RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW,

PUNJAB

Conflict of Laws

JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN CIVIL CASES UNDER

ENGLISH LAW AND INDIAN LAW: A STUDY OF HIERARCHY
AND STRUCTURE, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ADR WITH
THE ARCHAIC BODIES

Submitted To: Dr. Sukhwinder Kaur Virk Submitted by: Parth Prachi Shrivastava
(Asst. Prof. of Law) Roll No.: 18090

Group 16
Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 2
English Law ________________________________________________________________ 4
Structure & Hierarchy ___________________________________________________________4
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council _____________________________________________5
Quasi Judicial Bodies ____________________________________________________________8

Indian Law _______________________________________________________________ 10

Structure & Hierarchy _________________________________________________________ 10

ADR and ODR _____________________________________________________________16

The Concept _________________________________________________________________ 16
Intersection with English Legal System ____________________________________________ 17
Intersection with Indian Legal System ____________________________________________ 18

Conclusion ________________________________________________________________ 20
INTRODUCTION

The United Kingdom (the UK) has three separate legal systems: one each for England and
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This reflects its historical origins. The answers below
deal primarily with the legal system of England and Wales but make reference to other parts
of the UK where relevant.

The UK has an unwritten constitution in that there is no single written document that sets out
the rights of individual citizens and how the Government should act. The UK constitution is
comprised of a variety of sources, some of which are written (such as statutes) and others (such
as constitutional conventions), which are unwritten.

The constitution is unitary in that the Parliament in Westminster is the supreme law-making
authority. Since 1999, devolution has provided for the transfer of powers from the Westminster
Parliament to assemblies in Cardiff (Wales) and Belfast (Northern Ireland), and the Scottish
Parliament in Edinburgh. However, other law-making bodies, such as the devolved assemblies
or local authorities, derive their law-making authority from powers that they have been granted
by the Parliament in Westminster.

Constitutional conventions are an important non-legal and unwritten source of the constitution.
Constitutional conventions may be defined as: "…rules of constitutional behaviour which are
considered to be binding upon those who operate the constitution but which are not enforced
by the law courts…nor by the presiding officers in the House of Commons" (Marshall and
Moodie, Some Problems of the Constitution). An example of a constitutional convention is that
the monarch always gives Royal Assent to a bill, if advised to do so by the Prime Minister.

As constitutional conventions are "non-legal" they do not require a procedure for their creation.
If they become obsolete, they can be dispensed with without any formal step being taken.
 ENGLISH LAW

Structure & Hierarchy

The general court structure and hierarchy is set out below. Note, however, that there was an
extensive review of the civil court system in England and Wales in 2016, commissioned by the
Lord Chief Justice. The final report "The Civil Courts Structure Review" was published on 27
July 2016. The review made a series of recommendations intended to inform the current
programme of wider court modernisation being undertaken by HM Courts and Tribunals
Service. It also made a number of recommendations on different aspects of the civil justice
system, such as enforcement of court rulings, the structure of the courts and deployment of
judges.

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the court of final appeal for Commonwealth
countries that have retained appeals to either Her Majesty in Council or to the Judicial
Committee. It is also the court of final appeal for the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland for
issues related to devolution. Some functions of the Judicial Committee were taken over by the
new Supreme Court in 2009.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK. It hears appeals on arguable points
of law of public importance for the whole of the UK in civil cases, and for England and Wales
and Northern Ireland in criminal cases. In Scotland, appeals can be made from the lower courts
in criminal cases to the High Court of Justiciary.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which comprises justices of the Supreme Court
and some senior Commonwealth judges, is the final court of appeal for a number of
Commonwealth countries, as well as the UK's overseas territories, Crown dependencies and
military sovereign bases.

in 2009 the Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the highest court in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland. As with the House of Lords, the Supreme Court hears appeals from the
Court of Appeal and the High Court (only in exceptional circumstances). It also hears appeals
from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. Appeals are normally heard by 5
Justices (formerly Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or Law Lords), but there can be as many as 9.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal and the High Court constitute the "senior courts" of England and Wales.
The Court of Appeal is an appellate court and is divided into two divisions, Criminal and Civil.
The Court of Appeal consists of 2 divisions, the Criminal Division and the Civil Decision.
Decisions of the Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court (formerly the House
of Lords).
The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal hears appeals concerning civil law and family justice
from the High Court, from Tribunals, and certain cases from the County Courts.

The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal hears appeals from the Crown Court.

The High Court

The High Court hears the more serious and complex civil and family cases at first instance. It
contains three divisions: Queen's Bench, Family and Chancery.

The Queen's Bench Division is the biggest of the three High Court Divisions. Included within
it are a number of specialist courts: the Admiralty, Commercial, Mercantile, Technology and
Construction, and Administrative Courts. The Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench
Division hears judicial reviews, statutory appeals and application, application for habeas
corpus, and applications under the Drug Trafficking Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice Act
1988. It also oversees the legality of decisions and actions of inferior courts and tribunals, local
authorities, Ministers of the Crown, and other public bodies and officials. The Admiralty Court
of the Queen’s Bench Division deals with shipping and maritime disputes, including collisions,
salvage, carriage of cargo, limitation, and mortgage disputes. The Court can arrest vessels and
cargoes and sell them within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The Commercial Court of
the Queen’s Bench Division deals with cases arising from national and international business
disputes, including international trade, banking, commodities, and arbitration disputes. The
Mercantile Court of the Queen’s Bench Division deals with national and international business
disputes that involve claims of lesser value and complexity than those heard by the Commercial
Court. The Technology and Construction Court of the Queen’s Bench Division is a specialist
court that deals principally with technology and construction disputes that involve issues or
questions which are technically complex, and with cases where a trial by a specialist TCC judge
is desirable.

The Chancery Division deals with company law, partnership claims, conveyancing, land law,
probate, patent and taxation cases. This Division has three specialist courts: the Companies
Court, the Patents Court and the Bankruptcy Court. The Companies Court of the Chancery
Division deals with cases concerning commercial fraud, business disputes, insolvency,
company management, and disqualification of directors. The Divisional Court of the Chancery
Division deals with cases concerning equity, trusts, contentious probate, tax partnerships,
bankruptcy and land. The Patents Court of the Chancery Division deals with cases concerning
intellectual property, copyright, patents and trademarks, including passing off.
England and Wales is split into six circuits or distinct geographical regions for the practice of
law. They are the areas around which the High Court judges travel. The six circuits are: South
Eastern, North Eastern, Midland, Northern, Wales and Western. The Divisional Court of the
Family Division deals with all matrimonial matters, including custody of children, parentage,
adoption, family homes, domestic violence, separation, annulment, divorce and medical
treatment declarations, and with uncontested probate matters.

The County Court

There are approximately 160 county courts that hear cases within their geographic catchment
area. These courts deal with civil (non-criminal and non-family) cases. The county court hears
(subject to exceptions) money claims with a value up to and including GBP100,000 and claims
for damages for personal injury with a value up to GBP50,000. Cases are ordinarily held where
the defendant resides. The County Courts deal with all except the most complicated and the
most simple civil cases (including most matters under the value of £5000), such as claims for
repayment of debts, breach of contract involving goods or property, personal injury, family
issues (including adoption and divorce), housing issues (including recovery of mortgage and
rent arrears, and re-possession), and enforcement of previous County Court judgments. Cases
are heard by a judge, without a jury. Decisions of the County Courts may be appealed to the
appropriate Division of the High Court.

The Family Court

The Family Court was established in 2014. It has national jurisdiction and brought all levels of
family judiciary to sit together in the same court.

The Crown Court

The Crown Court sits in centres around England and Wales. This deals with indictable criminal
cases that are transferred from the Magistrates' Courts, including serious criminal cases. The
Crown Court deals with indictable criminal cases that have been transferred from the
Magistrates’ Courts, including hearing of serious criminal cases (such as murder, rape and
robbery), cases sent for sentencing, and appeals. Cases are heard by a judge and a jury.
Decisions of the Crown Court may be appealed to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.

Magistrates' Courts

These courts hear all criminal cases at first instance. Less serious cases and those involving
juveniles are tried in the Magistrates' Courts, as well as some civil cases. Magistrates deal with
three kinds of offence: summary (less serious cases); either-way (cases that can be heard either
in a Magistrates' Court or before a judge and a jury in the Crown Court); and indictable-only
(serious cases). The Magistrates’ Courts deal with summary criminal cases and committals to
the Crown Court, with simple civil cases including family proceedings courts and youth courts,
and with licensing of betting, gaming and liquor. Cases are normally heard by either a panel of
3 magistrates or by a District Judge, without a jury. Criminal decisions of the Magistrates’
Courts may be appealed to the Crown Court. Civil decisions may be appealed to the County
Courts.

Within the English common law system, judges have more authority to interpret law but are
bound by precedent.

A judgment contains the facts of a case, the legal position or reason for the decision (ratio) and
the decision itself. The ratio sets a binding precedent for the lower courts. There is flexibility
built into the system by the ability to overrule (usually by a higher court) and to distinguish
one case from another. Note that:

A ratio can be overruled. For instance, a ratio set out in one case can be overruled if it is held
to be incorrect in a later case in the same or a higher court.

A decision can be reversed on appeal. A party that is unsuccessful in a case against another can
appeal to a higher court on the ground that the lower court incorrectly applied the law. The
appeal court may decide to hold the ratio given by the lower court to be incorrect and reverse
the decision.

Quasi Judicial Bodies

Tribunals

Tribunals are an independent, specialised part of the justice system of England and Wales.
They are set up by Parliament to rule on disputes between individuals or private organisations
and state officials. Tribunals sit across the UK. Within England and Wales, there are
approximately 100 different tribunals, each dedicated to a distinct area. The most common
include those dealing with agricultural land, employment, asylum and immigration and mental
health.

Tribunals operate their own procedures that are less complicated and more informal than those
usually associated with courts. Tribunals are made up of panels comprising a tribunal judge
and tribunal members who are often drawn from relevant professions. These members are not
necessarily legally qualified but they have valuable specialist knowledge and experience.

Ombudsmen

There are also specialist ombudsmen who have been appointed to deal with complaints about
an organisation. Using an ombudsman is often a way of trying to resolve a complaint without
going to court.

There are a number of ombudsmen, including:

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who investigates complaints about
Government departments and certain other public bodies.

The Local Government Ombudsman, who investigates complaints about local councils and
some other local organisations.

The Financial Ombudsman Service.

The European Ombudsman.

The Legal Ombudsman.

The Housing Ombudsman.

 INDIAN LAW

Structure & Hierarchy

Civil Court System

The Indian Judicial System is one of the oldest legal systems in the world today. It is part of
the inheritance India received from the British after more than 200 years of their Colonial rule.
The framework of the current legal system has been laid down by the Indian Constitution and
the judicial system derives its powers from it. There are various levels of judiciary in India—
different types of courts, each with varying powers depending on the tier and jurisdiction
bestowed upon them. They form a hierarchy of importance, in line with the order of courts in
which they sit, with the Supreme Court of India at the top, followed by High Courts of
respective states with District Judges sitting in District Courts and Magistrates of Second Class
and Civil Judge (Junior Division) at the bottom.

Hierarchy of Courts in India

The District Court of India are established by the State Government in India for every district
or more than one district taking into account the number of cases, population distribution in
the district. These courts are under administrative control of the High Court of the State to
which the district concerned belongs. The District Court is presided over by one District Judge
appointed by the State Government. In addition to the district judge there are many Additional
District Judge and Assistant District Judge depending upon the workload.

In every state, besides the High Court there are number of judicial Courts to administer justice.
These courts function under the complete control and supervision of the High Court. A state
has got exclusive Legislative competence to determine the constituent organization and
territorial jurisdiction of all courts subordinate to the High Court. The organization of
subordinate coyrts throughout the country is generally uniform. There are two type of law
courts in every district; (i) Civil Courts (ii) Criminal Courts

The court of the district judges is the highest civil court in a district. It exercises both judicial
and administrative powers. It has the power of superintendence over the courts under its
control. The court of the District judge is located at the district headquarters. It has power of
trying both civil and criminal cases. Thus he is designated as the District and Sessions Judge.

Below the court of the District Judge are the courts of Sub-judge, Additional Sub-Judge and
Munsif Courts, which are located in the sub-divisional and district headquarters. Most of the
civil cases are filed in the court of the Munsif. A case can be taken in appeal from the court of
the Munsif to the court of the sub-Judge or the Additional Sub-Judge. Appeals from the courts
of the sub- Judges and Additional sub-Judges shall lie in the District-Court. The Court of the
District Judge has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Against the decision of the District
judge an appeal-shall lie in the High Court.

Civil Court has been categorized on the basis of Jurisdiction:

• Subject Matter Jurisdiction: It can be defined as the Authority vested in the court to try
and hear cases of the particular type and pertaining to a particular subject matter.

• Territorial Jurisdiction: The court can decide within the geographical limits of a court’s
authority and it cannot exercise authority beyond that territorial and geographical limits.

• Pecuniary Jurisdiction: Pecuniary Jurisdiction is related to money, whether a court can

try cases and suits of monetary value/amount of the case or suit in question.

• Appellate Jurisdiction: It refers to the authority of a court to rehear or review a case

that has already been decided by a lower court. Appellate jurisdiction is generally
vested in higher courts. In India, both the High Courts and the Supreme Court have
appellate jurisdiction to hear matters which are brought in the form of appeal before
them. They can either overrule the judgment of the lower court or uphold it.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its exclusive original
jurisdiction includes any dispute between the Centre and State(s) or between States as well as
matters concerning enforcement of fundamental rights of individuals. The appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court
concerned in respect of any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court, in both civil and
criminal cases, involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all Courts/ Tribunals in the country and
act as precedence for lower courts. Under Art 141 of the Constitution, all courts in India are
bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court as the rule of law.

High Courts

High Courts have jurisdiction over the States in which they are located. There are at present,
23 High Courts in India.1 However, the following three High Courts have jurisdiction over
more than one State: Bombay (Mumbai) High Court, Guwahati High Court, and Punjab and
Haryana High Courts. For instance, the Bombay High Court is located at Mumbai, the capital
city of the State of Maharashtra. However, its jurisdiction covers the States of Maharashtra and
Goa, and the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Predominantly, High Courts can
exercise only writ and appellate jurisdiction, but a few High Courts have original jurisdiction
and can try suits. High Court decisions are binding on all the lower courts of the State over
which it has jurisdiction.

District Courts

District Courts in India take care of judicial matters at the District level. Headed by a judge,
these courts are administratively and judicially controlled by the High Courts of the respective
States to which the District belongs. The District Courts are subordinate to their respective
High Courts. All appeals in civil matters from the District Courts lie to the High Court of the
State. There are many secondary courts also at this level, which work under the District Courts.
There is a court of the Civil Judge as well as a court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. While
the former takes care of the civil cases, the latter looks into criminal cases and offences.

Lower Courts

In some States, there are some lower courts (below the District Courts) called Munsif's Courts
and Small Causes Courts. These courts only have original jurisdiction and can try suits up to a
small amount. Thus, Presidency Small Causes Courts cannot entertain a suit in which the
amount claimed exceeds Rs 2,000.2 However, in some States, civil courts have unlimited
pecuniary jurisdiction. Judicial officers in these courts are appointed on the basis of their
performance in competitive examinations held by the various States' Public Service
Commissions.
Tribunals

Special courts or Tribunals also exist for the sake of providing effective and speedy justice
(especially in administrative matters) as well as for specialised expertise relating to specific
kind of disputes. These Tribunals have been set up in India to look into various matters of grave
concern. The Tribunals that need a special mention are as follows:

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

• Central Administrative Tribunal

• Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal, Chennai

• Railways Claims Tribunal

• Appellate Tribunal for Electricity

• Debts Recovery Tribunal

• Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

For instance, the Rent Controller decides rent cases, Family Courts try matrimonial and child
custody cases, Consumer Tribunals try consumer issues, Industrial Tribunals and/or Courts
decide labour disputes, Tax Tribunals try tax issues, etc.

It also needs special mention here that certain measures like setting up of the National Company
Law Tribunal (NCLT) to streamline and effectuate the liquidation proceedings of companies,
dispute resolution and compliance with certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 are also
in the pipeline.

The Indian judicial system is a single integrated system. The Constitution of India divides the
Indian judiciary into superior judiciary (the Supreme Court and the High Courts) and the
subordinate judiciary (the lower courts under the control of the High Courts).

The Supreme Court of India is the apex court of the country and sits in New Delhi. It is presided
by the Chief Justice of India. There are twenty-four High Courts in the country. Each state has
one High Court, although some High Courts have jurisdiction over multiple states and Union
Territories. For example, the Guwahati High Court exercises jurisdiction over the states of
Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, all of which are situated close to each
other in the north-eastern part of India. For administrative convenience, states are further sub-
divided into districts, each of which has its own District Court. Barring a few states, the original
jurisdiction for both civil and criminal cases vests with the District Court. The judicial system
also consists of tribunals and commissions which are established under, and to deal with,
specific statutes.
 ADR AND ODR

The Concept

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provides a confidential and alternative method of

tackling legal disputes which avoids going to court. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is
the procedure for settling disputes without litigation, such as arbitration, mediation, or
negotiation. ADR procedures are usually less costly and more expeditious. They are
increasingly being utilized in disputes that would otherwise result in litigation, including high-
profile labor disputes, divorce actions, and personal injury claims.

One of the primary reasons parties may prefer ADR proceedings is that, unlike adversarial
litigation, ADR procedures are often collaborative and allow the parties to understand each
other's positions. ADR also allows the parties to come up with more creative solutions that a
court may not be legally allowed to impose.

Online Dispute Resolution is a voluntary confidential process through which people with a
dispute communicate online to resolve a conflict. They may request a trained, impartial third
person called a neutral ODR Facilitator. The facilitator can help the parties to define issues,
explore options, and reach a solution that both parties are willing to accept.

ODR is a type of alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution is uniquely

designed to handle most civil disputes. It recognizes people as individuals and that every
dispute brings unique characteristics and concerns. The flexibility of the process allows both
parties to explore all of the issues, including underlying sources of conflict, complex issues, or
issues where there is a high level of emotion attached. Alternative dispute resolution allows
parties to consider a wider range of possible outcomes than is often available through other
legal processes. Any solution is possible with alternative dispute resolution. Performance
under alternative dispute resolution agreements is generally high because no agreement is
written unless the parties agree that the solutions are viable for everyone.

Conciliation and mediation

These involve an independent trained mediator to facilitate communication between the two
parties having the dispute, with the aim of achieving a settlement or resolution. In general,
mediation refers to the facilitation of communication whereas conciliation refers to any
evaluative methods such as the making of recommendations as to an outcome. Conciliation is
generally used for employment situations rather than commercial disputes. Conciliation is a
compulsory process before an individual wishes to bring a claim to the Employment Tribunal.
Arbitration

This is more formal than mediation, and involves a process in which the dispute is resolved by
the decision of an arbitrator (a nominated third party who is qualified to handle arbitration).
The arbitration process can be particularly useful in disputes which require an understanding
of technical knowledge and where privacy is important (eg to avoid disclosure of commercially
sensitive information) or if there is an international element (ie to avoid multiple legal
jurisdictions). It runs as a tribunal process and decisions are binding. Many contracts will
contain an arbitration clause, which requires arbitration to be used in the case of a dispute.

Adjudication

This form of ADR is generally reserved for disputes which arise out of construction contracts.
It is a relatively formal process which involves: providing a written Notice of Adjudication
which sets out the brief details of the dispute; appointment of an agreed adjudicator; serving a
referral notice which sets out the dispute in detail by the aggrieved party; a response to this
referral notice (essentially the defence); and finally a decision being reached by the adjudicator
within 28 days of the referral notice. This decision is final and binding.

Intersection with English Legal System

ADR enables parties to reach an agreement without the need to go to court. It allows parties to
settle amicably without the lengthy, costly and draining formal procedure of courts. It was
introduced to achieve a sense of justice for all citizens who lack the financial means to go
through the litigation procedure. The Woolf Report and the Jackson Reforms put greater
emphasis on ADR and less on adversarialism, to promote access to justice for ordinary people.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, entitled courts to terminate proceedings, if they believed the
dispute could have been resolved with the use of ADR. The introduction of the Rules was an
indication that the courts were promoting the use of ADR over litigation. Supported by the case
of Dunnet v Railtrack, where it was held that any party’s refusal to use ADR would incur cost
penalties. This rule was overruled by the Halsey Guidelines, which rejected the idea of
compelling parties to pursue ADR. LJ Lightman stated that, it is up to the court to determine
whether the refusal of ADR was reasonable or not.

There is an interrelation between the Rule of Law and access to justice being upheld and this
link was first established by Professor Mauro Cappelletti. Consequently, whilst establishing a
link between the Rule of Law and upholding access to justice, he also shed light on the
correlation between access to justice and ADR. Accessibility and fairness are the core values
to uphold access to justice. ADR and litigation have a similar procedure and common objective,
which is to settle disputes amongst the parties. The fairness of the decision made, can be
questioned when a party is unwillingly coerced into using different forms of ADR. Informed
consent to use ADR to resolve disputes promotes human dignity and promotes party autonomy
to the decision being reached. Owen Fiss supported the idea of consensual ADR in order to
get justice. Consensual ADR ensures access to justice being delivered in a fair manner.

Since ADR’s implementation in England, we have witnessed an increase in interest by the

citizens but the focus has not yet significantly shifted to the process of ADR. This is primarily
because disputants have an embedded confidence in the English courts. This article will
demonstrate why this traditional belief in the courts is amiss and the reasons surrounding why
individuals prefer the court system over ADR.

Intersection with Indian Legal System

An interesting feature of the Indian legal system is the existence of voluntary agencies called
Lok Adalats (Peoples' Courts). These forums resolve disputes through methods like
Conciliation and Negotiations and are governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987. Every award of Lok Adalats shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be
binding on the parties to the dispute. The ADR mechanism has proven to be one of the most
efficacious mechanisms to resolve commercial disputes of an international nature. In India,
laws relating to resolution of disputes have been amended from time to time to facilitate speedy
dispute resolution in sync with the changing times. The Judiciary has also encouraged out-of-
court settlements to alleviate the increasing backlog of cases pending in the courts. To
effectively implement the ADR mechanism, organisations like the Indian Council of
Arbitration (ICA) and the International Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ICADR) were
established. The ICADR is an autonomous organisation, working under the aegis of the
Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, with its headquarters at New Delhi, to
promote and develop ADR facilities and techniques in India. ICA was established in 1965 and
is the apex arbitral organisation at the national level. The main objective of the ICA is to
promote amicable and quick settlement of industrial and trade disputes by arbitration.
Moreover, the Arbitration Act, 1940 was also repealed and a new and effective arbitration
system was introduced by the enactment of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This
law is based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)
model of the International Commercial Arbitration Council.
Likewise, to make the ADR mechanism more effective and in coherence with the demanding
social scenario, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has also been amended from time to
time to endorse the use of ADR methods. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
amended in 2002, has introduced conciliation, mediation and pre-trial settlement
methodologies for effective resolution of disputes. Mediation, conciliation, negotiation, mini
trial, consumer forums, Lok Adalats and Banking Ombudsman have already been accepted and
recognised as effective alternative dispute-resolution methodologies.
 CONCLUSION

The use of ADR voluntarily or by compulsion has raised several ambiguities in providing
access to justice and whether it is justified at the cost of meaningful consent. A party should
have the freedom to use ADR or the court to resolve their dispute to ensure a free and fair
transparent system of justice without the use of coercion. LJ Jackson supports education and
facilitation of ADR as opposed to the coercive nature of the court. Civil Mediation Council
2003 and Mediation Information Assessment Meetings have been established to support and
promote the use of ADR. Access to justice movement aims to protect the rights of citizens by
not restricting their access to courts. With the advancement of technology, Online Dispute
Resolution has been proposed in order to achieve a greater sense of access to justice. The
European Union elaborated upon access to justice to embrace judicial and extrajudicial dispute
resolution alternatives.

ADR should be considered as an alternative to the courts and not a substitute to it. By
maintaining this accessibility and transparency within the consensual decision-making process,
it allows the parties to explore the legitimacy of different types of justice under ADR. Civil
justice is on path for success by providing awareness, availability and encouragement of ADR
to resolve a dispute by administering access to justice to all.