Mediation as Constitutional Mandate: Legal Provisions and Empirical Performance in Federal Nepal

Abstract

Federal restructuring of Nepal after the constitution of 2015 and the following acts and regulations established local government level Judicial Committees (Nyayik Samiti), constitutionally mandating the resolution of local disputes through mediation (melmilap) rather than adversarial adjudication. Unlike conventional alternative dispute resolution frameworks, in which mediation supplements formal adjudication, Nepal's Judicial Committees position mediation as their primary and constitutionally mandated operational philosophy. This study analyzes the legal and institutional framework underpinning these committees, providing the first comprehensive legal-analytical account of the structured seven-stage mediation process, examining the multifaceted ethical roles of mediators, and evaluating the alignment of mediation outcomes with Nepal’s socio-cultural traditions of community harmony. Illustration on doctrinal legal analysis, comparative institutional comparison, and longitudinal empirical data from a Judicial Committee in Hetauda Sub-Metropolitan City spanning fiscal years 2074/75 to 2081/82, the article assesses the operational dimensions of local mediation within the context of persistent challenges in traditional court-based litigation. The doctrinal analysis confirms that tripartite legal architecture of Nepal provides a constitutionally mandated, comparatively robust framework for localized mediation. Of the 1,083 mediation attempts documented, 78.5% resulted in successful settlements, representing 850 cases resolved through mediation out of 1,409 total registered disputes. Seven interconnected systemic barriers were identified, including inadequate mediator training, public confusion between mediation and adjudication, weak enforcement of mediated agreements, political interference in mediator appointments, absence of standardized procedural protocols, infrastructure deficits, and gender and social inclusion gaps. The study contributes the first comprehensive account of the seven-stage mediation model linked to global mediation theory, the most detailed empirical analysis of Judicial Committee operations available, and documentation of a constitutionally required, institutionally embedded mediation model with no clear parallel in the comparator jurisdictions analyzed.