In a welcome statement, the Supreme Court (SC) has suggested mediation, not adjudication, as the way to settle disputes between neighbouring states. It has referred a 22-year-old conflict between Assam, Arunachal and Nagaland for mediation, saying “adjudication” isn’t the answer to the problem. In this regard the Supreme Court has appointed senior lawyers as mediators. Such a fresh thinking from the highest court of the land is a very positive sign pointing to the need for out of the box ideas and creative solutions. As the Supreme Court has rightly stated the border dispute between Assam and Nagaland has been pending since time immemorial and it could go on forever without any solution. “It is not possible to adjudicate such issues”, the apex court stated while also referring to the recent development wherein the State of Maharashtra has filed a fresh suit against Karnataka claiming over 800 Marathi-speaking villages that were handed over to the neighbour by the Centre under a parliament law. With such experience of delay in resolving conflicts, the Supreme Court has for the first time referred the decades old border dispute case between Assam and Nagaland for mediation taking the position that “adjudication cannot resolve such differences that have become a routine affair”. Several disputes, including border rows and water sharing, among states are pending before the apex court. With this move, the court hopes to sort out such cases. This is a very positive development not only for the Nagaland-Assam border issue but also for conflict in general across India especially those involving inter-state disputes.
It makes sense to go for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism when the old method has not worked. It is a known fact that in the case of the Nagaland-Assam border dispute, several orders have been passed on but without any positive outcome. The problem was that one party or the other did not accept earlier rulings so much so that such orders from the top remained ineffective or simply unacceptable. This is the problem with the so called adjudication process. By going for mediation hopefully the outcome would be more fruitful, although the mediators appointed would have to tread carefully and ensure impartiality while dealing with the problem. Mediation is now widely recognised around the world especially in Europe as the most popular form of alternative dispute resolution as it “offers solutions beyond those that a court could ordinarily impose”. Hopefully the proposed mediation into the Assam-Nagaland border row would help the two sides to communicate better with one another and reach their own decisions about the problems in hand and arrive at an agreed resolution of their dispute on their own without having the court to adjudicate. It will also be in the larger interest of both States and its people that a creative solution be found taking into consideration the realities on the ground. In the mediation process it will also be important to include besides the two state governments the civil society groups along with the peace committees on both side of the border. Their involvement will boost the chances of a resolution.
