EXPEDIENT AND EFFICACIOUS JUSTICE DISPENSATION

THROUGH ADR MECHANISM

"No problem is so deep that it cannot be overcome, given the will of all parties, through
discussion and negotiation rather than force and violence." ~ Nelson Mandela 1

INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, specifically out-of-court settlements,
are becoming increasingly popular. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the
Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC), under the guidance of Chief Justice of
India B.R. Gavai, have launched a 90-day 'Mediation For the Nation' campaign starting from 01-
07-2025 till 30-09-2025. Although this initiative is gaining attention, 2 ADR is not a new concept
in India; it has a rich history that dates back centuries before the Common Era. One of the earliest
and most significant forms of dispute resolution in India was the panchayat system.
Initial efforts to institutionalise ADR processes in a legislative framework can be traced to the
Bengal Regulations Act of 1772 and the Bengal Resolution Act of 1781. These early statutes
represent some of the first formal attempts by colonial authorities to integrate structured
mechanisms for settling disputes outside the conventional judicial system. These acts remained in
effect until the introduction of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in 1859. Following this, the Indian
Arbitration Act was enacted in 1899, drawing inspiration from the English Arbitration Act of 1889,
and marked the first comprehensive legal framework for arbitration in India. This legislation,
however, was restricted to the presidency towns and encountered various criticisms from the
judiciary. The CPC was amended in 1908, promoting the idea that disputes should first be directed
to ADR as per section 89(1).
Later, the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act of 1937 was implemented to align with the
Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses established in 1923. The British then brought forth the
Arbitration Act of 1940, which governed arbitration until the introduction of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act in 1996. With India gaining independence, the nation adopted the legal system
left by the British, which included both the judicial structure and ADR processes.
In a significant development, Lok Adalats were first established in Junagarh, Gujarat, on March
14, 1982. Initially functioning as informal tribunals without any legal framework, these adalats
gained statutory acknowledgement with the enactment of the Legal Services Authorities Act in
1987, thereby becoming a vital part of the Indian legal system. The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act of 1996 was a turning point in India’s approach to arbitration, aligning it with the UNCITRAL

1Nelson Mandela, Nelson Mandela by Himself: The Authorised Book of Quotations 251 (Pan Macmillan 2011).
2
SCC Online Blog, NALSA, MCPC Launch Pan-India 90-Day Mediation Drive, (June 27, 2025),
[Link]
Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and introducing the process of conciliation.
Since then, the Act has been revised multiple times, including updates in 2015, 2019, and 2021. 3
MECHANISM OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
An Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism is a structured, non-judicial process through
which disputing parties voluntarily engage neutral third–party facilitators in methods, as few as

• Arbitration
• Conciliation
• Mediation
• Negotiation
• Lok Adalat
To explore interests, negotiate solutions, and achieve binding or non-binding settlements. By
emphasising confidentiality, flexibility and party autonomy, ADR mechanisms streamline conflict
resolution, reduce adversarial costs, and foster durable outcomes grounded in mutual
understanding rather than formal adjudication. Let's delve into each Alternative Dispute
Mechanism as mentioned above.
A. ARBITRATION
Arbitration serves as a private forum for resolving "in personam" disputes that the parties
have contractually agreed to settle outside of court. During the drafting of any contract, the
parties should include an arbitration clause. If a dispute arises and there is no existing
arbitration clause, the parties can mutually agree to create one. Arbitration encompasses a
wide range of civil and commercial controversies, including breaches of supply, service,
joint venture, or distribution agreements, as well as issues related to international trade and
maritime matters.
According to Section 2(1)(a) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, “Arbitration
means any arbitration whether or not administered by a permanent arbitral institution. 4”
This definition indicates that all forms of arbitration proceedings are statutorily recognised
in India under this Act. Importantly, an amicable settlement between the parties does not
imply compromising; it should be mutually agreed upon by both parties.
In practice, arbitration resembles a streamlined trial: it follows relaxed evidentiary
protocols, omits pre-hearing discovery, and occurs outside the public domain. Once
rendered, the arbitral award holds the same weight and enforceability as a judgment or
order issued by a civil court. There are different types of arbitration are there which include.

• AD HOC ARBITRATION

3
Manupatra, The Impact of ADR Mechanism in India’s Judicial System: An Analysis (June 2025),
[Link]
SYSTEM-AN-ANALYSIS.
4
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, § 2((1)(a), INDIA CODE (1996).
 Ad hoc arbitration is a process where the parties involved come together to resolve their
disputes through arbitration, selecting their arbitrators instead of relying on an institutional
framework. This approach is quite common in India, as it allows the parties to take charge
of the arbitration process themselves.
By choosing this model, the parties can avoid institutional case management and the fees
that come with it, which can lead to greater flexibility and potential savings. However, it
also means they must manage all procedural aspects and logistics on their own or agree
beforehand on how to address any issues, such as difficulties in appointing arbitrators.

• INSTITUTIONAL ARBITRATION
Institutional arbitration is a method of resolving disputes where a dedicated arbitral
organisation oversees and manages the entire process according to its established
procedural guidelines, which can be based on either national or international standards.
These organisations typically create their own arbitration rules, but they must still align
with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. Some of the well-known institutions
that offer institutional arbitration include:
− Singapore International Arbitration Centre,
− The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London,
− The National Arbitration Forum USA,
− The London Court of International Arbitration,
− International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Hyderabad,
− Delhi International Arbitration Centre, etc.

• DOMESTIC ARBITRATION
Domestic arbitration refers to cases where the involved parties, the arbitration venue (the
"seat"), and the nature of the dispute are all situated within a single country's legal
jurisdiction. It is regulated by that nation’s arbitration laws (such as the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act of 1996 in India), adhering to local procedural and evidential rules. The
awards issued in this context are enforceable like any judgment from domestic courts.
Since the parties typically share the same legal culture and language, domestic arbitration
tends to provide more predictability, reduced translation expenses, and easier logistics.
However, it may lack the level of neutrality often required in international disputes.

• INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
International arbitration occurs when the parties involved are situated in different countries
or when their agreement includes cross-border elements, like foreign laws, multiple
languages, or international business dealings. This process is typically governed by widely
accepted rules, such as the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, or by a specific arbitral
institution. The resulting awards can be enforced in over 170 countries due to the New
York Convention (1958). By keeping the proceedings separate from any one nation's court
system, international arbitration provides a neutral platform, allows for the selection of
 arbitrators with various legal expertise, and offers flexible procedural options to deal with
intricate disputes that span multiple jurisdictions. 5

B. CONCILIATION
Conciliation is a collaborative method for resolving disputes where a neutral third party,
known as the conciliator, helps the conflicting parties reach a mutually acceptable solution
without enforcing a binding decision. In India, Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act of 1996 formally recognises conciliation as a legal process, offering a flexible yet
organised framework for appointing conciliators, conducting meetings, and enforcing any
agreements reached. 6 This process is based on the principles of voluntariness and
confidentiality, allowing participants to define the issues in their own words, uncover
underlying interests, and explore innovative settlement solutions that might go beyond
conventional legal remedies.
The conciliator promotes constructive communication by addressing misunderstandings,
suggesting settlement ideas, and overseeing procedural steps, while consistently respecting
the parties' right to accept, alter, or reject any suggestions. By reducing adversarial
behaviour and focusing on cooperative problem-solving, conciliation often results in
quicker, more cost-effective, and more sustainable resolutions compared to traditional
litigation or arbitration.

C. MEDIATION
Mediation is broadly defined under Section 3(h) of the Mediation Act, 2023, as a process
in which parties attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute with the assistance
of a third person, called a mediator. The mediator does not have the authority to impose a
settlement on the parties involved. This process can be referred to by various names,
including mediation, pre-litigation mediation, online mediation, community mediation,
conciliation, or other similar terms. 7
Additionally, Section 89(1)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers courts to
refer cases to mediation. When a court believes there are elements of a settlement that may
be acceptable to the parties, it formulates the terms of the settlement and presents them to
the parties for their feedback. After receiving their observations, the court may revise the
proposed terms of settlement. 8
Mediation is commonly used in matrimonial, family, civil, and commercial disputes. Its
advantages include voluntary participation, party autonomy, and the potential for amicable
solutions. Mediation is also cost-effective and time-efficient, providing a client-friendly
environment because it is less formal than traditional court proceedings. Furthermore, since
the parties themselves are involved in crafting the solution, mediation can be more effective.

5 iPleaders, What Is Arbitration? (June, 2022), [Link]

6 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, part 3, INDIA CODE (1996).
7 The Mediation Act, No. 32 of 2023, § 3(h), INDIA CODE (2023).
8
Code of Civil Procedure, No. 5 of 1908, § 89, INDIA CODE (1908).
 • PRE-TRIAL MEDIATION
Pre-trial mediation is a process referred to by the court that occurs after the pleadings have
been completed but before the actual trial begins. According to section 89(1)(d) of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court may suggest mediation to explore the terms of a
potential settlement.9 This process typically involves joint sessions and private meetings
led by a neutral mediator who facilitates discussions focused on the interests of the parties
without making binding decisions. The goal is for the parties to reach a mutually agreeable
settlement. If successful, a formal agreement is drafted, signed, and then validated by the
court as an enforceable order. By engaging in mediation early, this approach helps save
judicial resources, reduce litigation expenses and timeframes, and maintain the
relationships that can be damaged by adversarial trials.

D. NEGOTIATION
Negotiation is a voluntary and confidential conversation between parties, often with the
assistance of their legal representatives. The goal is to exchange proposals and counter-
proposals to reach a mutually acceptable agreement without involving a third-party
decision-maker. This process is fundamentally interest-based, allowing the parties to
explore innovative solutions and maintain relationships by concentrating on their
underlying needs rather than fixed positions. While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of
1996 does not specifically define negotiation, it is acknowledged as a mechanism for out-
of-court settlements in Section 89(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This section
includes arbitration, conciliation, Lok Adalat, and mediation, aligning with the court's duty
to refer cases for alternative dispute resolution when there is potential for a settlement.

E. LOK ADALAT
Lok Adalat, literally meaning “People’s Court”, is a statutory Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) forum established under Sections 19–22 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987. Its primary objective is to ensure “access to justice” by promoting
amicable settlements of both pre-litigation and pending cases through conciliation, rather
than through formal adjudication processes.
Lok Adalats are constituted at various levels, including the State, High Court, District, and
Taluk Legal Services Authorities. Each Lok Adalat bench is typically chaired by either a
serving or retired judicial officer, along with a lawyer and a social worker, all acting as
statutory conciliators without any adjudicatory power. Their role is to facilitate
compromise between disputing parties without coercing them into a settlement.
The jurisdiction of Lok Adalats extends to any matter pending before, or within the purview
of, a civil or revenue court, provided the disputes are compoundable. Notably, only one
party’s consent is sufficient for a reference under Section 20 of the Act. Lok Adalats
possess many of the powers of a civil court, including summoning witnesses, examining

9 Ibid.
 them under oath, calling for documents, and admitting affidavit evidence. However, they
apply procedural rules flexibly to achieve speedy compromises.
The awards made by Lok Adalats are final, binding, and considered decrees of a civil court,
with no option for appeal. If the matter had been filed in court, court fees are refunded, and
no fees are required for new filings. Lok Adalats are held in various formats such as
National, Mega, Permanent (under Section 22-B), Mobile, and more recently, virtual “E-
Lok Adalats” since 2020. These forums have successfully resolved millions of disputes in
a single day, significantly alleviating the backlog in India’s courts.10
The major difference of each process is;
• Arbitration A private, adjudicatory process whose final award is binding and
enforceable as a court decree.

• Conciliation A voluntary process where the conciliator proposes settlement terms

but does not impose a decision.

• Mediation A facilitative process where the mediator assists dialogue, yet cannot
suggest or impose settlement terms.

• Negotiation A direct, party-driven discussion with no third-party involvement at

all.

• Lok Adalat A statutory forum whose award is final, binding, non-appealable,

and enforceable as a court decree.

This discussion lays the groundwork for understanding the various ADR methods currently in
India’s legal system. To achieve the goal of timely and effective justice, ADR must go beyond
theoretical use. A strong framework requires focus on practical implementation, legal and
technological integration, and developing human resources. Notably, global legal systems show
how commitment to ADR can transform justice delivery. For example, Singapore’s judiciary
mandates court-annexed mediation for civil disputes and enforces mediated agreements through
the Singapore Convention on Mediation. Similarly, the UK requires pre-action protocols involving
ADR in civil cases, while the US incorporates mediation and arbitration into both federal and state
court systems through its Federal ADR Act. These global examples illustrate how a strong focus
on ADR reduces case delays and builds public trust in accessible justice.
In this context, India faces a critical moment. Strengthening court-annexed ADR, utilizing Online
Dispute Resolution (ODR), and fostering institutional collaboration and capacity-building are
essential to make ADR the primary means of delivering justice

• STRENGTHENING COURT-ANNEXED ADR

10Pratyaksh Garg, Role of ADR in Speedy Justice System in India, 5(6) Indian J. Legal Rev. 648 (2025) (ISSN
2583-2344, APIS–3920–0001).
 Court-annexed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) includes methods like mediation,
conciliation, and Lok Adalat, all under judicial oversight. Section 89 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908, states that courts must refer cases to ADR if there is a chance for settlement.
This was supported in the important case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of
India (2005), where the Supreme Court reinforced Section 89 and ordered the creation of
model mediation rules 11 . The case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey
Construction Co. (2010) provided further guidance. It stated that certain types of civil
disputes, such as those involving contracts, marriage, and family, are especially suited for
ADR and should be directed to these processes without exception. 12

To improve the effectiveness of court-annexed ADR, we need to set up mediation centres

in every district court, establish performance standards for judges who make referrals,
create feedback systems, and devote a specific budget to ADR programs. The success of
the Bangalore Mediation Centre, which has resolved over 60% of the cases sent to it,
highlights the need to expand such initiatives. Additionally, the introduction of Permanent
Lok Adalats under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act has significantly
helped reduce the backlog of public utility disputes.13

• LEVERAGING SETTLEMENTS THROUGH ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is becoming a key part of modern justice delivery.
During the pandemic, ODR systems were essential for keeping dispute resolution going.
India’s first E-Lok Adalat took place in Chhattisgarh in 2020, followed by successful
versions in Delhi, Maharashtra, and Karnataka 14. ODR platforms like Sama, Presolv360,
and Jupitice are being linked with state legal service authorities. These platforms offer e-
filing, AI-assisted triage, virtual mediation rooms, and digital documentation. The NITI
Aayog’s 2020 ODR report pointed out how ODR can help manage the high volume of
small-value disputes, particularly in consumer complaints, MSME contract disputes, and
digital transactions.15
However, issues such as the digital divide and cybersecurity remain challenges. The
government's efforts to expand BharatNet and ensure digital access in courts are crucial for
making ODR available to everyone. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (as
amended), now permits online mediation before instituting a case, further validating the
use of ODR in formal proceedings. 16

11 Salem Advocate Bar Ass’n v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 (India).
12
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24 (India).
13 Legal Services Authorities Act, No. 39 of 1987, § 22B, INDIA CODE (1987).
14 India’s first E-Lok Adalat was held in Chhattisgarh in 2020, followed by similar initiatives in Delhi,

Maharashtra, and Karnataka. See Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority, First Ever E-Lok Adalat Held in
India, (July 2020), [Link] (last visited July 13, 2025).
15
NITI Aayog, Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India (June 2020).
16 The Commercial Courts Act, No. 4 of 2016, § 12A, as amended, INDIA CODE (2015).
 • COLLABORATION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING MECHANISM
For ADR to work well, it needs ongoing capacity-building for mediators, arbitrators, judges,
legal aid officers, and litigants. Institutions like the National Judicial Academy, State
Judicial Academies, and the proposed Mediation Council of India under the Mediation Act,
2023, play important roles in this process. There is a strong need to include ADR in law
school curricula, conduct training led by state bar councils, and collaborate with global
mediation and arbitration organisations. The Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation
Centre (Samadhan) works with UNDP and the Singapore International Mediation Centre
(SIMC) to enhance skills.
Training should be regular, practical, and focused on real-world disputes. Additionally,
monitoring the effectiveness of ADR centres with data analytics and feedback can help
improve efficiency. Budget allocations, public awareness campaigns, and standardising
processes across states are also very important.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
When it comes to ADR, India can learn from other places that have successfully added these
methods to their legal systems. For example, Singapore has become a global center for mediation
and arbitration. It has created organizations like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
(SIAC) and the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC). Additionally, the Singapore
Mediation Act of 2017 and its status as a signatory to the Singapore Convention on Mediation
show its dedication to supporting international and local ADR.17
Similarly, the United States has built a strong ADR system through the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act of 1998, which requires all federal district courts to provide ADR programs.
Organizations like the American Arbitration Association (AAA) play an important role in offering
arbitration, mediation, and negotiation services. Courts often encourage or require parties to
consider ADR before going to court, which helps improve efficiency and reduce case backlogs. 18
Both Singapore and the United States show how legal frameworks and institutional support can
encourage effective dispute resolution. India, with recent reforms like the Mediation Act of 2023,
is making good progress. By adopting best practices from these countries, India can continue to
ensure faster and more accessible justice for everyone.

17Ministry of Law Singapore. (2019). "Singapore Convention on Mediation." Retrieved from

[Link]

• 18U.S. Courts. (1998). "Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998." Retrieved from
[Link]
CONCLUTION
In conclusion, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in India are now essential parts of the
justice system, not just supplements. The historical foundations, legal reforms, and institutional
innovations, including court-annexed mediation, digital ODR platforms, and mass Lok Adalats,
work together to ensure justice is timely and affordable. Global trends support India’s current
direction. To make ADR truly effective, continued institution development, digital expansion,
collaborative training, and consistent policy support are vital. With the judiciary encouraging ADR
and new laws bringing clarity and order, India is positioned to create a sustainable, inclusive, and
competitive dispute resolution system.