Author Name:   shivaraj

This articles aims to critically evaluate the contribution of Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems in comparison to traditional dispute resolution mechanisms in India....

In search of True ‘Alternative’ to existing Justice Dispensing System in India

"I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature, and to enter men's hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties given as under. The lesson was so indelibly burnt unto me that the large part of my time, during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer, was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing, thereby not even money, certainly not my soul". - - -MahatmaGandhi.

Abstract: With the adoption of the Constitution guaranteeing freedoms to the citizens and the establishment of an independent and powerful judiciary, coupled with power of judicial review, on the other hand, the spread of literacy and the considerable increase in the level of awareness of their social, economic and political rights in larger sections of the population, the pressure on the justice delivery or dispute resolving institutions tremendously increased, the same is reflected by the number of cases that are brought before law courts. The most telling index of the malaise is the sheer size and number of cases pending in courts. While the number of fresh institution of cases steadily increased, the rate of disposal of cases, especially at lower levels, remained static and worse. All these necessitated the search for ‘alternatives’ to court litigation. At the initial stage Lok- Adalat grew with greater intensity but now showing steady decline. Amidst all these, in welfare Society harmonious settlement of dispute is quintessence of progress of the Country. Even though we are not satisfied with existing arrangements (institutions) of Justice dispensing, try for the better one must be our goal. In light of this expediency however another important point to be analyzed is, endeavor to have better one or in deciding that which is suitable to our society must be ascertained only by studying Indian Society, its needs, cultural and social practices and more importantly about the aspiration of people.

In light of these observation it is necessary to analyses whether so called ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution System’ really achieved desired result or not and more than this, identifying which is truly appropriate and adopting the same is the need of an hour. With these objectives this research has been undertaken by the author.

For the efficient functioning of any legal system fundamental requisite is that such system shall be built on the aspirations of the people, law or legal system for that matter will not work in vacuum, for this reason surrounding social conditions will be the deciding factors for adoption or for bringing any change in the legal system. Unfortunately in a developing country like India it is considered to be normative practice to find the solution for our problems (legal) in western jurisprudential thought and practices (it is true at least in regard to Legal restructuring is concerned). In India with a view to overcome the problems of ‘formal legal system’ serious attempt were made and continued to be made, as result of which there is adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution System of Anglo-Saxon style in this country. Thus, post-emergency, the dominant theme of legal reform was translated into sponsoring relatively informal, conciliatory, and alternative institutions alongside the formal judicial mechanism. The early 1980s saw a concerted effort to promote a more indigenous character within the justice dispensing system, and to provide alternatives to the Anglo-Saxon models of adjudication.

In India until now no solemn attempt has been made to identify and to recognize our own system of justice administrations which stood as efficient mechanism of dispute resolution from Vedic Age. This development brought us to such tragedy that, more than 70% cases in rural India even today were solved by traditional Panchayats, in fact these Panchayats were the true aspiration of institutions whereas, foreign made modern ADRs had got statutory recognition even though theywere failed to achieve desired results, except Lok-Adalats anything decipherable had happenedby ADRs in this country.
Today justice dispensing system in India is on twisted road at the one end failure of formal law Courts resulting in backlog of cases, and on the other end ADRs failed to get much need public support, under this circumstance it is essential to rethink on the new ways out for coming generation. Accordingly it is essential in this context to study various forms of ADRs, their development, and mode of working of ADRs so as to assess it pros, cons and applicability to the pluralistic Society of India.

2.1. Alternative Dispute Resolution System
The basic yet pre-eminent question surrounding ADR is this: what is it an ‘Alternative to’? The answer, particularly in India, is that it is the ‘alternative to’ the often tedious, strictly formal legal proceedings in court that is presided over by a state-appointed judge, with counsel representing the parties, and in some cases or jurisdictions, the presence of juries was recognized to be an alternative to the judicial system that has been existence in India. In fact ‘Alternative’ is not Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration but the British System Justice of Administration, for this reason ‘A’ is used as ‘appropriate’ and not as ‘alternative’. The problem with this alternative approach is that there are numerous cultures and communities in many parts of India, where litigation is not the norm and is actually the ‘alternative’. The norms for these people are their own community dispute resolution procedures. Hence, the word ‘alternative’ in ADR seems to be a misnomer as applied.

In India all forms of Lok-Adalat, Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration were prevalent being part of the Legal system from time immemorial. ‘Lok’ means ‘people’ and ‘Adalat’ refers to Court, it is nothing but a ‘people’s Court’, i.e. NayayaPanchayats of those glorious fast of this country. It is approximate 350 years of colonization made our own system as ‘alternative’ and it was brought back in more perverted form as ADRs after Independence.

2.2. Important mechanisms of Alternative Dispute Resolution System
Most commonly used forms of ADRs are Mediation, Conciliation, Arbitration and Lok- Adalats. Let us have eye bird view on these aspects of ADRs.

2.2.1. Mediation:
Of all mankind’s adventures in search of peace and justice, mediation is among the earliest. Long before law was established or Courts were organized, or judges had formulated principles of law, man had resorted to mediation for resolving disputes. Mediation is a process of dispute resolution in which one or more impartial third parties intervenes in a conflict or dispute with the consent of the participants and assists them in negotiating a consensual and informed agreement. It can also be said as a confidential process of negotiations and discussions in which a ‘neutral’ third party or mediator assists in resolving a dispute between two or more parties. Mediation’ is defined as a facilitative process in which “disputing parties engage the assistance of an impartial third party, the mediator, who helps them to try to arrive at an agreed resolution of their dispute. The mediator has no authority to make any decisions that are binding on them, but uses certain procedures, techniques and skills to help them to negotiate an agreedresolution of their dispute without adjudication”. The most essential feature of mediation hasbeen highlighted in the following words “Mediation is negotiation carried out with the assistanceof a third party. The mediator, in contrast to the arbitrator or judge has no power to impose anoutcome on disputing parties”.In resolving the dispute or settlement the general role of the mediator is to facilitatecommunication between the parties, assist them on focusing on the real issues of dispute and togenerate options that meet the respective parties’ interests or needs in an effort to resolve thedispute. The most important feature of Mediation is that it provides a solution that both partiescan live with, instead of a verdict imposed by a court. Both parties are involved in suggestingpossible solutions to the conflict.Mediation is based on the voluntary cooperation and good faith participation of all parties.The mediator cannot force the parties to resolve their differences. But the mediator can help theparties reach a solution agreeable to both of them. If the parties work out all or some of theirdifferences, the resolution – or agreement – is put in writing and signed by both the parties.

Mediation may be able to plow beneath the surface of frequently vexatious litigations by addressing the underlying conflicts. The mediator acts as a bridge to iron the wrinkles of differences affecting the parties. Mediation differs from conciliation on this point that Mediation is not compulsive or legally binding, whereas, conciliation used use as tool of more liberalized or litigant friendly adjudication system where conciliator not only acts as facilitator but draws the binding decision on the basis of submitted fact, and deliberation between the parties. Mediation differs from arbitration, in which the third party (arbitrator) acts much like a judge in an out-of court, less formal setting but does not actively participate in the discussion. Unlike a judge or an arbitrator, a mediator does not decide what is right or wrong or make suggestions about ways to resolve a problem. A mediator seeks to help parties to develop a shared understanding of the conflict and to work toward building a practical and lasting resolution. Mediation serve to identify the disputed issues and to generate options that help disputants reach a mutually satisfactory resolution. It offers relatively flexible processes; and any settlement reached should have the agreement of all parties. This contrasts with litigation, which normally settles the dispute in favour of the party with the strongest argument. Despite the lack of ‘teeth’ (adjudicating) in the mediation process, the involvement of a mediator alters the dynamics of negotiations. Depending on what seems to be impeding (an) agreement, the mediator may attempt to encourage exchange of information, provide new information, help the parties to understand each others’ views, let them to know that their concerns are understood; promote a productive level of emotional expression; deal with differences in perceptions and interest between negotiations and constituents (including lawyer and client); help negotiators realistically, assess alternatives to settlement, learn (often in separate sessions with each party) about those interest the parties are reluctant to disclose to each other and invent solutions that meet the fundamental interests of all parties.

Panchayat system of ancient India can be an example, where we can find the efficacy of mediation as tool of dispute resolution but fundamental distinction lies between both is that Panchayat system is backed by popular support of the whole community and is relatively conclusive and widely respected by the people, that sense of popularity not lies with (modern) mediation. Ancient Panchayat system were so efficient because they were not worried about convenience of parties to the dispute, it is the ‘Dharma’ that binds both disputant party and Pancha (mediators). Pancha(s) not only represents the parties to the dispute but they represent whole community in which they live. That they no more oblige to settle individual interest but community interest is of greater importance to them, henceforth their decision gains popular support to which every member of that community feel obliged. For this reason (Modern) Mediation seems to be toothless and less effective and it is already falling into disused (that has already happened in USA)

2.2.2. Conciliation
Conciliation is “the practice by which the services of a neutral third party are used in a dispute as a means of helping the disputing parties to reduce the extent of their differences and to arrive at an amicable settlement or agreed solution. It is a process of orderly or rational discussion under the guidance of the conciliator”. Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution process whereby the parties to a dispute (including future interest disputes) agree to utilize the services of a conciliator, who then meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve their differences. Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the conciliation process, in and of itself, has no legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no authority to seek evidence or call witnesses, usually writes no decision, and makes no award. Conciliation differs from mediation in that the main goal is to conciliate, most of the time by seeking concessions. In mediation, the mediator tries to guide the discussion in a way that optimizes parties’ needs, takes feelings into account and reframes representations.

In common parlance not much distinction lies between conciliation and mediation. However, statute in India had attached different meanings to these two concepts.
(a) In the year 1996, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was passed and Sec. 30 of that Act, which is in Part I, provides that an arbitral tribunal may try to have the dispute settled by use of ‘mediation’ or ‘conciliation’. Sub-section (1) of sec. 30 permits the arbitral tribunal to “use mediation, conciliation or other procedures”, for the purpose of reaching settlement.
(b) The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 which introduced sec. 89, too speaks of ‘conciliation’ and ‘mediation’ as different concepts. Order 10 Rules 1A, 1B, 1C of the Code also go along with Sec. 89.

 Thus our Parliament has made a clear distinction between conciliation and mediation. In Part III of the 1996 Act (sections 61 to 81) which deals with ‘Conciliation’ there is no definition of ‘conciliation’. Nor is there any definition of ‘conciliation’ or ‘mediation’ in Sec. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended in 1999). Sec 89 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for reference dispute for conciliation even where parties do not consent, provided the Court thinks that the case is one fit for conciliation. This lays down the stark distinction between mediation and conciliation.
Further Sec 67 describes the role of a conciliator. Sub Sec (1) states that he shall assist parties in an independent and impartial manner. Sub Sec (2) states that he shall be guided by principles of objectivity, fairness and justice, giving consideration, among other things, to the rights and obligations of the parties, the usages of the trade concerned, and the circumstances surrounding the dispute, including any previous business practices between the parties. Sub Sec (3) states that he shall take into account “the circumstances of the case, the wishes the parties may express, including a request for oral statements”. Subsection (4) is important and permits the ‘conciliator’ to make proposals for a settlement. It states as follows: “Section 67(4). The conciliator may, at any stage of the conciliation proceeding, make proposals for a settlement ofthe dispute. Such proposals need not be in writing and need not be accompanied by a statement of the reasons therefore.” Section 69 states that the conciliator may invite parties to meet him. Sec. 70 deals with disclosure by the conciliator of information given to him by one party, to the other party. Sec. 71 deals with cooperation of parties with the conciliator, sec. 72 deals with suggestions being submitted to the conciliator by each party for the purpose of settlement. Finally, Sec. 73, which is important, states that the conciliator can formulate terms of a possible settlement if he feels there exist elements of a settlement. He is also entitled to ‘reformulate the terms’ after receiving the observations of the parties. Subsection (1) of sec. 73 reads thus: “Sec. 73(1) settlement agreement. (1) When it appears to the Conciliator that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, he shall formulate the terms of a possible settlement and submit them to the parties for their observations. After receiving the observations of the parties, the Conciliator may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement in the light of such observations.”

These all provision signifies that conciliator not only act as a facilitator to the settlement but he is having statutory authority to,
(a) to take surrounding facts and existing local usage and customs into consideration,
(b) make proposals for the settlement,
(c) formulate terms of a possible settlement,
(d) reformulates the terms, these all power distinguishes conciliator from mediator but generally unlike arbitrator, conciliator does not have decision making power. The difference lies in the fact that the ‘conciliator’ can make proposals for settlement, ‘formulate’ or ‘reformulate’ the terms of a possible settlement while a ‘mediator’ would not do so but would merely facilitate a settlement between the parties. However, in India Family Courts Act-1984 confers decision making on the presiding officer of the Court who is called as conciliator.

The process of conciliation is widely used as an alternative mechanism of alternative dispute resolution. For example Sec 4 and 5 of Industrial Dispute Act provides for Conciliation officer and Board of Conciliation. Tough conciliation acquired statutory recognition in India, their efficacy in resolving disputes or arriving at the settlement is negligible. Nothing significant has been achieved by giving statutory recognition to this mechanism, rather a waste of State resources and hurdle to the disputant parties in the way of choosing appropriate forum of redressal.

During 1959-66 the percentage of dispute settled by Conciliation Machinery varied from 57% to 83% in the central sphere. During 1988, 10,106 disputes were referred to conciliation out of which the number failure report received was 3,183 in the Central sphere. From period 1990- 2000, in 39, 521 labour disputes conciliation proceedings were held out of which only 10,985 were successfully settled. The statistics of the working of the conciliation machinery reveals that it made no remarkable success in India. Number of reference themselves speak efficacy of Conciliation we have Corers of Cases pending but references are in thousands. For the failure of this mechanism there are several reasons,

(a) Lack of proper personnel, inadequate training and low status enjoyed by conciliation officer and too frequent transfer.
(b) Undue emphasis on legal and formal requirements.
(c) Considerable delay in conclusion of conciliation proceedings.
(d) Lack of adjudicating authority with conciliator.
(e) Failure of conciliation had much impact as failure leads to reference of dispute to Labour Courts and Tribunals.
(f) Failure to magnetize people as there are little differences in environ of Courts and Conciliation Board(s).

2.2.3. Arbitration
Arbitration is a quasi-judicial process in which a neutral person sits as a private judge and resolves the dispute of the parties in confidential manner. “Arbitration is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons such as the ‘arbitrators’, ‘arbiters’, or ‘arbitral tribunal’, by whose decision the award they agreed to be bound”. Arbitration is a binding method of dispute resolution governed by statute. It is a traditional ‘alternative’ to court-based litigation.The appointed arbitrator considers the evidence presented by both parties and then issues an award, which is enforceable by the courts – in some countries it is even enforceable without court decision. Procedures used in arbitration can range from informal to rules which essentially mirror court procedures.

In India arbitration was originally governed by the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The Courts were very much concerned over the supervision of Arbitral Tribunals and they were very keen to see whether the arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction while deciding the issue, which has been referred to him for arbitration. The scope of interference of the awardpassed by arbitration was dealt with by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Food Corporation of India V. JogindarlalMohindarpalas follows,“Arbitration as a model for settlement of disputes between the parties has a tradition in India. It has a social purpose to fulfill today. It has a great urgency today when there has been an explosion of litigation in the Courts of law established by the sovereign power. However in proceedings of arbitration, there must be adherence to justice, equality of law and fair play in action. The proceedings of arbitration must adhere to the principles of natural justice and must be in consonance with such practice and procedure, which will lead to a proper resolution of the dispute and create confidence of the people, for whose benefit these procedures are resorted to. It is therefore, the function of the Court of law to oversee that the arbitrator acts within the norms of Justice. Once they do so and the award is clear, just and fair, the Court should as far as possible give effect to the award of the parties and make the parties compel to adhere to and obey the decision of their chosen adjudicator. It is in this perspective that one should view the scope and limit of corrections by the Court of an award made by the arbitrator. The law of arbitration must be made simple, less technical and more responsible to the actual realities of the situation but must be responsible to the canon of justice and fair play. The arbitrator should be made to adhere to such process and norms which will create confidence not only doing justice between parties but by creating a sense that justice appears to have been done”.

2.2.3. (A) Species of arbitration
(i) Commercial arbitration
(ii) Other forms of Contract Arbitration
(iii) Labour Arbitration
(iv) Judicial Arbitration
2.2.4. Important International Arbitral Institutions
(a) Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA
(b) World Trade Organization (WTO)
(c). International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
(d) Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
(e). United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

2.2.5. Lok-Adalat
Lok-Adalat is the concept having its roots in Indian glorious past which mean ‘people’s Court’, it is the system of ‘nayayapanch’ is conceptualized and institutionalized as Lok-Adalat. It involves people who are directly or indirectly affected by dispute resolution. The main reason for bring this system is also to lessen the burdens of Court and provide speedy justice with people’s participation in decision making. This concept is, now, again very popular and is gaining historical momentum. Experience has shown that it is one of the very efficient and important ADRs and most suited to the Indian environment, culture and societal interests. The finest hour of justice is the hour of compromise when parties after burying their hatchet reunite by a reasonable and just compromise. This Indian-institutionalized, indigenized and now, legalized concept for settlement of dispute promotes the goals of our Constitution. Equal justice and free legal aid are hand in glove. It is, rightly said, since the Second World War, the greatest revolution in the law has been the mechanism of evolution of system of legal aid which includes an ADRM. The statutory mechanism of legal services includes concept of Lok-Adalat in the Legal Services Authorities Act. The legal aid, in fact, is a fundamental human right. The concept of Lok-Adalat was pushed back into oblivion in last few centuries before independence and particularly during the British regime. Now, this concept has, once again, been rejuvenated. It has, once again, become very popular and familiar amongst litigants. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, pursuant to the constitutional mandate in Article 39-A of the Constitution of India, contains various provisions for settlement of disputes through Lok-Adalat. Thus, the ancient concept of Lok-Adalat has, now, statutory basis. This is the system which has deep roots in Indian legal history and its close allegiance to the culture and perception of justice in Indian ethos.

Lok-Adalat is the dispute resolution system presided over by a sitting or retired judicial officer as the chairman, with two other members, usually a lawyer and a social worker. There is no court fee. If the case is already filed in the regular court, the fee paid will be refunded if the dispute is settled at the Lok-Adalat. The procedural laws and the Evidence Act are not strictly followed while assessing the merits of the claim by the Lok-Adalat.

The Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 provided for constitution of Lok-Adalat, jurisdiction and other special provisions. Under this Act a Lok-Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of:
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok-Adalat is organized. The Lok-Adalat can compromise and settle even criminal cases, which are compoundable under the relevant laws. So this Act provides that a case which has not brought before Court can be dealt in Lok-Adalat and it can be settled there.

This Act provides for the constitution of The State Authority and District Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Legal Services Committee and Taluk Legal Services Committee (mentioned in Section 19 of the Act) can organize Lok-Adalats at such intervals and places as may be deemed fit.- Every Lok-Adalat so organized shall consist of:
(a) Serving or retired judicial officers,

(b) Other persons, as may be specified. National Service Authority is also constituted to exercise its powers and functions at the national level under this
Act.

2.2.5. (a) Cognizance of cases by Lok-Adalat: there were two mode of taking cognizance were recognized under the Act,
(i) On Application: When all the parties to the case agree for referring the case to Lok-Adalat, or When one of the party to the case makes an application to court, praying to refer the case to Lok-Adalat and the court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances for settlement.
(ii) Suo Moto: Where the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of, by the Lok-Adalat. Then, the court shall refer the case to the Lok-Adalat, after giving a reasonable opportunity for hearing to all the parties.

2.2.5. (b) Mode of Determination of cases: the Authority or Committee organizing Lok-Adalat may, on application from any party to a dispute, refer the said dispute to Lok-Adalat, after giving a reasonable opportunity for hearing to all the parties. –Lok-Adalat shall proceed to dispose of a case refereed to it expeditiously.
-Shall be guided by principles of law, justice, equity and fair play.
- Shall yearn to reach a settlement or compromise between parties.

- When no compromise or settlement is accomplished, the case is to be returned to the court which referred it. Then the case will proceed in the court from the stage immediately before the reference.
2.2.5.(c) Finality of Settlement arrived before Lok-Adalat: Sec 21 of the Act declares that every award of (a) Lok-Adalat shall be deemed to be decree of Civil Court, (b) Every Order made by the Lok-Adalat shall be final and binding on the all the parties, (b) no appeal shall lie form the order of Lok-Adalat.

2.2.5.(d) Establishment of Permanent Lok-Adalat under the Act: Chapter VI Awas newly added by Amendment Act, 2002, introducing the concept of Permanent Lok-Adalat. The Central or State Authorities may establish by notification, Permanent Lok-Adalats at any place, for determining issues in connection to Public Utility Services.

Public Utility Services include:
(1) Transport service,
(2) Postal, telegraph or telephone services,
(3) Supply of power, light and water to public,
(4) System of public conservancy or sanitation,
(5) Insurance services and such other services.

Lok-Adalat proved to be one of the efficient machinery of dispute resolution, we can substantiate this by analyzing its performance, in every respect the scheme of Lok-Adalat is a boon to thelitigant public, where they can get their disputes settled fast and free of cost. They get faster andinexpensive remedy with legal status. Success of Lok-Adalats in India can be judged from thenumber of cases settled by the Lok-Adalats in all the States. The difference between the work doneby Lok-Adalats and the regular courts becomes much more marked if one takes into account thenumber of cases settled at various Lok-Adalats and compares them to the corresponding figures forthose decided by regular courts. The table below shows the number of Lok-Adalats held in all theStates till 30th November 2011 from its inception, number of MACT (Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal) cases settled, number of total cases settled and compensation awarded in MACT cases:

This is the expeditious method to settle large number of MACT claims. It has become a Dispute Management Institution. It is an informal system of dispute resolution. This has resulted in settlement of a large number of cases long pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, which would have otherwise taken years for adjudication. Undue delay in settlement of Motor Accident Compensation claims in most of the cases defeats the very core of the purpose. It is in this area that Lok-Adalat is rendering very useful service to the needy. It is not merely the question of payment, the time and expense factor and saving the victim families from harassment involved in execution and appeal proceedings are of considerable importance.

However fact is that people in India are now not interested in Lok-Adalat though large number of cases have been solved through Lok-Adalat. In the beginning there was great flow of cases towards Lok-Adalat, this is not wholly because of its efficiency, because there is no alternative left with the people to redress their dispute other than Lok-Adalats. Presently it is evident that Lok-adalat is not safety value against the drawbacks of Ordinary Courts, as people were also felt dissatisfied with the working of Lok-Adalats, to common man Lok-Adalat is no different than Court except some procedural relaxiation, in fact when the case is long pending Lok-Adalat will be last resort at least to weak party (economically) to get relief (form being litigant).

Litigant is mere spectator here though there is absence of Procedural Law, it is still not open to him, opinion of Lawyer and the Judges consider being monolith he feels uneasy to say actually what he want. The study points out that in Lok-Adalats, justice has fallen victim to the desire for the speedy resolution. Instead of trying genuine compromise, in some cases Lok-Adalats try to force an adjudicatory decision upon unwilling litigants. The right to fair hearing, which is one of the basic principles of natural justice, is denied to the people. Many sitting and retired judges while participating in Lok-Adalats as members, tend to conduct the Lok-Adalats like courts, by hearing parties and by imposing their views as to what is just and equitable on the parties. Sometimes they get carried away and proceed to pass order on merits even though there is no consensus or settlement. The presiding officers should resist from the practice of making adjudicatory decisions in the Lok-adalats. Such acts instead of fostering alternative dispute resolution through Lok-Adalats will drive the litigants away from the Lok-Adalats. The study stresses that the people in India should take resort to the Lok-Adalats to get their disputes settled in an indigenous way.

3. Conclusion
Justice delayed is justice denied to overcome this problem, presently in India it is appropriate to give grater encouragement and legislative sanctions in more appropriate way to strengthen our Sanathanic Panchayat system, instead of giving undue importance to ADRs. In this research paper author tried to establish and author firmly believe that ADRs will not be true alternative to the problems posed by administration of Justice by British modeled Courts. Every Legal System must be built upon its own ‘theory’ i.e. Legal theory we can loosely call it as Jurisprudence, construction or adoption of Indian Legal System completely based on Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence is in itself blunder. Just because British ruled us for more than three hundred years Indian Society was not completely westernized. Especially the notion of Justice and injustice, truth and false etc were still in India based on our pre-colonial experiences/perceptions. A matter or dispute in India cannot be satisfactorily decided by a judge sitting impartially, because in fact justice in India is not just settlement of individual interest, whole community had its vested interest in outcome of such dispute or settlement, this is the reason why in India (pre-colonial period) there were five adjudicators (Pancha) who were representative of community and being upholders of Dharma uses to decide the matters.

Accordingly we should not forget that justice delivery system should be inconsonance with aspiration of people: today we are but quite busily involved in finding out alternative mechanism of dispute resolution system to ordinary courts of law, but fundamental question is to what extent this foreign made ADR system acceptable and adoptable to the Indian circumstance? In India more than 70% of disputes were resolved by village Panchayats, comprising selected (by disputants) members of village. It means the role of Ordinary Law Courts in India is that of a tip of ice berg. The reason behind raising this issue here is that ADRS were brought to force for the reasons inter alia to improvise the administration of justice (of ordinary Courts) by speedy redressal of dispute. Well the reason is quite genuine but the problem with ordinary courts of justice is that they covering only 30% disputes that were existed in society, ADRS on the other hand intended to overcome the difficulties or short comings of ordinary courts of Justice but what about other 70% disputes, we are not thinking about it, instead we are glorifying this foreign made ADRS, suppressing or by neglecting our own indigenous system of dispute resolution. In India court system including ADRS was not able to be a main stream of dispute resolution because they are not backed by aspirations of people. Well we already given statutory status to ADRs but we are far from achieving satisfactory outcome from this ADRs. Accordingly it is not the Arbitration, Conciliation and Mediation of American type is ‘Alternative’ to existing legal system but our own Indigenous Panchayat system is the ‘Appropriate’ if adequate step to strengthen it is undertaken at the earliest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*** LL. M., NET, Faculty of Law, K.L.E. Society’s Law College, Bangalore, E-mail:shivashk100@gmail.com
# Definition by Brown and Marriott (1999:127)
# BY Nicholas Gould, Phillip Capper, Ciles Dixon, Micheal Cohen, Dispute Resolution in the Construction Industry, p. 51http://books.google.co.in/books?
# http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Arbitration/id/1932590 visited on 31/12/2013
# english.turkcebilgi.com/grievance – Turkey visited on 07/01/2013
# 1989(2) SCC 347
# Sec 22A -22E
# http://www.ijmra.us/project doc/IJPSS_MAY2012/IJMRA-PSS1101.pdf

The  author can be reached at: shivaraj@legalserviceindia.com

Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com

File Your Copyright - Right Now!