"Hindi is mother tongue of most": Delhi High Court orders Mediation Centres in Delhi to prepare settlement agreements in Hindi as well

The Delhi High Court recently directed mediation centres in the national capital to ensure that the mediated settlement agreements are prepared in Hindi as far as possible in addition to the English [Sh Chhater Pal & Ors v State & Anr]..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that she is passing the order because in majority of the cases, the parties do not comprehend English and their mother tongue is Hindi.“This Court also remains conscious of the fact that the majority of litigants who approach this Court and the Courts below speak Hindi as their first language… However, the mediated settlement agreements in Delhi are drafted only in English. In such a scenario, the settlement agreement and the conditions thereof may not always be adequately clear to the parties and at times, the translation from English to Hindi may not convey exactly what the parties intend to do,” the Court said.Justice Sharma said that she hopes that once the agreements are written in Hindi, wherever required, it will ensure not only finality of agreements in the mediation centers but also its successful culmination in courts of law..In a detailed judgment dealing with a case of a matrimonial dispute, the Court also passed a series of guidelines to be followed by mediators in drafting a settlement agreement in matrimonial disputes.The judge said that while drafting clauses related to criminal proceedings initiated by either side, the mediator must specify the names of all the parties to the agreement.The Court further said that the agreement must avoid ambiguous terms like ‘respondents’ or ‘petitioners’ and include the terms and conditions of the agreement reached between the parties, howsoever minute and small they may be.“The timeline of the fulfilment of terms and conditions as well as their execution must be clearly mentioned. There should be no tentative dates as far as possible. A default clause should be incorporated in the agreement and the consequences thereof should be explained and enlisted in the agreement itself,” Justice Sharma said..The judge further stated that the agreement should also specify the mode of payment and specify as to which follow-up documents are to be signed by which party.“Further, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes, where one of the conditions in the Agreement is to cooperate in quashing of FIR, such as those under Section 498A IPC, and filing of affidavit and appearing in the Court for the purpose of the same, it is advisable that the agreement must stipulate the names of all the parties concerned who have been named in the FIR specifically and the fact that the claims have been settled in totality for quashing of entire FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom qua all persons named in the FIR,” the judge underscored.She added,“It be also clarified specifically that the FIR will be quashed in totality against all the persons arrested, not arrested, chargesheeted, not chargesheeted, with their names and whether the entire FIR will be quashed against all of them upon payment by husband or any other person on behalf of the husband.”.The Court also said that criminal complaints or cross-cases filed by the parties must find specific mention in the agreement and it should necessarily mention that all parties have read and understood the settlement agreement in their vernacular language. “In case only one or some parties are present during mediation proceedings and only their signatures are obtained on the agreement, it be clearly mentioned and clarified that the agreement is being signed on behalf of those relatives or parties also even in case they are not present.”Justice Sharma also said that language used in the agreement must be definite enough to understand the real intention of the parties and the goals they wish to achieve through it..The Court directed that this judgment should be forwarded to in-charge, Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (SAMADHAN) as well as concerned in-charge of all the mediation centres in all District Courts of Delhi, for taking note and ensuring compliance.“A copy be also forwarded to Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy,” the Court directed..Advocate PK Anand appeared for the petitioners in the case. Additional Public Prosecutor Satish Kumar appeared for the State.Advocates Shanta Pandey, Hiren Dasan and Preeti Chauhan appeared for the other respondents. .[Read Judgment]