When Nepal adopted a federal system of governance, policymakers hoped that minor disputes would be resolved close to home. The Local Government Operation Act 2017 empowered the municipalities and rural municipalities to settle minor disputes at the local level, easing pressure on courts and delivering quicker justice.

Accordingly, mediation centres were set up at local units and within district courts to translate this idea into practice. Years on, however, the promise of mediation remains largely unfulfilled, as thousands of cases that could be settled through dialogue continue to clog the courts.

“The expectation was that after the formation of local governments, the burden of minor cases would decline,” said Ramchandra Basnet, information officer at the Jhapa District Court. “But in reality, the flow of cases has increased.”

Court data underline his concern. In the fiscal year 2024-25, the Jhapa court referred 814 cases to its mediation centre. Only 153 were settled, while 41 remained under process. In the current fiscal year, up to mid-November, 240 cases were referred, but just 41 reached settlement, with 74 still in discussion.

Nearly 90 percent of cases sent for mediation eventually return to the court for regular hearings.

Jhapa’s mediation centre has been operating for over 15 years, receiving cases that cannot be resolved by judicial committees of local governments.

Judges refer disputes deemed suitable for mediation—mostly civil and complaint-based cases such as property division, divorce, land disputes, financial transactions, assault and fraud. Each party can select up to three mediators from a registered list. Yet, according to mediator and lawyer Naresh Khati, often, when cases that appear resolvable are sent to mediation, such mediation efforts fail and they come straight back to court.

Structural shortcomings compound the problem. Established under the District Court Regulations-2003, Jhapa’s mediation centre only became active after a dedicated desk was set aside in 2010. Even today, it operates from a library room on the upper floor of the court, due to lack of space in the building.

In neighbouring Morang, the situation is no better. The mediation centre at the Morang District Court once functioned from a three-room building, but it was destroyed during the Gen Z movement.

“Earlier, the facilities were adequate. Now the condition is miserable,” said information officer Hem Bahadur Budhathoki. Last year, the court referred 1,584 cases for mediation, of which 1,111 were settled. But in the current fiscal year, by mid-November, only two of 120 referred cases reached agreement. Morang currently has 29 registered mediators.

Sunsari district is no exception. At the Sunsari District Court, the mediation centre sits outside the main gate in a tin-and-glass room with a worn table and three chairs. Often described by court staff as the court’s most 'neglected room', it can barely accommodate six people.

“The government established mediation centres nationwide to resolve disputes quickly and at low cost,” said a court official. “But here (in Sunsari), due to lack of resources and space, it has never worked as intended.” Hearings for mediation cases often have to be conducted in the nearby District Bar Association hall. Sunsari currently has 35 registered mediators, including lawyers, social workers and journalists.

In the first four months of the current fiscal year, which started in mid-July, 203 cases were referred to Sunsari’s mediation centre. Of these, 170 were settled, while 167 failed and returned to court; 33 remain under discussion, according to court officer Mani Dahal. He blamed inadequate infrastructure and limited cooperation from legal practitioners.

“Some litigants simply do not trust mediators,” said an advocate affiliated with the Sunsari Bar Association, adding that scepticism from lawyers themselves also weakens the process.

Taplejung, a mountain district in the Koshi province, has a similar problem. Cases rarely enter mediation. “Most cases sent to the mediation centre end up unresolved,” said court officer Sammi Kapoor Shah at the Taplejung District Court. Of 43 cases referred since mid-December, only three were settled through mediators.

Advocate and mediator Bedanidhi Paudel described the emotional intensity involved. “The disputing parties hardly face each other for discussion. We try our best, but the settlement is challenging," he said.

Mediators often hold discussions for hours, allowing parties to speak directly without interference. “Inside the room, it feels like an agreement is near,” Paudel added. “But once they step outside, everything falls apart.”

Panchthar’s record is bleaker still. Over the past three fiscal years, only eight cases were settled through mediation at the Panchthar District Court, despite hundreds being referred annually.

All six registered mediators are lawyers. Legal expert Yudhisthir Raj Amgain argued that relying almost exclusively on legal practitioners limits effectiveness.

“There is a legal provision that bars lawyers appointed to draft case documents, handle proceedings and argue cases from facilitating mediation in the very cases they represent. That is why we are not allowed to act as mediators to settle cases involving our own clients," said Amgain.

Data from the Dhankuta District Court show a declining success rate as well. Since the fiscal year 2023-24, only 72 of 330 cases referred for mediation were settled. In the first five months of the current fiscal year, just three of 31 cases succeeded.

Court officer Indra Kumar Yonghang cited reluctance from parties and lack of coordination between advocates as major obstacles.

Senior advocate and mediator Prof Gopal Bahadur Bhattarai believes mediation remains vital, despite setbacks. “Mediation guides individuals and communities towards understanding. We use law and foresight to explain consequences and possible outcomes," he said. Failure to anticipate outcomes, he argued, often pushes resolvable cases into lengthy trials.

Under the Mediation Act 2011, parties attending mediation can receive up to Rs500 for transport, while mediators may charge up to Rs10,000 with mutual consent. “Those who cannot pay are not forced,” said Dhan Bahadur Khadka, chair of a community mediation centre in Dhankuta Municipality. “No one should be deprived of mediation due to lack of money.”

Despite strong legal foundations and years of practice, mediation in the courts remains trapped between promise and performance. Without better infrastructure, broader participation beyond lawyers and renewed trust from litigants, a system designed to ease justice risks becoming another missed opportunity.

(Ananda Gautam in Taplejung and Laxmi Gautam in Panchthar contributed reporting)