ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL

( A. D. R. )

R. Rammohan Reddy
 
 “To no man will we deny,
to no man will we sell,
or delay, justice
or right”
 
-        Magna Carta – 1215
 Access to Justice
 
 Basic human rights

 Dispensation of Justice - A major

function of the State

 Justice-delivered – Judicial institutions

 Method – Adversary/adjudicatory
( Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence )
 
Adversary / Adjudicatory System:-

Parties fight

Judge, a neutral umpire

 Decision – comparative merit

 Major drawbacks
Parties’ participation – minimum

Technicalities – slow progress

 Expensive

Win-lose situation

 Accumulation of arrears
 Term A.D.R.
 
 
 Developed in USA

 A.D.R.– resolution of
disputes with assistance
of impartial third party
 Common A.D.R. Systems
 
Arbitration

Agreement between the parties

 Award by Arbitrator
 
 Conciliation
 
 Agreement between the parties
 Active role of conciliator
 No award
 Mediation
 Facilitates settlement between
the parties themselves
 
 A.D.R.s
 

Very effective in:-

Domestic

International

Commercial disputes
 A.D.Rs – benefits
 
Low costs and formalities

 Expeditious

Parties’ participation – maximum

 Result – win - win

 
 Limitation of A.D.Rs

Not workable in all disputes/penal offences

Hidden costs

Awards challengeable

 Chances of failure
 Indian Scenario

Ancient India – Disputes/Civil

disputes-settled locally-system
simple

 Institutional delivery
system/Adversary system introduced
by British Rulers
 Constitutional Commitment

Right to fair and speedy justice -

fundamental right (Art. 21)

 Equal justice – free legal aid (Art. 39A)

 Dimension of the problem

Cases pending - end of 2005

High Courts (Civ. And Crl.) – 35,21,283

 Average institution and disposal per

year 14,00,000 – 12,00,000
 District Courts
 
Cases pending - end of 2005 – 2,56,54,251

Average institution per year – 1,60,00,000

(Approx.)

 Average disposal per year - 1,50,00,000

(Approx.)
 
 Strength of Judges
 
 High Courts – 726 – Vacancy – 138
 District Courts (30.06.06) – 14,582 –
vacancy -2860
 
Ratio of Judges – Population

 12/13 Judges per Million

 Recommendation – 50 per Million.
 Expenditure
 India – 0.2% of G.N.P.
U.K. – 4.3% of G.N.P.
U.S.A – 1.4% of G.N.P.
Singapore – 1.20 % of G.N.P.

Half of the expenditure

raised from judiciary itself
  Clearance of backlog –
A distant dream
 Resort to A.D.R.s –
A solution
Arbitration and Conciliation
Act - 1996

Sec. 2 to 43 – Arbitration

 Sec. 61 to 81 - Conciliation
Arbitration :–

Contractual – future and present

dispute
 
Award :–

 Executable – challengeable – limited

ground
 Conciliation
 
Present dispute

Invitation by one – accepted

Conciliator’s role – agreement –

Enforceable
 
Sec. 80 / O. XXVII R. 5B
C.P.C.

 Scope of amicable settlement in suits

involving State – Act of public officer –
Court to assist
Sec. 89 C.P.C.
 Duty of the Court
 Element of settlement – formulation of terms
of settlement – reference to arbitration /
conciliation / Judicial settlement including
settlement through Lok Adalat / Mediation.
 
 (2003) 1 S.C.C., 49
 (2005) 6 S.C.C. , 344
 Lok Adalat
Best performing A.D.R. system

Introduced by Legal Services Authorities

Act, 1987

Periodical Lok Adalats – all disputes

Permanent Lok Adalat – Public utility

Services only
( Not yet established in all states )
Disputes settled within legal
framework through negotiations
 
Active role by Lok Adalat Judges

Organized by State Authority/District

Authority

o Supreme Court L.S. Committee/High Court

L.S. Committee/Taluk L.S. Committee
Disputes settled within legal
framework through negotiations-II
 All cases except non-
compoundable offences
 
Pre-litigation disputes

 Executable decree / no appeal

 Merits of settlement in Lok Adalats
 
No court fees / no costs

Lawyers not essential

Speedy / single day disposal

Involvement of the parties / simple

procedures
Cases settled in Lok Adalats upto
30.09.2006 :–

2, 02, 93, 952

  Nyaya Panchayet
 
An effective ADR

Model bill drafted

 Uniform law in the process

 
 Role of Executive Officers
Sec. 80 C.P.C./ Order 27 Rule 5B C.P.C.

Members of different committees under

L.S.A. Act

 In-house mechanism in all

governmental departments
Aim
Reduction of load from
conventional courts – the demand
of the day
Conclusion
A supplementary
system –
Not a substitute
Thank you