Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sobita Gautam has said that the Mediation (Second Amendment) Bill was introduced to reduce the long, complex and costly process that citizens face in the courts and to deliver justice that is quick, easy and satisfactory to the disputing parties. She made the statement while addressing a meeting of the Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee held at Singha Durbar, according to reports published by Ratopati and Nepal Press on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. The minister told the panel that the bill is designed to make the mediation process simpler and less expensive than it is at present.

A promise of quick, easy and satisfactory justice

Addressing the committee, Minister Gautam framed the bill as a direct response to the hardships of litigation as she described them: a court process that drags on, is weighed down by complexity, and imposes heavy costs on the ordinary person seeking redress. Her argument to lawmakers was that the burden of the existing system falls on the very people the justice system is meant to serve, and that reform should therefore be measured by the experience of the disputing parties themselves.

The objectives she set out before the committee can be summarised as follows:

  • Reduce the burden of the courts by cutting down a process the minister characterised as long, complex and costly.
  • Deliver faster outcomes, so that parties receive quick and easy justice instead of prolonged proceedings.
  • Ensure satisfaction for both sides, with resolutions that the disputing parties can genuinely accept.
  • Simplify and lower the cost of mediation, making the alternative route to justice more accessible than it is today.

According to the reports, the minister presented these aims as the guiding purpose behind the Mediation (Second Amendment) Bill, which her ministry has brought forward as part of its effort to ease the pressure on the courtroom.

Mediation at the centre of the reform

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which a neutral third party helps the sides of a dispute reach a settlement of their own, rather than leaving the outcome entirely to a judge's verdict. Because it can bring a dispute to an end without a full trial, it is widely regarded as a practical tool for reducing delays, lowering expenses and easing the overall load on the courts. It is precisely this potential that the minister appeared to invoke when she told the committee that the bill aims to make the process simpler and less costly.

The two outlets that covered her remarks referred to the same measure in slightly different terms, with Nepal Press describing it as a conciliation bill brought in to reduce court hassles, and Ratopati reporting the minister's pledge that the reconciliation process will be made simpler and less expensive. The differing labels point to the same core promise: a smoother path to agreement that spares litigants the expense and delay of formal court proceedings.

A second amendment to the existing law

The bill's title indicates that it proposes a second round of amendments to the legal framework governing mediation, building on the existing structure rather than replacing it outright. In practical terms, a second amendment of this kind is aimed at refining how the process works, and the minister's stated goals of simplicity and lower cost suggest the changes are intended to remove the obstacles that have kept parties from resolving their disputes through mediation in the first place.

For the government, the political significance of the bill lies in the commitments attached to it. Minister Gautam's presentation cast the legislation not merely as a technical revision, but as a reform with a direct bearing on how quickly and affordably citizens can settle their differences and move on with their lives.

Committee scrutiny and the road ahead

The venue for the minister's statement carries its own weight. The Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee is the parliamentary panel responsible for examining legislation connected to the courts and the justice system, and ministers routinely appear before it to explain the intent behind bills that fall under their ministry. Detailed review at the committee stage is where the fine print of any proposal is studied, questioned and, where necessary, sharpened.

By setting out the bill's rationale directly to this committee at Singha Durbar, Minister Gautam has placed her ministry's reasoning on the record with the very body that will scrutinise the proposal. The pledges she made there, including quicker, easier and more satisfactory justice, along with a mediation process that is simpler and less expensive, now stand as the benchmark against which the bill is likely to be weighed as it moves through the parliamentary process.

For the disputing parties the bill is meant to serve, its value will ultimately be judged by whether it can deliver what the minister promised: a mediation process that is simpler and cheaper, and a justice system in which disputes are settled promptly and to the satisfaction of both sides. Until the amendment completes its passage and comes into effect, the statement delivered to the committee remains the clearest indication of the government's intent on justice reform.