P a g e i| i1

THE iINTERDISPILINARY iPROJECT iOF i“ACCESS iTO iSPEEDY

iJUSTICE; iA iSTUDY iIN iTHE iCONTEXT iOF iALTERNATE
iDISPUTE iRESOLUTION iPROCESSES”
CHAPTER i1- iINTRODUCTION
 In ihis iautobiography, iGandhiji ihighlights ithe ivalue iof ialternative idispute
iresolution iby istating ithat, ithroughout ihis itwenty iyears iof ipracticing ilaw,
ihe idiscovered ithat ia ilawyer's imain ijob iis ito itry ito ibring ipeople
itogether irather ithan ibring itheir icase ibefore ithe icourts. iGandhiji ifeels
ithat iif ilawyers ican ilearn ito ienter ipeople's ihearts iand iuncover itheir
ibetter isides, iproblems imay ibe iresolved. iGandhiji iclaims ithat iby iusing
ithis itechnique, ihe iwas iable ito iresolve iover i100 icases iwithout ilosing
iany imoney ior isoul1 i
 In iits ibroadest iand imost iinclusive idefinition, ilaw irefers ito iany iset iof
iguidelines ior iinstructions ithat ishould ibe ifollowed iwhile itaking iany
iactivity. iWhen iused iin ia ilegal icontext, ithe iword i"law" irefers ito ia iset
iof isocietal inorms ithat ithe iState ihas icreated iand iis ienforcing. iA
iprinciple iof ihuman ibehaviour iis iexpressed. iAccording ito iHolland, i"the
iterm i'law' iis iemployed iin ijurisprudence inot iin ithe isense iof ithe iabstract
iidea ior iorder ibut iin ithat iof ithe iabstract iidea iof irules iof iconduct." i2 i i
iFor ihim, ithe idefinition iof ilaw iis ian ioverarching inorm iof iconduct
iimposed iby ia isovereign ipolitical ibody. i
 Law ihas ibeen idefined ivariously iby ijurists ifrom ivarious iperspectives. iIt
iis iknown ias i"Hukum" iin iIslamic ilaw iand i"Dharma" iin iHindu iand
iBuddhist ilaw. iRomans ireferred ito iit ias iJus, iand iRicht iand iDroit,
irespectively, iare ithe inames iused iin iGermany iand iFrance.
 Law iwas iseen ito ihave ia idivine iorigin iin ithe iancient iStates ibecause iit
iwas iseen ias ia idivinely iappointed iset iof iguidelines ifor ibehavior.
iAlthough ithese iconcepts iare ino ilonger ivalid iin ithe ipresent iday, ithey
inonetheless ihave itheoretical iimportance.
 Justinian isaid ithat ilaw iis ithe i"king iof imortal iand iimmortal iaffairs
iwhich iought ito ibe ithe ichief, ithe iruler iand ithe ileader iof ithe inoble iand
ithe ibase, iand ithus ithe istandard iof iwhat iis ijust iand iunjust, ithe
icommander ito inaturally isocial ianimals iof iwhat ithey ishould ido, iand ithe
iforbidden iof iwhat ithey ishould inot ido."

1
 P a g e i| i2

 The iaforementioned iidealistic iconceptions iof ilaw iwere ioffered iwhen

ithere iwas ino iseparation ibetween imorality, ireligion, iand ilaw, iand iwhen
ilaw iwas iviewed iwidely ias ia icomponent iof ireligion. iDue ito ithe iway
ithe ilegislation iis iused itoday ias ia itool ifor isocial ichange, ithese
idefinitions iare ino ilonger ivalid. iHowever, ieven itoday, iit iis ibelieved ithat
ithe iconcept iof i"justice" iis ia ivital icomponent iof ilaw. iHowever, imodern
ilaw ionly iconsiders i"legal ijustice," inot i"abstract ijustice," ias iancient
ijurists iimagined iit. iIn ithe imodern iday, ilaw ipermeates iall iareas iof
ihuman iactivity, iand ithe istate iworks ito igovern ithem ivia ilegal imeans.
iTherefore, ithe ilaw imust ibe ieffective iin icontrolling ihow ipeople ibehave.
iLaw, iaccording ito icontemporary ijurists, iis ia itool ifor iensuring ilegal
ijustice.
 Lord iLloyd iexpressed ihis iopinions iabout ithe ilack iof iconsensus iover ia
iprecise idefinition iof ilaw, isaying ithat i"many ilegal ibooks ihave ibeen
iwritten iin ian iattempt ito iprovide ia idefinition iof ilaw ithat iis iacceptable
ito iall iparties, ibut iwith ilittle isign iof iaccomplishing ithat iobjective."3. iAs
iR. iWollheim icorrectly inoted, ia ilarge iportion iof ithe iambiguity
isurrounding ithe idefinition iof ilaw ihas iresulted ifrom ithe imany igoals ithat
ihave ibeen ipursued. iLaw ihas ibeen idefined iin iseveral iways iby
icontemporary ijurists. iSome ihave icharacterized iit iin iterms iof iits inature,
iwhile iothers iplace ithe imost iemphasis ion iits iorigins. iOnce imore,
ialthough isome iauthors idescribe ilaw iin iterms iof ihow iit iaffects isociety,
iothers iprefer ito idefine iit iin iterms iof ithe igoals ior ipurposes iof ilaw.
 It imust ibe imade iclear ithat ithe iobjective iof ilaw iis inot imerely ito
iachieve ijustice. iThe iidea iof ilaw isymbolizes ia ifundamental istruggle
ibetween itwo iopposing irequirements, inotably ithe idesire ifor iconsistency
iand ithe ineed ifor iflexibility. iFor ithere ito ibe iassurance iand
ipredictability, iuniformity iis irequired. iWhen ilaws iare iestablished iand
igeneralized, icitizens imay iplan itheir iactions iwith isome idegree iof
iconfidence iand ianticipate ithe ilegal irepercussions iof itheir iactions. iThis
iis iespecially iimportant iwhen iit icomes ito irules igoverning icontracts iand
iproperty. iThe isocial iorder iis istabilized iand imade imore isecure iby ithe
iuniformity iand ipredictability iof ithe ilaw.

2
 P a g e i| i3

 Flexibility igives ithe ilaw isome ilatitude iso ithat iit imay ibe imodified ito
ifit ichanging isocietal inorms. iIf ithe ilaw iis ihard iand iunchangeable, iit
icould inot ireact ito ichanges iimmediately, iwhich imight icause iresentment
iand idiscontent iamong ithe ipeople iand ipossibly ilead ito iviolence ior ia
irevolution. iConsequently, isome iflexibility iin ithe ilegislation iis
iunavoidable.
 Even inow, ithere iare istill idisenfranchised igroups, itowns, iand itribes ithat
iresolve itheir iconflicts ioutside iof ithe ilegal isystem. iTheir isocioeconomic
istanding, icultural ibackground, iand iother ifactors iare isome iof ithe icauses
iof ithis. iThe isame iis itrue iaround ithe iworld, iincluding iin iwealthy
inations ilike ithe iUnited iStates, iFrance, ithe iUnited iKingdom, iand
iCanada. iThis iis inot ijust ithe icase iin iIndia. iThe icourt isystem iis
iunfamiliar ito isome iof ithese iindividuals ias iwell. iIt ishould inot ibe
iassumed ithat ibecause ithese iindividuals idid inot ihave iconflicts, ithey idid
inot igo ito icourt iwhen iassessing ithe ireasons. iTo iconclude iin ithis iway
iwould ibe ito ideprive ithem iof ijustice. iWe ialso icannot iclaim ithat itheir
idisagreements iare iintractable. iIt iwould ialso ibe iincorrect ito iassume ithat
ithey ican isettle itheir idisagreement. iA icommittee imade iup iof ithese
iindividuals iand igroups ihas ibeen iestablished ito ihear iarguments iand
iprovide idecisions. iBecause iof ithese ifactors, itheir iapproach iof isettling
ithe iconflict imay ibe iconsidered ian iextra istrategy irather ithan ia
i"alternative."4 i

MEANING i
 The iterm ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) irefers ito iseveral imethods
iof iresolving iconflicts ioutside iof icourt. iArbitration, ineutral iassessment,
iand imediation iare iexamples iof icommon iADR iprocedures. iTypically,
ithese iprocedures iare imore iprivate, iinformal, iand irelaxing ithan itypical
icourt isessions.

NEED iFOR iALTERNATIVE iDISPUTE iRESOLUTION i

 Law ihas igrown ito isymbolize iauthority iover ipeople iand ithe
ienvironment, iand iat itimes iit ihas isystematically iignored ifolk ilaw's

3
 P a g e i| i4

iplace iin ithe ilegal isystem iand iits iability ito ifunction ias ia iliving
isocial inorm. iIn ithis iperspective, iPospisil i(1971) iemphasized ithat ilaw
iis itruly ia icomponent iof iculture iand ithat iit iought ito ibe iexamined ias
isuch irather ithan ias ia iseparate iinstitution. iAs ia iresult, iwhen
idiscussing istate ilaw, iother icultural ifactors iincluding ithe ieconomics,
ipolitics, iand iideologies iwere itaken iinto iaccount. iIn iactuality, ithese
icultural icharacteristics ihave ia isignificant iimpact ion ihow istate ilaw iis
iapplied. iBecause iof ithis, ia ivariety iof ibarriers ito ithe iexecution iof
istate ilaw ihave ibeen inoted, inotably iin ithe iState icourt i(Regular
iDispute iResolution i(RDR)), iwhich iare icaused iby iideological,
ifinancial, iand icultural ifactors.
 ADR ithat iis ifocused ion ilegal ipluralism iwill ibe ieffective iin ibringing
ijustice ito ithe ilitigants' idoorsteps iwho iare ifrustrated iwith iRDR ithat
iis ifocused ion ilegal icentralism.
 Democratic inations i(including iIndia, ithe iUnited iStates, iand ithe
iUnited iKingdom) ihave ifound ithat ithe itraditional ijudicial isystem iis
icostly iand itime-consuming. iOn ithe iother ihand, icontemporary
ialternative iconflict iresolution imethods ilike iLok-Adalat, iMediation,
iArbitration, iand iConciliation iare iquicker, iless iexpensive, iand icome
iwith ia ihost iof iother iadvantages. iFor iexample, ian iaward irendered
ithrough ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) iachieves ifinality, iADR
iincurs ifewer icosts ithan ilitigation, imaintains iconfidentiality, iallows
iparties ito ichoose iany iindividual ior ipersons i(if iagreed ito iserve ias
iarbitrators) ito iresolve itheir idispute, iencourages iparties ito isettle itheir
idifferences iamicably ioutside iof icourt, iand iresults iin ithe imutually
iagreed iupon iresolution iof ilegal idisputes ithrough imediation.For ithese
ireasons, ithe iUSA, iIreland, iIndia, iand iother inations ithat iwere ior iare
ihaving idifficulty iresolving ia isignificant ibacklog iof icases ihave
iembraced ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) ias ia imeans iof
iaddressing ithe iissue. iHowever, ithe istudy ireveals ithat ithis iADR
imechanism iis istill inot iwidely iused iin iIndia.
 The ineed ifor iADR i:-
- High iCourts iare iovercrowded
- No iadmission.

4
 P a g e i| i5

- Disposal irates
- Weight iof iPendency
- State ivs. iCitizen iConflict
- Other iReasons
- Adjournments
- Work iConcentration
 In iorder ito ievaluate itheir iusefulness, iI ihave ialso ireferred ito ithe
icustoms ithat iwere icommon iin iancient iIndia iand iother inations, ias
iwell ias ia inumber iof ilaws, irules, iand iregulations ithat isupport iand
ienhance ithe iconstitutional ipurpose. iA inumber iof irecommendations
iderived ifrom ithe iliterature istudy ihave ialso ibeen imade. iIn iorder ito
iaccomplish ithe iconstitutional iaim iof iequitable iand iprompt ijustice,
ishortcomings, ilacunae, ietc., iin ithe icurrent ilegislation ihave ialso ibeen
ibrought ito ilight, iand ia imeek iattempt iis imade ito iconsider ithe
i"LEGAL iAID iJURISPRUDENCE."

REVIEW iOF iLITERATURE

The iresearcher ithoroughly iexamined iseveral ibooks, ilegislation, irules,
iregulations, ireports, icase ilaws, ijournals, iand iarticles ithroughout ithe
ipreparation iof ithis iwork, iboth ioffline iand ionline. iAdditionally, ithe
iresearcher ihas ibrowsed ia inumber iof ipertinent iwebsites iand iincluded
ithorough isecondary isource ireferences ito ithe iwork. iHere iare ia ifew
iexamples iof ithis iliterature ithat iresearchers ihave iused:
a. India's iAncient iPast iby iR.S. iSharma, iOxford iUniversity iPress,
i2005: iThe iauthor iof ithis ibook ihas icovered ithe ibeginnings iand
idevelopment iof iempires, igovernments, iand icivilizations. iIt
iprovides ia ithorough ioverview iof iearly iIndian ihistory. iThe
iauthor ihas iwritten iabout ithe iadministrative istructures iof ithe
iMauryan, iGupta, iand iCentral iAsian idynasties, iamong iothers.
iAdditionally, ihe ihas iemphasized iadvancements, itrade, iand
icommerce ithat iare irelated ito ithe icurrent istudy.
b. V.D. iMahajan, iS. iChand i& iCompany iPvt. iLTD., iAncient iIndia
i557 i2015, iReprint iEdition, iNew iDelhi:. iThe iauthor ihas

5
 P a g e i| i6

iextensively iwritten iabout ithe iKushan iEmpire, ithe iGupta iEmpire,

ithe iSakas, ithe iJoint iFamily iSystem iduring ithe iGupta iperiod,
ithe iCholas, ithe iAge iof iSutras iand iDharam iSastras, ithe iEpic
iAge, ithe iArthasastra iof iKautalyas, ithe ireign iof iAsoka, ithe
iMauryan iAdministration, ithe iMauryan iJudicial iAdministration i/
iJails i/ iWelfare iState, ietc.
c. In i2009, iM.P. iJain ireprinted iOutlines iof iIndian iLegal iand
iConstitutional iHistory, i6th ied., iLexis iNexis, iButterworths,
iWadhwa.. iThe iauthor ihas ioutlined ithe imany iphases iof ilegal
iinstitutions, iprovided ia ibrief ioverview iof ieach, ispoken iabout
ihow ithey irelate ito ione ianother, iand ialso itouched ion ihow ieach
istep ihas ihelped ishape ithe ilegal isystem iin iIndia. iThe iauthor ihas
ireferenced ia inumber iof icase ilaws. iHe ihas italked iabout iEnglish
ilaw ias iit iwas ibefore iindependence. iHe ihas ialso italked iabout
ithe iflaws iand ishortcomings iin ithe ijustice isystem.
d. Durga iDas iBasu, iThe iIndian iShorter iConstitution, iButterworths,
iWadhwa, iLexis iNexis, i14th ied., i2009: iNearly ievery iSupreme
iCourt ijudgment ipertaining ito iconstitutional ilaw ihas ibeen
iincluded iby ithe iauthor. iThe ibook ihas itwo ivolumes. iIn iaddition
ito iproviding ia ithorough iexplanation iof iArticle i21's iprotection iof
ilife iand ipersonal iliberty iand iArticle i39A's iprovision iof ifree
ilegal iassistance, iit ialso iemphasized ithe iSupreme iCourt's
idirectives ito icarry iout iArticle i21 iand i39A's igoals.
e. Fast iand iFair iTrial iby iNayan iJoshi, iKamal iPublishers, iNew
iDelhi, i2019: i-The iauthor ihas ished ilight ion ithe iaccused's iand
iprisoners' irights ito ia iprompt iand iimpartial itrial. iThe iauthor ihas
itaken iinto iaccount ia inumber iof irelevant isubjects, iincluding ithe
iinvestigation iand icharge-sheet ifiling iprocess, ithe igranting iof
ibail, ia ifair itrial, iand ia iprompt itrial. iEvery irelevant icase ilaw
ihas ibeen idiscussed iby ithe iwriter.
 The iIndian iConstitution ipromises i"access ito itimely ijustice ion iequal
ilevel ito iall"5 iVarious ilaws, irules, iand iregulations ihave ibeen ideveloped
ito ifulfill ithis ipurpose. iADR iis iincluded iin iChapter iV iof ithe iCPC
iunder iSection i89 iunder ithe iheading i"Special iProceedings," iindicating

6
 P a g e i| i7

ithat iit iis ia iunique iphenomena ifor iwhich ia inumber iof ilaws iand
iregulations ihave ibeen iput iinto iplace iin iorder ito iaccomplish iits
iadmirable igoal. iIn ithis istudy, ia ireview iof iseveral ilaws, ipolicies,
idecrees, iand iprograms ihas ibeen iconducted.
 ADR imechanisms isuch ias imediation, iconciliation, ior iarbitration iare
inow imandated iby isome iIndian ilaws ifor iparties iinvolved iin ilitigation
i(e.g., ipartition isuits, ichild icustody, idivorce imatters, icommercial
idisputes, iNegotiable iInstruments iAct iCases, ietc.) ibefore inew icases iare
ifiled ior iexisting icases iare itried. iThe iCommercial iCourts iAct's
irequirements iare ione itype iof ipre-litigation imediation.6 i. iThe iwell-
written iprovisions iof ithe iCommercial iCourts iAct istipulate ithat iparties
iseeking iimmediate irelief imust iattempt ito iresolve itheir idispute ithrough
i"Mediation" ifirst. iIf ia isettlement icannot ibe ireached, ithey imay ithen
iapproach ithe icourts ito icontinue itheir icase iunder ithe iCommercial
iCourts iAct.
 Nonetheless, ithere iare iexamples ithat idemonstrate ihow icertain ilitigants
ihave iattempted ito itake iadvantage iof iADR iforums isuch ias iLok iAdalat
iin iorder ito istall icourt iprocedures. iConsequently, ithe iKarnataka iHigh
iCourt ihas iruled ithat icases ithat ithe icourt idetermines ia iparty iseeking ito
irefer ito iLok iAdalat iseeks ito ipostpone ishall inot ibe isent ito iLok
iAdalat.7

AIMS iOF iTHE iRESEARCH i

To iStudy:-
1. The iconceptual iviewpoint, ithe inature iof ilaw, ithe iadministration
iof ijustice, iand ithe ifunction iof ithe ilaw iin ithe ioperation iof ithe
istate, isocial icohesion, iand iengineering.
2. To icompile iand iconsolidate ivarious iAlternative iDispute
iResolution itools, igoverning irules, iand ilaws.

7
 P a g e i| i8

3. To iresearch ithe inature iand iuse iof ifree ilegal iaid, iwhich iis ia
iconcurrent iright ito ilife iand ipersonal iliberty iunder iArticle i21 iof
ithe iIndian iConstitution's iFundamental iRights.
4. To iresearch ithe ibreadth iof ihuman irights iand ihow ijudicial idelays
ihinder ithe iimplementation iof ihuman irights.
5. To iresearch ithe irange iof imore iaffordable iand iquick iforms iof
idispute iresolution.
6. To iresearch ithe imechanisms ithat imake iLok iAdalats, iArbitration,
iMediation, iand iConciliation imore ieffective iin iproviding iaccess
ito ijustice ithrough iregular idispute iresolution iand ialternative
idispute iapproaches.
7. To iunderstand iwhether iADR iis ia ispecial iadvantageous itool. i
8. To iknow ivarious iprecautions irequired ito ibe itaken iby ithe icourt
iresorting ito iADR itools.
9. To iknow, iis ithere iany ineed ito idrop ithe iADR iand igo iback ito
itraditional imode iof isettlement ilike iPanchayat iand iGram-
Nyayalaya, ior iwhether iboth ithe ipatterns imay irun itogether.

SCOPE iAND iSIGNIFICANCE

 iThe ipublic iis ihelped iin icomprehending ithe isecurity ioffered iby ithe
istate iin iadministering ijustice ivia ilegal iassistance, iawareness
icampaigns, iand iliteracy iprograms. iBecause iof ipoverty iand
iaccessibility iissues, ino ione ishould ibe idenied ijustice. iThere iis ino
iquestion ithat ithe iRegular iDispute iResolution iMechanism ithrough
icourts iadministers ijustice iin iaccordance iwith ithe ilaw iwith ithe
ieffective ifunctioning iof ithe istake iholders. iHowever, idue ito ithe
icourts' idysfunctional ior iinadequate ifunctioning, iwhich iled ito
iprocedural idelays, ijustice iwas iboth iexpensive iand idelayed.
iAccording ito ithe iIndian iConstitution's ilegal isystem, ijustice idelayed
iis ijustice idenied. iAs ia iresult iof ijudicial iactivism, ifree ilegal iaid,
idelivering ijustice ito ithe ipoor's idoorsteps, iand ipublic iinterest
ilitigation, ithe iIndian icourt isystem ihas ibecome imore iattentive ito ithe
iissues ithat ilitigants iface.

8
 P a g e i| i9

 Alternative idispute iresolution itechniques iare iestablished iin ifact ias ia

icomplement ito ithe itraditional ijudicial isystem. iADR iis isupported iand
iacknowledged ifor iits ibenefits.
 In ia ijust isociety iand istate, ilaw iand ijustice iare icrucial, ias
idemonstrated iin ithe icurrent istudy. iThe ineed ifor ia ideeper
iknowledge iof ihuman irights iand itheir ieffective iexecution, iwhich ican
ionly ibe iaccomplished ithrough iless iexpensive iand iquicker ijustice, iis
ialso imade iclear iby ian iawareness iof ihuman irights.
 Through iLokadalats, imediation, iconciliation, iand iarbitration—
procedures icreated ias ialternatives ito ithe iregular icourt isystem's
iexpensive iand islow ijustice—cheaper iand iquicker ijustice iis
iachievable.
 Justice idenied iis ijustice idelayed, ias iwe iare iall iaware. iADRs iare
inot irequired iif ijustice iis idelivered iswiftly iand iinexpensively
ithrough inormal icourts. iIn iIndia, iADRs iare iessential ito ithe iprompt
iadministration iof ijustice. iThe icurrent istudy iis itherefore iimportant
ifor iunderstanding iboth iRDR iand iADR, ias iwell ias itheir iadvantages
iand idisadvantages iin ithe iadministration iof ijustice itoday.

HYPOTHESIS
1. Whether iadaptation iof iADR iwill ireduce iworkload iof icourts
2. Whether iADR iis ihelpful iin iensuring ispeedy ijustice
3. Pending iLitigation, ijudicial idelays iand icostly ilitigations imake
iRDR ian iimpediment iwith iineffective imechanism ito iaccess ito
ijustice.
4. ADR iis ithe ibest isolution ifor ithe iproblems ifaced iby iRDR iin
iadministration iof ijustice.
5. Whether iADR itool iin ispeeding iup idisposal, iadversely
icompromising iwith ijustice idelivery
6. ADR imechanisms iare inot ieffectively iand iproperly iused ito isecure
iaccess ito ijustice ieven ithough iADRs iin idispensation iof ijustice iis
icheaper, isimple iand ipart iof ispeedy ijustice. i

9
 P a g e i| i10

7. ADR iand iRDR iare ito ibe iencouraged iand iutilized ieffectively ifor
ispeedy ijustice ias iADR iand iRDR iare isupplementary iand
icomplimentary ito ieach iother.
8. Above iquestions iseem ito ihave icreated idilemma iin ithe imind iof
ilitigants, i“whether ito iget imatter ireferred ito iADR ior inot”.

RESEARCH iMETHODOLOGY
 The iproposed iresearch iwork iis ia idoctrinal iresearch. iIt iincludes ian
ianalysis iof ipertinent ilaws, irules, iregulations, ipolicies, iguidelines,
ienactments, iand iother irelated imaterials. iThe idimensions iof ialternative
idispute iresolution i(ADR) iapproaches iare inot iwell isupported iby
iempirical idata, iindicating ithat iADR iis ione iof ithe iunique iways ifor
ireducing ithe ibacklog iof iongoing icases.
 The iinformation iis igathered ifrom isecondary isources, iincluding
igovernment idocuments, ibooks, ie-books, icase ilaws, ilegal ijournals,
ireports, iarticles, iand iwebliographies, iamong iothers. iThe ipresent istudy
ihas ialso imade iuse iof ia irange iof ilibraries iand ionline iresources
iaccessible ithrough ithe ifollowing iinstitutions: ithe iSupreme iCourt,
iBombay iHigh iCourt, iDistrict iCourts iof iWardha iNanded iand
iGadchiroli, iNational iJudicial iAcademy iBhopal, iMaharashtra iJudicial
iAcademy iUttan iThane, iSardar iVallabhbhai iPatel iNational iPolice
iAcademy iHyderabad i(also iknown ias ithe iIPS iTraining iAcademy),
iS.T.M iNagpur iUniversity, iSRTM iNanded iUniversity, iNarayanrao
iChavan iCollege iof iLaw, iand iSeedling iSchool iof iLaw i& iGovernance,
iJaipur iNational iUniversity, iJaipur.
 Most iof ithe icurrent iresearch iinquiry iis ianalytical iand icomparative. iTo
ianalyze idiffering iideas iregarding iADR ias imeans ifor iaccess ito ijustice,
ia idoctrinal iapproach iis iappropriate. iHowever, ithe ichange iplaces igreater
iemphasis ion ithe ialready iconducted iLegal iAnthropology iresearch, ias
iproposed iby ithe iForeign iExaminer. iIn ithe imodification, ia isociolegal
iresearch ithat iwas ionly ipartially iaccepted iand iincluded icertain icase
istudies iwas ikept. iThe ilegal ipluralism itheory, ias iproposed iby ithe
iForeign iExaminer iin ithis iversion, iis iembraced iand iused ito icomprehend

10
 P a g e i| i11

ithe ivariety iof iconflict iresolution iprocesses ithrough iRDR i(State

iInstitutions i(Courts)) iand iADR i(Folk iInstitutions) iwith ilegal ilegislation.
iBy iexamining ithe iinterplay ibetween ilaw iand iculture, iJohn iGriffiths
i(1986) iwas iable ito icomprehend ithe isocial iand icultural iframework iof
ilaw. i
STRUCTURE: iCHAPTERS iOVERVIEW
This istudy ishall ibe idivided iinto iChapters ias ifollows: i
 Chapter i1: iIntroduction
The ifirst ichapter idiscusses ithe inature iof ilaw iand ijustice, ithe ivalue
iof ihuman irights, iswift ijustice, ifree ilegal iaid, ithe istrengths iand
iweaknesses iof iRDR, iand ithe inecessity iand icontribution iof iADRs ito
ithe iadministration iof ijustice. iIn iaddition, ithe iintroduction, ior
iChapter iI, iincludes ithe istudy's iobjectives, isignificance, ihypotheses,
iand iplan.

 Chapter i2: iJustice iAdministration: iHistorical iand iConceptual

iViews
The isecond ichapter iaddresses ithe ifunction iof ithe ilaw, ithe igoals iof
ithe ilaw i(justice), iadministration iof ijustice, iand iother ilegal iissues.

 Chapter i3: iEvolution iof iADR iin iIndia i

The iThird ichapter iexplains ithe ievolution iof iADR iin iIndia ifrom
iancient ihistory ito ipost iindependence iperiod iand iadaption iof iADR
iinstitutions iacross ithe iworld.

 Chapter i4: iAlternative iDispute iResolution i(ADR) ias ia

iSupplement ito ithe iJudicial iProcess ifor iQuicker iand iCheaper
iJustice iand iSome iEffective iADR iTools iunder iIndian iSet-Up i
The ifourth ichapter iwill ibe idiscuss ithe ipros iand icons iof iusing
ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) iinstead iof itraditional idispute
iresolution i(RDR) ithrough ithe icourts, ias iwell ias ithe istrengths iand
iweaknesses iof iADR, iwere iexplored iand idiscuss ithe iadvantages iand
istraightforward iprocess iof ithe iLokadalat imethod iactual ievidence ithat

11
 P a g e i| i12

idemonstrates iLokadalat's igreat isuccess ias ian iADR iwith ia

istraightforward iprocess iand ifree ilegal ihelp.

 Chapter i5:- i i iLaws, iRules, iRegulations i& iSchemes iof iADR iin
iIndia
The iFifth ichapter idiscuss iabout ithe iLaws i, iRegulations, iRules iin
irelation ito ithe iADR iin iIndia i

 Chapter i6: iADR iImplementation iand iProblem iin iIndia

The isixth ichapter idiscuss iabout i iproblems ifaced iin iIndia iwhile
iimplementation iADR iin iIndia ialong iwith ithe iBarriers iin
ienforcement iand ithe isuggestions ito iovercome

 Chapter i7: iCommercial iContracts iand iAgreements

The iseventh ichapter idiscuss iabout ithe iobject iof iCommercial icourt
iacts, imediations, isettlement iand ithe iimpact iof ienactment.

 Chapter i8: iNecessity iof iADR iTools iin iIndia

The ieight ichapter idiscuss iabout ithe inecessity iof iADR iin iIndia.

 Chapter i9: iConclusion, iFindings, iCriticism iand iSuggestion i

In ithe ininth ichapter isummarizes ithe icomplete iresearch iproject iand
iuses iresearch idata ito iassess iand iverify ithe ihypothesis. iAlong iwith
ithe icurrent ibasic iprocedures, isuggestions iare ialso iincluded ifor ithe
iefficient ienforcement iof ialternative idispute iresolution itechniques.
 Bibliography i& iWebliography

12
 P a g e i| i13

CHAPTER i2: iJUSTICE iADMINISTRATION:

iHISTORICAL iAND iCONCEPTUAL iVIEWS
Poor ipeople iare iprevented ifrom iaccessing ijustice. iWe ihave ithus idriven
ithe ipeople ito ithe ipleader iand ibarrister iand ithe ilaw icourt iand ithose
ithings iare ilike ialcohol ithey icreate iappetite ifor ithemselves?

J.R. iMac iDonald

The ilimitations iof iRegular iDispute iResolution iand ithe inecessity iand ivalue
iof iAlternative iDispute iResolution i(ADR) iwere icovered iin ithe iintroductory
ichapter ialong iwith ithe iimportance, igoals, iand iplan iof ithe istudy.The icurrent
iresearch iinvestigation istarted iwith ithe iformulation iof ihypotheses. iThis
ichapter iwill icover ithe inature, ipurpose, iand iend iof ilaw ias iwell ias iADR ias
ia isupplement ito iconventional icourt-based ijustice iadministration, iprompt
ijustice, ifree ilegal iassistance, iand iaccess ito ijustice ias iguaranteed iby ithe
iIndian iConstitution.

2.1. iThe iAdministration iof iJustice

A istate's itwo iprimary iresponsibilities iare i(1) iwaging iwar iand i(2)
iadministering ijustice. iA istate iisn't ifit ito ibe itermed ia i"state" iif iit ican't
icarry iout ithese iduties. iUsing istate iforce ito imaintain ipeace iand iorder
iwithin ia ipolitical isociety iis iimplied iby ithe iadministration iof ijustice. iIt
iserves ias ia icontemporary iand irefined ireplacement ifor ithe iarchaic
imethods iof iviolent iself-help iand iprivate iretaliation. iThe ifirst
iprerequisite ifor ian ieffective iadministration iof ijustice iis ithe iuse iof istate
iphysical iforce. iNonetheless, ithere iare iother ivariables ithat ifacilitate ithe
iexecution iof ijustice iand ienforce iadherence ito ithe ilaw. iThese iconsist
iof ithings ilike ipublic iopinion, icustom, iconvenience, iand isocial isanction.

2.2. iThe iConcept iof iJustice

13
 P a g e i| i14

- For ias ilong ias ihuman icivilization ihas ibeen, ithere ihas ibeen ia inotion
iof ijustice. iMan imust ilive iin ipeace iwithin isociety ibecause iof ihis
isocial inature. iLiving ithis iway ipresents ia iconflict iof iinterest ifor
ihim, iand ihe iexpects iothers ito ibehave iwith iintegrity. iThat's ithe
irationale ibehind ithe ifocus ion ijustice iin ithe idefinitions iof ilaw imade
iby iRoscoe iPound iand iSalmond. iRightly iso, iSalmond inoted, i"the
iState iadministers ijustice ithrough ithe iinstrumentality iof ilaw." iThe
iState irecognizes iand iupholds ia iset iof iprinciples iknown ias ilaw,
iaccording ito iRoscoe iPound, iin iorder ito iadminister ijustice. iFrom
iBlackstone's iperspective, ijustice iserves ias ia isource ifrom iwhich ithe
iideas iof iobligation, iequity, iand iright iflow.
- With ithe iexpansion iof ithe iState, iwhich iuses ithe ipower iof ithe ilaw
ito iprovide ijustice ito iits icitizens, ithe iidea iof ijustice ibecame
iincreasingly iapparent. iThe iidea iof ijustice ispread ithroughout iother
iareas iof ihuman iendeavors ias ithe ilaw ievolved iand imatured. iFor
iinstance, iwe ihave icriminal ijustice, icivil ijustice, ieconomic ijustice,
isocial ijustice, iand iso iforth inowadays.
- Ensuring ithat ithe ilaw iis iuniform iand iclear iwhile ialso imaking isure
ithat iindividuals irespect itheir irights iand iobligations iis ifundamental
ito ithe iconcept iof ilegal ijustice. iPut ianother iway, ipeople iare
irequired ito iact iin ia iway ithat iupholds ithe ilegal iobligations iplaced
iupon ithem iwhile ialso imaking isure ithat ithey irespect ithe irights iof
itheir ifellow icitizens. i
- The iconcept iof iimpartiality ithat iis iingrained iin ithe iidea iof ijustice
iis istill ianother icrucial icomponent. iIt iis inecessary ito ibe ijust iand
iequitable itoward iall imembers iof isociety, inot ijust ioneself. iThe ilaw's
ienforcement iof ijustice iwhen iit iis iviolated ileads ito iState ipenalty, ior
iwhat iwe iusually irefer ito ias ipunishment. iThis iis irather iessential ifor
ithe iefficient iadministration iof ijustice.

2.3. iImportance iof iAdministration iof iJustice

- As ipreviously imentioned, ibecause iman iis iinherently iselfish, isome iform

iof iexternal icoercive ipower iis irequired ito ihold ihim iin icheck iand ilimit

14
 P a g e i| i15

ihis iunrestricted iliberty. iA icondition iof ichaos iand ianarchy iwould

iresult ifrom iunbridled iliberty. iIn iits iproper isense i"liberty iconsists iin
ithe ipower ito ido ieverything ithat idoes inot iinjure ianother."8 i iHerbert
iSpencer ialso isaid, i"every iman iis ifree ito ido iwhat ihe idesires iprovided
ihe iinfringes inot iwith ithe iequal ifreedom iof iany iother iman." iLiberty,
ithen, irefers ito ithe iability ito iact ias ifreely ias ithe ilaw ipermits. iThus, iit
ifollows ithat ithe imaintenance iof istate ipower iis ia iprerequisite ifor ithe
iexercise iof ilegal iliberty.
- To ikeep ithe iuncooperative iminority ifrom iunfairly ibenefiting iat ithe
iexpense iof ilaw-abiding icitizens ias ia iwhole, iforce iis irequired.
iTherefore, ithe ipreservation iof iindividual irights iin isociety irequires ithe
iuse iof istate ipower.

2.4. iOrigin iof ithe iAdministration iof iJustice

- Modern icivilized icountries ihave ideveloped itheir ijudicial isystems ivia

iphases. iIn ithe iearly istages, iwhen isociety iwas irudimentary iand ithe
iharmed iparty's ionly ioptions ifor iredress iagainst ithe iwrongdoer iwere
iself-help iand iprivate irevenge, ihe imay iright ihis iwrongs iwith ithe
iassistance iof ifriends ior ifamily. iThe iState icame iinto ibeing iin iits imost
ibasic iform iduring ithe isecond istage iof isocial ievolution, iwhen iits
ifunctions iwere ilimited ito ipersuasion. iIt iwas iunable ito ipunish ithe
iperpetrator ithrough ienforcement.8 iThe ifamous iDeclaration iof ithe
iRights iof iMan iadopted iin iFrance iin i1789
- In ithe ithird istage iof isocial ievolution, iwrongs imight ibe imade iright iby
ithe iperpetrator icompensating ithe ivictim iwho iwas iharmed iby ithe
iwrongdoing. iJustice iwas itherefore iprivate iup ito ithis ipoint iand iwas
inot isubject ito istate icoercion.
- Gradually, ithe iState iasserted iits ipower iand iassumed ithe iduty iof
ienforcing ithe ilaw, ipunishing ithe itransgressor iby iemploying iforce
iwhere irequired. iThrough ithe iState's iagency, ithere ioccurred ia ishift
ifrom iprivate ito ipublic ijustice, ias idemonstrated iby ithis idevelopmental
istage.

15
 P a g e i| i16

2.5. iAdvantages iand iDisadvantages iof iAdministration iof

iJustice

- One iof ithe ikey iresponsibilities iof ithe istate inowadays iis ithe
iadministration iof ijustice ithrough icourts iof ilaw. iLegislation idrafted iby
ithe ilegislature iguides ithe icourts' iadministration iof ijustice. iThe
iconsistency, icertainty, iimpartiality, iand iequity iin ithe iadministration iof
ijustice iare iits imain ivirtues. iJudges iare inot iallowed ito iact iarbitrarily;
iinstead, ithey imust ibase itheir irulings ion ithe iestablished irules iof ilaw.
iCitizens iare iable ito imanage itheir iactivity ibecause ithey iare iaware iof
ithe ilaws, iwhich iare imostly icodified. iAdditionally, icodification isupports
ijudges' iimpartial, ifearless iapplication iof ithe ilaw.
- Even iwith ithe ibenefits imentioned iabove, ithere iare idrawbacks ito ithe
iway ijustice iis iadministered. iThese idrawbacks imostly iinclude ithe
iformality, irigidity, iand iintricacy iof ithe ilegislation. iSir iSalmond imade
ithe ifollowing iobservation iwhen idiscussing ithe idrawbacks iof iapplying
ithe iestablished ilegal iprinciples ito ithe iadministration iof ijustice: i"Law
iis icertainly ia iremedy ifor igreater ievil, ibut iit ibrings iwith iit ievils iof
iits iown."

16
 P a g e i| i17

CHAPTER i3: iEVOLUTION iOF iADR iIN iINDIA

The imethod iof ialternative idispute iresolution ihas ia ilengthy ihistory.

iLegal ihistory idemonstrates ithat ithroughout ihuman ihistory, ipeople ihave
itried iwith imethods ito iensure ithat iobtaining ijustice iis ieasy, iaffordable,
idependable, iand iconvenient. iLocal, inon-judicial iconflict iresolution iis
inot ia inovel iconcept; icommunities ithroughout ihave ilong iemployed
idiverse, icustomary imethods ito isettle idisputes. iThey iwere iextrajudicial
i(ADR) imodalities. iWith ithe iincreasing iacceptance iand iproliferation iof
iADR itechniques, itogether iwith ithe igrowing iuse iof icourt-related iADR
ias ia itool ito iaccomplish igoals ibeyond ithe istraightforward isettlement iof
iparticular itypes iof idisputes, iADR iinstruments ihave inow ibecome imore
idynamic.9

3.1. iADR iMechanism iduring iancient iperiod

- During ithe iVedic iperiod, iADR iwas iwidely iused. iAccording ito ithe
iepics iof ithe iRamayana iand iMahabharata, iHanumana iattempted ito
iresolve ithe ikidnapping iissue iby iproposing iRam ito iRavana, iwhile
iKrishna iattempted ito iresolve ithe idisagreement iover ithe idivision
ibetween iKaurava iand iPandava. iIt iproves ithat ithere iexisted ia
istrong iextra iconflict isettlement imechanism iin iancient iIndia ieven
ibefore ithe ireign iof imonarchs. iIn iancient iIndia, ithere iwas ia ivery
ieffective isystem iof iarbitration iand imediation. iDuring ithe ipre-
kingship iera, ithe iParishads, iPanchayats, iPugas, iSrenis, iand iKulas
ihandled iconflicts. iKulas ihere irefers ito igatherings iwith ifamily ior
ithe icommunity. iThat igroup iof ipeople ibelonged ito ithe isame
ifamily. iPuga iwas imade iup iof ia icollection iof ipeople ifrom ivarious
icastes, igroups, iand itribes iin ithe iarea iin iquestion. iThe imen's
iguilds iengaged iin isimilar ibusinesses iare ireferred ito ias iSrenis.
iTradesmen iand icraftspeople ifrom imany iracial igroups, iclans, iand
itribes iwere ipresent, ibut ithey ihad ionce imaintained isome isort iof

17
 P a g e i| i18

icontact ior iconnection. iThe iterm i"parishads" irefers ito ithe

icollective, iteam, ior igatherings iof ieducated ipersons iwho ipossess
ilegal iexpertise.10, iIn iterms iof ipanchayats, ithey iwere ia igroup iof
ipeople iwith ia isenior imember iand ia iset iup iin ieach ivillage ior
icollection iof ivillages. i"The iPanchayats' idecisions iwere iregarded ias
ibinding."11
- The iAaryan ipolitical istructure iwas iquite iintricate. iAccording ito ione
iarticle, ithey iused ito ireside iin ia ilittle ivillage ithat ieventually
ideveloped iinto ia ikingdom. iTheir iorganization iwas ibased ion ithe
iclan, ior iKula. iIt iwas ia islight ideviation ifrom isocial, ipolitical, iand
imilitant itendencies. iThe istructure iof ithe ifamily iwas ipatriarchal,
iwith imales iin icharge iof ihousehold imatters. iA iGrama, ior ihamlet,
iis imade iup iof igroupings iof ikulas. iGramina iwas ithe ivillage ichief
iof isuch ia iGama. iThe isettlements ithat imade iup iVisya. iIt iwas ian
iadditional ipolitical iparty. iOne isuch ipolitical ileader iwas icalled
iVisyapati. iThe iJana, iwho iwere iheaded iby ithe iRajana, ior imonarch,
iwere iin icharge iof ithe iVisyas.
- In iIndia, ithere iwere iseveral ikinds iof iPanchayats. iThey iadhered ito
ithe iarbitration iprocedure. iUnlike icourts, ithese ipanchayats ihad
iseparate irules. iThey iactually ianswered ito iregular icourts. iThe
irevision iagainst iKula's idecision iwas ilying ibefore iSreni, iand ithe
irevision iagainst iSreni's ijudgment iwas ilying ibefore iPuga. iA ilast
iappeal ithat iwas ipending ibefore ithe iPradvivaca, ichallenging ithe
iPuga iruling, iwas ipreviously ipresented ito ithe iPrince iand ithe iKing.
iBecause iof itheir iprocedures iand ihierarchical istructure, iall iof ithese
icourts ihad igreat ipopularity. iThe imonarch ior ihis icourt imen iused
ito itake inotice iwhen ithe iKula, iSreni, iand iGana ifailed ito idispense
ijustice. iAccording ito ithe iMitakshara, iKula icourt iconsisted iof ia
igroup iof irelatives. iIn ithe ipast, ithere iwere ijoint ifamilies, iand ithe
ielder ifamily imembers iwould isettle idisputes. iThe iissue iused ito ibe
ibrought ibefore ithe icourts ionly iwhen ithis isettlement ihad icollapsed.
iThe iSreni, ior iGuilds, iwere iseen ias iextremely iinfluential iand
ibeneficial ifor imaking idecisions ion ibusiness iproblems isince i500
iB.C. iThe ibench iof iSreni icourt iconsisted iof ifour ior ifive ipeople.

18
 P a g e i| i19

iIn iseveral iways, ithe iGana iCourt iresembled ithe iPuga iCourt. iThere
iwas ia iprofessional isquad iat iPuga iCourt. iAlthough ithey iwere ifrom
ivarious icastes, ithey iwere iall ifrom ithe isame iarea.

3.2 iADR iduring iBritish iPeriod

Prior ito ithe iarrival iof ithe iBritish, iPanchayats ihandled imost imatters
iin iline iwith ithe isettlement iprocess, iwhich iincluded iarbitration iand
imediation. iHowever, ithis iquickly ichanged. iThe iBritish iintroduced
icriminal iand icivil ilaws, iand ithey iplaced ia ihigh ivalue ion ijudicial
iand imagistrate itrials. iThe icurrent isystem iof icivil iand imagistratal
icourts ihas ia istrong iresemblance ito ithe iBritish imodel. iEven
ithroughout ithe iEnglish iera, ithe ipanchayat isystem iand ithe icustoms
iof ithe iPatil ior iMukhiya, ietc., iwere iprevalent. iBut ias itime iwent
ion, iits iauthority iand iholiness ibegan ito ifade. iBritish ipeople iquickly
isaw ithe iflaws iin itheir iapproach iand ithe ibenefits iof ithe iold iIndian
ijudicial isystem.

As ia iresult, ithey iintroduced ivarious iarbitration ilaws, isuch ias ithe

iBengal iRegulations iof i1772, i1780, iand i1781; ithe iArbitration iAct
iVIII iof i1857; ithe iIndian iArbitration iAct, i1899 i(pertaining ito ithe
iIndian ipresidency itowns); ithe iCivil iProcedure iCode, i1908; ithe
iArbitration iAct iof i1940 i(repealing ithe ipreceding iAct iof i1899);
iand iS.89 iand i104 i(1) iof ithe irevised iCivil iProcedure iCode, i1908.
iThey iincluded ia iclause iallowing iparties ito irefer idisputes ito
iarbitration. iFollowing ithe iselection iof iarbitrators, iattempts iwere
imade ito ireach ia iconsensus, iand ithe iarbitrator's iruling iwas
iregarded ias ifinal.

3.3. iADR iin ipost-independence iperiod

19
 P a g e i| i20

According ito iavailable iliterature, ithe ifirst iLok iAdalat iwas iheld ion
iMarch i14, i1982, ifollowing iindependence. iIt itook iplace iat iGujarat's
iJunagarh. iFollowing ithat, iIndia ipassed ithe iLegal iServices
iAuthorities iAct iinto ilaw iin i1987. iBut iit itook iaround ieight iyears
ifor iit ito ibecome ia ilaw. iIt iwas iput iinto ipractice ion iSeptember i11,
i1995. iThe iprevious iArbitration iAct iof i1940 iwas iabolished idue ito
iseveral iflaws. iAfterwards, ithe iAC iAct iof i1996 iwas iintroduced.
iOrder iXXXIIA iadded ia ifamily iproblems iresolution iprovision ito
ithe iCPC iwhen iit iwas imodified iin i1976. iThe iHM iAct iof i1955
iincluded iprovisions ifor ireconciliation iinitiatives iunder isections
i23(2) iand i(3). i iA icomparable iclause i(s.34 i(3)) iwas iincluded iin
ithe iSpecial iMarriage iAct iof i1954. iThe iFamily iCourts iAct,
iintroduced iin i1984, imandates ithat ithe ifamily icourts imake ievery
ieffort ito ifacilitate ithe iresolution iof idisputes ibetween iparties.
iFollowing ithat, iin i1999, ithe iCPC's iOrder i10 iRules i1A, i1B, iand
i1C iwere ichanged iby is.89. iThe iIndian iADR ijurisprudence isaw
isignificant irevisions ias ia iresult.

3.4. iAdaptation iof iADR iinstitutions iacross ithe iWorld

- The iUnited iStates ibegan ito irecognize ithe ineed ifor ian ialternative
idispute iresolution isystem ibetween i1960 iand i1970. iThe iUS iquickly
ibegan ito isee ithe iconsequences iof iusing imediation ias ione iof ithe
istrategies. iPeople ibegan ito isee ithe iadvantages iof ialternative
idispute iresolution i(ADR) iover ithe ibacklog iand icost iof ithe ijudicial
isystem. iAcademicians, ithe iUS iCongress, icourts, ijudges, ithe
iAmerican iBar iAssociation, iand iall iprovincial igovernments
isupported ithe iadvancement iof ithe iADR isystem. iThe i1990 iCivil
iJustice iReform iAct iwas ipassed iby ithe iUS. iIt iincluded iprovisions
ifor ithe icreation iof ipractical imethods ito ireduce ithe ilength, iexpense,
iand ipendency iof icivil icases. iADR iwas iembraced iby ithe iFederal
iCourt iand iother icourts. iThe iAmerican iDissent iResolution i(ADR)
imovement iquickly igained itraction iin ithe icountry iand iis inow ia

20
 P a g e i| i21

isignificant iaspect iof ithe iAmerican ilegal isystem. iThe ifundamental

ireason imediation iworks iin ifamily iproblems i(divorce, iadoption,
icustody iof ichildren, ietc.), iconstruction imatters, iand iother isorts iof
icases iin iAmerica iis ithat, iunlike iin iIndia, idifferent imethods iof
imediation iare ipracticed iconfronting idifferent iscenarios. i
- The iUS iand imany iother inations iquickly irealized itheir imistakes iand
iresumed iusing iADR, iwhich ithey ihad ipreviously itrained ifor iand
iexperienced. iFollowing ithe i1970s, ithe inations iquickly ibegan ito
iindustrialize iand iprosper. iThey irealized ithe iimportance iof
ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) iand iits iadaptability ifor iboth
idomestic iand iinternational iconflict isettlement iwhen ithey ifelt ithe
inecessity ifor ia iquick imethod iof idispute iresolution. iAs ia iresult,
iADR ihas ibecome iincreasingly isignificant ias iglobal itrade iand
icommerce ihave iincreased. iEven ifor iconflicts ipertaining ito ithe
icorporate isector, ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) iproven ito ibe
ia ifast, iquick, iaffordable, iand ieffective imethod. iIndia iand iother
iemerging inations iare idrawn ito iADR ias ia iresult iof ithis.

- ADR iinstruments iincluding iarbitration, imediation i(negotiation), iand

iLok-Adalat iwere iemployed ias ithe imain imeans iof iresolving idisputes
iduring ithe iVedic, iAncient, iMedieval, iand iearly iModern iperiods,
iaccording ito iresearch ion ithe istatus iand iusage iof iADR iduring ithese
itimes. iSeldom idid ithe icases iever igo ito itrial ibefore ithe icourts.
iLike iwith ithe icurrent iMED-ARB iprocesses iin ithe iArbitral
iTribunals iand iCommercial iCourts, ithe ifocus iwas iplaced iprimarily
ion imediating, inegotiating, iand isettling icivil iproblems ieven iin icourts
i(including iKings iCouncil). iThe ipreset iday imethod ihas ia isignificant
iflaw iin ithat iit iplaces imore ifocus ion icourt iproceedings ithan
isettlements. iIt iis ievident ithat ithe iBritish iredesigned iIndia's ilegal
isystem iand imade icourt icases ithe imain imeans iof iresolving idisputes,
idisregarding iIndian icustoms, iculture, iand ipractice, iwhere ialternative
idispute iresolution i(ADR) imethods iwere imore iappropriate ithan ithe
iBritish icourt itrial ipattern, iwhich iwas/is ipredicated ion ia icomplex
iweb iof ilaws, irules, iand iregulations iand iendures ia idrawn-out,

21
 P a g e i| i22

iprotracted ilegal iprocess ithat ican itake iyears ito iobtain ia idecree iand
ieven ilonger ifor iits iexecution.

CHAPTER i4: iALTERNATIVE iDISPUTE

iRESOLUTION i(ADR) iAS iA iSUPPLEMENT iTO
iTHE iJUDICIAL iPROCESS iFOR iQUICKER iAND
iCHEAPER iJUSTICE iAND iSOME iEFFECTIVE
iADR iTOOLS iUNDER iINDIAN iSET-UP.

Due ito ithe irise iof iattorneys iand itheir iclients ipresenting icourts iwith ia
iwide irange iof iclaims, imany isocieties iare icurrently iexperiencing ia
icrisis iin ilitigation. iIt iappears ithat ithe iUnited iStates iinitiated ithis itrend,
iand iother inations iare iquickly ifollowing isuit. iGenerally ispeaking,
ilitigiousness iis iseen inegatively, ias ia isign iof imoral idecay iand isocietal
icollapse, ithe idisintegration iof isocial icohesiveness, iand ithe idistortion iof
ijustice iby ilegal itrickery. iHowever, ilawsuits imay ialso istrengthen ithe
ipoor iand imarginalized iin iaddition ito ibeing ia icrucial itactic ifor ipositive
isocial ichange12. iThe iLatin iword ilitigium iis ithe isource iof ithe iEnglish
iterm ilitigious. i'Dispute' iis iwhat ilitigiiim imeans. iIt icame ifrom ithe iLatin

22
 P a g e i| i23

iverb i"litigare," iwhich imeaning i"to iquarrel." iAfterwards, ithe iOld iFrench
iand iMiddle iEnglish imodified iit. iLitigious iis ian iadjective ithat idescribes
ia ilegal idispute. iLitigious imatters iare ithose ithat iare idebatable ior
icontentious. iMost ipeople iin itoday's iculture inow iview ilitigation ias, iat
imost, ia inecessary ievil iwith ipotentially isignificant ipositive iaspects.

There iare itwo imain icategories iof idispute iresolution iprocedures: i1)
iConsensual iprocedures i(like icollaborative ilaw, imediation, iconciliation,
ior inegotiation), iwhere ithe iparties itry ito icome ito ian iagreement, iand i2)
iadjudicative iprocedures i(like ilitigation ior iarbitration), iwhere ia ijudge,
ijury, ior iarbitrator idecides ithe ioutcome. iIt ishould ibe imentioned ithat
inot iall iconflicts, ieven ithose iin iwhich iprofessional ilabor iis iinvolved,
iare iresolved. iIn ithe ifield iof idispute iresolution iresearch, ithese
iunresolvable iconflicts iconstitute ia iniche.

4.1. iJudicial iDispute iResolution

Litigation iis ithe imost ipopular imethod iof ijudicial iconflict isettlement.
iWhen ione iside ifiles ia ilawsuit iagainst ianother, ilitigation ibegins.
iGovernments iat iall ilevels ipromote ilitigation iin ifederal, istate, iand ilocal
icourts iaround ithe iglobe. iThe ilegislatively idefined irules iof ievidence
iand iprocedure, iamong iother inorms, icontrol ithe iextremely iformal
iprocedures. iAn iunbiased ijudge, ijury, ior iboth idecide ithe icase's ifate
ibased ion ithe iapplicable ilaw iand ithe ifactual iissues. iBoth iparties imay
iappeal ithe icourt's idecision ito ia ihigher icourt, ibut ithe idecision iis ifinal
iand inot iadvisory. iThe iprocess iof iresolving idisputes iin icourt iis iusually
iadversarial, iincluding iparties ior iinterests ithat iare iat iodds iwith ione
ianother iand itrying ito iget ithe ibest ipossible iresult ifor ithemselves.

4.2. iExtrajudicial idispute iresolution

23
 P a g e i| i24

Some ipeople ilimit ithe idefinition iof idispute iresolution ito ialternative
idispute iresolution i(ADR), iwhich iincludes iextrajudicial iprocedures ilike
imediation, iarbitration, iand icollaborative ilaw ithat iare iused ito isettle
idisputes ibetween ior iamong ipeople, icorporations, igovernments, iand, iin
ithe icase iof ipublic iinternational ilaw, ieven istates. iADR ioften irequires
iconsent ifrom iall iparties, ieither iprior ito ior ifollowing ithe iemergence iof
ia iconflict, iin iorder ito ibe iused. iADR's iacceptability iand iuse ihave ibeen
irising igradually idue ito iits iperceived ibenefits, iwhich iinclude iincreased
iflexibility, ilower icosts ithan itraditional ilitigation, iand iquick iconflict
iresolution. iNonetheless, isome ihave iclaimed ithat ithese iprocedures
iviolate ipeople's iright ito ifile icomplaints iwith ithe icourts iand ithat
iextrajudicial idispute iresolution imay inot ibe ithe imost iequitable ioption
ifor iparties ithat ido inot ihave iequal ibargaining ipower, isuch ias iin ia
idispute iinvolving ia ibig icompany iand ia icustomer. iFurthermore,
iarbitration iand iother ialternative idispute iresolution iprocedures imight
icost ias imuch ias ior ieven imore ithan ilitigation iin isome isituations.

4.3. iForms iof iADR

The iADR ihas imany iacceptable iforms iand imodes. iMost iimportant
iamong ithose iare iArbitration, iMediation, iConciliation iand iNegotiation
ietc.

a. Arbitration:
As ia itype iof ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR), iarbitration
iinvolves ireferring ia idispute ito ione ior imore iparties i(referred ito
ias i"arbitrators," i"arbiters," ior i"arbitral itribunal"), iwhose idecision
i(referred ito ias ithe i"award") ithey iagree ito ibe ibound iby. iIt iis ia
imethod iof isettlement iwhere ia ithird iparty iexamines ithe iissue
iand irenders ia iruling ithat iboth iparties imust iabide iby.
iCommercial idisputes iare imost ifrequently iresolved ithrough
iarbitration, iespecially iwhen iit icomes ito icross-border ibusiness

24
 P a g e i| i25

idealings. iThe iuse iof iarbitration iis isignificantly imore icontentious

iwhen iit icomes ito iemployment iand iconsumer idisputes isince iin
ithese icases, iarbitration iis iimposed ion iparties ithrough ifine-print
icontracts, idepriving ithem iof itheir iright ito igo ito icourt.
iArbitration imay ibe irequired ior ioptional, iand iit imay ibe ibinding
ior inon-binding. iOn ithe isurface, inonbinding iarbitration iis
icomparable ito imediation. iThe imain idistinction iis ithat, ialthough
ia imediator iwill iwork iwith ithe iparties ito ifind ia icompromise ior
ia imiddle iground, ithe iarbitrator iis inot iinvolved iin ithe isettlement
iprocess iand iwill ionly idetermine iliability iand, iif inecessary, ithe
iamount iof idamages ithat imust ibe ipaid.
b. Mediation:
Generally ispeaking, imediation iis ithe icognitive iact iof ibringing
imutually iincompatible iwords itogether ias i"an iinterpretation" ior
i"an iunderstanding iof." iHegel, ithe iGerman iphilosopher, irefers ito
ithese ikinds iof imental iprocesses ias i"dialectical iunity." iThe igoal
iof imediation, ia itype iof i"appropriate idispute iresolution" ior
ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR), iis ito ihelp itwo ior imore
idisputants icome ito ia iconsensus. iThe iterms iof iany isettlements
iare idecided iupon iby ithe iparties, ias iopposed ito iaccepting iterms
ithat iare iimposed iby ia ithird iparty. iStates, iorganizations,
icommunities, ipeople, ior iother irepresentatives ihaving ia istake iin
ithe iresult imay ibe iinvolved ias iparties iin ithe iconflicts.

c. Conciliation:

Conciliation iis ia itype iof ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) iin

iwhich ithe idisputing iparties i(including ithose iinvolving ifuture
iinterest iissues) iagree ito ihire ia iconciliator, iwho imeets iwith ieach
iparty iseparately ito itry iand ireach ia iresolution. iUnlike iarbitration,
iconciliation ihas ino ilegal istanding iin iand iof iitself. iMoreover,
ithe iconciliator ioften ilacks ithe ipower ito isummon iwitnesses,
igather ievidence, iissue idecisions, ior igrant iawards.

25
 P a g e i| i26

4.4. iCourt iOrdered iADR i- iLimits:

As ia iresult iof itheir iexcessive icaseloads, icourts iall iaround ithe ination iare
iincreasingly iusing inon-judicial iresolution iprocedures. iAdvocates iof
ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) iclaim ithat iADR isaves imoney ifor
ithe iparties iinvolved iin ithe ilawsuit, ishortens ithe itime ibetween ithe ifiling
iof ia icase iand iits iresolution, iincreases ithe isatisfaction iof ilitigants iwith
ithe iway itheir idisputes iare isettled, iand ifrees iup ijudges' itime ifor icases
ithat itruly irequire iit.

a. Recognition iof iADR iunder ithe iIndian iConstitution:

The i1950 iIndian iConstitution ialso iacknowledges ithe isignificance

iof iADR, ias idemonstrated iby iArticle i257, iwhich ideals iwith ithe
iUnion's icontrol iover iStates iin imatters ipertaining ito
icommunication iconstruction iand imaintenance ideemed ito ibe iof
inational ior imilitary iimportance iand iprotection iof istate-owned
irailroads.

b. Sec i89 iof iCPC i- iSettlement iof idisputes ioutside ithe iCourt.
When ithe icourt idetermines ithat ithere iare icomponents iof ia
isettlement ithat icould ibe iacceptable ito ithe iparties, iit iwill idraft
ithe iterms iof ithe isettlement iand iprovide ithem ito ithe iparties ifor
icomment. iFollowing ithe iparties' icomments, ithe icourt imay irevise
ithe iterms iof ia ipotential isettlement iand irefer ithe imatter ifor:

- iarbitration;
- iconciliation
- ijudicial isettlement iincluding isettlement ithrough iLok iAdalat; ior
- imediation.

c. Under ithe iProtection iof iWomen ifrom iDomestic iViolence iAct,

i2005
d. Under ithe iFamily iCourts iAct,1985
e. Introduction iof iPlea iBargaining iunder iCr.P.C:

26
 P a g e i| i27

4.5. iThe iDisadvantages iof iADR

Some iof ithe idisadvantages iof iADR ioften icited iare:

a. Uncertainty ias ito iconclusion iof idisputes

First iof iall, icertain iADR iprocedures—such ias imediation,
iconciliation, iand inegotiation—do inot iguarantee ia iresolution ito
iconflicts. iAs ia iresult, iparties imay ihave ito ifinally itake itheir
idisagreement ito icourt isince ithey icannot ibe iassured ithat ithe
iconflict iwill istop, iwhich iis ilikely ito icause isignificant idisruption
ito itheir ilives. iAdditionally, iunless iotherwise ispecified, ithe
irulings iof imediation, iconciliation, iand inegotiation iare inot ilegally
ibinding iand icannot ibe iupheld iby ithe icourts; ithis iimplies ithat,
idespite iefforts iat ialternative iconflict iresolution, ithe imatter imay
iultimately ifind iits iway iinto ithe ilegal isystem. iFurthermore,
ipower idisparities ibetween iparties iare ia iproblem iin ithe
iaforementioned iADR iformats. iUsually, ione iside iis iweaker ithan
ithe iother—either imonetarily ior iemotionally. iWhile ithis iwould
inot ibe iallowed iin ia icourtroom ior imore iofficial ivenue i(such ias
iarbitration ior itribunals), ithe iweaker iparty imay ibe ivulnerable ito
iintimidation iby ithe iopposing iside.

b. Complexity iof iappeal isystem

The iappeals iprocesses ifor iboth iarbitration iand itribunals iare iquite
iintricate. iFor iinstance, iappeals ito ithe iHigh iCourt imay ionly ibe
ifiled iunder ispecific icircumstances iunder ithe iArbitration iand
iConciliation iAct iof i1996. iADR iis imeant ito iavoid ithese
iproblems, ibut ithe iintricacy iof ithe iappeals imechanism ialso
imakes ithe iprocess itake ilonger iand icosts imore imoney.

c. Lack iof ilegal iexpertise

27
 P a g e i| i28

Certain iADR iprocesses, isuch ias iconciliation iand iarbitration,

ifrequently ilack ilegal iknowledge. iIt iis icommon ifor ian iarbitrator,
imediator, ior iconciliator ito ilack ithe ilegal iknowledge iand
iexperience ithat ia ijudge idoes. iIf ia idisagreement ientails iintricate
ilegal imatters iand inuances, isuch ias ithose ipertaining ito
iintellectual iproperty irights, ie-commerce, iand icyber ilaws, ithe
iarbitrator imight inot ibe iqualified ito iprovide ia idecision. iThis
icauses ithe iprocess ito idrag ion iand irender ijudgments imeaningless
ias ithey imay ibe imade ibased ion iignorance.

d. Emergence iof i5-Star iculture iin iADR

Regrettably, ia isignificant inumber iof iarbitrators idesignated ito

iresolve iconflicts iinsist ion iconducting ithe iarbitral iproceedings
iexclusively iat ifive-star ihotels, iplacing ia isignificant icost ion ithe
iinvolved iparties. iPut idifferently, ithe icurrent ialternative idispute
iresolution i(ADR) isystem icontains ian ielitist icomponent idue ito
ithe ilack iof iinterest ishown iby ithe igovernment iand ithe ilegal
isystem. iThis iis ithe imain ireason iwhy ithe iaverage ilitigant iis
iunable ito itake iadvantage iof ialternative idispute iresolution
i(ADR).

e. Prohibitory ifees icharged iby iarbitrators

The ifact ithat imany iarbitrators icharge ia iportion iof ithe idispute's
icost ias itheir ifee iis ihighly iprohibitive iand idemotivating. iThere
imight inot ibe imuch iof ia idifference ibetween iJDR iand iADR iin
isuch ia isituation.

f. Disproportionate iFocus ion iArbitration

Compared ito iother ikinds iof ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR)

ilike imediation iand iconciliation, ithere iseems ito ibe ia ilarger
iemphasis ion iarbitration—more ispecifically, icommercial iarbitration.

28
 P a g e i| i29

iIt ishould ibe imentioned ithat iarbitration ionly ibecomes irelevant

ionce ithe iaforementioned itwo ioptions ihave ibeen iexhausted. iIt iis
iunfortunate ithat idespite ibeing imentioned iin iseveral iregulations,
ithe iaforementioned itwo imethods iare inot iused iregularly.

4.6. i iSOME iEFFECTIVE iADR iTOOLS iUNDER iINDIAN

iSET-UP

a. iMediation

The ifundamental icomponents iof iIndian iculture ihave ialways ibeen

iarbitration iand iconciliation. iIn ithe ipast, iIndia's iPanchayat iSystem
ifunctioned ieffectively; ihowever, ithe iadversarial isystem iwas iimposed
iduring iBritish icontrol. iThe iUNICITRAL iModel iLaw, iglobalization,
iand ithe i1996 iArbitration iand iConciliation iAct ihave iall icombined ito
ibring ithe isystem ifull icircle. iIn ia iworld iof iglobalization, iprivate
iarbitration icourts ihave iannexated iarbitration iand imediation, iand iLok
iAdalats ifunction idifferently ithan ithey idid iduring ithe iPanchayat iera.
iThe ioldest iway iof iresolving idisputes iis imediation. iDisputes iwere
iresolved ithrough imediation ieven iin ithe iabsence iof ilaw icourts. iThe
iepics iRamayana iand iMahabharata irecount ihow, imillions iof iyears
iago, iHanuman iattempted ito iresolve ithe ikidnapping iissue iby
iproposing iRam ito iRavana, iand ihow iKrishna iattempted ito iresolve ithe
ipartition idisagreement ibetween iKaurava iand iPandava.

Conciliation iand iarbitration iare inot ithe isame ias imediation. iThe
iprimary idistinction ibetween iconciliation iand imediation iis ithat ithe
ifacts iprovided iby ithe iparties iare inot irecorded iin ithe imediation
iprocess. iIn icontrast, iin ithe ievent ithat iconciliation ifails, ithe
iconciliator imay iprovide ia idecision ibased ion ithe iinformation ithat ithe
iparties ihave ipresented ito ihim. iUnder isome ilaws i(such ias ithe iFamily
iCourts iAct), iconciliation iis irequired; imediation iis inot. iRegarding
iarbitration, ithe ithird iparty ithat ireceives ia idispute ireferral iand isits iin
ias ia ijudge ioutside iof icourt icontrols ithe iproceedings. iWhile ithe

29
 P a g e i| i30

imediator iengages iin iconversation iwith ithe iparties, ithe iarbitrator idoes
inot. i iThe iarbitrator idetermines iwho iis iliable iand iholds ithe iparties
iaccountable; ithe imediator idoes inot iassign iblame. iThe imediator
icannot iexplicitly ipropose ia isolution; ionly ithe iarbitrator imay. iThe
iPanchayat isystem icombined imediation iand iarbitration. i

Judge imediators iand iadvocate imediators iare ithe itwo idifferent

icategories iof imediators. iThe iobservers iand itrainers, iwho iare iproperly
iappointed iby ithe iSupreme iCourt iand iHigh iCourt itogether, iprovide
ithe imediators iwith ia iunique i40-hour itraining iprogram iin iaddition ito
iadditional iperiodic itrainings.

The i"terms iof icompromise" ithat ithe imediator irecorded ifrom ithe
iparties' iagreement iare iverified iby ithe icourt ibefore ithe idecree iis
iissued. iIn iaccordance iwith ithe iconfirmed iconditions iof ithe
iagreement, ithe icourt imust iissue ian iappropriate idecree. iThe idecree
imust ibe idrafted icorrectly, iand ithe icourt ishould inot itake ia icasual
iattitude. iThe icourt ihas ibeen iobserved ito ineglect iits itask ifrequently
ibecause iof ibusyness ior iother ifactors. iThe iCivil iProcedure iCode,
i1908, isection i152, iprovides ithe iCourt iwith ithe iauthority ito irectify
isuch ia imistake. iThe iwell-known iproverb i"actus icuriae ineminem
igravabit" istates ithat iit iis ithe iresponsibility iof ithe icourt ito irepair iits
iwrong. iNobody iought ito isuffer ias ia iresult iof ithe ierrors imade iby ithe
icourt. iThe icourts imust iuse itheir iauthority ito ifix ithese imistakes iand
idraft ithe iappropriate idecree iin iaccordance iwith ithe imediation ireport.13

b. People’s iCourt i[Lok-Adalat]

Seeking iLegal iassistance iis ia ifundamental iand icritical iright igranted
iby ithe iIndian iConstitution i(Article i39A) ito ia icertain igroup iof
iindividuals iin ineed. iThe iLSA iAct iwas iadopted iin i1987 ito icarry iout
ithis iduty. iThis iAct iincludes iADR imechanisms isuch ias iLok-Adalat
ifor iresolving ilegal idisputes. iPending iand inon-binding icourt idisputes
imay ibe isubmitted ito ithe ipenal iof iLok-Adalat ifor ipeaceful inegotiation
ior icompromise. iThe iLok-Adalat iwas inot iunknown iin iancient iIndia,

30
 P a g e i| i31

ibut ilike ithe iPanchayat iPattern, ithe ipractice iof iLok-Adalat iwas
ipushed iback iduring ithe iBritish iera. iHowever, ifollowing iindependence,
ithe inotion iof iLok-Adalat iwas irevitalized, iand iit ihas ibecome iquite
ipopular iamong ilitigants iagain iin irecent idecades. iAs ia iresult, ithe
iancient iconcept iof iLok-Adalat ihas ireceived ilegal isupport, iand iit ihas
ibecome ian iessential iand ipopular iADR itool iamong ilitigants. iThe
iLok-Adalat iaward ihas ibeen igranted ia imonetary ivalue icomparable ito
ithe icivil icourt idecrees ithat iare ienforceable. iThe iaward iof iLok-Adalat
iis ifinal iand ibinding ion ithe iparties. iThe iLok-Adalat isystem ihas ia
ilong ihistory iin iIndian ilaw. iLok-Adalat ipractice irepresents iIndian
iculture iand ithe inotion iof ijustice iin iancient iIndia.
b.1. iCases iSuitable ito iRefer ifor iLok-Adalat i: iAny icivil iand
icompoundable icriminal icase i(Pending icases) iand i iAny idispute ior
imatter iwhich iis iabout ito iconvert iinto ilitigation i(Pre-litigation)
b.2. iReference iof iCases ifor iLok-Adalat i: iReference iof iPending
iCases: iand iReference iof iPre-ligation
b.3. iMobile iLok-Adalat i[providing ijustice iat idoorsteps]

c. Arbitration

The iarbitrator iattempts ito iresolve iand idecide ithe iissues ibrought
ibefore ihim. iHe iis ichosen iby ithe iparties ior ithe icourts. iThere iis ino
iprescribed imethod ithat ithe iArbitrator imust ifollow. iHe iis inot irequired
ito iobey ievidence iand iprocess ilegislation. iThe iArbitration iand
iConciliation iAct ispecifies ithe ifunction iof ithe iarbitrator iin isuch
iadjudication iand ihis iresponsibility ito irender ian iaward. i14Section i43J,
iin iconjunction iwith ithe iEighth iSchedule iof ithe iArbitration iAct,
iaddresses ithe iqualifying iconditions ifor iselecting ithe iArbitrator. iThe
iAC i(Amendment) iAct, i2019, iincorporates ithis iclause. iArbitration iis
ione iof ithe imost iadaptable imodes iof idispute iresolution, iwhich iis iwhy
iparties ilike iit. iTraditional icourts irequire iparties ito iwait ifrom i10 ia.m.
ito i5.00 ip.m. i

31
 P a g e i| i32

They iare inot irequired ito iadhere ito ithe istringent irestrictions iof
iprocedural ilegislation. iThey imay imerely ifollow ithe iArbitrator's
iprocedure, iand iadditional iformalities imay ibe iwaived.

The istages iof icivil isuit iand ivarious iprovisions isuch ias iadjournment,
i90 ior imore idays itime ito ifile iwritten istatement, iamendment, ievidence,
iappointment iof icommissioner iand ireceiver, isettlement iand irecasting
iof iissues ias iper inew iamendments, irecording iadmission iand idenial iof
idocuments, iand iso ion iwhich iare irequired iin icivil ilitigation ibefore
ithe icourt iactually islow idown ithe ilitigation, iand iall isuch ihurdles ican
ibe iovercome ithrough ithe iArbitrator's iprocedure.

Important iInternational iArbitral iInstitutions

There iis ino icountry iin ithe iplanet ithat ican iclaim ito ibe iself-
sufficient. iEvery icountry imust irely ion iothers ifor itrade,
itechnology, iand iresources, iamong iother ithings. iThis iis ithe iage
iof idependency. iBecause iIndia, ilike iother iemerging iand ideveloped
idemocratic inations, ibelieves iin iuniversal ibrotherhood, iit iis ia
isignatory ito ia inumber iof iconventions, icharters, iand itreaties.
iThere iis ithe ipossibility iof ia idisagreement ior iconflict ias ia iresult
iof iinternational ieconomic idealings. iTo ideal iwith isuch isituations,
inumerous iinternational itribunals iexist iwhere idisagreements iare ito
ibe idecided ithrough iarbitration. iSome iinternational iarbitral
iinstitutions iare ilisted ibelow.

1. Permanent iCourt iof iArbitration i(PCA)

The iPCA iis ialso iknown ias ithe iHague iTribunal. iIt iis ian
iinternational iorganization ibased iin ithe iDutch icity iof iThe iHague.
iIt iwas iestablished iin i1899. iOn ithis iday, ithe ifirst iHague iPeace
iConference iwas iconvened. iIt iis ithe ioldest iinternational idispute
iresolution iagency. iBy ithe iyear i2002, i96 inations ihave isigned ithe

32
 P a g e i| i33

iconvention. iThe icourt iaddresses icases ibetween iconsenting inations

iand iits iindividual icitizens.

2. World iTrade iOrganization i(WTO)

The iWorld iTrade iOrganization i(WTO) iis ithe iGATT i(General
iAgreement ion iTariffs iand iTrade)'s isuccessor. iThe iWorld iTrade
iOrganization i(WTO) iregulates itrade iagreements ibetween inations.
iIt iwas iformed iwith ithe igoal iof iremoving iimpediments ito
iinternational itrade iexperienced iby icountries. iAs isuch, iit iperforms
itwo ibasic ifunctions: iit iprovides ias ia iplatform ifor ithe idiscussion
iof inew itrade iagreements, iand iit iserves ias ia iclearinghouse ifor ithe
iexamination iof icurrent iaccords. iIt ifunctions ias ia iglobal idispute
iresolution ibody. iIt ihas ibeen igranted ithe iauthority ito iissue
isanctions iand ihave iits idecisions ienforced. iIf ian iissue icannot ibe
isettled iby iconsensus, iit iproceeds ito iarbitration.

3. (ICC) iInternational iChamber iof iCommerce

It iis, ias ithe iname iimplies, ian iinternational ilevel ichamber iof imember
istates. iIt iaids iin ithe igrowth iof iinternational ibusiness. iIt ihas icreated
icommittees iin iseveral inations ivia iwhich iit icommunicates iwith ithe
igovernments iof imember istates. iThis inot ionly iprovides ijobs ion ia
iglobal iscale, ibut iit ialso iaids ithe irespective igovernments iin ithe
ieconomic iprosperity iof itheir iown icountries. iIn itoday's iglobalized
iworld, iit iserves ias ia ipartner iin ithe isuccess iof imember icountries.
iDue ito iits iunique iwidely idistributed iplatform, iactivities, ilocation,
iprestige, iand igoodwill, ithe iChamber iplays ian iessential irole iin
iresolving iinternational ieconomic idisputes.

4. UNCITRAL i(United iNations iCommission ion iInternational iTrade

iLaw)

The iUNCITRAL iis ian iorganization ithat iworks iin ithe itopic iof
i"International iTrade iLaw." iIt iis ione iof ithe iUnited iNations' ibodies.

33
 P a g e i| i34

iThis ibody's ifunction iincludes iunifying iand iharmonizing i"International

iTrade iLaws." iConsenting imember istates imay isend ithe icase ito
iUNICITRAL ito iresolve iinternational itrade idisputes iusing iADR
imethods isuch ias iarbitration.

d. Conciliation
The iparties ior ithe icourts iappoint ithe iconciliators. iThey iattempt ito
iresolve ithe iissue ithrough iconciliation. iIt iis igoverned iunder ithe iAC
iAct iof i1996. iThe iConciliators iare iauthorized iby ilegislation i(S.67,
i73) ito isubmit ivarious isuggestions iin iorder ito isettle ithe idisputes. iThe
iConciliators iare ito ioutline ithe ilikely isettlement iterms, iwhich ihe imay
iamend ian iunlimited inumber iof itimes iin iorder ito iachieve ithe ipurpose
iof isettlement. iHis ijob igoes ibeyond ithat iof ia imediator.15 iConciliation
iprocesses iare ioutlined iin isections i61 ito i81 iof ithe iAC iAct iof i1996.
iThe ireward iis iworth ia idecree.
According ito iSection i61, iconciliation imay ibe iapplied ito iany isuch
idisputes ithat ihave iarisen idue ito ia ilegal irelationship, iwhich iis inot
ilimited ito icontractual irelationships, iand iit iis ialso iapplicable ito iall
iproceedings irelating ito ior iarising iout iof iany isuch idisputes. iThe
iparties ihave ibeen igiven ithe ifreedom ito iagree ion iand idecide ion
iwhatever iprocess ito ibe iused ifor iconciliation. i
They imay ialso ifollow ithe imethod ioutlined iin ithe i1996 iAct. iSection
i62 ialso iallows ithe iparties ito iidentify ithe iissue iand ithen iextend ia
iconciliatory iinvitation. iAnd ithe iother iparty iis ifree ito iaccept ior
idecline ithe iinvitation. iIf ithe iinvitation iis iaccepted, ithe iconciliation
iprocesses iwill ibegin; iotherwise, ithey iwill ibe iterminated iimmediately.
iIf ithe iother iparty idoes inot iaccept ithe iinvitation iwithin i30 idays, ithe
iinvitation iis iconsidered ideclined iby ithe iother iparty. iThis iis iknown
ias ia ideeming iprovision.
Summarization iof iConciliation iProcedure:
The itechnique iis isummarized ias ifollows:
(a) iThere iis ino iset iconciliation iprocedure. iThe iprocedure ican ibe
idetermined ibased ion ithe ifacts iof ithe icase.

34
 P a g e i| i35

(b) iThe iConciliator imay irequest, iinstruct, ior iallow ia iparty ito
iprovide ia istatement, ipapers, iand ievidence.
(c) iHis ichoice imust ibe ifounded ion ijustice, iequity, iand ia iclear
iconscience.

e. Conclusion

This ichapter idemonstrates ithe iavailability iof inumerous iADR itools iin
iIndia. iArbitration, iMediation, iConciliation, iand iLok-Adalat iprocedures
iare isimple, iclear, iand ibeneficial ifor ithe iaverage iperson ito ifollow.
iThese iinstruments ihave ithe iability ito itake iover ithe iBritish iCourt
ipattern iof iIndia isince ithey iare iintended iat imutually isatisfying
idisposition iof icause iand icreating ihealthy irelationships iamong ithe
iparties. iAccording ito ia irecent idevelopment i(amendment ieffective idate
i23.10.2015), ithe iArbitral iTribunal iis irequired ito ipass ithe iaward
iwithin ia itime ilimit iof ione iyear, iwhich ishould ibe icalculated ifrom ithe
idate ion iwhich ithe iarbitrator ireceived inotice iof ihis iappointment, iand
ian iextension iof isix imonths ican ibe igranted iby ithe iparties' ijoint
idecision. iAccording ito iCivil iProcedure iADR

CHAPTER i5:- i i iLAWS, iRULES, iREGULATIONS

i& iSCHEMES iOF iADR iIN iINDIA

A. Constitutional iLaw iof iIndia

The iIndian iConstitution ihas iprovisions ifor isocial ijustice iin
iArticles i14, i22(1), i39A, i44, iand i51A. iThey ibecome imore
iactive iand igoal-oriented ias ia iresult iof ithe iconjoint
iinterpretation. iAccording ito iit, ithe ilegal isystem imust icarry iout
iits iresponsibilities iin isuch ia iway ithat ijustice iis iserved iequitably
ito iall. iCitizens imust ibe iable ito iseek ijustice. iMany ipeople iare

35
 P a g e i| i36

iunable ito iaccess ithe icourts idue ito ieconomic, isocial, iand iother
ifactors. iAs ia iresult, iit iis ithe icountry's iresponsibility ito ienact
iappropriate ilaws, iplans, iand iso ion, iso ithat ieveryone ihas ithe
ichance ito iseek ijustice. iNo iimpairment iof iany ikind ishall iimpede
ithe iadministration iof ijustice.16 iThe istate iis irequired ito i"ensure
iequality ion ian iequal ibasis iwith iequal iopportunity ito iall." iThe
ifundamental ipremise iof ijustice iis iequal itreatment ifor ieverybody.
iTo iaccomplish iall iof ithis, ithe istate imust ipay ienough
iconsideration ito ithe iresolution iof iinternational iand ilocal iissues
ithrough iADR.

B. LSA iAct, i1987

The iLSA iAct iwas ipassed iby iParliament iin i1987, ibut iit iwent
iinto ieffect ion iNovember i9, i1995. iThe igoal iof ithis ilaw iis ito
iestablish iauthorities ito iprovide ifree ibut icompetent ilegal ihelp ito
iIndia's ipoorer isections iin ia iconsistent imanner.The iultimate igoal
iof ithis iact iis ito iguarantee ithat ino ione isuffers idue ito ia ilack iof
iresources iand iopportunity. iIts ipurpose iis ito iorganize ithe iLok
iAdalat iso ithat iit imay igive iequal ipossibilities ito ieveryone,
iregardless iof itheir isocial iand ieconomic ibackwardness, iand ithis
igoal iis irepresented iin ithe iLegal iServices iAuthorities' islogan,
iwhich iproclaims iand iguarantees i"Access ito iJustice" ifor iall. iThe
iNALSA iand iSLSA iwere ifounded iunder ithe iLASA iAct iof i1987.
iThe iCJI iis ithe iNLSA's iEx-officio iPatron-in-Chief. iThe iNLSA iis
iresponsible ifor iensuring ithat ilegal iservices iare idelivered iin
iaccordance iwith ithe iAct's iobjectives. iIt imay ibe iadopted iif
iappropriate ilegal iservices iare igiven iby ivarious iState iAuthorities
iacross iIndia. iIt ialso ikeeps itrack iof ithe icompliance irequest ifor
ithe iSLSA ito iprovide ithe icompliance ireport.

C. The iAC iAct, i1996 i(as iamended iby ithe iAct iof i2019
iand i2020)
As istated iin ithe ipreamble, ithe iAC iAct, i1996 iis ibased ion
iUNCITRAL iArbitration iLaw iand iConciliation iRules. iThe iUnited

36
 P a g e i| i37

iNations iGeneral iAssembly iurged iall igovernments ito iexamine iit.

iThe iGeneral iAssembly irecommended iit iwith ithe igoal iof
ibringing iconsistency ito iarbitration ilaw, ispecifically ito isatisfy ithe
ineeds iof iinternational icommercial iarbitration. iThe iGeneral
iAssembly ihas iurged iStates iparties ito iapply ithe inorms iand
ilegislation iregulating iarbitration iin iinternational ieconomic
idisputes, iand iemphasis ihas ibeen iplaced ion ipeaceful iresolution
iof isuch isituations ithrough idispute iresolution iinstruments ilike ias
iconciliation. iThese iguidelines ihave imade ian iimportant
icontribution ito ithe iuniformity iof iarbitral ipractices iand ithe
iresolution iof iinternational ibusiness idisputes.

D. CPC i(July i2002 iamendment)

S.89 iof ithe irevised iCPC iis ia itrailblazer iin imodern iIndian
iprocedural ilaw. iIt istresses ithe iresolution iof iissues ithrough
imediation. iIn icircumstances iwhen ilitigants iwant ito iresolve itheir
idisputes, iit iis iup ito ithe icourts ito idetermine iand iformulate ithe
isettlement iconditions. iIt iindirectly iprohibits icourts ifrom ihearing
isuch icases iand iimposes ian iobligation ito isend icases icontaining
ielements iof icompromise ifor iresolution ithrough ialternative
idispute iresolution i(ADR).17

E. CP iADR i& iMediation iRules, i2006

The iBombay iHigh iCourt iestablished ithe iCP i- iADR i&
iMediation iRules, i2006, iwhich iregulate ithe iADR iprocedure. iIt iis
ibroken iinto itwo isections. iPart iI iis iabout iprocess. iIt ispecifies
ihow iappropriate iADR itools ishould ibe ifound iand iselected. iIt
ialso ispecifies irecommendations ifor ithe iparties ito ifollow iso ithat
ithey iare iinformed iof ithe iprocedure. iPart iII iis idevoted ito ithe
iregulations ithat iregulate ithe i"Mediation." iThese iregulations ihave
ibeen idrafted iin iaccordance iwith iSection i89(2)(d) iof ithe iCPC.
iCivil iProcedure i- iAlternate iDispute iResolution, i2006 iis iPart iI,
iwhile iCivil iProcedure iMediation iRules, i2006 iis iPart iII.
F. NALSA i(Legal iAid iClinics) iRegulations, i2011

37
 P a g e i| i38

The iNALSA i(Legal iAid iClinics) iRegulations, i2011 iwent iinto

ieffect ion iAugust i10, i2011. iIt imentions ithe iestablishment iof
i"Legal-Aid-Clinics" iin icommunities iand icolleges. iLawyers iwould
ibe iassigned ito isuch iLegal-Aid iClinics. iEach isuch isetup ishould
ihave itwo iPLVs ion ihand ito ihelp iattorneys iin icreating idrafts i(of
ilegal idocuments isuch ias ipleadings, ipetitions, iapplications, iand
iso ion). iInfrastructure, ihonoraria ifor iimpaneled iattorneys iand
iparalegal ivolunteers, iusage iof imobile iLok iAdalat ivehicle,
iadministrative ioversight, iand iother iprovisions iare ialso iincluded
iin ithe iregulations. iIt ialso istates ithat ilaw istudents imay iadopt ia
ivillage ifor ilegal iassistance icamps. iThis isignificant iadvancement
iis ithe iresult iof ithe iNational iPlan iof iAction i2011-12.

G. Conclusion
This ichapter idemonstrates ithat, iwhile ithere iare iadequate ilaws
igoverning ithe ivarious iADR itechniques, ithey iare isufficiently
idefined ibut inot icompletely ideveloped. iStill, idefinitions iof iADR
iinstruments isuch ias iMediation, iLok iAdalat, iArbitration, iand
iConciliator iare inot iprovided iin ithe irelevant ilegislations, iincluding
ithe iCPC, ithe iLSA iAct iof i1987, iand ithe iAC iAct iof i1996. iOne
iof ithe iresults iis ithat ithere iare ienough iregulations iand iprocedures
iin iplace ito iprovide ilegal ihelp ito iall isegments iof isociety. iIn ithe
iAfcon iCase, ithe iSupreme iCourt istated ithat imany icourts ihad iyet
ito iapply iSection i89 iof ithe iCPC.77 iAs ia iresult, iit iwould ibe
iappropriate ifor ithe itrial icourts ito iset ithe ischedule iand ithe
ideadline ifor iimplementing ithe iADR iobjectives. iIt iis ialso
ibelieved ithat ithe igovernment ishould iraise ipublic iawareness ion ia
ibig iscale iin iorder ifor iinformation iabout ivarious ilegal iassistance
iinitiatives ito ireach ithe ipoor.

38
 P a g e i| i39

CHAPTER i7: iADR iIMPLEMENTATION iAND

iPROBLEM iIN iINDIA

A. Implementation iof iADR iin iIndia

It iis inot isimple ito igo ifrom ithe iUK i(English/European) ilitigation
isystem ito iage-old iand ineglected iconflict isettlement imechanisms.
iADR ifunctions ias ia imaster ikey, iopening ithe ilock iof ilitigants'
ithoughts iand iremoving ithe i"stale istock iof icases" ifrom
icourtrooms. iIf ithe ihurdles ito iits iexecution iare ieliminated, iit
imay iprovide ia iquick ifix. iArbitration iin ithe iform iof ilegislation
iwas ifirst iproposed iin i1940, ibut iit idid inot ifunction ias iwell ias
ipredicted. iThe iflaws iwere ifixed, ithe iloopholes iwere iclosed, iand
ithe inew ilaw iwent iinto ieffect iin i1996. iIt iwas iwritten iin
iresponse ito ia iUnited iNations iproposal.

Forums isuch ias iLok-Adalat iand iMediation iare iin ifull iswing,
iand iit ihas inow ibeen iembraced iby ipractically iall iindustries.
iThere iare istill isome iconcerns ithat ithe iADR iis idealing iwith.
iThese iissues imay ibe isimply isplit iinto itwo icategories: i(i)
iinherent ilimitations, isuch ias isubjects iof iintrinsic ifaults, igaps iin
ithe ilegislation, iand iso ion, iand i(2) ihuman-based, isuch ias ihuman
iattitude iand ibehavioural ielements. iWe imay ieither iattempt ito
ifollow iand iapply ithe ilaw ito isettle ithe isituation, ior iwe ican
ioperate ias ifault ifinding imachinery, iprofit imaking imachines, ior
itools ito ipostpone ithe ifruit iand ibother ithe iopposing iparty. iIn
ithe inext isubpoint, ithese itwo icategories iare iexpounded ion, ias
iwell ias isuggestions ifor iovercoming ithe idifficulties.

B. Barriers iin ienforcement iand ithe isuggestions ito

iovercome

39
 P a g e i| i40

There iare ivarious iimpediments ito iADR ienforcement. iAlmost

ievery iproblem ihas ia isolution. iSome iexamples iof isuch iissues, ias
iwell ias isolutions, iare ias ifollows:

C. ADR iImplementation iand iProblem iin iIndia

Inherent ilimitations i Human ibased

1. iLegal iEducation: i
2. iNo iprescribed iprocedure i
iand iClient:
3. iNon-Compoundable imatters i
4. iMultiple iProceedings ior ithe i
i i i ilinkage ito iother idisputes:
5. iMultiple iParties: i
1. iAttitude iof ithe iParties i:
2. iInterests iof iLawyer
3. iUnethical iConsideration:
4. iCommunication iProblem:
5. iElimination iof iApathy:
6. iDifferent iviewpoint iand
i i i ilegal iunderstanding:
7. iMisinformation iabout ithe i i
i iADR:
8. iPressures iof iSociety, i
Institution, iassociation,
iGroup ietc.
9. iThe ijackpot isyndrome
10. iIgnorance
11. iCorruption.

D. Conclusion

The iexamination iof iimplementation iissues ireveals ithat ithere iare itwo
itypes iof iproblems iin iimplementation: i(1) iinherent iconstraints iand i(2)
ihuman-based. iThe ifirst igroup iincludes imaterials ithat, iby idefinition,
icannot ibe icompounded. iCriminal inon-compounding isituations iand icivil
icases iinvolving imany iparties iwith icompeting iinterests ior ia ilack iof
40
 P a g e i| i41

ijurisdiction ito icompound iare itwo iinstances iof iinherent ilimits. iThe
isecond igroup icomprises ihuman-based iissues isuch ias ilack iof iknowledge
iamong ithe iparties, ilack iof imotivation ion ithe iside iof iorganizers i/
iPenal i/ istakeholders, iinexperienced imediator/ iconciliator/ iarbitrator/ iLok
iAdalat ipenal, iand iso ion. iAs ia iresult, ithe isolution ifor ithe isecond
igroup iof iissues iexists. iThe iformer iissue icannot ibe iresolved, iwhereas
ithe ilatter iis ireadily iresolved.

41
 P a g e i| i42

CHAPTER i8 i: iCOMMERCIAL iCONTRACTS

iAND iAGREEMENTS

A. The iobject iof iCommercial iCourts iAct

According ito ithe ipreamble iof ithe iCCCDCADH iAct i(The

iCommercial iCourts, iCommercial iDivision, iand iCommercial iAppellate
iDivision iof iHigh iCourts iAct, i2015), ithe iAct iwas icreated ito
iestablish iTrial iand iAppellate iCourts iand iDivisions ifor ithe
iadjudication iof imatters iof ispecified imonetary ivalue. iThis icourt ihas
ithe iauthority ito ihear iall irelated ibusiness icases. iThe imodified iclause
ientered iinto iforce ion iMay i3, i2018) iin ilight iof ithe iabove-mentioned
iaims iof ithe istatute.

According ito ithe iIndian iSupreme iCourt, ithe ipurpose iof ienacting ithe
iAct iis ito ienable ithe irapid iresolution iof icommercial idisputes iand ito
ideliver ifair idecisions iat ifairly ijustified icosts ito ithe iparties. iThe iAct
ioffers ia idetailed iapproach ifor iachieving ithe igoal istated iin ithe
iintroduction. iThe imethod ioutlined itherein iis inot ionly ia iformality,
iand iparties iand icourts iare iobligated ito igive ithem isignificant
iinterpretation iin iorder ito iexpedite ijustice, iso ithat iit imay i(1) ibenefit
ithe iparties, i(2) iaid ito iflourish icommerce, itrade, iand ibusiness, iand
i(3) ilead ito ithe ination's ieconomic iprosperity.18

Section i10 iof ithe iAct iaddresses ijurisdiction. iIt ihas ipermitted ifor ithe
iestablishment iof icommercial iarbitral iforums ifor ithe iresolution iof
idisputes iat iboth ithe idomestic iand iinternational ilevels. iDifferent
icourts ihave ibeen igiven ithe iauthority ito irule ion isubjects iof ivarying
isignificance. iThe iPrincipal iCity iCivil iCourt, iHigh iCourt, iand
iAppellate iDivision iCourts ihave ibeen iestablished ias ispecial icourts ito
ihear isuch icases. iSome iof ithese icourts ihave ibeen idesignated ias
icourts iof ioriginal ijurisdiction, iwith ithe iauthority ito itry iand iresolve
icommercial idisputes iover ia iparticular isum, ias iwell ias iother imatters.
iCourt idivisions ihave ibeen iestablished ias iappeal itribunals ito

42
 P a g e i| i43

idetermine ithe iaccuracy ior iotherwise iof idecisions idelivered iby isuch
ioriginal ijurisdiction icourts.

B. Pre-institution iMediation iin iCommercial iDisputes

Section i12A iof ithe iCCCDCADH iAct iaddresses ipre-institution

imediation. iThe imodification iAct i28 iof i2018, iSection i11 i(with
iretroactive ieffect ifrom i03.05.2018) iincorporated iit ivia iChapter iIII iA
i(containing isection i12 iA). iThe iCCCDCADH iAct iand ithe
iCommercial iCourts iPre-Institution iMediation iand iSettlement iRules,
i2018 iboth ispecify iwho iis iauthorized ito iconduct iPre-Institution
iMediation. iThis iis ia imajor istride itoward iADR isince iit irequires
imandatory imediation ibefore iinitiating ilitigation i(civil isuits) iin iall
isituations iwhere ino iinterim iremedy iis isought.
Section i12A istates ithat i(a) iwhen ithe iplaintiff idoes inot iseek iinterim
irelief iin ithe ilitigation, ihe iis irequired ito iemploy ithe imediation
iprocess. iThe iprocedure iis ioutlined iin ithe iAct iand iRules; i(b) ias iper
ithe isanction ior ipermission ior iauthorization igranted iby ithe iCentral
iGovernment, ivarious iauthorities i(e.g. iNALSA, iSALSA, iDLSA,
iTLSC) iestablished iunder ithe iAct iof i1987, imay ibe iused ifor isuch
ikind iof imediation imechanism iprior ito ithe iinstitution iof ithe iCase;
i(c) ithe iauthorities imust icomplete ithe ipre-institution imediation
iprocess iwithin ithree imonths; i(d) iwhere ithe iprocess iis inot icompleted
iand iboth iparties i(e) iThe iterm iof ipreinstitution imediation ishall ibe
iconsidered iin ithe icalculation iof ithe iperiod iof ilimitation iunder ithe
iLimitation iAct iof i1963.

C. Why iearly isettlement iof icommercial icontracts iis irequired

According ito ithe iSupreme iCourt iin iAmbalal's iCase19, ithe iexpeditious
idisposition iof ithe icases iof iplaintiffs, iparticularly ithose iinvolved iin
icommerce/business iand itrade, ileads ito ithe ination's ieconomic
iprosperity. iThe iprompt iresolution iof isuch imatters iby ithe icourts iwill

43
 P a g e i| i44

isend ia ipositive imessage ito ithe icommercial ifraternity, iand ithose iwho
iinvest ior iintend ito iinvest iwill inot ihave ito iworry iabout ithe idelay
iand iloss idue ito iinvestment istalemate, iand iit iwill ihelp ito irestore
iIndia's ilegal isystem's ipositive iimage. iGiven ithe imassive ibacklog iof
iother icases i(as idetailed iin iChapters iII, iVIII, iand iIX), iit iis
iimpossible ito ipredict ihow ilong iit iwill itake ito iresolve icommercial
iconflicts iif ithey iare ileft ito ithe isame iCourts. iMediation ihas
ipreviously iproven ito ibe ieffective iin ithe iresolution iof icommercial
iconflicts. iGiven ithe ilarge inumber iof icases ipending iand ithe ibenefits
iof imediation, iit iwas ithought inecessary ito iestablish ispecial
iCommercial iCourts iand ito iinclude imandatory imediation iprovisions
iin ipre-litigation icases.

D. Impact iof ienactment iand irecent iscenario

According ito idata, i2944 iPre-litigation iapplications iwere ireceived iup

ito i01.09.2020, iand ia itotal iof i250 iapplications iwere iestablished
iwithin ia imonth, ii.e. iup ito i30.09.2020, iin ithe imediation iCentres iof
ivarious idistricts iin iMaharashtra. iThis imovement iduring ithe iCovid-19
ipandemic isuggests ithat ithis ipre-litigation iforum imight ioperate
isuccessfully iin iIndia. iIt imay ialso ibe ibeneficial. iIndia iwill ibe iranked
ibetter iin ithe i"World iBank's iease iof idoing ibusiness icategory." iAs ia
iresult, ithere iis ievery ichance ithat iIndia iwill iprofit ifrom ithe inew
iADR ilegislation.

E. Conclusion

The ibusiness iCourts iAct ihas imade iit ipossible ifor ibusiness ilitigants
ito ireach ipre-trial iand ipost-trial iagreements. iThe icourts ihave inow
iimplemented ionline imediation iand iLok-Adalat. iThis ieffort iby ithe
icourts imay ilikely ihasten ithe iresolution. iThe iparties iand itheir
icounsel iare inot irequired ito iphysically iattend icourt iand imay idedicate
itheir ivaluable itime ito ithe idevelopment iof itheir ibusiness ior iwork,
iwhich iindirectly ihelps ito inational iprosperity. iThe iold iimage iof
iclients iwaiting i(from iten io'clock iin ithe imorning ito isix io'clock iin

44
 P a g e i| i45

ithe ievening) iin iand iout iof icourt irooms ifor itheir icounsel iand icase
imay isoon ibecome ian iepisode iof ithe ipast i(history), iif ilitigants iseize
ithe ichance iand igive iADR ia ireal ieffort.

45
 P a g e i| i46

CHAPTER i9: iNECESSITY iOF iADR iTOOLS iIN

iINDIA

A. Rationale ifor iadaptation iof iADR

ADR iis ian ieffort iby ilaw imakers iand icourts iin iIndia ito irealize ithe
iConstitutional iobjective iof iperfect ijustice. iA ithinking iprocess ithat
ioriginated ias ia imeans iof idealing iwith idocket ioverload ihas
isubsequently iexpanded iinto ia inew idiscipline idedicated ito ivarious isorts
iof imethods ifor iresolving idisputes ioutside iof ithe iformal ilegal isystem
i(FLS). iThe ilogic ibehind ithe iADR imechanism iis ithat isociety, ithe istate,
iand ithe idisputant ishould iall iaccept iequal iresponsibility ifor iquickly
iresolving ithe iconflict, iand ithat ithey ishould itry ito ieradicate iit ias isoon
ias ipossible, ibefore iit idisrupts ithe ipeaceful iatmosphere iof ithe ihouse,
ifamily, isociety, icommunity, ibusiness, iand, ieventually, ihumanity.

Some ischolars iwho iare ihostile ito iADR itools ifeel ithat iif ithe inumber iof
icases iin icourts idecreases, iso iwill ithe idemand ifor ian iADR imethod.
iThey ialso isuggest ithat iif ilitigation iexpenses iare ireduced, ithe idemand
ifor i"alternative iconflict iresolution imechanisms" iwill idiminish.

This ibasis iis iflawed iin imy iopinion ifor itwo ireasons. iTo ibegin iwith,
ithe iestablishment iof icases iwill inever icease. iIt iwill icontinue ito irise ias
ia iresult iof icommercialization, icorporate iexpansion, icompetition, iand
imore ilegal iknowledge. iSecond, iit iwill ialways ibe iimpossible ito iresolve
idisputes isuccessfully iusing isolely ithe icourt itrial isystem. iADR ioffers
iseveral iadvantages iover ithe itraditional icourt itrial iformat. iIt iaids iin ithe
iexpeditious idisposition iof icases. iIt iprevents ithe iinitiation iof
iproceedings isuch ias iappeals, imodifications, iand iso ion, ihence ilowering
ithe iexpense iof ilitigation. iIt ialso iprevents iany ipossible iconflict ibetween
ithe iparties.

There iis ialso ithe iviewpoint ithat iall itypes iof idifficulties icannot ibe
iresolved ioutside iof ithe icourt, iand ihence iissues imust ibe itried iin
icourts. iThis igroup iin ifavor iof ithis iargument ioverlooks ithe ifact ithat
isome isituations icannot ibe idecided iby ithe icourts iand imust ibe isettled

46
 P a g e i| i47

ioutside iof ithe icourts. iSuits ifor iinjunctions iare ia iprominent iexample iof
isuch iconflicts, iin iwhich ithe icourts icannot icontrol iand ioversee ithe
icompliance iwith ia iruling ior iorder.

The imajor itechnique ifor isettling idisputes iis ithrough iADR itools/methods
ithat iresult iin ia isettlement ioutside iof ia icourt iof ilaw. iADR ican ialso ibe
iused ito isettle ipending iand iunfiled icases. iADR ihas ibeen iused ito isettle
ithe iclaims. iThe iCases iare inot iseeded, icultivated, ior iconcluded iin iorder
ito iprovide ifood ior imaterial ito iADR. iSome ilawsuits iare ibrought iin
icourt iand ipushed ito itrial iin iorder ito idrag ithe iother iparty iand imake
ihim isuffer. iIn ithis icase, ithe icourts imay ibe iconsidered ito ihave ibeen
iestablished ito iplay ia idirty igame iby icertain iunscrupulous ilitigants.
iSimilarly, icertain iinstances iare ieither inon-adjudicable ior inon-triable.
iBecause iof isuch isituations ibefore ithe icourts, iother icases ido inot
ireceive iappropriate itime iand ichance ifor ihearing iand idisposition. iThis
iis ithe iprimary ireason iwhy ithe iADR imechanism imust ifunction iin
iunison iwith, irather ithan ias ia ireplacement ito, ithe icourt itrial iprocess.

Dispute iresolution iprocedures ihave ialways ibeen ioutside iof ithe ilegal
isystem, ibut ithey iwere inever ias iprevalent iin icivil ilife ias ithey iare inow.
iThese imethods iare ibeing idebated iby ilegal iexperts, icommunity ileaders,
iand icorporate iexecutives.

On ithe ione ihand, iancient i(i.e., iVedic iand iAncient iperiod) iconflict
iresolution isystems iare ibeing irevised, iwhile inew iways iare ibeing
ideveloped ito imeet ithe idemands iof isociety. iAccording ito ithe ifindings,
ithese ialternative iconflict iresolution imechanisms ioperate ias ia iseparate
ientity, inot ias ia ireplacement ifor ithe icourt isystem. iADR idevices ihave
ithe ipotential ito ibe iemployed iin ievery iaspect iof ilife iwhere ithere iis ithe
ipossibility iof iconflict, ia ipotential ithat iis ijust iwaiting ito ibe irealized.

The iconcept iof ijustice iis ireflected iin ithe iPreamble iof ithe iIndian
iConstitution. iIt iensures ifairness iin iall ispheres, iincluding isocial,
ieconomic, iand ipolitical. iAs ia iresult, ithe iconstitution's imandate iis ito
iensure ijustice. iArticle i39A iof ithe iIndian iConstitution ipromises ifree
ilegal iaid ito ithe ipoor iand ivulnerable ielements iof isociety, ias iwell ias

47
 P a g e i| i48

iequal ijustice ifor ieveryone. iAccording ito iArticles i14 iand i22(1), ithe
iState imust iensure iequality ibefore ithe ilaw iand ia ijudicial isystem ithat
ifosters ijustice ion ithe ibasis iof iequal iopportunity ifor iall ipeople. iIndia iis
ia icountry idevoted ito iupholding ijustice iand idefending icitizens'
isocioeconomic iand icultural irights. iIt iis icritical ito iaddress iconflicts ias
isoon ias ipossible iin iorder ito iachieve ithis iconstitutional ipurpose.
iBecause ithe icourts ialone icannot ihandle ithe ilarge ibacklog iof icases, ithe
iaim ican ibe iefficiently ireached ithrough ithe iemployment iof iADR
iprocedures. iThese iare ithe ifundamental ireasons ifor iADR's ideployment
iin iIndia.

B. Merits iand iDemerits iof iADR

The imerit iof ithe iADR iincludes i–
1. Some ithings icannot ibe idetermined iby ithe icourt, ibut ithey ican ibe
ivery isuccessfully idecided iwith ithe iconsent iof ithe iparties
ithrough ithe ivarious iforms iof iADR.
2. Because iADR iestablishes itime ilimits ifor isettlement iefforts iby
ithe iArbitrator, iConciliator, iLok-Adalat, iand iMediation, iit ihas ithe
iinherent iability ito iprovide iswift ijustice.
3. Parties iappreciate iADR ibecause iit iallows ithem ito idraft itheir
iown ijudgment iwith ithe iassistance iof ia ilegal iprofessional
i(officially iknown ias ian iArbitrator, iConciliator, iLok-Adalat, ior
iMediator). i
4. It ihas ino iprocedural ibarriers, iand ithe iexpert i(Arbitrator,
iConciliator, iLok- iAdalat, iand iMediation) iis ifree ito ichoose ithe
iprocess ithat ibest isuits ithe isituation iof ithe iindividual iproblems
ibefore ihim.
5. ADR isaves ithe iparties' imoney, itime, iand ienergy, iwhich iare
itypically iwasted iand isquandered iin ithe icourt ilitigation itrial
isystem. iAs ia iresult, iADR iindirectly ihelps ilitigants imaintain
itheir ihealth iand ilive istress-free ilives.
6. iIn igeneral, ithe iState ibears ithe iexpense iof iADR i(i.e. ithe icharge
iof ithe iAdvocate iMediator).
7. ADR iaids iin ithe irestoration iof irelationships.

48
 P a g e i| i49

8. ADR idestroys ithe iego, ias iseen iby iparties icrying itogether iand
iapologizing.
9. ADR iaids iin ithe iformation iof inew ibonds iand iagreements, iso
iavoiding ifuture idisputes.
10. ADR ialso iallows ithe iparties ito iresolve iall irelated imatters ithat
iwere inot icovered iin itheir ipleadings ifiled iwith ithe icourts.
11. The iprocedure iis iquite iadaptable. iThere iis ia iswitching ifacility
iprovided. iThe iparties imay ireturn ito icase itrial imode. iThey iare
ifree ito idiscontinue iADR iat iany itime iand ireturn ito icourt.
12. The iparties ihave ithe ioption ito idisclose isecret iinformation, iwhich
iare inever ireleased.
13. ADR iis iassisting iin ithe irestoration iof ithe iimage iof ithe ijustice
idelivery isystem.
14. ADR iis ian iextra idispute iresolution iprocess, iand iso iforth.

In iterms iof iADR's idrawbacks, ithey iare irather iminor iand ireadily
iremedied. iOne iof ithese iflaws iis ithat iit iwas iexploited iby inumerous
iparties ito ipostpone ithe isubject. iIn icertain isituations, ithe iparties iare
iforced ito iincur iadditional icosts iin ithe iform iof iArbitration,
iConciliation, iand iMediation ifees iand icharges. iHowever, iin isome
icircumstances, ithe iparties imay ibe iable ito iafford, iand ithe icourt iorders
ithe iparties ifor ipayment ionly iwhen ithey iare iwilling ito isuffer ithe
iexpenses, iand iproblems iare inot ireferred iunless ithe iparties iagree ito
ifund ithe iexpenses iof iADR.

49
 P a g e i| i50

CHAPTER i10: iCONCLUSION, iFINDINGS,

iCRITICISM iAND iSUGGESTION i

A. Introduction
Mediation, iarbitration, iand iLok iAdalat iwere ieffective iADR imechanisms
iin ithe iadministration iof ijustice iin iancient iIndia. iThe iADR itools iwere
iemployed ias iprimary itechniques iof iconflict isettlement irather ithan ias ia
ibackup iplan. iAs ia iresult, iit iwould ibe imore iacceptable ito irefer ito
iADR iinstruments ias isuitable ior isupplementary iconflict iresolution
imechanisms. iFrom i1600 ito i1947, iADR itechniques iwere ithe iresult iof
ithe iBritish iformal ilegal isystem. iVarious ilaws, irules, iregulations,
ischemes, iand iaction iplans ihave irecently ibeen ialtered, ireplaced,
iabolished, iand iintroduced iwith ithe igoal iof iusing iADR iinstruments iin
iselected iPre iand iPost ilitigation. iThe ireferral iof ilitigation ito ian iADR
iforum ihas ibeen imade imandatory iin icertain itypes iof idisputes. i

B.Findings
ADR iTools iArbitration, iConciliation, iLok-Adalat, iand iMediation ihave
iall ibeen idemonstrated ito ibe ieffective idispute iresolution itools. iThe iLok
iAdalat ischemes iare ihelpful. iLitigants idraft itheir iown ijudgments iin ithe
iform iof isettlement iagreements iwith ithe iassistance iof ian iArbitrator,
iConciliator, iMediator, iand iLok-Adalat. iADR iaids iin ithe itimely
idisposition iof ithe ilis iand icase. iParties ireceive ijustice iwithout ilosing
ithe icase ior itheir irelationship iwith ione ianother. iThe iratio iof isettlement
iby iMediator, iPenal iof iLok iAdalat, iConciliators, iand iArbitral iAwards
iin iall iStates idemonstrates ithe isuccess iof iADR. iADR ifacilitates iquick
iresolution. iIt irequires iless iinfrastructure ithan itraditional icourtrooms,
ichambers, idistinct isections/departments iof icourts, iand iso iforth. iAs ia
iresult, iADR iforums iare ialso imore iprofitable ifor ithe igovernment. iThe
iADR iprocess ihas ievolved iinto iits iown iinstitution. iWhen ithe iratio iof
iCourt iestablishment iand idisposition iof icases iis icompared ito ithe iADR
iforum, iit iis iclear ithat iADR iis ifar imore ieffective ithan ithe iCourt

50
 P a g e i| i51

isystem. iThe iLok-Adalat ihas iresolved ia iconsiderable inumber iof iMACT

iclaims, iNI iAct iproblems, ifamily idifficulties, iand iother iissues. iIt isaved
ithe iparties' itime iand imoney.

According ito ithe ireport, iin icertain icases, ijustice ihas ibeen icompromised
iin ithe iLok-Adalat iin ithe idash ifor ia iquick isettlement. iThe idecision
iwas iforced ion ithe ilitigants irather ithan ibeing ireached ivia imutual
iagreement. iOn ithe ibasis iof ihis imother's ipursis, ithe iparticulars iof
icharge iof ithe iChild i(juvenile) iwere irecorded iwithout ihearing ihim iin
ihis iabsence, iand ia ifinding iof iadmission iof iguilt iwas irecorded. iEven
ithe ifundamental iright ito ihear iwas iviolated. iMany ipanelists iwere
iobserved ifunctioning ias ijudges iin icases iheard iby iLok iAdalat. iThere
iare icases iof iawards ibeing imade iwithout ithe iknowledge ior iapproval iof
iall ipersons iinvolved. iThere ihave ibeen icases iwhere ia icase iwas iheard,
ian iaward iwas iproduced, iand ithe iparties iwere iinstructed ito isign ithe
isettlement iagreement iwithout ifirst igaining iconsensus.

C. Result iof iInvestigation iinto iSpecific iQuestions

1 Whether iadaptation iof iADR iwill ireduce iworkload iof icourts?--
iYES
2 Whether iADR iis ihelpful iin iensuring ispeedy ijustice?--- iYES
3 Whether iADR itool iin ispeeding iup idisposal, iadversely
icompromising iwith ijustice idelivery? i---- iIn isome icases, iit ihas
ibeen ifound ithat iADR iforum iwas imisused. iBut isuch iinstances
iare irare iand ican ibe iavoided iby iframing isuitable irules. iThey
ican ibe icorrected iby iHigh iCourt iand iSupreme iCourt ialso iunder
ithe iwrit ijurisdiction. iWhole iADR ior iJudicial isystem ican’t ibe
iblamed. iTherefore, iit ican inot ibe isaid ithat iADR itool iin
ispeeding iup idisposal, iadversely icompromising iwith ijustice
idelivery
4 Whether iADR ican ibe iproved ito ibe ia isound ihelping ihand ito
ipoor, idowntrodden, iand ithe isocially i& ieconomically
idisadvantaged igroup?---YES
5 Whether ito iget imatter ireferred ito iADR i? i-----YES iMUST

51
 P a g e i| i52

D. Criticism
1. In imany icircumstances, iparties iuse iADR itechniques ito
ipostpone imatters.
2. It ihas ibeen iseen ithat imany iinstances ihave isimply ibeen
isubmitted ito iADR i[such ias imediation iand iLok iAdalat] iin
iorder ito icomplete ithe iquota ior ifollow ithe idirective. iIt iwas
ialso idiscovered ithat icertain iof ithe icriminal iissues iunder
iconsideration iwere inot icompoundable iunder isection i320 iof
ithe iCr.P.C. iThey iwere iunsuitable ifor ihabitation.
3. iInstead iof ifilling ithe ipositions, ithe iADR iwork ihas ibeen
iassigned ito ithe isame ijudges. iJudges iwho iare ialready
ioverworked iare iunable ito idevote imuch itime ito iADR i[such
ias imediation iduring iworking ihours].
4. iInadequate iinfrastructure iexists ifor iADR isessions.
5. The igovernment iregards ithe ijudiciary ias ia ineglected ison, ias
ievidenced iby ivacancies iin ithe icourts iand ia ilack iof ibasic
ifacilities.
6. Few ipeople iare iaware iof iADR itools.
7. ADR idoes inot iwork iwhen ithe iparties idemand ia ijudicial
idecision.
8. ADR iis iineffective iwhen iparties ilack iauthority.
9. iParties' ilack iof ifaith iin ithe imediator i(e.g., idoubts iabout ihis
ipractice ior ipower) irenders imediation iineffective.
10. ADR iis iineffective iwhen ithe imediator, iconciliator, iarbitrator,
ior ipunitive ijudge iis inot itrained iand iknowledgeable iin ithe
irelevant ifield iof iADR iand ilegislation.

E.Suggestions
1. In ithe iLok iAdalat, ithe ipanel ishould iavoid iadjudication ior
iimposition iof iits iconclusion. iIt ibreeds iindifference. iLitigants
iwill ilose itrust iin ithe iLok iAdalat. iPresiding iofficers ishould
ibe iproperly itrained ifor ithis ipurpose. iThe iJharkhand iHigh

52
 P a g e i| i53

iCourt ihas ifurther isaid ithat iretired idistrict icourt ijudges

ifunctioning ias imembers iof ithe iPermanent iLok iAdalat ishall
ineither iact ior iconduct ilike ia ijudge iof iany icourt.
2. Increasing ipublic iknowledge iabout iLok-Adalat: i- iThe istudy
idemonstrates ithat ithe iLok-Adalat imay ibe iused ias ithe
iprimary ivenue ifor ithe iadministration iof ijustice iby ithe ipeople
iof iIndia. iThere iis ia ineed ito iraise ipublic iknowledge iamong
icitizens, iattorneys, iand ijudges. iThe ibenefits iof iADR imust
ibe ishared. iThere iis istill ia isegment iof ithe ipopulation ithat iis
iunaware iof ithe iLok-Adalat's ivalue iowing ito iilliteracy, iliving
iin idistant iareas, iand iother isocio-economic idisadvantages.
iThere iare istill isome iisolated iareas iand ivillages ithat iare ifar
ifrom ithe iTaluka icourts iand ioffices/legal iassistance iclinics iof
ithe iTaluka iLegal iServices iCommittees.
3. There iis ia ineed ito iraise ipublic iawareness, iwhich imay ibe
iaccomplished iby iutilizing ithe iservices iof iGram iPanchayats,
iSarpanchs, iand iother irevenue idepartments.
4. Definition iof iADR itools: iA iclear idefinition iof iADR itools,
isuch ias iarbitration, iLok iAdalat, imediation, iand iconciliation,
iis irequired. iThe icurrent ilegislation idoes inot idefine iit
iprecisely. iFor iexample, ithe idefinition iof i"Arbitration" iin ithe
iAC iAct iof i1996 iis iunclear isince iit idoes inot ispecify iwhat
iis imeant iby iarbitration.As ia iresult, ithe idefinitions iof
i"Arbitration," i"Conciliation," i"Mediation," iand i"Lok-Adalat"
imay ibe iintegrated iin ithe idefinition ipart iof iall iassociated
ienactments i(Arbitration iAct, iCPC, ietc.).
5. Establishing iEthical iStandards iand iConduct iRules: iIt iis
icritical ito iestablish iethical istandards iand iconduct irules ifor
iAdvocate iMediators, iConciliators, iArbitrators, iLok iAdalat
iPenal iMembers, iand iStaff. iThis iis inecessary ito irestore itrust
iin ithe iADR isystem iand ito iavoid imalpractice ior iother
iunethical iconduct iby iindividuals iwho iare inot imembers iof
ithe ijudiciary.

53
 P a g e i| i54

6. Establishing inorms, iregulations, iand ia istandard isystem ifor

ihearing iand iadjudicating idisciplinary icomplaints iagainst
iArbitrator, iMediator, iConciliator, iand iPenal imembers iof iLok-
Adalat iADR:- iThere iare ino irules, iregulations, ior iprocedures
iin iplace ito ibegin ior iregulate idisciplinary iaction iagainst
ierroneous, inegligent, ior imalicious iArbitrator, iMediator,
iConciliator, ior iPenal imembers iof iLok-Adalat iADR iwho iare
inot imembers iof ithe iState ior iUnion iJudiciary. iIt iis
icustomary ito idesignate iJudges, iRetired iJudges, iAdvocates,
iSocial iWorkers, iTeachers, iProfessors, iand iother igovernment
iemployees ito ithe iPenal iof iLok-Adalat, iArbitration,
iConciliation, iand iMediation ito idecide/mediate imatters
ipresented ito ithem iby ithe iCourts iand iTribunal. iWhen isuch
icases icome ibefore ithe icourts i(in iwrit), ithe icustomary
iapproach iis ito iannul ior iset iaside ithe iaward ithat iwas imade
ifraudulently, imaliciously, ior iin idisregard iof iaccepted ilaw,
ietc. iIn isuch icircumstances, iif ithe iperpetrators iare isitting
iJudges, idisciplinary iprocedures iare ipursued iby ijurisdictional
iHigh iCourts iand ithe iSupreme iCourt, ibut ithe iother itype iof
ipanelists imay iget iaway iwith iit, iundermining ithe ibasic
ifoundation iof iordinary iman's ifaith iand itrust iin ithe ivarious
iADR imechanisms. iAs ia iresult, irules, iregulations, iand
iprocedures ifor iadjudicating idisciplinary icomplaints imust ibe
ideveloped, ias iwell ias iclauses ispecifying idefined iappropriate
ilegal iaction, iincluding ipunishments/fines, ietc., iagainst isuch
ierrant/mischievous iindividuals.

F. Implications iof ithe iStudy

1. This istudy iwill ipave ithe iway ifor ithe ithought ito igive iADR
igreater iweightage.
2. It iwill iinspire ipolicymakers ito ialter icurrent ilegislation ito
imake iADR ithe iprimary imeans iof iconflict isettlement, iwith
icourt icases iserving ias ia ilast iresort.

54
 P a g e i| i55

3. iIt iwill iassist ijudges, iattorneys, imediators, iarbitrators,

iconciliators, iand iLok-Adalat ipanels iin iresearching iand
ieliminating ithe ierroneous ipractices ioutlined iin ithis ithesis.
4. This iresearch iwill iinstill itrust iin ilitigants iregarding iADR iand
ithe icourt isystem.
5. iThis iresearch iwill iassist ithe iparties iand ilawyers iin
idetermining iif itheir icases iare iappropriate ifor iADR.
6. This iresearch iwill iassist ilegislators iin ifilling igaps iand
ideveloping iappropriate ilegislation iand iamendments. i
7. This iresearch iwill iassist istudents, iinstructors, iprofessors, iand
iother iacademics iin ilocating ieverything i(e.g., ilegislation,
iregulations, irule ischemes, iand iso ion) iunder ione iroof.

G. Limitations iof ithe iStudy

a. The ieveryday ilives iof ilitigating iparties iand itheir ifamily ihave ibeen
isubstantially iimpacted ias ithe inumber iof ioutstanding icases iin iIndia
ihas iincreased. iAs ia iresult, ithe iadvancement iof iassociated
iindividuals iand isociety iin igeneral ihas islowed.
b. In ilight iof ithis icircumstance, ithe icurrent istudy iexamines ithe
iefficiency iof iADR iin ireducing ithe ipendency iof icases iand
iexpediting itheir idisposition. iTo ithat ipurpose, ithe iresearch iwill ialso
iaddress icertain ispecific idevelopments iin ithe isocial iand ilegal ilives
iof iIndian icitizens ifrom ithe iVedic iperiod iand i300 iBC ito i2021.
c. The ifocus iof ithe iresearch iis ilimited ito istudying ithe iAlternative
iDispute iResolution isystem ithat iis icurrently iin iuse iin iIndia iand iits
irelationship ito ithe ipractices iof iother idemocratic inations.
d. The inon-empirical istudy iin ithis iresearch iis ilimited ito iten iHigh
iCourts ithroughout iIndia, iwhere ia icase istudy iof i23 idisposed iissues,
isix ienactments, ieleven ibooks, inineteen iarticles, iseven ireports, ithree
inewsletters, iand iabout i26 ionline isources iwere ireviewed.
iFurthermore, ithe ireport iincludes ian iexamination iof iexisting iADR
ilegislation ias iwell ias inumerous iideas ito iminimize iADR imisuse iand
iremedy igaps iin iexisting irules iand ilaws.

55
 P a g e i| i56

e. As ia iresult, ithe iscope iof ithis istudy iis iconfined ito iinvestigating ithe
iimpact ion ithe ipeople iof iIndia.

H. Suggestions ifor ifuture iResearch

a. This iresearch iwill ipave ithe iway ifor ifuture iresearchers ito iexplore
iany ico-subject idealt iwith iby ime iand ido iadditional iresearch.
b. To iestablish imy iperspective ion ithe icurrent ilegislation iand iflaws iin
iIndia's iADR isystem, iI ihave iconducted idoctrinal istudy. iOther
irelated iissues, ilike ithe i"Fixation iof iAge iCriteria" iin iaddition ito
itheir icredentials iand iexperiences ifor ithe iappointment ias iarbitrators,
iconciliators, imediators, iand iLok-Adalat ipanelists, ihave inot ibeen
icovered iby ime ibecause ithat iis ia itopic ifor ifuture iempirical
iresearch i(survey).
c. Another irelated iproblem ithat iI idid inot iaddress iwas ithe ifitness iof
iretired ijudges iand ipublic iworkers ifor iappointments ias imediators,
iconciliators, iarbitrators, ior iLok-Adalat ipanels. iHowever, ifurther
istudy ion ithis itopic ican ibe idone iin ithe ifuture.

I. Conclusion

The igoal iof ithe icurrent istudy iwas ito iinvestigate iand ievaluate ifive ikey
iconcerns, inamely i(1) iWill ithe icourts' iworkload idecrease ias ia iresult iof
iADR iadoption? iDoes ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) icontribute
ito iprompt ijustice? i(3) iDoes ithe iuse iof iADR ias ia itool ito iexpedite
idisposal inegatively iimpact ithe iadministration iof ijustice? i(4) iIs iADR ia
iuseful iaid ifor iunderprivileged, ioppressed, iand isocially iand
ieconomically imarginalized igroups? iand i(5) iThe iaforementioned iqueries
iappear ito ihave ileft iplaintiffs iwondering i"whether ito iget imatter
ireferred ito iADR ior inot"? iNotwithstanding iinstances iof iabuse iby
icunning ilitigants, ithe iresults iof ithe istudy ishow ithat ialternative idispute
iresolution i(ADR) ihas iseveral iadvantages. iIts ispecial iqualities imight

56
 P a g e i| i57

imake iit ithe imain iway ithat ijustice iis iadministered. iIt ihas ithe ipotential
ito iboth ilessen ithe iworkload iof icourts iand igive ijustice ito iall isocial
iclasses. iIt iis iof igreat iassistance ito ithe iunderprivileged iand ishould ibe
iconsulted iin iorder ito iresolve ilegal iissues ior idisputes iin ia itimely,
iequitable, iand iless iexpensive imanner.

57
 P a g e i| i58

1
M.K. iGandhi, i“An iAutobiography”, i(1959), ip.97; iand iAppendix iII iof
iGandhiji‟s iThoughts ion ithe iLaw iand ithe iLawyers
2
iHolland: iJurisprudence, i(13th ied), ip.21.
3
iLlyod: iintroduction ito iJurisprudence, ip.42.
4
iLaxmi iKant iGaur iJoint iRegistrar iRules) iHigh iCourt iof iDelhi, i“Why iI
iHate iAlternative‟ iin iAlternative iDispute iResolution”
ihttps://delhicourts.nic.in/ddcsaket/images/Why_I_Hat1.pdf i(last ivisited ion i05-
01-2021).
5
iConjoint ireading iof iArticle i14, i21, i22 i(1) iand i39A iof ithe iConstitution iof
iIndia
6
iSection i12A iof ithe iIndian iCommercial iCourts, iCommercial iDivision iand
iCommercial iAppellate iDivision iof iHigh iCourts iAct, i2015
7
iA. iAhmed iPasha iAnd iAnr. iVs iC. iGulnaz iJabeen ireported iin iAIR i2001
iKant i412
9 i
Anuj iKumar, i“Learn iLaw: iThe iConcept iof iAlternative iResolution”,
iFebruary i8, i2017https://legaldesire.com/learn-law-the-concept-of-alternative-
dispute-resolution/ i(last iaccessed ion i18/10/2023).
10
ihttps://www.slideshare.net/Dharmikpatel7992/adr-final-project-24274533(last
ivisited ion iOctober i18, i2023)
11 i
Anuj iKumar, i“Learn iLaw: iThe iConcept iof iAlternative iResolution”,
iFebruary i8, i2017https://legaldesire.com/learn-law-the-concept-of-alternative-
dispute-resolution/ i(last iaccessed ion i18/10/2023).
12
Sharyn iRoach iAnleau i& iWilfred iPrest, iLitigation: iPast iand iPresent, i2004,
iUniversity iof iNSW iPress iLtd, iSydney, ip.1
13
iSh. iAbdul iSaliq iKhan ivs iShri. iNahid iKhan i& iOrs., idate i25 iFebruary,
i2011, iby iDelhi iHigh iCourt i

14&15
iThe iCivil iProcedure iADR iand iMediation iRules, i2006 iRule i4 i(Bombay
iHigh iCourt).
16 i
Durga iDas iBasu, iShorter iConstitution iof iIndia, iLexis iNexis, iButterworths,
iWadhwa, i14th iedn., i2009
17
iSection i89 iof ithe iCivil iProcedure iCode i[Amendment iJuly i2002]
18
iAmbalal iSarabhai iEnterprises iLtd. iv. iK.S. iInfraspace iLLP i2019 iSCC
iOnline iSC i1311

58
 P a g e i| i59

19 i
Ambalal iSarabhai iEnterprises iLtd. iv. iK.S. iInfraspace iLLP i2019 iSCC
iOnline iSC i1311

LIST iOF iABBREVIATIONS

PCA i: iPermanent iCourt iof iArbitration

WTO i: iWorld iTrade iOrganization
ICC i: iInternational iChamber iof iCommerce
CAS i: iCourt iof iArbitration ifor iSport
UNCITRAL i: iUnited iNations iCommission ion iInternational iTrade iLaw
CRPD i: iConvention ion ithe iRights iof iPersons iwith iDisabilities i2008
ADR i: iAlternative iDispute iResolution
SCC i: iSupreme iCourt iCases
EMD i: iEuropean iMediation iDirective
JSTOR i: iJournal iStorage
SCLSC i: iSupreme iCourt iLegal iServices iCommittee
HCLSC i: iHigh iCourt iLegal iServices iCommittee
NALSA i: iNational iLegal iServices iAuthority
SLSA i: iState iLegal iServices iAuthority
DLSA i: iDistrict iLegal iServices iAuthority
TLSA i: iTaluka iLegal iServices iAuthority
PLA i: iPermanent iLok-Adalat
PLV i: iPara iLegal iVolunteer
AIR i: iAll iIndia iReporter
Cri iLJ i: iCriminal iLaw iJournal
W.P. i: iWrit iPetition
W.P.(C) i: iWrit iPetition-Civil
W.P.(Cr) i: iWrit iPetition-Criminal
SLP i: iSpecial iLeave iPetition
Anr. i: iAnother
LAC i: iLegal iAid iClinics
LSC i: iLegal iScheme iClinics
FC iAct, i1984 i: iThe iFamily iCourts iAct i1984
HM iAct, i1955 i: iHindu iMarriage iAct, i1955

59
 P a g e i| i60

NALSA i(LSMPPMD) iScheme, i2010 iNational iLegal iServices iAuthority

i(Legal iServices ito ithe iMentally iill ipersons i& ipersons iwith iMental
iDisabilities) iScheme, i2010
iCP i-ADR i& iMediation iRules, i2006 iCivil iProcedure i– iAlternate
iDispute iResolution i& iMediation iRules, i2006
PWD iAct, i1995 iPersons iwith iDisabilities i(Equal iOpportunities,
Protection iof iRights iand iFull iParticipation) iAct, i1995

60
 P a g e i| i61

Bibliography i& iWebliography

A. Primary iSources
1. The iLegal iServices iAuthorities iAct, i1987
2. The iArbitration iand iConciliation iAct, i1996 i(as iamended iby ithe
iAct iof i2019 iand i2020)
3. iCode iof iCivil iProcedure, i1908
4. iSupreme iCourt iLegal iServices iCommittee iRegulations, i1996
5. iThe iCivil iProcedure iADR iand iMediation i(Bombay iHigh iCourt)
iRules, i2006.
6. Indian iCommercial iCourts, iCommercial iDivision iand iCommercial
iAppellate iDivision iof iHigh iCourts iAct, i2015
7. Abul iHassan iAnd iNational iLegal ivs iDelhi iVidyut iBoard i&
iOther, iAIR i1999 iDelhi i88
8. Tata iAIG iGeneral iInsurance iCo. iVS. iMrs.Bandana iDevi, iW.P.(S)
iNo. i2557 iof i i2008
9. Urmila iMasomat ivs iThe iState iof iBihar, iCriminal iWrit iPetition
iNo.1105 iof i2015
10. Punjab iNational iBank ivs iLaxmichand iRai iAnd iOrs. iAIR i2000
iMP i301, iMadhya iPradesh iHigh iCourt
11. Tulshiram iNivrutthi iShendage i& iOthers ivs iTLSA iMalshiras i&
iOthers iWP iNo. i8891 iof i2012;
12. Municipal iCouncil, iTonk ivs iServe iSeva iSansthan iTonk iAnd
iOrs., iAIR i2004 iRaj i96, iRajasthan iHigh iCourt
13. State iBank iof iIndia ivs iState iOf iJharkhand i& iAnr. ion i9 iApril,
i2009, iW.P.(C) iNo. i1449 iof i2008, iJharkhand iHigh iCourt
14. iState iof iMaharashtra iVs. iSukhdev iSingh iand ianother, i(1992) i3
iSCC i700: iAIR i1992 iSC i2100: i1992 iCri iLJ i3454

B. Secondary iSources
1. Books
- Durga iDas iBasu, iShorter iConstitution iof iIndia, iLexis iNexis,
iButterworths,Wadhwa, i14th iedn., i2009

61
 P a g e i| i62

- R.S. iSharma, iIndia‟s iAncient iPast, iOxford iUniversity iPress,

i2005
- Alternative iDispute iResolution: iWhat iit iis iand iHow iit iWorks,
iUniversal iLaw
- Publishing iCo., iNew iDelhi, i(1997)
- Alternative iDispute iResolution, iPractitioners‟ iGuide, iCentre ifor
iDemocracy iand iGovernance, iWashington, i1998, iEdition
iTechnical iPublication iSeries-March i1998
- Reginald iHeber iSmith, iJustice iand ithe iPoor, i1919
- M.K. iGandhi, iAn iAutobiography, i(1959), ip.97; iand iAppendix iII
iof iGandhiji‟s iThoughts ion ithe iLaw iand ithe iLawyers
- M.P. iJain, iOutlines iof iIndian iLegal iand iConstitutional iHistory,
iLexis iNexis, iButterworths, iWadhwa, i6th iedn., ireprint i2009

2. Articles
- Alternative‟ iin i“Alternative iDispute iResolution”
ihttps://delhicourts.nic.in/ddcsaket/images/Why_I_Hat1.pdf i(last
ivisited ion i05-01-2021).
- Anuj iKumar, i“Learn iLaw: iThe iConcept iof iAlternative
iResolution”, iFebruary i8, i2017 ihttps://legaldesire.com/learn-law-the-
concept-of-alternative-disputeresolution/ i(last iaccessed ion
i18/01/2021).
- Justice iSB iSinha, iFormar iJudge iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia,
i“Alternative
- Dispute iResolution imechanism i& ieffective iimplementation”
ihttps://www. iscribd.com/doc/275443617/Alternative-Dispute-
Resolution-Hon-Ble-Mrjustice- iS-B-Sinha-Former-Judge-Supreme-
Court-of-India i(last ivisited ion i06-01-2021).
- Anurag iK iAgrawal, i“Role iof iAlternative iDispute iResolution
iMethods iin iDevelopment iof iSociety, iIndian iInstitute iof
iManagement iAhmadabad iWP ino. i2005-11-1 iNovember-2005”
ihttps://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/wp i01913.html i(last ivisited ion
i25.12.2020).

62
 P a g e i| i63

- JSTOR, iAmerican iBar iAssociation i“Alternative iDispute

iResolution.” iCompleat iLawyer, ivol. i12, ino. i2, i1995, ipp. i5–6,
iwww.jstor.org/ istable/ i23778837, i(last ivisited ion iOctober, i2020)
- Tim iLambert, i“A ibrief iHistory iof iIndia”,
ihttp://www.localhistories.org/india.html i(last ivisited ion iDecember
i28, i2020).
- Yogesh i“Essay ion iAdministrative iSystem iof iGuptas”,
ihttp://www.preservearticles.com/2011081610828/essay-on-the-
administrative-systemof- iguptas.html i(last ivisited ion iDecember i1,
i2020)
- Shivraj iS. iHuchhanavar, i“In iSearch iof iTrue iAlternative ito
iExisting iJustice iDispensing iSystem iin iIndia” iNALSAR iLaw
iReview i[Vol.7: iNo.1, i2013]

3. Reports
- The iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia, i“Indian iJudiciary: iAnnual iReport
i2018-19”p.80, i81,83, i129.
- National iJudicial iAcademy i“Intern's iReport ion iconcluded
iprogrammed i2015- i2016” iby iMr. iAishwarya iNigam i(04-01-
2016).pdf i(nja.nic.in) i(last ivisited ion iJanuary i10, i2021).
- Law icommission iof iIndia, i76th iReport iof i1978.
- Irish iReport ion iADR: iMediation iand iConciliation iLRC98-2010.
- Report iof iMediation iMonitoring iCommittee i& iAction iPlan i2010-
2011.
- Nyaya iDeep', ithe iofficial inewsletter iof iNALSA
- Supreme iCourt's iofficial imagazine i'COURT iNEWS', iVol-XIV
iIssue ino.2,April-June, i2019

4. Webliography i(Internet iSources)

- https://legalservices.maharashtra.gov.in/1122/Statistical-Data i(last
ivisited ion iDecember i04, i2020).

63
 P a g e i| i64

- https://nalsa.gov.in/statistics/national-lok-adalat-report/national-lok-
adalat-2020/disposal-of-national-lok-adalat-held-on-08-02-2020-for-
all-types-ofcases i(last ivisited ion iDecember i04, i2020).
- https://nalsa.gov.in/statistics/settlement-through-mediation-april-2019-
tomarch- i2020, i(last ivisited ion iDecember i04, i2020).
- https://nalsa.gov.in/statistics/statement-showing-the-numbers-of-
personsbenefitted- ithrough-legal-services-and-advice-held-by-state-
legal-servicesauthorities- iunder-legal-services-authorities-act-1987-
sinc-inception-as-on-30-06-2017 i(last ivisited ion iDecember i04,
i2020).
- https://nalsa.gov.in/statistics/awareness-camp-programmes-april-2019-
tomarch-2020 i(last ivisited ion iDecember i04, i2020)
- https://main.sci.gov.in/statistics i(last iaccessed ion iJanuary i18,
i2021)25.
- https://www.slideshare.net/Dharmikpatel7992/adr-final-project-
24274533 i(lastly ivisited ion iJanuary i18, i2021)
- https://thelawbrigade.com/company- iaw/commercial-courts-act-2015
ianappraisal/#:~:text=The%20Commercial%20Courts%20Act%2C
%20as%20per%20Statement%20of,about%20the%20independent
%20and%20responsive i%20Indian%20legal%20system. i(last ivisited
ion iJanuary i20, i2021

64