Author: Priyam Malik, Sister Nivedita University
To the point
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) includes methods like arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and Lok Adalats. It offers a faster, more affordable, and private way to resolve disputes without the strict formality of court procedures. ADR helps ease the heavy caseload of Indian courts while maintaining relationships, making it especially useful for family and commercial matters.
Traditional Litigation, on the other hand, follows detailed procedures under the CPC and Evidence Act. It provides legally binding and enforceable decisions, with the option to appeal. However, it can be lengthy, expensive, and adversarial, though it remains crucial for complex disputes needing formal judicial determination.
Which is Better?
For commercial, family, and small civil disputes, ADR is often the better choice due to its speed and lower cost.
For criminal cases, constitutional matters, and disputes needing legal precedent, traditional litigation is necessary.
Overall, ADR works alongside litigation, helping improve access to justice in India, but it cannot fully replace the formal court system.
Use of Legal Jargon
1. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Ways like arbitration and mediation that help people resolve disputes without going to court.
2. Extrajudicial mechanisms: Settling disputes outside the formal court system.
3. Expeditious disposal: Resolving cases quickly to avoid unnecessary delays.
4. Procedural flexibility: Letting parties decide how the process will move forward, without strict court rules.
5. Minimal formalism: Using simpler processes compared to the rigid procedures of courts.
6. Inter se relationships: Legal relationships and duties between the parties involved in a dispute.
7. Party-autonomy driven: The parties themselves control how their dispute will be settled.
8. Consensual dispute settlement: Settling disputes through mutual agreement between the parties.
9. Article 39A of the Constitution: This ensures everyone has equal access to justice and free legal aid if needed.
10. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): The law that lays down the procedure for handling civil cases in India.
11. Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The law that decides what evidence can be used in Indian courts.
12. Due process of law: The principle that legal rights must be respected in any legal action.
13. Audi alteram partem: A principle meaning “hear the other side,” ensuring fairness by giving everyone a chance to present their case.
14. Binding and enforceable judgments (res judicata): Final court decisions that cannot be challenged again on the same matter.
15. Appellate review: The right to ask a higher court to review and correct the decision of a lower court.
16. Authoritative adjudication: A final and binding legal decision made by a court.
17. Ratio decidendi: The legal principle or reason behind a court’s decision, which serves as a guide for future cases.
18. Criminal prosecution: When the state brings legal action against someone accused of committing a crime.
19. Constitutional adjudication: Court decisions on issues related to interpreting the Constitution.
20. Article 131, Article 32, Article 226 of the Constitution: Articles that give the Supreme Court and High Courts powers to hear constitutional and fundamental rights cases.
21. Public law remedies: Legal actions taken against the government to protect citizens’ rights.
22. Commercial contracts: Agreements in business that are legally binding.
23. Case pendency: The number of cases waiting to be resolved in the courts.
24. Section 89 of the CPC: Permits court to resolve cases through ADR.
25. Sine qua non: A Latin term meaning something that is extremely impotent.
26. Coercive enforceability: The legal power to enforce a court’s decision if someone does not comply.
27. Rule of law: The principle that no one is above the law and everyone is equal under it.
28. Justice delivery system: The way courts and tribunals deliver justice to people.
29. Conventional court system: The formal system where disputes are settled under structured laws and procedures.
The Proof
1. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Recognized in Section 89 of the CPC and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which legally allow parties to settle disputes outside courtrooms.
2. Extrajudicial mechanisms
Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, along with arbitration and mediation, are established alternatives to formal court trials.
3. Expeditious disposal
The right to a speedy trial is part of Article 21 of the Constitution, as held in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, ensuring timely justice.
4. Procedural flexibility
Under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, parties can decide their procedure, showing that ADR is not restricted by strict court rules.
5. Minimal formalism
Lok Adalats operate without rigid court procedures, as provided in Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
6. Inter se relationships
Recognized under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which governs agreements between parties, creating legal obligations.
7. Party-autonomy driven
Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 highlights that parties can control how their dispute will be handled, reflecting autonomy.
8. Consensual dispute settlement
Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 emphasizes that mediation and conciliation work only with the consent of both parties.
9. Article 39A of the Constitution
Ensures free legal aid to all citizens.
10. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
The primary law guiding how civil cases are handled in Indian courts.
11. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The statute that lays down the rules for what evidence courts in India can accept.
12. Due process of law
Interpreted under Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, ensuring that any legal action is fair and just.
13.Audi alteram partem
A core natural justice principle upheld in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, ensuring everyone has the right to be heard.
14. Binding and enforceable judgments (res judicata)
Section 11 of CPC mandates that decided case can’t be tried again.
15.Appellate review
Given under Sections 96-112 CPC for civil matters and Sections 374-379 CrPC for criminal matters, allowing higher courts to review lower court decisions.
16. Authoritative adjudication
Judgments delivered by courts are final and can be enforced under Order 21 of the CPC.
17. Ratio decidendi
Under Article 141 of the Constitution, the legal reasoning in a Supreme Court judgment becomes binding on all courts.
18. Criminal prosecution
Handled under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, detailing the process for prosecuting accused individuals.
19.Constitutional adjudication
Articles 32 and 226 empower courts to interpret constitutional questions and protect fundamental rights.
20. Article 131, Article 32, Article 226 of the Constitution
These Articles give the Supreme Court and High Courts authority to hear specific constitutional and fundamental rights cases.
21.Public law remedies
Writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226 are tools available to citizens to challenge state actions.
22. Commercial contracts
Legally enforceable agreements in business are governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
23. Case pendency
The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) tracks the number of cases pending in courts across India.
24.Section 89 of the CPC
Specifically allows courts to refer disputes for resolution through ADR.
25. Sine qua non
This Latin term, meaning “essential condition,” is used frequently in legal interpretation, especially in contract law.
26.Coercive enforceability
Under Order 21 of the CPC, courts have the authority to enforce judgments if parties do not comply willingly.
27.Rule of law
Recognized as part of India’s basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, ensuring that everyone is subject to the law.
28. Justice delivery system
Refers to the structured process and hierarchy through which courts deliver justice under constitutional and procedural laws.
29. Conventional court system
Covers trial courts, appellate courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court, functioning under the CPC, CrPC, and constitutional framework.
Abstract
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provides a quicker, more affordable, and less formal way to resolve disputes through methods like arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and Lok Adalats, without going through lengthy court processes. Backed by Section 89 CPC and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ADR helps ease the burden on courts while maintaining privacy and preserving relationships between parties. It works well for business, family, and smaller civil disputes but cannot fully replace courts in serious criminal, constitutional, or public matters. Although ADR offers flexibility and speed, challenges like enforcement and fairness remain, making it a valuable support to the regular justice system.
Case Laws
1. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (2010)
What was held?
The Supreme Court said that courts must actively send cases to ADR under Section 89 CPC when possible. It is not merely optional; courts should look for opportunities to refer disputes to ADR to reduce the heavy backlog of cases.
Why does it matter?
This case made it clear that ADR should be used to speed up justice in India’s overburdened system, showing that ADR is meant to be a real alternative to traditional court litigation.
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
What was held?
The Court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Keeping undertrial prisoners in jail for years without trial violates their fundamental rights.
Why does it matter?
This landmark case connected expeditious disposal of cases to fundamental rights, reminding courts and the government that justice delayed is justice denied.
3. Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh (1981)
What was held?
The Court encouraged the use of arbitration and emphasized that minor technicalities should not block arbitration proceedings, as arbitration is meant to resolve disputes efficiently.
Why does it matter?
It highlighted procedural flexibility in ADR, showing that ADR should avoid rigid, technical hurdles that slow down justice.
4. State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2008)
What was held?
The Supreme Court held that Lok Adalats do not have to follow strict procedural laws or the Evidence Act.
Why does it matter?
It shows that Lok Adalats operate with minimal formalism, making them user-friendly and accessible, especially for those who cannot handle the complexity of traditional court procedures.
5. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913)
What was held?
The Allahabad High Court explained that for a contract to be valid, it’s not enough just to accept; the person accepting must actually know there’s an offer when they accept it. Simply doing the act without knowing about the offer does not create a binding agreement.
Why does it matter?
This case demonstrates inter se relationships between parties in contracts, forming the basis for civil disputes and ADR settlements where agreements are enforced only when there is clear acceptance.
Conclusion
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and traditional litigation are both good options to resolve a conflict. But it depends on people how they want to get resolved. These two options have their own advantages and disadvantages. So it’s up to people what they prefer or what they does not. It is irrelevant to discuss what is good or bad because both are good in their own context.
FAQs
1. What is ADR?
ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) means settling disputes outside the regular courts using methods like arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and Lok Adalats.
2. How is ADR different from traditional litigation?
ADR is informal, quicker, less costly, and flexible, whereas traditional litigation is formal, slow, expensive, and follows strict rules under the CPC and the Evidence Act.
3. Is ADR legally recognized in India?
Yes. Section 89 of the CPC and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 legally support ADR, allowing courts to send disputes for settlement outside the court process.
4. Which types of disputes are best suited for ADR?
ADR works well for:
Commercial disputes (business contracts, partnerships)
Family matters (divorce, maintenance, property)
Minor civil disputes (small claims, recovery matters)
where speed, confidentiality, and maintaining relationships are important.
5. Which disputes cannot be settled through ADR?
Serious criminal offences
Constitutional matters needing court interpretation
Public law issues that require formal court judgments.
6.Can ADR completely replace traditional courts in India?
No, ADR cannot fully replace courts. While ADR reduces the burden on courts, courts are essential for complex, criminal, and constitutional cases, and to set legal precedents.
7. What are the benefits of ADR?
Resolves disputes faster
Lowers legal costs
Offers flexibility and informality
Maintains confidentiality
Helps reduce court case backlog
Preserves personal and business relationships.
8. What are the limitations of ADR?
Cannot handle all types of disputes
Lacks detailed procedural protections in some cases
Enforceability issues if parties do not cooperate.
References
1 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Constr. Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 S.C.C. 24 (India).
2 Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1979) 3 S.C.C. 532 (India).
3 Guru Nanak Found. v. Rattan Singh, (1981) 4 S.C.C. 634 (India).
4 State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 S.C.C. 660 (India).
5 Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, I.L.R. (1913) 35 All. 271 (India).
