NEED FOR ADR IN CRIMINAL TRIAL

The judiciary is known as the most important organ in which people place their trust. The
purpose of the judiciary is to resolve all types of conflicts and to provide justice to the innocent
by punishing offenders in an impartial and independent manner. Traditional procedures are time
consuming, resulting in delays in justice due to pending litigation, and expensive, making it
unattainable for many people, resulting in injustice to innocent people.
The Supreme Court of India is currently dealing with 59,867 criminal cases. The situation
is significantly worse in the subordinate judicial system, with 44.75 lakh cases outstanding
before India's different High Courts, 13.1 lakh of which are criminal cases, and 3.14 crore cases
pending before district and subordinate courts. Overcrowding of convicts and a growth in the
number of prisoners result from an increase in the number of cases.
Famous jurist Nani Palkhivala has said, “The greatest drawback of the administration of
justice in India today is because of delay of cases……………. The law may or may not be an ass,
but in India, it is certainly a snail and our cases proceed at a pace which would be regarded as
unduly slow in the community of snails. Justice has to be blind but I see no reason why it should
be lame. Here it just hobbles along, barely able to work.”1
Speedy trial is an essence of criminal justice, but it is getting trotted in the Indian Judicial
system. As a result of the worrying state of the Indian judicial system, an alternative dispute
resolution mechanism is urgently needed, particularly to decide criminal matters. The preference
for ADR stems from the fact that it is less expensive than traditional litigation, requires less time,
and maintains secrecy.
The goal of ADR is not to penalize the offender, but rather to help them repent for their
actions, work to repair the harm they have caused, and reintegrate into society. The paradigm, for
example, is a response to the traditional justice model, which the victim-offender mediation
contributes to and implements. Revenge is not the appropriate response to all atrocities
perpetrated against victims. It does not compensate victims for their losses, nor does it provide
answers to concerns, alleviate worries, provide closure, or aid in the understanding of a
catastrophe. For all of the victims, the fact that the perpetrator has been punished by the state
does not mean that their losses have been restored, they have suffered it does not answer their
questions, release their distresses and help them understand their tragedy or heal their injuries.

1
Nani A Palkhivala, ―We the nation…lost decade (1994) UBS Publications, p 215
 The method of ADR in criminal matters has been criticized for obfuscating the
importance of lawsuits and judicial processes. It is believed to privatize disputes at the expense
of public interest and justice, particularly in criminal situations, because crimes are against
society as a whole.
The danger of coercion in the plea negotiating process has been highlighted by the
judiciary, as well as the necessity to guarantee that the decision to enter into a plea deal is made
voluntarily by the accused. There is a claim that because many accused people choose a plea deal
than a trial, this approach leads to shoddy investigation procedures.