Comparative study of ADR - The Indian Perspective
Comparative Study of ADR – The Indian Perspective
1. Introduction to ADR in India
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to mechanisms and processes, other than litigation, that help parties resolve disputes amicably and efficiently.
In India, ADR has gained importance due to:
Overburdened courts
Delays in justice delivery
High litigation costs
Need for flexible, speedy, and cost-effective dispute resolution
2. Common Forms of ADR in India
| ADR Mechanism | Description | Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| Arbitration | A private dispute resolution where an arbitrator renders a binding award. | Binding, enforceable, governed by Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 |
| Mediation | A neutral third party assists parties to negotiate and settle. | Non-binding, voluntary, confidential |
| Conciliation | Similar to mediation, but conciliator plays a more active role. | Non-binding, informal, confidential |
| Lok Adalat | “People’s Court” for amicable settlement of disputes, backed by statutory powers | Binding, speedy, low cost, organized by Legal Services Authorities Act |
| Negotiation | Parties directly communicate to settle without a third party. | Flexible, informal, non-binding |
3. Legal Framework Governing ADR in India
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Governs arbitration and conciliation processes.
Incorporates UNCITRAL Model Law principles.
Provides for court intervention in limited circumstances.
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
Empowers formation of Lok Adalats for dispute resolution.
Focuses on free legal aid and speedy justice.
Supreme Court and High Courts Rules
Promote pre-litigation mediation.
Encourage referral of cases to ADR.
4. Comparative Analysis of ADR Methods in India
| Aspect | Arbitration | Mediation/Conciliation | Lok Adalat | Negotiation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature | Formal, quasi-judicial | Informal, facilitative | Informal, statutory | Informal, private |
| Binding Effect | Binding and enforceable award | Generally non-binding | Statutory binding decision | Non-binding |
| Role of Third Party | Arbitrator decides the dispute | Mediator facilitates communication | Presiding officer facilitates settlement | No third party |
| Court Involvement | Limited, for enforcement and challenges | Minimal | Integrated with legal system | None |
| Cost and Time | More expensive than mediation but faster than litigation | Cost-effective and faster | Very economical and quick | Cost-effective and flexible |
| Scope of Use | Commercial, civil, international | Commercial, family, civil | Mostly civil and criminal compoundable cases | Any dispute |
| Confidentiality | Confidential | Confidential | Generally public | Private |
5. Advantages of ADR in India
Speedy resolution: Avoids court delays.
Cost-effective: Less expensive than litigation.
Flexibility: Procedures can be tailored.
Preserves relationships: Especially in mediation and negotiation.
Reduces burden on courts: Helps with backlog.
Confidentiality: Especially in arbitration and mediation.
6. Challenges in ADR in India
Lack of awareness among parties.
Quality and training of mediators/arbitrators varies.
Enforcement issues: Sometimes difficulty in enforcing awards.
Misuse: Delaying tactic in some cases.
Court interference: Sometimes courts are reluctant to refer cases.
Cultural resistance: Preference for litigation persists.
7. Important Case Laws on ADR in India
7.1. Bharat Aluminum Co. (BALCO) v. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Service Inc. (2012)
(2012) 9 SCC 552
Landmark judgment clarifying applicability of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to arbitrations seated in India.
Upheld autonomy of arbitration agreements and limited court interference.
7.2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. (1999)
(1999) 2 SCC 479
Supreme Court stressed the importance of arbitration agreements and upheld the enforcement of arbitration awards.
Reiterated arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism.
7.3. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005)
(2005) 6 SCC 344
Emphasized the importance of mediation and Lok Adalats to reduce backlog.
Encouraged judiciary to promote ADR methods.
7.4. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2010)
(2010) 8 SCC 24
Held that parties cannot approach courts for interim relief without invoking arbitration.
Encouraged strict adherence to arbitration agreements.
7.5. CERC v. PTC India Ltd. (2010)
(2010) 4 SCC 603
Held that when an arbitration clause exists, courts must refrain from entertaining disputes.
Reinforced judicial minimalism in arbitration matters.
8. Judicial Attitude Towards ADR
Supreme Court and High Courts actively promote pre-litigation mediation and settlement.
Guidelines issued to courts to refer disputes to mediation centers.
Lok Adalats supported for social justice and speedy disposal.
Courts also stress on international commercial arbitration to boost investor confidence.
9. Conclusion
ADR in India is a vital tool for effective dispute resolution given the enormous burden on courts. While arbitration is the most formal and binding ADR, mediation and Lok Adalats serve as accessible, cost-effective alternatives for ordinary citizens.
The legal framework and judicial activism have greatly promoted ADR, but awareness, quality of ADR professionals, and enforcement mechanisms need improvement for wider acceptance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments