1. ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL
( A. D. R. )
T. Mookherjee
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH 24 PARGANAS
And
EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN
TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
BARASAT (SADAR)

2. “To no man will we deny,
to no man will we sell,
or delay, justice
or right”
-        Magna Carta – 1215

3. Dispensation of Justice - A major function of the State
Access to Justice
Basic human rights
Dispensation of Justice - A major function of the State
Justice-delivered – Judicial institutions
 Method – Adversary/adjudicatory
( Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence )

4. Adversary / Adjudicatory System:-
Parties fight
Judge, a neutral umpire
 Decision – comparative merit

5. Parties’ participation – minimum Technicalities – slow progress
Major drawbacks
Parties’ participation – minimum
Technicalities – slow progress
 Expensive
Win-lose situation
 Accumulation of arrears

6. Term A.D.R.  Developed in USA
 Developed in USA
A.D.R. – resolution of disputes with assistance of impartial third party

7. Common A.D.R. Systems Arbitration Agreement between the parties
Arbitration
Agreement between the parties
 Award by Arbitrator

8. Conciliation
 Agreement between the parties
 Active role of conciliator
 No award
 Mediation
 Facilitates settlement between the parties themselves

9. A.D.R.s
Very effective in:-
Domestic
International
Commercial disputes

10. A.D.Rs – benefits
Low costs and formalities
 Expeditious
Parties’ participation – maximum
 Result – win - win

11. Limitation of A.D.Rs
Not workable in all disputes/penal offences
Hidden costs
Awards challengeable
 Chances of failure

12. Ancient India – Disputes/Civil disputes-settled locally-system simple
Indian Scenario
Ancient India – Disputes/Civil disputes-settled locally-system simple
 Institutional delivery system/Adversary system introduced by British Rulers

13. Right to fair and speedy justice - fundamental right (Art. 21)
Constitutional Commitment
Right to fair and speedy justice - fundamental right (Art. 21)
 Equal justice – free legal aid (Art. 39A)

14. Dimension of the problem
Cases pending - end of 2005
High Courts (Civ. And Crl.) – 35,21,283
 Average institution and disposal per year 14,00,000 – 12,00,000

15. District Courts Cases pending - end of 2005 – 2,56,54,251
Cases pending - end of 2005 – 2,56,54,251
Average institution per year – 1,60,00,000 (Approx.)
 Average disposal per year - 1,50,00,000 (Approx.)

16.  High Courts – 726 – Vacancy – 138
Strength of Judges
 High Courts – 726 – Vacancy – 138
 District Courts ( ) – 14,582 – vacancy -2860
Ratio of Judges – Population
 12/13 Judges per Million
 Recommendation – 50 per Million.

17. Half of the expenditure raised from judiciary itself
 India – 0.2% of G.N.P.
U.K. – 4.3% of G.N.P.
U.S.A – 1.4% of G.N.P.
Singapore – 1.20 % of G.N.P.
Half of the expenditure raised from judiciary itself

18.  Clearance of backlog – A distant dream
 Resort to A.D.R.s – A solution

19. Arbitration and Conciliation Act - 1996
Sec. 2 to 43 – Arbitration
 Sec. 61 to Conciliation

20. Contractual – future and present dispute Award :–
Arbitration :–
Contractual – future and present dispute
Award :–
Executable – challengeable – limited ground

21. Conciliation Present dispute Invitation by one – accepted
Present dispute
Invitation by one – accepted
Conciliator’s role – agreement –
Enforceable

22. Sec. 80 / O. XXVII R. 5B C.P.C.
 Scope of amicable settlement in suits involving State – Act of public officer – Court to assist

23. Sec. 89 C.P.C.  Duty of the Court
 Element of settlement – formulation of terms of settlement – reference to arbitration / conciliation / Judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat / Mediation.
(2003) 1 S.C.C., 49
(2005) 6 S.C.C. , 344

24. Lok Adalat ( Not yet established in all states )
Best performing A.D.R. system
Introduced by Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
Periodical Lok Adalats – all disputes
Permanent Lok Adalat – Public utility Services only
( Not yet established in all states )

25. Disputes settled within legal framework through negotiations
Active role by Lok Adalat Judges
Organized by State Authority/District Authority
Supreme Court L.S. Committee/High Court L.S. Committee/Taluk L.S. Committee

26. Disputes settled within legal framework through negotiations-II
 All cases except non-compoundable offences
Pre-litigation disputes
Executable decree / no appeal

27.  Merits of settlement in Lok Adalats
No court fees / no costs
Lawyers not essential
Speedy / single day disposal
Involvement of the parties / simple procedures

28. Cases settled in Lok Adalats upto 30.09.2006 :–
2, 02, 93, 952

29.  Nyaya Panchayet An effective ADR Model bill drafted
An effective ADR
Model bill drafted
 Uniform law in the process

30. Role of Executive Officers
Sec. 80 C.P.C./ Order 27 Rule 5B C.P.C.
Members of different committees under L.S.A. Act
 In-house mechanism in all governmental departments

31. Aim
Reduction of load from conventional courts – the demand of the day

32. Conclusion
A supplementary system –
Not a substitute

33. Thank you