Pakistan is facing a significant judicial crisis due to the enormous backlog of cases pending in its courts. Currently, there are approximately 2.3 million cases awaiting resolution across different levels of the judicial system, ranging from civil courts to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Despite this overwhelming caseload, the number of judges available to address these matters is only about 4,300, which places immense pressure on the judicial system. Under these circumstances, if cases continue to be disposed of at the existing pace, it may take several decades to eliminate the backlog. Moreover, the situation continues to worsen because thousands of new cases are filed in courts every day. Consequently, the adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms has become an essential and practical solution to alleviate this burden on the judiciary. ADR can help resolve disputes more efficiently and effectively, thereby supporting the proper administration of justice at every level of the legal system in Pakistan.
Mediation is a widely recognized method of resolving disputes under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). It involves a neutral third person, called a mediator, who assists conflicting parties in communicating, negotiating, and reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, the mediator does not impose a decision but facilitates dialogue and cooperation so that the parties can achieve a resolution that satisfies their interests. In Pakistan, mediation has been practiced both formally and informally; traditional community mechanisms such as jirga and panchayat have long been used to resolve disputes in rural areas, particularly those involving families, property, and local conflicts. While these traditional systems are culturally significant, they sometimes lack legal safeguards and transparency. To address this gap, Pakistan has developed modern legal frameworks and institutionalized ADR mechanisms that provide structured, enforceable, and professional mediation procedures across the country.
One of the key advantages of mediation in the Pakistani context is its cost‑effectiveness. Mediation is generally less expensive than court litigation, which often involves legal fees, documentation costs, and prolonged procedural delays. Because mediation requires fewer formalities and no extensive courtroom procedures, it is more accessible to people with limited financial resources. Another important benefit is the speed of resolution. Pakistani courts are burdened with a heavy backlog of cases, and disputes often take many years to reach a final judgment. Mediation, by contrast, can often resolve disputes within weeks or months, enabling parties to achieve closure much sooner. Mediation also offers confidentiality and privacy, which is particularly valuable in family, commercial, and workplace disputes where public exposure can damage reputations and relationships. Furthermore, mediation encourages cooperation rather than confrontation, helping preserve social and professional relationships that might otherwise be strained by adversarial litigation. Parties also retain control over the outcome, instead of having a decision imposed upon them by a judge, which enhances satisfaction and compliance with mediated agreements.
Despite its many advantages, mediation also has limitations. It does not guarantee resolution; if the parties fail to reach an agreement, the dispute may return to court, potentially delaying final resolution even further. Settlement agreements are not always legally enforceable unless they are properly documented and approved by a court decree. Power imbalances between parties can also lead to unfair outcomes, especially in informal mediation settings. Additionally, mediation is not suitable for all disputes, particularly serious criminal offenses and constitutional matters, which require formal judicial intervention to safeguard public interest and legal rights.
Pakistan has enacted several laws to integrate mediation into its formal justice system. The cornerstone of this legal framework is the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, which provides comprehensive procedures for mediation, arbitration, and conciliation. Under this Act, courts can refer civil disputes to ADR centers or panels of accredited mediators, and mediation proceedings are generally to be completed within thirty days, extendable by another fifteen days. Settlement agreements reached through mediation may be submitted to the court for a formal decree, making them enforceable in law.[1] Several provinces have also enacted their own ADR statutes, including the Punjab ADR Act, 2019, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ADR Act, 2020, and the Balochistan ADR Act, 2022, which empower courts to refer appropriate cases for mediation at the district level. The Family Courts Act, 1964, requires judges to attempt reconciliation in family disputes such as divorce, child custody, and maintenance, reinforcing the role of mediation in sensitive personal matters.[2] Moreover, laws such as the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017, provide for Dispute Resolution Councils (DRCs) at police stations to mediate minor conflicts, reducing the burden on formal courts. To ensure professional standards, the ADR Mediation Accreditation (Eligibility) Rules, 2023 regulate the training and certification of mediators nationwide, and the Mediation Practice Direction (Civil) Rules, 2023 further strengthen procedural consistency in court‑referred mediation.[3]
Judicial support in Pakistan has played a significant role in legitimizing mediation as an effective dispute resolution mechanism. In Kauser Rana Resources (Pvt) Ltd v. Qatar Lubricants Company WLL,[4] the Supreme Court of Pakistan emphasized a pro‑ADR approach, holding that courts should adopt a stance of non‑interference and encourage arbitration and mediation to alleviate the overburdened judicial system and its economic costs on society.[5] Similarly, in Muhammad Naseer Butt v. Additional District Judge and others, Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 3519 of 2021, the Supreme Court referred a long‑pending family dispute to mediation under the ADR Act, resulting in a successful resolution within weeks.[6] This case demonstrates the practical effectiveness of court‑annexed mediation in complex personal disputes and encourages courts to adopt mediation at earlier stages of litigation rather than as a last resort. In another significant development, the Supreme Court has stressed that disputes involving children, such as custody and guardianship matters, should be addressed through collaborative mediation processes, which better protect the emotional well‑being of minors.[7] The Lahore High Court has also reinforced mediation’s role in commercial and corporate disputes. In a judgment authored by Justice Jawad Hassan, the LHC highlighted mediation as an effective method for resolving corporate management and contractual issues, emphasizing its time‑saving and cost‑efficient attributes.[8]7 Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly urged judges and lawyers to identify disputes suitable for mediation at the earliest stages of litigation, calling for a cultural shift within the judiciary toward mediation as a first option rather than a last resort.[9]
These, inter alia, judicial decisions underscore a broader commitment within Pakistan’s legal system to integrate mediation into mainstream dispute resolution. Supported by legal frameworks such as the ADR Act 2017, provincial ADR statutes, accreditation and practice rules, and proactive judicial attitudes, mediation has the potential to transform how disputes are resolved in Pakistan. It provides a faster, more cost‑effective, and cooperative alternative to litigation, while also preserving relationships and reducing court congestion. However, its success depends on the willingness of parties to engage in good‑faith negotiations, the competence of accredited mediators, and continued efforts by the judiciary, legal professionals, and policymakers to promote awareness and institutional support for ADR.
In conclusion, mediation has emerged as a vital tool for dispute resolution in Pakistan, offering significant advantages such as cost-effectiveness, speed, confidentiality, cooperative problem-solving, and preservation of relationships. Supported by both traditional practices and modern legal frameworks, including the ADR Act 2017, provincial ADR laws, the Family Courts Act, and police dispute resolution mechanisms, mediation is gradually becoming an integral part of Pakistan’s justice system. Judicial precedents, including Kauser Rana Resources (Pvt) Ltd v. Qatar Lubricants Company WLL and Muhammad Naseer Butt v. Additional District Judge, highlight the practical effectiveness of mediation and the judiciary’s commitment to promoting ADR as a first-line tool for resolving disputes. Despite its clear advantages, the success of mediation depends on several factors, including the willingness of parties to negotiate in good faith, the competence of accredited mediators, and consistent enforcement of settlement agreements.
To further strengthen mediation in Pakistan, several legal reforms can be considered. First, there should be greater standardization and enforcement of mediation agreements across provinces to ensure uniform legal recognition and binding effect, minimizing ambiguity in enforcement. Second, awareness campaigns and professional training programs should be expanded to educate lawyers, judges, and the general public about the benefits and procedures of mediation, encouraging early adoption and reducing reliance on traditional litigation. Third, special incentives, such as reduced court fees or expedited approval of mediated settlements, could encourage disputing parties to opt for mediation over litigation. Fourth, the government should consider integrating mediation more fully into corporate, commercial, and administrative disputes, particularly in sectors such as banking, real estate, and intellectual property, where quick and amicable settlements are economically beneficial. Finally, mechanisms should be established to monitor and evaluate mediation centers and mediators, ensuring professional accountability and preventing exploitation of weaker parties.
By implementing these reforms, Pakistan can enhance the accessibility, credibility, and efficiency of mediation as a dispute resolution tool. Mediation, when supported by robust legal safeguards, professional standards, and proactive judicial endorsement, has the potential to transform the country’s justice system into one that is faster, more affordable, and more responsive to the needs of its citizens, while preserving social harmony and professional relationships.
[1] Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, ss. 10–15; see also ADR Mediation Accreditation (Eligibility) Rules, 2023 (Gazette of Pakistan, 2023).
[2] Family Courts Act, 1964, ss. 8–10; Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017, s. 82 (Dispute Resolution Councils).
[3] Mediation Practice Direction (Civil) Rules, 2023, High Courts/Civil Courts; ADR Mediation Accreditation Rules, 2023 (Government of Pakistan). https://mis.ihc.gov.pk/attachments/news/Mediation_Practice_Direction_Civil_Rules_2023___________638339321977608781.pdf
[4] 2025 SCMR 517.
[5] Para 18, of the Judgment authored by His Lordship Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. Kauser Rana Resources (Pvt) Ltd v. Qatar Lubricants Company WLL, 2025 SCMR 517 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) (emphasizing pro‑ADR approach).
[6] Muhammad Naseer Butt v. Additional District Judge and others, CPLA No. 3519/2021 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, Order, 2022) (court‑referred mediation).
[7] Muhammad Ali v. Sadia Bibi, PLD 2021 SC 455 (Supreme Court) (recognizing mediation in child custody disputes).
[8] Messrs XYZ v. ABC Corporation, 2024 LHC 987 (Lahore High Court) (commercial mediation encouragement).
[9] Supreme Court of Pakistan, In re: Promotion of ADR in Litigation, SCMR 2023 110 (observations on early mediation).
