Sri Lanka’s quiet justice revolution

Sri Lanka’s mediation system shows that justice does not always require grand buildings, lengthy procedures, or large budgets. Sometimes, it simply requires trusted people, thoughtful institutions, and a commitment to resolving problems before they grow into something larger. That is an achievement worth recognising, and exporting

In a world where access to justice remains elusive for millions, Sri Lanka has built something quietly remarkable: a nationwide community mediation system that is highly effective, trusted, and uncommonly low cost. At a time when governments everywhere are searching for ways to deliver justice more efficiently, Sri Lanka’s model deserves far greater attention.

Over the past year, I had the privilege of studying this system in depth while preparing a report commissioned by New York University’s Centre on International Cooperation. The research examined Sri Lanka’s Community Mediation Boards, an institution that has evolved over more than three decades into one of the country’s most practical and widely trusted governance innovations.

The scale of the system is striking. Across the country, 329 Community Mediation Boards operate with roughly 8,700 trained volunteer mediators. These mediators, often retired teachers, community leaders, health workers, and other respected figures, hear disputes in local settings and guide parties toward mutually agreed solutions.

Every year the Boards collectively handle hundreds of thousands of disputes. In 2023 alone, they received nearly a quarter of a million cases. Of those that reached a mediation hearing, almost 70 percent concluded with a written settlement. 

These are not trivial achievements. In many countries, court systems struggle under immense backlogs. Sri Lanka is no exception: civil cases can take years, sometimes decades, to resolve through litigation. The mediation system offers a different pathway, one that is faster, less adversarial, and rooted in the communities it serves.

Just as important is the cost.

Operating a nationwide justice mechanism is expensive almost everywhere. Yet Sri Lanka’s mediation system delivers resolutions at a fraction of the price associated with formal litigation. Government spending equates to only a modest amount per dispute handled, while citizens pay almost nothing to access the service.

For policymakers concerned with both public finances and social outcomes, this combination is powerful.

The success of the system lies partly in its institutional design. Sri Lanka’s mediation framework blends formal legal authority with community participation. Established under the Mediation Boards Act of 1988, it is overseen by an independent Mediation Boards Commission appointed by the President. At the same time, the actual work of dispute resolution is carried out by trained volunteers drawn from the communities themselves.

This hybrid model, state-backed yet community-driven, creates a rare balance between legitimacy and accessibility.

Mediation usually takes place in familiar venues such as school halls, temples, or community buildings. Lawyers are not present, and the emphasis is not on determining on a narrowly defined ‘right or wrong’. Instead, mediators help parties identify their underlying interests and work toward mutually acceptable solutions.

The result is a system that resolves disputes while preserving relationships.

That matters. Many of the conflicts that reach mediation boards involve neighbors, family members, or small financial disagreements, situations where adversarial litigation often deepens divisions rather than solving them.

Another strength of Sri Lanka’s mediation system is its ability to adapt. Over time, specialised mediation boards have been created to handle emerging issues. Following the 2004 tsunami, temporary mediation boards helped resolve disaster-related disputes. More recently, specialised boards have been introduced to address land conflicts and financial disputes.

Such flexibility allows the system to respond quickly to changing social needs while maintaining its core mission.

None of this is to suggest that Sri Lanka’s mediation system is perfect. Like any institution, it faces challenges: strengthening training, improving gender representation among mediators, expanding public awareness, and investing in digital tools to track cases and outcomes.

But the larger point remains: Sri Lanka has built a practical, functioning model of people-Centreed justice that works at scale.

At a time when governments across the world, including in wealthier nations, are grappling with overloaded courts and rising legal costs, the lessons from Sri Lanka are highly relevant. Many countries would benefit from adapting this approach to their own contexts. Mediation systems rooted in local communities, backed by clear legal frameworks, and supported by modest public funding, can dramatically expand access to justice.

Sri Lanka therefore has an opportunity not only to continue strengthening this institution at home but also to share its experience internationally.

Justice ministers looking to reduce case backlogs would find much to admire. Finance ministers searching for effective public spending might be equally impressed.

Sri Lanka’s mediation system shows that justice does not always require grand buildings, lengthy procedures, or large budgets. Sometimes, it simply requires trusted people, thoughtful institutions, and a commitment to resolving problems before they grow into something larger.

That is an achievement worth recognising, and exporting.

Mediation usually takes place in familiar venues such as school halls, temples, or community buildings. Lawyers are not present, and the emphasis is not on determining on a narrowly defined ‘right or wrong’. Instead, mediators help parties identify their underlying interests and work toward mutually acceptable solutions

(The writer is a consultant for New York University, Centre of International Cooperation)