Justice Yasantha Kodagoda has urged Sri Lanka to reconsider its approach to resolving disputes, arguing that excessive court reliance has worsened judicial congestion and advocating for alternative methods like mediation and arbitration.
Supreme Court Justice Yasantha Kodagoda has called for a fundamental restructuring of Sri Lanka's dispute resolution mechanisms, citing mounting evidence that over-reliance on litigation is straining the judicial system and delaying justice. The judge noted that court congestion is not a uniquely Sri Lankan problem, with many nations worldwide grappling with similar challenges as caseloads continue to increase. He characterised delays in justice administration as a pressing national concern requiring intervention from governments, the judiciary and the public.
According to Justice Kodagoda, a primary driver of this congestion is the legal profession's default tendency to pursue courtroom adjudication as the primary method of resolving disputes. He attributed this pattern partly to legal education systems that have traditionally positioned judicial processes at the highest tier of dispute resolution, relegating alternative methods such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration to secondary status. However, he contended that research and user satisfaction data increasingly demonstrate that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can produce outcomes as effective or superior to litigation, particularly when appropriately applied.
Justice Kodagoda estimated that approximately 90 percent of disputes involving individuals, organisations and corporations can be successfully resolved through non-judicial means, while only complex commercial disputes and criminal matters necessarily require formal adjudication. He advocated for reconceptualising alternative dispute resolution not as inferior substitutes but as preferred approaches suited to particular circumstances.
Beyond dispute resolution, the judge emphasised negotiation's role in preventing conflicts from emerging. Effective negotiation skills, he suggested, are equally valuable when drafting contracts and business arrangements, thereby reducing future disagreements. Justice Kodagoda concluded that cultivating strong negotiation capabilities contributes not only to dispute prevention but also to economic development and national growth.
