Section 31: Alternate Dispute Resolution
Section 31 gives the Board a short but useful option: where it thinks a complaint could be resolved through mediation rather than a full inquiry, it can direct the parties toward that route instead.
Quick summary
What Section 31 says
- Section 31 — if the Board is of the opinion that any complaint may be resolved by mediation, it may direct the parties concerned to attempt resolution of the dispute through such mediator as the parties may mutually agree upon, or as provided for under any law for the time being in force in India.
Breaking it down
This is a compact, single-sentence provision, but it gives the Board meaningful flexibility — not every complaint needs a full Section 28 inquiry and potential Section 33 penalty process to reach a resolution.
This is the Board's discretionary call, not a party's automatic right. The direction toward mediation depends on the Board forming the opinion that a complaint is suitable for it — it isn't something a Data Fiduciary or Data Principal can simply demand instead of a formal inquiry.
The mediator is chosen by mutual agreement, or per existing law. Rather than the Board itself appointing a mediator, the section anticipates the parties agreeing on one themselves, or the process running through whatever existing Indian mediation framework already applies.
This exists alongside, not instead of, the Board's formal inquiry powers under Sections 27 and 28. Mediation is offered as an alternative resolution path for complaints the Board considers suitable for it — the formal inquiry and penalty machinery remains available for matters that aren't resolved this way, or that the Board doesn't consider suitable for mediation in the first place.
Why this section matters
Not every data-protection dispute needs to be treated as an adversarial enforcement matter — some are genuinely capable of quicker, more amicable resolution through mediation, which can be faster and less costly for both a complainant and a Data Fiduciary than a full Board inquiry. Section 31 gives the Board the flexibility to route appropriate cases that way.
Real-world example
A complaint well-suited to mediation
A customer complains that a small retail business hasn't properly actioned their correction request under Section 12, but the underlying issue seems to be a simple administrative miscommunication rather than a deliberate or systemic compliance failure.
- The Board's assessment — given the nature of the dispute, the Board forms the opinion this is well-suited to mediation rather than a full formal inquiry.
- The mediation direction — the Board directs the customer and the business to attempt resolution through a mutually agreed mediator.
- If mediation resolves the issue — the matter concludes there, without needing to proceed through the Section 28 inquiry process at all.
Who needs to care about this section
- Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries in a dispute — mediation can offer a faster, less adversarial path to resolution than a full Board inquiry, where the Board considers it appropriate.
- The Board itself — this section is a discretionary case-management tool for routing appropriate complaints away from the full inquiry process.
Common questions
Can we request mediation instead of a Board inquiry?
Who selects the mediator?
Does choosing mediation mean giving up the right to a formal Board inquiry?
Related sections
Section 32 — Voluntary Undertaking
Continue to the next section in sequence.
Read Section 32Section 30 — Orders Passed by Appellate Tribunal to be Executable as Decree
Go back to the previous section.
Read Section 30Chapter VII — Appeal and Alternate Dispute Resolution
See every section in this chapter together.
View the chapterFull DPDP Act Guide
Back to the overview page, with the complete section-by-section guide.
View all 44 sections