified close questions that bring underlying interest, fact-based questions etc. Asking questions like this will help prevent the party or parties from being defensive, as they will tell the whole story and what they wish to say rather than questions that are direct.

In questions that are direct, the party or parties will feel that they are being interrogated and this would result in them becoming defensive and this will hamper with the whole mediation process.

The third method is by diverting the topic. This will help in calming the parties down as their focus will be on another topic. This can also give a cool-down period for the parties as they gather their thoughts and will be more rational. The mediator can also separate the two parties in order to prevent the conflict producing situation.

Negotiation
One of the most calculated definitions of this technique has been given by the Authors Roger Fisher and William Ury in their book 'Getting to Yes' as follows:

"…back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed."

Others have also given their own definitions on the same lines, authors such as Leigh Thompson talks about negotiation as an 'interpersonal decision-making process" which is "necessary whenever we cannot achieve our objectives single-handedly.". A definition was also provided by the author of the book 'Judgement in managerial Decision Making' where Max and Don write, "When two or more parties need to reach a joint decision but have different preferences, they negotiate".

Thus, in the process of mediation, negotiation is one of the most important steps. It is the act of talking amongst each other to arrive at an amicable middle ground. In itself however, negotiation can be carved up into seven distinct elements as enumerated below:

1. Interests:
   This has often been described as "the fundamental drivers of negotiation," it refers to the basic needs of each party, their wants, and often unsaid desires. Negotiators must be aware of each party's individual requirements by problem the parties to better understand their underlying motivation and thus steer the process in a way that benefits both parties involved.
    
2. Equitability:
   Mediation on account of being a constructive method of adjudication requires that the procedure and the end result be one where both parties feel like and are indeed treated with fairness and adjudicated in an equitable manner. This means not developing bias on any party involved and maintaining an objective stance throughout the affair.
    
3. Constructability:
   Once again, the mediator must understand and put into practice the principle that mediation as a process is built around finding a resolution which preserves the interest of both the parties involved. One of the most crucial aspect of this is preservation of relationship between parties. For instances in cases involving corporations, it is of prime importance that the two parties be able to carry out business later down the line.
    
4. Commitments:
   In the process of negotiations, it is of importance that the commitments that will result in an amicable resolution is aimed for and steered in the direction of. Commitment can come in the form of an agreement, offer, demand, promise to perform or abstain, etc. Only after the commitments are in place that the amicable solution be reached.
    
5. BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement):
   Although negotiations would be the most vital part of any mediation, it is important to understand that negotiations do not always produce a result. In the cases where neither of the parties are able to come to an agreement. In such cases, it is important that the mediator tries to put in negotiations terms of contingency.

Mediation
The titular technique in the process of mediation, mediating refers to the stage wherein the mediator will try to bring the parties to an amicable solution. This is arguably where the mediation is successful or a failure. There are three important pre-requisites in the mediation technique process:

1. There must be willingness and cooperation between the parties and their associates to come together in solving the problem and remedying the situation;
2. Mediator (neutral) must have subject expertise and conversational rapport with the parties involved.
3. Pre-established procedural rules such as confidentiality, good faith, oaths, etc.

These requisites are absolutely essential. From a practical perspective it must be noted that in the process of the mediator's deliberations and efforts to reconcile the parties there will exist critical issues which don't only require bringing the parties to a middle ground, but also to be aware of the facts in its contextual objectivity.

In that effort the mediator would have to diplomatically understand the underlying matter and move on the process of adjudication.

Adjudication
The very term by definition refers to the process through which the conflict is resolved by various processes. As far as our cause is concerned, in mediation adjudication is the final and ultimately the most crucial stage of the process. As the process in our case in voluntary by nature, the adjudication is not enforceable like how arbitration or litigation is.

Thus, the mediator unlike a judge does not possess the authority to award a judgement to the parties. The mediator in his process of adjudication shall limit his or her function to skilfully cause a constructive outcome for the parties and satisfactorily resolve the dispute in its entirety.

Annexure - Jurisprudence of Mediation
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often the real loser-in fees, and expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."-- Abraham Lincoln

Since the earliest days of civilization, man has been in a constant state of combat upon his fellow man. Power wars. Political wars. Religious wars. Personal wars. Legal wars. When it comes to civil legal battles, certain societies, for a variety of rational and logical reasons, have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to lighten the load of, and take the pressure off, both the disputing parties and the formal law courts. Of all mankind's adventures in search of peace and justice, mediation is among the earliest. Long before law was established or courts were organized, or judges had formulated principles of law, man had resorted to mediation for resolving disputes.

Mediation is a course of dispute resolution wherein at least one unbiased outsiders intercedes in a contention or dispute with the assent of the members and helps them in arranging a consensual and educated agreement. It can likewise be said as a classified course of exchanges and conversations in which a "nonpartisan" outsider or mediator helps with settling a dispute between at least two parties. Mediation presents the chance to communicate contrasts and further develop connections and shared arrangement, regardless of whether an agreement is reached.

It is for the most part viewed as a non-antagonistic way to deal with the resolution of struggles or disputes. The overall job of the mediator is to work with correspondence between the parties, help them on zeroing in on the main problems of dispute and to produce alternatives that meet the particular parties' inclinations or necessities with an end resolution to determine the dispute.

The main component of Mediation is that it gives an answer that the two parties can live with, rather than a decision forced by a court. The two players are associated with recommending potential answers for the contention. Mediation depends on the deliberate collaboration and great confidence interest, everything being equal. The mediator can't constrain the parties to determine their disparities.

Yet, the mediator can help the parties arrive at an answer pleasant to the two of them. On the off chance that the parties work out all or a portion of their disparities, the resolution - or agreement - is explicitly stated and endorsed by both the parties. Mediation may be able to plow beneath the surface of frequently vexatious litigations by addressing the underlying conflicts. The mediator acts as a bridge to iron the wrinkles of differences affecting the parties.

Mediation differs from arbitration, in which the third party (arbitrator) acts much like a judge in an out-of-court, less formal setting but does not actively partake in the discussion. In contrast to an adjudicator or a judge, a mediator doesn't choose what is right or wrong or make ideas about approaches to determine an issue. A mediator tries to assist parties with fostering a mutual perspective of the contention and to pursue fabricating a commonsense and enduring resolution.

Mediation serves to recognize the disputed issues and to produce choices that assist disputants with coming to a commonly agreeable resolution. It offers generally adaptable cycles; and any settlement came to ought to host the agreement, everything being equal. This differences with litigation, which ordinarily resolves the dispute for the party with the most grounded contention.

Mediation is not quite the same as counseling, therapy or advocacy. The mediator doesn't favor one side or push for any one arrangement. Mediators keep a nonpartisan job. Mediation centers around the future, not the past, and what will settle the contention. Mediation doesn't trade the requirement for legal exhortation or directing if your "rights" in a circumstance are the problem.

The etymology of the word "mediation" in the modern sense dates back to around the 14th century A.D[4].

Mediation
c. 1200, meditacioun, "contemplation; devout preoccupation; private devotions, prayer;' from Old French meditacion "thought, reflection, study;' and directly from Latin meditationem (nominative meditatio) "a thinking over, meditation;' noun of action from past-participle stem of meditari "to meditate, think over, reflect, consider;' from a frequentative form of PIE root *med- "take appropriate measures" Meaning "meditative discourse on a subject" is early 14c.; meaning "act of meditating, continuous calm thought upon some subject" is from late 14c. The Latin verb also had stronger senses: "plan, devise, practice, rehearse, study."x

So, too, the words "mediator" (and the feminine form, "mediatrix") sprung forth sometime in the 14th century.

Mediator
mid-14c., mediatour, "one who intervenes between two parties (especially to seek to effect a reconciliation);' from Late Latin mediator "one who mediates;' agent noun from stem of mediare "to intervene, mediate;• also "to be or divide in the middle;' from Latin medius "middle" (from PIE root *medhyo- "middle"). Originally applied to Christ, who in Christian theology mediates between God and man. Meaning "one who intervenes between two disputing parties for the purpose of effecting reconciliation'' is first attested late 14c. Feminine form mediatrix (originally of the Virgin Mary) from c. 1400.xi

The practice or process of mediation, however, was developed and employed long before the Middle Ages. This form of ADR has served many nations and many cultures for over three millennia.

The known history of mediation in the Western World, of course, has its most substantial foundations in Ancient Greece and, relatively shortly thereafter (in the overall scheme and timeline of the cosmos), in Ancient Rome.

The mediation practice that had been established and developed by the ancient Greeks was recognized as crucial, valuable and utilitarian by the Romans. Subsequently, as with many Greek inventions and innovations scientific, mathematical, legal, and otherwise, the Roman Empire adopted it and embraced it. Moreover, as many Western legal systems have their roots in Roman law, and thus its no shocker that mediation still flourishes today in many western nations.

History
In the long history of humanity, the process of mediation has played a huge role in various cultures, appearing in various forms independently, yet the basic concepts being strikingly similar . I shall now take the example of four famous ancient cultures to prove my point.

1. In India
   Mediation is not something new to India[5]. Hundreds of years before the British showed up, India had used a system called the Panchayat system, whereby regarded town seniors helped with settling local area disputes. Such customary mediation keeps on being used even today in towns. Likewise, in pre-British India, mediation was well known among businessmen.
   
   Fair and regarded businessmen called Mahajans were mentioned by business affiliation individuals to determine disputes utilizing a casual method, which consolidated mediation and arbitration. One more type of early dispute resolution, utilized by one tribe right up 'til today, is the utilization of panchas, or insightful people to determine ancestral disputes. Here, questioning individuals from a tribe meet with a pancha to introduce their complaints and to endeavor to work out a settlement.
   
   In case that is ineffective, the dispute is submitted to a public discussion went to by completely intrigued individuals from the tribe. Subsequent to thinking about the cases, guards, and interests of the tribe exhaustively, the pancha again endeavors to resolve the dispute. In case settlement is unimaginable, the pancha renders a choice that is restricting upon the parties.
   
   The pancha's choice is made as per the ancestral law just as the long-range interests of the tribe in keeping up with congruity and flourishing. All procedures are oral; no record is made of the procedures or the result. Notwithstanding the absence of legal authority or authorizations, such mediation measures were routinely utilized and generally acknowledged by Indian disputants.
   
   Mediation looks similar, in certain regards, to the old dispute resolution measures. In mediation the parties are urged to take an interest straightforwardly simultaneously. The extended system of conversation in mediation comprises of both the material law and the basic interests of the parties. The mediator, a specialist during the time spent dispute resolution, controls the procedures, similar as a clan leader serving in the job of peacemaker. In any case, under the old strategies if mediation fizzled, a similar individual was approved to deliver a limiting choice.
   
   After the British adversarial system of litigation was continued in India, arbitration was acknowledged as the legalized ADR technique is as yet the regularly used ADR strategy. Mediation (as is presently seen around the world and in contrast to the antiquated strategies, which is by definition non-restricting, and urges the parties to intentionally arrive at an agreement that addresses every one of the parties' issues) has just in the beyond couple of years started to get comfortable to lawyers and judges by and large, besides in customary local area settings and with the exception of where mediation has been court-coordinated or legally recommended, for example, in the intra-legislative disputes between government organizations and endeavors, in labor disputes and in open utility administrations disputes.
   
   Mediation acquired notoriety as an ADR component with the re-presentation of Lok Adalats in the Indian Judicial system. Authorized in 1987, the Legal Services Authority Act gave a legal status to the Lok Adalats in India interestingly. Under this demonstration, the choice of the Lok Adalats have been awarded the very status as that of a civil court.
   
   Initially, Lok Adalat was an antiquated strategy for dispute resolution utilized by ancestral individuals. The antiquated idea of settlement of dispute through mediation, arrangement or through arbitral cycle known as "People groups' Court decision" or choice of "Nyaya Panch" is conceptualized and standardized in the way of thinking of Lok Adalat. Basically, Lok Adalat might be contrasted with settlement meetings as they are customarily con-ducted in the United States, then again, actually the neutrals in Lok Adalat are senior individuals from the Bar. Mediation is, indeed, the most established and generally best way that social orders have settled their disparities outside of turning to the courts or savagery.
   
   The terms 'mediation' and 'conciliation', whose uses were viewed as equivalent beforehand, got critical differentiations in their uses when the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was instituted in 1996. Not exclusively did the demonstration set out a reasonable definition for conciliation yet in addition united the laws identifying with homegrown arbitration in India. The mediator, in contrast to the conciliator, doesn't take a functioning part in the mediation interaction and along these lines, the terms can't be utilized as a substitute for one another.
   
   The advancement of mediation as an ADR instrument can likewise be credited to segment 89 of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC), 1908 which was embedded by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 with imminent impact from 1/7/2002. This specific improvement was because of the endeavors of Hon'ble Mr. Equity A M Ahmadi. Ahmadi, the then Chief Justice of India, had welcomed the Institute for the Study and Development of Legal System (ISDLS) to India for a national legal exchange program among India and the USA.
   
   The ISDLS analyzed the issues of institutional excesses in the Indian legal system and recommended the ADR components and administrative and underlying changes of the laws identifying with these instruments following which, new changes were presented in 2002 as correction of segment 89 of the CPC. Nonetheless, the correction was tested by a gathering of lawyers following which the Malimath Committee and the 129th Law Commission were comprised.
   
   In the light of the reports presented by the committees, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on account of Salem Advocates Bar Association versus Association of India. made it compulsory for the courts to allude cases to the elective forums, in case they were so satisfied. This case is a milestone one in the improvement of mediation as a legitimate ADR process in India.
   
   From that point forward, the judges of the Supreme Court have contributed fundamentally towards the improvement of mediation as an ADR system. Under Hon'ble Mr. Equity R C Lahoti, a Mediation and Conciliation Committee was set up and in a Project on Mediation was additionally started in Delhi in the year 2005.
   
   Around the same time, A Permanent Mediation Center was introduced at the Tis Hazari court intricate and legal mediation was begun at the Karkardooma court complex. Two mediation communities were additionally introduced, one at the Karkardooma court complex in Delhi and one more at the Patiala court in 2015.
   
   Consequently, mediation as an Alternative Dispute Redressal system, has gotten huge driving force over the course of the years through the establishment of different enactments and by the endeavors of different judges of the Supreme Court.
    
2. In Ancient China
   In China[6], references to mediation return 4000 years when Shuen, a lord mythicized since the most punctual history, ruled over a local area of the Yellow River. Locally individuals living in the mountains fought about the boundaries of their property, individuals living adjacent to the lakes quarrelled over the responsibility for houses, and individuals living along the waterways made and sold pottery of extremely awful quality.
   
   To tackle these issues, Shuen himself went to every space to cultivate, to fish, and to make pottery with his kin. Following one year of his guidance, the mountain occupants began offering their properties to one another; the lakeside inhabitants began yielding their homes to one another; and those living along the streams began making and selling pottery of an excellent quality.
   
   Confucian idea influences the Chinese legal custom and specifically is seen by majestic officials. Wu You, who was an official of the Han Dynasty (206 BC-24 AD), in any event, having the ability to conclude, used to resign in contemplation in case there were conflicts among individuals subject to him to reflect on his carelessness and his obligation, since he believed that in the event that he had completely and appropriately showed the guideline of morals to his kin, they would never have contended or contended one against another.
   
   In the Ming Age (1368-1644 AD) it had been set up that each town should have a "Hall of shining reason", where the most older and wisest men could pay attention to the occupants' disputes and prior to concluding they could intervene and persuade parties to find a serene and shared arrangement.
   
   As to the Qing line (1644-1911 AD), the last before the final "tainting" with Western systems, a perplexing and enunciated procedural system dependent on the "three stages of mediation" had been anticipated:
   
   1. A private agreement under the watchful eye of the law suit (for example mentioning for the intermediation of family members and the town chief or senior and so forth Was supported and for the most part anticipated by nearby traditions. On the off chance that the dispute had been "intervened" and the agreement had been reached, the latter was definitive and obviously legally perceived).
       
   2. The request to send the dispute to the town chief, tribal leader, top of the family, senior of the gathering and so forth with the resolution that they could intercede between parties pointed toward keeping away from "superfluous and futile Causes".
       
   3. The mediation completed by a majestic official was an exceptionally residual hypothesis to which they turn when the first two stages had not been fruitful. In these conditions, the official exercised all his authority and distinction welcoming the parties to reason and, be that as it may, to agree.
   
   In China, the incredible scholar Confucius had promoted the prevalence of mutual respect over a showdown and the predominance of law. "The best solution is the reconciliation of the parties involved; this, however, should not be imposed in any way, not even indirectly" educated Confucius. In this manner, in Chinese practice and culture dependent on that Confucian ideal of regular agreement, merged with dispute resolution through moral as opposed to any constrained procedure, mediation was looked to as the best option for settling disputes.
   
   In wide brush strokes, Confucianism idealizes "harmony" throughout heaven and earth, beginning with the emperor and extending downward to the lowest level of society. In this way, the endgame of all human relations is to safeguard regular amicability. Hence, "mediation had been the essential method of dispute settlement for millennia in China.
    
3. In Ancient Greece
   The mediation practice that had been set up and created by the ancient Greeks was perceived as important and utilitarian by the Romans. Therefore, similarly as with numerous Greek developments and advancements logical, numerical, legal, and something else, the Roman Empire took on it and accepted it. In addition, as numerous Western legal systems have their foundations in Roman law, it in this manner shocks no one that mediation actually thrives today in numerous countries.
   
   From the beginning of written history, the idea of the mediator was saturated with custom and sprang forward from the Greek folklore of old. To show, Mercury (Mercurius), the Roman divine force of trade, frequently filled in as a mediator among divine beings and humans.
   
   Regularly connected with his Greek partner, Hermes, the Roman name Mercurius is believed to be gotten from "merx," the Latin word for merchandise. As referenced above, Hermes every now and again is shown holding the caduceus, a wand used to accommodate clashes, just as winged sandals intended to permit him to rapidly pass on messages to and from the Gods.
   
   In the Western World, the antecedents of dispute resolution might be perceived by concentrating on the Greeks of old. By a long shot, the most notable story has been given over to us by ideals of Greek fantasies and legends. As the legend of "The Judgment of Paris" goes, there was a dispute between the goddesses Juno, Athena, and Aphrodite with regards to which goddess was the most wonderful.
   
   To settle this prickly issue of relative pulchritude, the gods chose Paris, the regal shepherd, to mediate and deliver a limiting choice. Enticed by a magnificent pay off, Paris picked Aphrodite, and reported her to be successful. Not to be exploited, Juno, the sister and mate of Jupiter, was Hades-twisted on vengeance.
   
   Subsequently, she delivered a large group of maladies on the hapless Aeneas, Paris' kindred Trojan, as the extraordinary saint endeavored to track down the new Troy. Why Aeneas you might inquire? Indeed, Aeneas was the child of Prince Anchises and, as you might have speculated, Aphrodite.
   
   Both Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and, later, Cicero (106-43 B.C.) favorably described arbitration, making it dear that arbitration was an alternative to the courts. Aristotle said arbitration was introduced to "give equity its due weight, making possible a larger assessment of fairness;' while Cicero said a trial is "exact, clear-cut, and explicit, whereas arbitration is mild and moderate:' He added that a person going to court expects to win or lose; a person going to arbitration expects not to gain everything, but not to lose everything either.
   
   Arbitration, be that as it may, rose above folklore for the antiquated Greeks. As the law courts became swarmed, the city­ territory of Athens established the situation of public mediator ca. 400 B.C. As indicated by Aristotle, all men served this capacity during their 60th year, and they heard all way of civil cases where the questioning parties didn't wish to go before the formal, and more slow, court system.
   
   While the choice to take a case before a judge was intentional, the decision of being an authority was not. Except if he turned out to hold another office or voyaging abroad, any qualified man chose to fill in as an authority was needed to do as such; on the off chance that he declined, he would lose his civil rights.
   
   Students of history and anthropologists are overall agreement that there existed arbitral and mediation customs and establishments in various antiquated societies. The city-conditions of antiquated Greece, as far as one might be concerned, grown genuinely elaborate arbitral techniques, for instance, every so often they coordinated gatherings of judges like current international courts.
   
   Besides, the Greek strategies for arbitration were amazingly formal. The mediator for a given case was picked by lottery. Much the same as a mediator, his first obligation was to endeavor to determine the matter agreeably. In the occasion such endeavors fizzled, the mediator then, at that point would call observers and require the accommodation of proof recorded as a hard copy. Not at all like most present day arbitration cases, there was an inward, arbitral allure accessible, with the resolution that the case would be brought before the College of Arbitrators, which could, thus, allude the case to the law courts.
   
   Mediation practice, however maybe below average to arbitration, prospered also. On account of a dispute, shy of the more formal (arbitration) and the most formal (litigation)— highways, one could decide to make no move (i.e., sit idle), look for a concession from the enemy, resort to self improvement, look for an arranged settlement, or attempt mediation (conciliation). In early Greece, town older folks oftentimes were used to intervene disputes between locals. A nonmarital mediator was known as a proxenetas.
   
   Greek free residents utilized instructed slaves (therapes) to help them in exchanges by passing on secret offers and counteroffers between the Greeks. On the island of Crete, a helped and classified exchange plot between families, called sasrnos, has been drilled since the twelfth century B.C., and is utilized to forestall or settle grudges (wrongdoings perpetrated to shield family honor, as per old local traditions). At the point when a settlement is reached between two families associated with a sasmos interaction, with the help of a local mediator called a sastis, regardless of the casualness of the cycle and absence of legal enforcement, the agreement is viewed as restricting by the parties and the local communities.
    
4. In Ancient Rome
   The habit was created in Ancient Greece, then, at that point in Roman civilization. Roman law, beginning from Justinian's Digest of 530 – 533 CE perceived mediation. The Roman culture, among others, viewed the mediator as a sacrosanct figure, deserving of respect, As the incomparable Roman artist Juvenal (55-127 A.D.) advised:
   "Esto bonus miles, tutor bonus, arbiter idem Integer (Be a good soldier, good guardian and arbiter the same of Integrity).In a sense, the role of the ancient mediator emulated, if not overlapped with, that of the tribal chieftain or leader or the traditional wise man in a tribal or clan setting.
   
   Before the ascent of the Roman Empire, the Etruscans (who didn't speak Latin and who utilized a Greek-like letters in order) were in power in what is today Italy close to Rome. Oscan speakers considered their judge a "meddix" a word that may conceivably be gotten from a similar root as "meditate" and "mediate".
   
   In this manner, in the Ancient Rome, there were mediations of lesser or more noteworthy convention. Certainly, there were "sponte delectos," people picked to be mediators, or referees, from inside the congregation and furthermore on an impromptu premise to resolve disputes.
   
   There likewise existed, in Roma Antigua, a specific level of interplay amongst mediation and arbitration:
   "Somehow or another the Romans expected our contemporary issues just as our practice. By all accounts, mediation appears to be not to have assumed the overwhelming part it did in Ancient Greece). However, there are clear inclinations for it in family matters, where the royal authority, having been designated mediator, is told to get the parties to settle. The records safeguarded on papyrus give numerous instances of mediation inside the arbitration cycle.
   
   Favorinus, the logician whose counsel was looked for by Aulus Gellius, , alluded to an issue which present day authorities face, regardless of whether:
   "it is fit and proper for a judex... if there seems to be a chance to settle, to postpone his adjudicatory function for a while and play the part of a mutual friend and a kind of peacemaker' Favorinus recommend no arrangement except for the way that he was not just aware of the issue yet gave it conspicuousness shows that arbiters of justice of his time were upset by it.
   
   Furthermore, that recommends that there was more mediation going on in their training than simply the regular desire of chiefs to abstain from arbitrating on the off chance that they want to get an agreement."
   
   Subsequently, Roman civilization and Roman law (starting from Justinian's Digest of 530-533 CE) recorded the official use of mediation. The Romans called mediators by a wealth of different names, including, but not limited to: internuncios, medium, intercessor, philantropus, interpolator, conciliator, interlocutor, interprets, and mediator.

End-Notes:

• MWI. 2021. Mediation Techniques to Resolve Conflict in the Workplace. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 September 2021].
• MWI. 2021. Mediation Techniques to Resolve Conflict in the Workplace. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 September 2021].
• MWI. 2021. Mediation Techniques to Resolve Conflict in the Workplace. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 September 2021].
• https://www.miamibusinesslitigators.com/a-history-of-mediation.html
• https://www.arbitrationindia.com/pdf/mediation_india.pdf
• https://www.academia.edu/9611797/The_Origins_of_Mediation_and_the_A_D_R_tools

Written By:

1. Mohammed Arafat Mujib Khan, Students of NMIMS Navi Mumbai
2. Shivira Goenka, Students of NMIMS Navi Mumbai
3. Sayon Bhattacharya, Students of NMIMS Navi Mumbai
4. Shivraj Singh, Students of NMIMS Navi Mumbai