ADVANTAGES OF ADR

The ADR has a number of advantages which make it a desirable system of dispute

resolution, they are

(a) Flexibility: ADR is flexible and not governed by the rigid rules of procedure.
parties as per their convenience fix the time and place ofhearing. The ADR
mechanisms adopt the informal procedure. Further they have power to adopt
their own procedure depending upon the nature ofthe dispute. Further both the
disputing parties can withdraw from ADR mechanisms at any time without
assigning reasons.

(b) Appreciation of their Respective Case: The time and money spent in ADR
mechanisms will not be wasted, even ifthe dispute is not settled. Since it helps
parties to appreciate each other’s case better

© With or Without Lawyer: This mechanism may be used without legal expert
i.e., lawyer, since the process is simple and does not involve any kind of
technicalities. So the parties can submit their case to the presiding officers in their
vernacular language.

(d) Reduction of Work Load: An ADR mechanism takes short duration in

settlement of the dispute. So the court can also refer the cases, which are
pending before it. Ultimately the workload of the court is reduced. It is better for
the judiciary to focus on ADR mechanisms to strengthen itself.

(e) Appointment of Experts: ADR permits parties to appoint experts depending

upon the nature of their dispute. They can also replace the presiding officer when
their integrity is suspected. Thus they can appoint whomsoever in whom they
have confidence.

(f) Avoidance of Confrontation Conflict and Acrimony: ADR, through amicable

settlement, enables the parties to resolve the dispute and bury the past, preserve
the present relationship and paves way for to better future without unnecessary
confrontation, conflict and acrimony.

(g) Avoidance of Delay: ADR enables the parties to overcome the cumbersome
procedure adopted in the adversarial method and saves the parties from delay in
getting justice.

(h) No Expenses: ADR mechanisms provide justice in a shorter duration, with

simple procedure without much paper work. Therefore the parties are not
required to pay lawyer's fees, court fees, travelling charges, appeal, revision and
review fees, typing charges, and other incidental expenses.

(I) Confidential: The ADR proceedings are being private in nature as only parties
and presiding officers take part in the proceedings, since any information or
anything revealed in the proceedings would not be known to others than
disputing parties. Hence confidentiality is highly maintained.

(J) Absence of Rigidity: An ADR mechanism is not rigid, since they cannot follow
the procedural laws such as the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, the Indian Evidence Act, 1882, need not be followed.

(K) Satisfaction: In ADR mechanisms settlement of the dispute lies in the hands of
disputing parties except in case of arbitration. Generally settlement is based on
the needs of the both the parties. So there is no question of either of the parties
winning or losing.

Limitations of Alternative Dispute Resolution: In spite of the above various

advantages, the ADR system has its own limitations. They are:

(a) Uncertainty of Decision: In ADR process, the presiding officers at the time of
settlement ofthe dispute do not take into consideration the Civil Procedure Code,
1908, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Other Substantive Laws and Other principles like
“Ratio Decedendi and Obiter Dicta”. Hence settlement arrived with one party may
not be similar to settlement arrived with another party even though facts ofthe
case are similar.
(b) Decision is Not in the Hands of Presiding Officers: In ADR mechanisms the
decision is in the hands of the parties, but not in the hands of presiding officers.
Their duty is to convince the parties. This is yet another lacuna in the ADR
mechanism, since it leads further additional spending of unnecessary time in the
ADR mechanisms.

(c) Merits of the Case: In fact in the ADR mechanisms the parties submit their
statement about nature ofthe case, issues etc, to the presiding officers, but it is
ultimately the parties who can decide their case. Hence there is no scope for
deciding the case on merits of the case on the basis of materials placed on the
record.

(d) Act of the Parties: The settlement arrived by the parties is just like an
agreement and does not stand on higher footing than the agreement which
preceded it except in case of court annexed ADR mechanisms like Lok Adalat,
Family Court etc. The provisions ofIndian contract are applicable. Hence it is,
therefore, liable to be set-aside on any ofthe grounds, which may invalidate an
agreement.

(e) Enforcement of Decisions: The settlement arrived or compromise entered or

award passed in the negotiation, mediation, conciliation arbitration, and court
annexed ADR mechanisms cannot be enforced without the assistance of the
court. Hence there does not exist independent machinery to enforce its one’s
own decisions.

(f) Second-Class Justice: Some critics have concerns about the legitimacy ofADR
outcomes, charging that ADR provides "second-class justice." It is argued that
people who cannot afford to go to court are those most likely to use ADR
procedures. As a result, these people are less likely to "win" a case, because of
the non co-operative nature ofADR.

(g) Compromise Can be a Good Way to Settle Some Disputes, But it is Not
Appropriate for Others: Similarly, critics believe that ADR encourages
Compromise. Compromise can be a good way to settle some disputes, but it is not
appropriate for others. In serious justice conflicts and cases of intolerable moral
difference, compromise is simply not an option because the issues mean too
much to the disputants. Another concern is that ADR settlements are private and
are not in the public record or exposed to public scrutiny. This could be a cause
for concern in some cases. For example, using ADR to settle out of court could
allow a company to resolve many instances of a defective product harming
consumers, without the issue getting any public exposure. On the other hand, a
court ruling could force the company to fix all problems associated with the bad
product or even to remove it from the market.

CONCLUSION: In view of the various advantages it would be prudent to switch

over the ADR mechanisms, since peace is the sine qua non for development of
any society. Since disputes and conflicts squander not only valuable time, effort
and money, but also destroy the peaceful environment in the society. To achieve
this it is of utmost importance that there should not be any conflict in the society.
But, in fact in a realistic sense, this is not possible.