Reading time : 8 minutes


The Judicial system in India has strived to underpin the concept of ‘Justice delayed is justice denied.’ However currently, in India, about 3 crore cases are pending at different levels of courts. As per several reports, there are only 19 judges per 10 lakh people whereas the adequate ratio is 50 judges per 10 lakh people. Factors like corruption, incompetence, lack of judges and low quality of judiciary have contributed to a rise in the number of cases pending before the court.

With all these factors adversely affecting the judicial system, the subsistence of a speedy justice dispensing system is next to impossible. The right to a speedy trial is enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution.

Fast tracks courts have helped in settling millions of cases but still, the issue is far from being resolved.

Therefore, in an attempt to abate this burden of pending cases, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism also known as the ADR mechanism was introduced by the courts to provide speedy justice.


After the amendment of Section 89, of ‘The Code of Civil Procedure’ in 1999, the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms namely arbitration, conciliation, mediation and pre-trial/judicial settlement methods including settlements in Lok Adalat were introduced.

Under section 89, the code of civil procedure lays down,

(1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for—

(a) Arbitration;

(b) Conciliation;

(c) Judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or

(d) Mediation.

Thus, the aforementioned ADR mechanisms are useful to lift the burden of cases on the judiciary and to provide quick justice to the parties without having to follow the rather expensive and formal court proceedings.


According to Section 89 of CPC, it is clear that the court must refer a dispute to any one of the ADR mechanisms if it appears to the court that there exists a possibility of settlement. The objectives of ADR mechanisms are as follows:

  • To resolve disputes outside the court premises.
  • To promote quick settlements.
  • To save time and costs associated with a court proceeding.
  • To allow the parties to be able to find solutions themselves.


After the establishment of ADR mechanisms, the question arose as to which types of disputes can be referred for alternative dispute resolution.

For this purpose, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines about the kind of cases that would be eligible for ADR in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. V. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors,

Relationship disputes-

  • Disputes relating to matrimonial causes, maintenance, custody of children;
  • Disputes relating to partition/division among family members/co-partners/co-owners;
  • Disputes relating to a partnership among partners.
  • Disputes between neighbours (relating to encroachments, nuisance etc.;
  • Disputes between employers and employees;
  • Disputes among members of societies/associations/Apartment owners Associations;

Contracts and trade-related disputes-

  • Disputes arising out of contracts (including all money claims);
  • Disputes relating to specific performance;
  • Disputes between suppliers and customers;
  • Disputes between bankers and customers;
  • Disputes between developers/builders and customers;
  • Disputes between landlords and tenants/licensor and licensees;
  • Disputes between an insurer and insured;

Tortious liability disputes-

  • claims for compensation in motor accidents/other accidents;

All consumer disputes-

  • Including disputes where a trader/ supplier/ manufacturer/ service provider is keen to maintain his business/ professional reputation and credibility or product popularity.


The following nature of disputes are generally not considered to be suitable for the ADR process:

(i) Representative suits under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC which involve public interest or interest of numerous persons who are not parties before the court. (In fact, even a compromise in such a suit is a difficult process requiring notice to the persons interested in the suit, before its acceptance).

(ii) Disputes relating to election to public offices (as contrasted from disputes between two groups trying to get control over the management of societies, clubs, associations etc.).

(iii) Cases –

  • involving grant of authority by the court after enquiry, for example, suits for grant of probate or letters of administration.
  • involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents, forgery, impersonation, coercion etc.
  • involving prosecution for criminal offences.
  •  requiring protection of courts, for example, claims against minors, deities and mentally challenged and suits for declaration of title against the government.

The four methods of alternative dispute resolution introduced in section 89 of CPC are explained hereafter:


Arbitration is one of the modes of ADR mentioned in Section 89 of CPC and defined under Section 2 (1)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

 It is a process in which the parties choose a neutral third party known as the arbitrator to hear both sides and makes a decision. The arbitration proceedings take place outside the court but they are similar to a hearing wherein testimony and evidence may be presented by both parties. The decision made by an arbitrator after carefully examining both sides of the case is called an ‘award’ and is legally binding.

The provisions of the arbitration process are provided in The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

Which types of disputes are referred to for Arbitration?

Usually, all civil and Quasi civil court disputes involving private rights disputes can be arbitrated.

Rule 4 (ii) of Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules 2006 provides-

—that, where there is no relationship between the parties which requires to be preserved, it may be in the interest of the parties to seek reference of the matter of arbitration as envisaged in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 89;

Following are the nature of disputes that can be arbitrated: –

Disputes involving

  • contract interpretation and performance,
  • construction projects,
  • partnership differences,
  • real estate securities,
  • personal injury,
  • product liabilities,
  • professional liability,
  • intellectual property rights,
  • joint ventures,
  • insurance claim and
  • Banking & non-Banking transaction disputes

fall within the jurisdiction of Arbitration.

Disputes that cannot be arbitrated: –

Disputes involving

  • criminal offences,
  • Conjugal rights/matrimonial issues,
  • Guardianship,
  • Motor vehicle accident conversation,
  • testamentary issues under succession act,
  • issues falling under Indian Trust Act
  • tax-related matters

do not fall within the jurisdiction of Arbitration.


1. Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Kurien E. Kathilal

Referring the parties to arbitration has serious civil consequences procedurally and substantively. When there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, without a joint memo or a joint application of the parties, the High Court ought not to have referred the parties to arbitration, the Supreme Court held in this case.

2.  M/S Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr. v. Aftab Singh

Upholding the NCDRC’s decision, the supreme court ruled that an Arbitration Clause in a Buyer’s Agreement cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.


Judicial settlement is another ADR mechanism provided under section 89 of CPC. It is a process in which the parties in dispute reach a final settlement by way of compromise and such settlement is made under the supervision of a suitable institution or person to which the court has referred the dispute. Such institution or person/s are considered to be the Lok Adalat. The provisions for such proceedings are provided under the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987.

Which types of disputes are referred for judicial settlement?

Rule 4 (iv) of Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules 2006 provides-

 that, where parties are interested in a final settlement which may lead to a compromise, it will be in the interests of the parties to seek reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat or to judicial settlement as envisaged in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 89;

Following are the categories of disputes that can be referred to Lok Adalat:

Disputes involving-

  • civil cases,
  • matrimonial disputes,
  • MACT cases,
  • Mutation of land cases,
  • Compoundable criminal offences,
  • Family disputes,
  • Encroachment on forest lands,
  • Land acquisition disputes and
  • Cases that are not sub-judice

are mainly referred for Lok Adalat or judicial settlement.

CASE LAW- Balakrishna v. Member secretary Lok Adalat Jamkhandi, Bagalkot district

In this case, the petitioner claimed that the case was decided in his absence in the Lok Adalat. Subsequently, the court held that Lok Adalat can only decide the cases with the consent of both parties and an award cannot be passed by the Lok Adalat on merit. Lok Adalat cannot write a judgment after considering the pleadings of the parties. The basic purpose for approaching the Lok Adalat is to negotiate the matter between the parties and settle the same amicably with the consent of both parties. If any one of the parties is not present, Lok Adalat cannot decide the matter, as has been done in this case.


Conciliation is also an ADR mechanism that was introduced in section 89 of CPC. In this mechanism, an impartial third party also known as a conciliator is appointed to facilitate communication between parties and formulate or reformulate the terms of the settlement. Conciliation is very similar to arbitration yet different in the fact that the final decision is not legally binding on the parties. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, does not provide a proper definition of conciliation.

Which types of disputes are referred to for Conciliation?

Rule 4 (iii) of Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules 2006 provides-

 that, where there is a relationship between the parties which requires to be preserved, it may be in the interest of parties to seek reference of the matter to conciliation or mediation, as envisaged in clause (b) or (d) of sub-section (1) of section 89.

Also, the companies Act 2013, lays down the types of disputes that can be referred for mediation/ conciliation:

  • Under Section 442 of the Companies Act, 2013, disputes pending with the Central Government, NCLT or the NCLAT can be referred to mediation or conciliation.
  • Any matter which is pending before the Central Government, Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal under the Companies Act, 2013 can be referred for mediation either by the parties themselves or Suo moto by the Central Government.



  1. Haresh Dayaram Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors

The Bombay High Court ordered the over a flat to be taken up by conciliation and with the consent of the parties appointed Mr H Suresh as a conciliator between the parties. The parties agreed on the binding nature of the conciliation award and thereby, the proceedings were initiated. At the last session, the conciliator settled the matter in the favour of the petitioner, allotting the possession of the flat to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner would give up all claims on an ancestral flat at R K Nagar.

The appellant challenged this settlement order of the conciliator in the High Court but the court rejected the plea on the grounds that the parties had agreed on the binding nature of the award and, thereby no remedy shall be available to them in respect of it. This decision of the High Court was challenged by the appellant in the Supreme Court.

 2. Mysore Cements Ltd. v. Svedala Barmac Ltd

It was said that Section 73 of the Act speaks of the Settlement Agreement.

In the present case, we do not find there any such formulation and reformulation by the Conciliator, under sub-section (1)

Sub-section (2), if the parties reach a settlement agreement of the dispute on the possible terms of settlement formulated, they may draw up and sign a written settlement agreement. As per Sub-section (3) when the parties sign the Settlement Agreement, it shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively. Under Sub-section (4), the Conciliator shall authenticate the Settlement Agreement and furnish a copy thereof to each of the parties.

From the undisputed facts and looking at the records, it is clear that all the requirements of Section 73 are not complied with.


Mediation is an ADR mechanism provided in section 89 of CPC along with arbitration, conciliation and judicial settlements.

It is a process through which a mediator is appointed either by the court or by the parties at dispute, and such a mediator facilitates discussion between parties either directly or by communicating with each other through the mediator. Mediation process resembles conciliation to a great extent but holds its difference in the fact that a mediator can only facilitate communication between the parties and cannot formulate or reformulate the terms of settlements, unlike a conciliator.

Which types of disputes can be mediated?

Rule 4 (iii) of Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules 2006 provides-

 that, where there is a relationship between the parties which requires to be preserved, it may be in the interest of parties to seek reference of the matter to conciliation or mediation, as envisaged in clause (b) or (d) of sub-section (1) of section 89.

According to the Companies (Mediation and Conciliation) Rules, 2016, the following disputes cannot be referred to mediation or conciliation, namely:

  • matters involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents forgery, impersonation, coercion etc.
  • cases involving prosecution for criminal and non-compoundable offences.
  • disputes which involve public interest or interest of numerous persons who are not parties before the Central Government or the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be.
  • matters relating to proceedings in respect of inspection or investigation
  • or the matters which relate to defaults or offences for which applications for compounding have been made by one or more parties.


1. Dispute between Mukesh and Anil Dhiru Bhai Ambani

One of the most famous cases settled through mediation in recent times is the one between Mukesh Ambani and Dhiru Bhai Ambaniover the takeover of South African Telecom Major MTN. This was a rather complex case that was successfully settled through mediation.

2. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation and Anr 2015

In this case, a complicated patent dispute between the drug manufacturing companies Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and Merck Sharp and Dohme was resolved through mediation.

3. Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra

The court referred this matrimonial and custody-related case for mediation after the parties expressed their will to attempt to reconcile their marriage. It was held that the daughter was happy to live with her mother and pay timely visitation to her father and grandparents. 


Arbitration is a quasi-judicial adjudicatory process.Conciliation is a non-adjudicatory process.Mediation is a non-adjudicatory process.Lok Adalat is a non-adjudicatory process if it is established under sec 19 of Legal Services Authority Act,1987 and it is an adjudicatory and conciliatory process when it is established under sec 22 B of the said act.
Arbitrator is a neutral third party usually chosen by the parties to dispute.  Conciliator is a neutral third party.  Mediator also is a neutral third party.  Presiding officer is a neutral third party.  
The procedure and decision in arbitration are governed, restricted and controlled by the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.  As per Section 74 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the agreement is enforceable as it is a decree of the court in case of conciliation.  The referral court applies the principles of Order XXIII Rule 3, CPC for passing decree/order in terms of the agreement.  The award of Lok Adalat is considered as a decree of the Civil Court and is executable as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.  
An arbitrator decides the case and passes an award.A conciliator facilitates communication between parties and formulates or reformulates the terms of settlement.A mediator can only facilitate communication between the parties to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement.The function of a presiding officer is persuasive.
Award is appealable on specified grounds.Not appealable.Not appealable.Award not appealable.
The award is binding on both parties.The agreement made through negotiation is not binding.The agreement between the parties is not binding.The award is binding on both parties.
The dispute is confidential.The dispute is confidential.The dispute is confidential.The dispute is not confidential.
No opportunity for parties to communicate directly.Parties communicate and negotiate in order to arrive at a mutual settlement.Parties communicate and negotiate to draw a mutual settlement.Limited scope for negotiation.
Does not involve payment of court fees.Does not involve payment of court fees.In case of court annexed mediation, the court fee already paid is refundable as per the Rules.No court fee is payable when a matter is filed in a Lok Adalat.
 Active participation or personal appearance of parties is not always required.Conciliation involves active participation of parties to dispute.In mediation, parties are actively and directly involved.Parties are not actively and directly involved in case of Lok Adalat
Consent of parties to dispute is required.To refer a case for conciliation the consent of the parties is mandatory.In case of mediation, the consent of the parties is not mandatory for referring a case to mediation.The consent of the parties is not mandatory to refer a case to Lok Adalat.


The ADR mechanisms were introduced to lessen the burden of pending cases before the court. However, these mechanisms have several advantages which make them a good choice over litigation; Opting for ADR over a suit is cost-effective as it eliminates all the court fees and attorney charges. Also, ADR mechanisms provide faster resolutions. Court cases may take years but ADR can help in arriving at a decision in just a few sessions. In general,the legal system is adversarial which means it puts one side against the other and can worsen the relationships. On the other hand, ADR mechanisms like conciliation and mediation aim to promote communication between parties and finalize settlements agreeable to both parties. The formal setting of a court proceeding makes the parties uncomfortable and nervous whereas ADR processes are usually less formal as compared to a court proceeding. This ensures a sense of comfort and flexibility to the parties wherein both parties get to speak their side of the situation. Another benefit of opting for ADR processes is that they tend to follow simpler discovery and evidence rules which make the process quicker and easier. Finally, if the parties are unable to arrive at a solution through mediation, conciliation or Lok Adalat, the option to pursue litigation is always available.


Arbitration and Conciliation Act-

[1] Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors – Civil Appeal No.6000 of 2010

[2] Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Kurien E. Kathilal – Civil Appeal Nos.3164-3165 of 2017

[3] M/S Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr. v. Aftab Singh – 2018 SCC Online SC 2771

[4] Haresh Dayaram Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, – AIR 2000 SC 2281

[5] Mysore Cements Ltd vs Svedala Barmac Ltd -12 March 2003, Civil Appeal 2321 of 2003

[6] Balakrishna v. Member secretary Lok Adalat Jamkhandi, Bagalkot district

Author: Mehvish Mateen Patel, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj University, Panvel.

Editor: Kanishka VaishSenior Editor, LexLife India


Alternative Dispute Resolution: Its need and Importance

Reading time : 10 minutes


It is a well-known fact that the Indian Judiciary is one of the oldest judicial systems, but it is also known that the Indian Judiciary has become inefficient in settling disputes despite a large number of fast-track courts that have been created. The Indian courts are clogged with thousands of cases and the problem is far from being solved as the cases keep on piling up. The reason is not only the inefficiency of the courts to solve them in a limited time but also the fact that small matters which can be discussed outside the courts are also filed before the courts.

What is Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ADR)?

ADR is a technique to resolve disputes and disagreements between the transacting parties by arriving at an amendable settlement through negotiations and discussions. ADR is capable of providing other means and methods for solving disputes of all types including civil, commercial, family, etc. The general principle of ADR is that it uses a third party to settle the disputes between the transacting parties. One of the primary reasons’ parties may prefer ADR proceedings is that, unlike adversarial litigation, ADR procedures are often collaborative and allow the parties to understand each other’s position. It aims to maintain peace and cooperation between the transacting parties and prevents hostility among them. The purpose of solving dispute through ADR is to lower the burden upon the courts and provide early access and speedy trial to those cases which are more serious. In India, ADR is established based on Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India[1], has ruled that where it appears to the court that there exists an element of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, they at the instance of the court shall be made to apply their mind so as to opt for one or the other ADR methods mentioned in section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

Origin of Alternative Dispute Resolution in India

In India, there were kulas, and people used to live in joint families with their clans. When the caste system became prevalent people began living in the societies along with the members of their caste. The disputes among the kulas were resolved by the heads of the family and clan. After this came the system of forming trade associations where the head or the President of the association was appointed to resolve the dispute between the transacting parties. 

Pre-Independence era: Drastic changes came in the administration of India during the British era when various legislations were introduced. In 1772, the courts were empowered to refer the disputes to arbitration either at the request of the parties or at the court’s own discretion. In 1859 The Code of Civil Procedure was enacted which dealt with arbitration but in 1882 it was repealed.

The Indian arbitration act, 1899 was enacted in the year 1899 to give effect to alternate dispute mechanism in India. Code of Civil Procedure was again enacted in 1908 and gave wide powers to the court to refer disputes to ADR mechanism. Under the first schedule, order XXXII A, Rule 3 a duty is cast upon the courts that it shall make an endeavor to assist the parties in first instance, in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit.[2]

Thereafter, in 1937 Geneva Convention was signed and adopted by India and a parallel legislation was introduced in the form of The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937. In 1940 Indian Arbitration Act, 1899 and section 89 with second schedule of CPC was repealed and replaced by The Arbitration Act,1940.

Post-Independence era: The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) act,1937 and The Arbitration Act,1940 were presently in force in India for referring disputes to ADR mechanism. In M/S Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh & Sons[3], the Supreme Court described the Arbitration Act,1940. It observed, “the way in which the proceedings under the act are conducted and without an exception challenged in courts, has made lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep. Experience shows and law reports bear ample testimony that the proceedings under the act have become highly technical and accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary”.

In 1996, finally The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) act, 1937 and The Arbitration act, 1940 was repealed and consolidated in a single piece of legislation, the act was called The Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996.The act of 1966 was amended twice in 2015 and 2019.

Types of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

  1. Arbitration

Arbitration is the process of solving an argument between people by helping them to agree to an acceptable solution. Arbitration means resolving disputes between the parties as early as possible without getting into procedural technicalities which are associated with the functioning of a civil court. In Collins v. Collins[4], the court gave a wide definition to the concept of arbitration. It said, ‘An arbitration is a reference to the decisions of one or more persons either with or without an empire, a particular matter in difference between the parties.

 Section 2(1)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, defines “Arbitration” as meaning any arbitration matter whether or administered by a permanent arbitral institution.

In State of J&K v. Dev Dutt Pandit[5], the SC observed that arbitration is an important ADR process, which is to be developed and encouraged.

Kinds of Arbitration

  • Ad-hoc arbitration

When a dispute or difference arises between the parties in the course of commercial transaction and the same could not be resolved either through negotiation or mediation, in such cases ad-hoc arbitration may be sought by the conflicting parties. It is not administered by an institution and therefore the parties are required to identify all aspects of arbitration. Ad-hoc proceedings can be faster, cheaper and flexible than an administered proceeding.

  • Institutional Arbitration

When there is a prior agreement between the parties that in case of any differences or conflicts in the future the matter would be resolved through arbitration and it would be referred to the named institution of which one or more of them are members it is known as institutional arbitration.

  • Contractual Arbitration

Due to the growth of commercial activities in the modern times there are frequent differences and disputes between the parties which are required to be settled amicably. Thus, to seek early settlement of differences and disputes without taking recourse to the court of law, the parties involved choose to incorporate an arbitration clause as a part of the agreement to refer their future or existing differences to a named arbitrator to be appointed by a designated authority. This is known as contractual arbitration.

  • Statutory Arbitration

When a law specifies that if a dispute arises in a particular case it has to be referred to arbitration, the arbitration proceedings are called “statutory arbitration”.

  • Fast-track Arbitration

Fast track arbitration is a time bound arbitration, with stricter rules of procedure, which do not allow any laxity for extension of time, and the resultant delays, and the reduced span of time makes it more cost effective.

  • Mediation

Mediation is a process in which an external person who is known as mediator works with the transacting parties to resolve the dispute and differences between them. Mediation is always carried out with an assistance of third party. The mediator has no power to impose his/her decision on the parties.

The village Panchayats and the Nyaya Panchayat are good examples of this.

  • Conciliation

Conciliation is an alternative out-of-court dispute resolution instrument. Conciliation is a voluntary, flexible, confidential, and interest-based process. The parties seek to reach an amicable dispute settlement with the assistance of the conciliator, who acts as a neutral third party. The main difference between conciliation and mediation proceedings is that, at some point during the conciliation, the conciliator will be asked by the parties to provide them with a non-binding settlement proposal. A mediator, by contrast, will in most cases and as a matter of principle, refrain from making such a proposal. Conciliation is a voluntary proceeding, where the parties involved are free to agree and attempt to resolve their dispute by conciliation. The process is flexible, allowing parties to define the time, structure and content of the conciliation proceedings. These proceedings are rarely public. They are interest-based, as the conciliator will when proposing a settlement, not only take into account the parties’ legal positions, but also their; commercial, financial and / or personal interests. Like in mediation proceedings, the ultimate decision to agree on the settlement remains with the parties.

  • Lok Adalat

The establishment of Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is one of the alternative means of dispute resolution or redressal.

The word “Lok Adalat” means “People Court”. The Lok Adalat is an old form of adjudicating system prevalent in India which is based on Gandhian Principles. Lok Adalat is another alternative to judicial justice. It is a strategy of delivering of delivering informal, cheap and expeditious justice to the common man by way of settling disputes which are pending in courts and those also which have not reached the courts.[6]

Honorable Delhi High court has given a landmark decision highlighting the significance of Lok Adalat movement in the case of Abdul Hasan and National Legal Services Authority v. Delhi Vidyut Board and Others[7]. The court passed the order giving directions for setting up of permanent Lok Adalat.

  • Negotiation

Dictionary meaning of the word Negotiation is discussion aimed at reaching an agreement. Basically, negotiation is a method to settle disputes peacefully by being flexible in various aspects. This method can be applied in every kind of dispute such as technical, legal or political.

Merits of ADR

  • In the case of arbitration, the parties can select what procedural and domestic rules will be applied to their dispute.
  • Attorneys and expert witnesses are very expensive. Litigating a case can easily cost hundreds and thousands of rupees. ADR offers to resolve the case quickly without much delay and incurs less expenses.
  • ADR allows the parties to work together with a neutral arbitrator or mediator so that the dispute can resolved quickly and the transacting parties are satisfied by the conclusion.
  • ADR process can be initiated at any time, whenever disputing party takes recourse to ADR.
  • ADR programs are not rigid.
  • ADR can be used to reduce the gravity of contentious issues between the parties.

Demerits of ADR

  • With the exception of arbitration, alternative dispute resolution processes do not always lead to a resolution. That means you could spend time and money and still end up going for litigation process.
  • Unfamiliarity of process is a factor causing obstruction in ADR.
  • The remedies established or given out to parties cannot be binding to future cases which means that remedy for one cannot be taken as a guiding stone for another.

ADR: Why needed

  1. Amicable settlement of disputes

ADR provides for a friendly settlement of disputes. In business it is a prudent approach to have a competitor not a rival. It is clear that a healthy competition brings improvement and it’s also cost effects cost of service or commodities in every sphere.

  • Speedy disposal of trial

ADR provides for speedy disposal of trials. Unlike litigation process in ADR there is no scope of adjournment or stay order.

  • Economical settlement of disputes

Unlike litigation process where huge expenses are incurred to pay the advocates and other people involved in the trial, in ADR it is not the case and minimum amount of money is required.

  • Time saving management

In ADR the dispute is resolved without following the cumbersome procedure of ordinary litigation that’s why ADR is also known as dispute management.

  • Legal recognition

This system has been recognized in the Indian Statutes. For instance- now the Civil Procedure Code,1908, Order 32-A, Rule 3 contains scope for compromise and the decree evolved from that compromise is not appealable. Notably, section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 contemplated provisions for conciliation as pre-requisite for any pressure tactics/collective bargaining.

  • Advent of multinational corporations

A number of multinational corporations are coming to invest and establish their business. These businesses have dynamic approach in their business activities. Therefore, in case of disputes they should be provided with such a mechanism which can resolve their dispute immediately and without delays.

Suggestions for improving mechanisms

  • Courts are authorized to convey directives for the adoption of ADR mechanisms by the parties and for that purpose Court must play important role by way of giving guidance. Power is additionally conferred upon the courts so it can intervene in numerous stages of proceedings. But these goals can’t be achieved unless requisite infrastructure is provided and institutional frame work is put to position.
  • Awareness can be brought by holding seminars, webinars and workshops. ADR achievement programs have to be organized so that the mindset of lawyers, parties in conflict and judges can be changed.
  • Training of ADR practitioners should be held by the universities, colleges and institutes. Training of ADR should be made a part of university curriculum.
  • Judicial officers must be trained to identify the cases which can be solved outside the courts.
  • ADR mechanisms should be made more viable because inflow of cases cannot be stopped as the doors of judiciary are not closed but the outflow can be increased by providing other means of dispute resolution.
  •  Mediation centers can be setup in districts and tehsil areas which will help the citizens to resolve their disputes quickly and without going for litigation process which is a time taking process.
  • Not everyone can afford litigation as it is an expensive process so ADR methods should be taken to panchayat and nyaya-panchayat levels (rural areas).
  • The conclusion arrived at in ADR should be made biding upon the parties which is not the case at present and the parties are allowed to appeal in the court if they wish.


It is a well-known fact that there are plenty of cases pending in Indian courts due to lack of resources including human resources and infrastructure. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, there are about 73 lakh cases pending across the country. Although, various steps have been taken towards the improvement of the system such as speeding up the judicial process, the establishment of new courts and increasing the number of judges, etc. Besides this, in 1999 the union government has amended Section 89 of Civil procedure Code 1908 and mandated the courts to try out the possibilities of resolving the pending disputes through arbitration or mediation or Lok Adalat which is known as ADR system. Although the aforementioned steps have been taken the problem still continues. 

[1] AIR 2005 SC 3353

[2] Civil Procedure Code 1908, Order XXXII A Rule 3

[3] 1981 AIR 2075, 1982 SCR (1) 842

[4] 1858 28 LJ CH 184: 53 ER 916

[5] 1999 Arb. WLJ 704 (SC)

[6] P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, 2005 (4) ALR 150 (SC)

[7] AIR 1999 DEL 88

Author: Anubhav Jindal

Editor: Kanishka VaishSenior Editor, LexLife India.