UPSC Relevance-GS Paper II – Polity & Governance | Judicial Reforms | Access to Justice | Legal Awareness
Why in News
The Minister of Law and Justice, Arjun Ram Meghwal, recently reaffirmed the government’s commitment to legal reforms rooted in India’s civilisational ethos. Drawing from the ancient doctrine of Panch Parmeshwar—which emphasises collective consensus in dispute resolution—he highlighted the need for strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms both domestically and globally.
Facts related with the news-
The India Justice Report 2025 revealed deep-rooted challenges in India’s justice delivery system — ranging from massive case pendency to limited access and judicial vacancies. According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), over 4.57 crore cases remain pending across all courts in India, including 81,768 in the Supreme Court and over 62 lakh in High Courts.
In this context, ADR is emerging as a fast, affordable, and inclusive mechanism to bridge the justice gap and reduce court congestion.
Background: The Need for an Alternative
India’s justice system, although one of the largest in the world, is strained by systemic delays and resource shortages. These delays lead to “justice delayed is justice denied”, especially for the poor and marginalised.
The civilisational ethos of India has always valued dialogue and reconciliation over adversarial litigation. Systems like village panchayats historically resolved disputes through mutual understanding and social consensus — the very principle that ADR seeks to modernise.
Therefore, strengthening ADR is not merely an administrative reform; it represents a return to India’s traditional roots of participatory justice, aligned with constitutional ideals of equality and access.
What is ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution)?
ADR refers to methods that resolve disputes outside traditional courts, such as:
- Arbitration – A neutral arbitrator gives a binding decision (award); often used in commercial disputes.
Example: Business contract disagreements between two firms. - Conciliation – A conciliator helps parties reach an amicable solution without imposing a decision.
- Mediation – A mediator facilitates dialogue; the final agreement is voluntary, not binding.
- Judicial Settlement (Lok Adalat) – Courts refer cases for amicable settlement before formal trial.
These processes are faster, less formal, and less expensive, providing accessible justice even to those unable to afford litigation.
Constitutional and Legal Basis of ADR
- Article 39A (Directive Principles of State Policy):
Directs the State to ensure equal justice and free legal aid.
ADR helps achieve this by offering low-cost and speedy mechanisms. - Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908:
Empowers courts to refer disputes for arbitration, conciliation, mediation, or judicial settlement.
This prevents unnecessary litigation and encourages pre-trial resolution. - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Amended in 2021):
Provides the legal framework for arbitration and conciliation.
Establishes the Indian Arbitration Council for promoting institutional arbitration.
Fixes a maximum period of 180 days for resolution to ensure timely justice.
Example: Corporate disputes or cross-border trade disagreements are often settled under this Act. - Pre-Litigation Mediation:
Allows disputes to be settled before they reach court.Even if mediation fails, parties can exit after two sessions, maintaining flexibility.
How Lok Adalats Function
Lok Adalats (People’s Courts) are the most popular ADR institutions in India.
- Legal Basis: Governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, based on Article 39A.
- Types of Lok Adalats:
- Permanent Lok Adalat (Section 22-B) – Handles public utility service disputes (like transport, postal, and electricity).
- National Lok Adalat – Organised nationwide to dispose of large numbers of pending and pre-litigation cases in a single day.
- e-Lok Adalat – Digital version using online platforms, first introduced widely during the pandemic.
The first Lok Adalat was held in Gujarat in 1999, and since then, millions of cases—especially motor accident claims, matrimonial disputes, and land conflicts—have been resolved through them.
Finality of Awards
- Awards of Lok Adalats are final and binding, with no appeal.
- However, a dissatisfied party may file a fresh case in regular court, ensuring checks on misuse.
- This balance ensures both efficiency and fairness.
Why Strengthening ADR is Crucial
1. Tool for Social Change
Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud aptly called mediation a tool for social change, as it:
- Promotes communication, empathy, and dialogue,
- Aligns social norms with constitutional values, and
- Ensures justice is delivered in a language and manner people understand.
This people-centric model strengthens trust in institutions and helps settle sensitive disputes like family or community conflicts peacefully.
2. Rising Case Backlog and Judicial Vacancies
The India Justice Report (2025) highlights:
- Over 5 crore pending cases nationwide.
- 33% vacancies in High Courts and 21% in district courts.
- Judges in Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala handle over 4,000 cases each on average.
- Thousands of cases are pending for more than a decade.
The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) provides real-time insights, showing wide disparities in judicial efficiency among States.
3. Inter-State Disparities
States such as Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar have the highest pendency rates, whereas smaller States perform relatively better due to fewer cases and higher disposal rates.
This highlights a major challenge in per capita justice delivery — the number of judges and the pace of justice per citizen remain alarmingly low.
4. ADR as the Key to Equitable Justice
- ADR mechanisms unclog courts, allowing judges to focus on complex constitutional and criminal matters.
- Pre-litigation mediation and Lok Adalats promote settlement at the community level, preserving relationships and reducing hostility.
- For a country as large and diverse as India, ADR ensures justice reaches every corner — from rural panchayats to urban corporations.
Challenges in Strengthening ADR
Despite its potential, ADR in India faces structural, legal, and social challenges:
1. Low Public Awareness:Many citizens, especially in rural areas, are unaware of ADR forums or distrust out-of-court settlements.
2. Quality and Neutrality of Mediators:
Lack of trained and accredited mediators/arbitrators sometimes affects credibility.
Risk of bias or unequal bargaining power among parties.
3. Enforceability Issues:Although awards are legally binding, execution often faces delays, particularly in arbitration cases.
4. Institutional Gaps:
India still lacks strong institutional arbitration centers outside metros.
Dependence on ad-hoc arbitration reduces efficiency.
5. Digital Divide:While e-Lok Adalats are promising, limited digital literacy and connectivity in rural areas hinder accessibility.
6. Resistance from Legal Fraternity:Some lawyers and litigants view ADR as a threat to conventional litigation practice, slowing its adoption.
Way Forward
- Institutionalisation of ADR:Strengthen Mediation Centres and Arbitration Councils at the district level.
- Digital Expansion:Promote e-Lok Adalats and online mediation platforms for wider reach.
- Public Awareness:Encourage citizens to prefer ADR through awareness drives and legal literacy campaigns.
- Capacity Building:Train more mediators, conciliators, and arbitrators, ensuring professionalism and neutrality.
- Integration with Traditional Systems:Draw from India’s Panch Parmeshwar model to infuse trust, inclusivity, and community spirit in dispute resolution.
Conclusion
Strengthening ADR is not merely about reducing pendency—it is about redefining justice itself. It shifts the focus from retribution to resolution, from conflict to consensus, and from delay to dialogue.
By institutionalising ADR and blending it with India’s traditional values of collective harmony and fairness, India can build a modern, humane, and efficient justice system that truly embodies the constitutional promise of “equal justice for all.”
UPSC Prelims Practice Question
Q. Consider the following statements regarding Lok Adalats in India:
- Lok Adalats derive their statutory status from the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
- The decisions (awards) of Lok Adalats are binding and final, with no provision for appeal under the law.
- A dissatisfied party to a Lok Adalat award has no remedy in the regular court of law.
- Permanent Lok Adalats can take up pre-litigation disputes relating to public utility services.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(A) 1 and 2 only
(B) 1, 2 and 4 only
(C) 1, 2, 3 and 4
(D) 2, 3 and 4 only
Correct Answer: (B) 1, 2 and 4 only
Explanation:
- Lok Adalats are governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Statement 1 correct).
- Their awards are final and binding; no appeal lies against them (Statement 2 correct).
- However, if any party is dissatisfied, they may file a regular suit in court, so statement 3 is incorrect.
- Permanent Lok Adalats under Section 22B handle pre-litigation disputes related to public utility services such as transport, postal, or telegraph services (Statement 4 correct).
UPSC Mains Practice Question
Q. “Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like Lok Adalats are vital for ensuring access to justice in India, but their effectiveness is limited by structural and awareness-related challenges.” Discuss. (Answer in 250 words)