Judge Arjun Mehta, known for his balanced and fair judgments, has recently completed extensive training in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods. This training emphasized the benefits of mediation, arbitration, and negotiation as ways to resolve disputes more efficiently and amicably. Soon after his training, Judge Mehta is assigned a high-stakes civil case involving a business partnership dispute. The parties, however, are deeply entrenched in their positions and have explicitly expressed their strong opposition to any form of mediation or ADR, insisting on a full trial to settle their differences.
Despite their reluctance, Judge Mehta, aware of the potential advantages of ADR, considers suggesting mediation as a means to resolve the conflict. He believes that mediation could save time, reduce costs, and help preserve the business relationship between the parties. However, he is also conscious of the importance of maintaining his impartiality and respecting the parties' preferences.
If Judge Mehta were to suggest alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods despite the parties’ adamant opposition, would this decision risk undermining his impartiality, or is it consistent with his judicial role and training to encourage such methods for the benefit of the parties involved? Would Judge Mehta’s suggestion of ADR, against the parties’ wishes, be seen as a breach of impartiality? Could it be perceived as him favoring one method of dispute resolution over another, thereby influencing the case’s outcome in a manner inconsistent with his role as an impartial adjudicator?
