Roop filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, seeking detailed information from the Telangana State Legal Service Authority (TSLSA) regarding the allocation and utilization of funds in various legal

Confidentiality aspects of mediation process can be understood by referring to the case of Moti Ram (D) Tr. LRs and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr. , in this case the mediator had submitted the mediation report before the court. The Supreme Court held that mediation proceedings were to be completely confidential in nature and that very limited information ought to be conveyed to the court regarding mediation sessions. It also held that the mediator should only submit the executed mediated agreement or merely a statement that mediation was unsuccessful, depending on the outcome. Elaborate details regarding the sessions were not to be revealed before the court. Further, In the Salem Bar Association v. Union of India case, a committee was formed to regulate mediation proceedings, and the Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules, 2003 were introduced, which provide non-binding guidelines for court-referred mediation. Rule 20 of these rules establishes all aspects of mediation as confidential, and the Supreme Court recommended that all High courts adopt these rules with certain modifications. Mediation proceedings are typically kept confidential, and it is considered unethical to disclose any communication that takes place during mediation sessions. This confidentiality has been upheld by courts in various cases, and it is generally not permissible to seek information regarding mediation proceedings through the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the facts of the given situation, a reference may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of The Central Information Commission in Rama Aggarwal v. PIO, Delhi State Legal Service Authority . In this case it was opined that: 'The proceedings during mediation are protected under the exceptions in the Right to Information Act 2005 and are not subject to be disclosed as no public interest is served on disclosure and there exists larger public interest protecting the information'. Confidentiality of the process should not be such which restricts the mediator to conduct effective monitoring research as well as evaluation of mediation programs during the process. If such prohibitions are imposed, then it may affect the behaviour of mediator to accomplish his task and he will not be in a position to carry out mediation in an appropriate and valuable manner. Therefore, there are some exceptions to the confidentiality of mediation process which are as follows: When the conflicting parties give their written consent; When there are some statutory obligations to be followed; When mediator is entailed to prepare a written brief or summary or report of mediation; When there are justifiable grounds to believe that disclosure is essential in order to avert any danger or injury to any person or property; When the information is of qualitative or quantitative nature which is further required to be used for research or evaluation purposes. Considering these exceptional situations in mediation, a mediator conducts private caucuses with the parties to discuss their issues and must inform the parties about the restraints to confidentiality during such sessions.