Analysis Report on the "Need for Justice-dispensation through ADR etc.

"
with Case Law Integration
The 222nd Report of the Law Commission of India titled "Need for Justice-
dispensation through ADR etc." provides a comprehensive analysis of the role
and necessity of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in the Indian
legal system. By examining relevant case laws, this report not only emphasizes
the legal recognition of ADR but also highlights its importance in ensuring access
to justice for all, particularly the economically and socially disadvantaged
sections of society.
1. Access to Justice and the Role of ADR
The report begins by addressing the challenges within the Indian judicial system,
such as delays, high costs, and procedural complexities. These issues are
particularly detrimental to economically disadvantaged individuals, who often
find the traditional court system inaccessible. The Supreme Court’s decision in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 expanded the scope of
the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
emphasizing that these rights must be interpreted broadly to include access to
justice. This decision laid the groundwork for the development of a jurisprudence
that prioritizes access to justice, particularly for marginalized groups.
The principle of equal access to justice is further reinforced by State of
Haryana v. Darshana Devi (1979), where the Supreme Court criticized the
imposition of court fees that hinder access to the judicial system, particularly for
indigent litigants. The Court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental
right, and any barriers to this right must be scrutinized and minimized. This case
supports the report’s recommendation for the widespread adoption of ADR
mechanisms, which offer a more accessible and affordable means of dispute
resolution.
2. The Evolution of ADR in Indian Jurisprudence
ADR mechanisms have evolved significantly in India, particularly in the field of
arbitration. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the
earlier Arbitration Act of 1940, marked a significant shift towards promoting
arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism. The Supreme Court’s
decision in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. M/S. Mehul Construction
Co. (2000) highlighted the objectives of the 1996 Act, which include minimizing
judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings and providing greater autonomy
to arbitral tribunals. This decision underscores the judiciary’s support for ADR
and its role in reducing the burden on traditional courts.
In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant (1995),
the Supreme Court acknowledged the efficacy of ADR in resolving industrial
disputes. The Court observed that the Industrial Disputes Act and related
statutes are designed to provide a speedy, inexpensive, and informal mechanism
for dispute resolution, free from the procedural complexities of civil courts. This
case illustrates the practical benefits of ADR in the Indian legal context,
particularly in areas where disputes are frequent and the need for timely
resolution is critical.
3. Judicial Endorsement of ADR Mechanisms
The judiciary's endorsement of ADR mechanisms is further evident in Salem
Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2003). In this case, the Supreme
Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments made to the Code of
Civil Procedure (CPC) in 1999, which introduced Section 89. This section
mandates the referral of disputes to ADR mechanisms, such as arbitration,
mediation, and conciliation, before proceeding with litigation. The Court’s
decision highlights the judiciary's proactive approach in encouraging the use of
ADR to reduce the backlog of cases and ensure quicker justice delivery.
Another significant case is P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job (2005), where the
Supreme Court affirmed the legal status of Lok Adalat awards, equating them
with civil court decrees. This decision reinforces the role of Lok Adalats as a
crucial component of the ADR system in India, providing an accessible and
binding resolution of disputes outside the formal court system.
4. Challenges and Recommendations for Institutional Arbitration
While ADR mechanisms offer numerous advantages, the report also highlights
challenges, particularly in the context of arbitration. Union of India v. M/S.
Singh Builders Syndicate (2009) addresses the issue of high arbitration costs,
especially when retired judges serve as arbitrators. The Supreme Court
expressed concern over the prohibitive costs associated with ad hoc arbitration
and advocated for the promotion of institutional arbitration as a more cost-
effective and efficient alternative. Institutional arbitration provides standardized
procedures, fixed fees, and greater predictability, making it a more viable option
for parties seeking to resolve disputes through ADR.
The report’s recommendation for the establishment and promotion of more
institutional arbitration centers across India is crucial. Institutional arbitration not
only reduces costs but also ensures that the arbitral process is conducted
professionally, with minimal judicial intervention, as highlighted in Food
Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal (1989).
5. The Role of Lok Adalats and Legal Aid
Lok Adalats have been instrumental in providing access to justice, particularly for
marginalized communities. The Supreme Court’s decision in Vasudevan V. A. v.
State of Kerala (2004) reinforced the importance of Lok Adalats in the legal
framework, ensuring that their awards are treated with the same respect as
court decrees. This decision supports the report’s emphasis on expanding the
reach of Lok Adalats to cover a broader range of disputes, thus providing an
effective and accessible forum for resolving conflicts.
The report also highlights the role of legal aid in ensuring access to justice,
particularly through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as exemplified by Sheela
Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983). In this case, the Supreme Court
emphasized the need for legal assistance to indigent individuals, recognizing it
as a constitutional mandate under Article 39A of the Indian Constitution. This
case underscores the importance of ensuring that ADR mechanisms, particularly
Lok Adalats, are accessible to all, including those who cannot afford traditional
legal representation.
Recommendations
1. Promotion of Institutional Arbitration: To address the challenges of
high costs and inconsistent procedures associated with ad hoc arbitration,
there should be a concerted effort to promote institutional arbitration
across India. Establishing more arbitration centers with standardized
procedures and fixed fees will make ADR more accessible and reliable.
2. Expansion of Lok Adalats: Given the success of Lok Adalats in providing
accessible and timely justice, it is recommended that their jurisdiction be
expanded to cover a wider range of disputes. Additionally, more
permanent Lok Adalats should be established across the country to ensure
that all citizens have access to this important ADR mechanism.
3. Enhanced Legal Aid for ADR: To ensure that ADR mechanisms are truly
accessible to all, particularly the economically disadvantaged, there
should be a greater emphasis on legal aid services. This includes
expanding awareness programs and providing legal assistance to those
who wish to resolve disputes through ADR but lack the resources to do so.
4. Training for ADR Practitioners: To improve the effectiveness of ADR
mechanisms, there should be a focus on training mediators, arbitrators,
and other ADR practitioners. This training should emphasize the
importance of impartiality, professionalism, and the need to address not
only the legal but also the emotional aspects of disputes.
5. Judicial Support and Supervision: The judiciary should continue to
support and supervise the development of ADR mechanisms. This includes
ensuring that ADR awards, particularly those from Lok Adalats and
arbitration tribunals, are respected and enforced as binding and final, with
minimal scope for judicial intervention.