Mediation has become a sought-for ADR technique because, as a method of ensuring the resolution of conflict, it is less adversarial and known to be time-consuming and wasted. Nevertheless, the way mediation operates and its effectiveness depend on sectors such as voluntary and mandatory nature of the participation. The participation has a lot of bearing on the attitude of the parties toward their willingness to engage, bargain, and arrive at mutually agreed settlements. This study intends to do a critical comparison between mandatory and voluntary mediation across different dispute contexts such as civil mediation, commercial mediation, and family mediation. It analyses the practices in case of regulatory intervention compared to voluntary mediation through an overview considering factors such as the rate of settlement, satisfaction of participants, time spent in resolving disputes, and adherence to agreements over time. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative court and mediation Center case data with qualitative results from interviews with mediators, disputants, and lawyers. Early study findings suggest that mandatory mediation ensures higher attendance and can decrease procedural lead times, but voluntary mediation tends to produce more cooperative agreements, higher-quality agreements, and higher party satisfaction. The research also examines mediator ability, procedural protection, and party autonomy and their impact on results.