It is said, however, in a lighter vein that, a court case in the Indian Judicial system may last longer than the production and proliferation of three generations in an Indian household. The socio-political and socio-economic condition of contemporary India compel us to look for an interchangeable system of justice disposal.

As of April 2018, there are over three crore cases pending across all tiers of Indian Judiciary, under such pretext, it is imperative that we recognize ADR as a sustainable and efficacious method of resolving disputes. Not only does it ensure timely disposal and resolution of cases it also helps in percolating the principle of “justice for all” as enshrined in the Indian Constitution to the grassroot level. Indian judicial system is amongst the oldest and one of the largest legal systems in the world but in recent times it hasn’t been working smoothly as the system is clogged with innumerable unresolved disputes.

To ease the working situation of the courts, the method of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is an asset to the Indian Judiciary.

The main aim of ADR is to reduce the baggage of the courts and help people resolve their unsettled cases by keeping the integrity intact and reducing the hostility between the individual parties or groups.

It keeps the principle of equality above law in mind, which is based on Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Alternative Dispute Resolution is a widely used method for obtaining speedy justice across the world as it is time saving and cheaper in monetary terms Under this method cases of all nature can be resolved i.e. civil, criminal, family disputes, industrial, etc. ADR offers various approaches of settling the disputes like Arbitration, Mediation, Lok Adalat, Conciliation and. Negotiation. 

Selecting the best approach of ADR can be a tedious task, to have an in-depth understanding, the approaches have been compared against each other as follows:
Arbitration vs Mediation:
The fundamental difference between both the methods is arbitration is usually binding, while mediation is not. The party who is not satisfied by the arbitrator's award has a limited right to make an appeal against the arbitrariness. In contrast, mediation is an entirely different ball game in which the mediator works with the parties attempting to solve their issues and settle their lawsuit. 
An arbitrator decides the outcome as to who wins and who loses, whereas a mediator acts as a guide to the parties to find their way to a mutually agreed settlement. The mediator, compared to the arbitrator, has no power to impose a decision on the parties if they do not wish to agree.

There are various types of cases which require the appellant to go to arbitration. These are usually situations in which the plaintiff is bound by the contract between the parties to go through arbitration rather than going to the court.

 Mediation is a voluntary process, the parties are binding to attend it, but it does not require them to resolve the case through it. In case of dissatisfaction, they can opt for a second round of mediation or go to court for the same. 
 
Arbitration vs. Conciliation:
In India, the aforementioned acts are governed by their parent act, which has recently been amended and made into an ordinance:
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Ordinance), 2015. The appointment of an impartial third party is common to both the methods of ADR. Whilst in arbitration the impartial third party is known as an Arbitrator whereas, with conciliation, he is called a conciliator. The role of an arbitrator is more active than passive than that of a Conciliator.

To invoke arbitration for a dispute, it is imperative to have an ADR clause in the contract itself, however, that is not the case for conciliation. The decision given by the arbitrator is known as an “Award”, this decision may or may not be binding, subject to the ADR clause in the contract, on the contrary in conciliation the parties play a rather proactive role and the conciliator facilitates the decision making. The inherent nature of the dispute should be kept in mind while choosing the appropriate arrangement for resolving, as arbitration can be used for resolving present as perceived future encumbrances, However, conciliation only helps in resolving subsisting disputes.
 
Mediation vs Conciliation:
Mediation and Conciliation both attempt to maintain an existing business relationship and to reconcile a lost balance of power between two parties. We sometimes use these concepts as synonyms, but they vary significantly in their processes.

Mediation is enforceable by law whereas in conciliation it is upon the parties whether to accept the settlement agreement or go to the court. In mediation, the mediator is like a facilitator who controls the procedure through specific stages: Introduction, meetings and agreement whilst the parties control the outcome whereas in conciliation, the conciliator is like interventionist who may not follow an organized procedure, instead of administering the conciliation process as a traditional negotiation, which may take different forms depending on the matter.

Mediation is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Conciliation is governed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Mediation is an agreement between the parties whereas conciliation results into settlement between the parties. 

In mediation, the confidentiality depends on the level of trust, but in conciliation the law binds it.  
 
Negotiation:
Negotiation is one way offered under the Alternative Dispute Resolution method. This mode aims to resolve the issue between the two parties through consensus without involving a third party. 
There is a very well-known legal maxim Consilia omnia verbis prius experiri, quam armis sapientem decet that suggests that a wise man would prefer negotiation before using arms.
Negotiation can be used in all types of cases like marital deadlock, business negotiations, contractual negotiations, administrative negotiations and international negotiations. 
The term Negotiation can be compared to a coin just like a coin has two sides, so does negotiation, it has its advantages and disadvantages. 
 
Merits: 
Negotiation is only concerned to the parties involved which makes it a private affair without intervention from any third party giving them the freedom to set their desired objective of the settlement.

It is a comfortable and speedy procedure as there is no imposition from the third party as well as the presence of any witness is also not required. The odds of any resentment between the parties is reduced to a certain extent, making it a favourable option for both the parties to obtain the desired results through common consent.

Example: negotiation is more preferable in international matters as there is a win-win situation for both the parties which increases scope of improvement of relations between the countries. 
 
As there is a mutual understanding between the parties their indivdual interests are well taken care of which in turn increases the scope of an efficacious outcome.
 
Demerits: 
Due to an absence of a neutral third party a situation may arise where the discussion between the parties comes to a standstill as none of them are ready to alter their goals and cannot agree to a common ground, such a situation is called an Impasse.

When an impasse creates frustration for the parties where they further find it impossible to resolve the dispute through negotiation then a walkout situation happens which also leads to bitterness amongst the parties 

In India, it has no statutory recognition 
The parties may not always be of the same status in this case the party with power may dominate over the consent of the other party which results into an unfair and unequal agreement making the negotiation completely useless later. In a case where there are multiple parties involved, negotiation is not an option such cases directly go to court.
 
Lok Adalat:
Lok Adalat conducted by the National Legal Services Authority and various other Legal service institutions for dispute redressal. It is a non- adversarial method which entertains cases that are either in pre-litigation stage or are pending in court. It aims to alleviate the burden of the judiciary by resolving the disputes amicably. It is given statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The ‘award’ given by the Lok Adalat is equivalent to the decision of a civil court and no appeal against the ‘award’ shall emanate, however, if a party is dissatisfied it can proceed with litigation in the court with appropriate jurisdiction.

The modern idea of Lok Adalat was floated and implemented by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, former Chief Justice of India. Over the years this method has grown into a sustainable substitute for formal litigation in courts, it is a beacon of hope for whom the access and attainment of justice is a far-fetched dream. In this method over the years, many petty cases along with other regular cases which can be referred to the Lok Adalats have been disposed off. However, like every system, this system also has some issues such as lack of infrastructure, unclear policies, inadequate administrative support, etc which prove to be a hindrance to disposal of cases. The idea of Lok Adalat is unique and is very effective but much more can be achieved if certain changes are made in the system.
 
Conclusion:
The Indian judicial process is impartial and transparent,   one of the primary contention against it is the long-drawn system of justice delivery, a large backlog of cases has to be dealt with which causes considerable delays in attainment of justice, ADR eliminates this contention as it deals with cases expeditious manner. In contemporary times, ADR has alleviated the burden of the judiciary, ergo, it can be viewed as a sustainable alternative for settlement of disputes in the times to come. Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism (ADR) is not a replacement of litigation, rather it would make our traditional court systems work more efficiently and effectively.

Written By: Kajal Shah & Karan Parikh

GLS Law College