By- Mrs. Bhavana Dhoundiyal (Assistant Professor of Law) &Yashika Rathour (LLM Student), IILM University, Greater Noida
Introduction
Mahatma Gandhi once shared that he came to realize the real duty of a lawyer is not just to argue or win cases, but to bring people together. He mentioned that during his 20 years of legal practice, most of his time was spent helping people settle their matters privately, through mutual understanding and compromise. He believed that by doing so, he didn’t lose anything — not his earnings, and definitely not his principles. In fact, he felt more connected to the true purpose of justice — healing, not harming.
As society has grown, so have human conflicts—after all, it’s often said that where there are two people, there can be three opinions. With increasing complexity in human relationships and social structures, disputes have become almost unavoidable. Because of this, it’s important to have mechanisms that are quick, simple, and cost-effective to resolve such issues. A strong and efficient dispute resolution system not only reduces the pressure on the courts but also helps ensure timely justice in situations that otherwise create unnecessary delays.
Traditionally, people have looked to courts and tribunals to seek justice. In the eyes of a common person, going to court is the only way to get a fair resolution. But over time, the formal legal system has become difficult to access, especially for those struggling with poverty, illiteracy, social disadvantages, and complicated legal procedures. The high costs and lengthy processes involved in litigation—especially in areas like international arbitration—have made people think about finding easier and more practical ways to settle disputes outside the courtroom.
The reality is that conflict is a natural part of human life, and disputes are bound to arise. But what matters is how we choose to resolve them. For the sake of peace, social harmony, and fair access to justice, we need systems that allow disputes to be settled in a fair and peaceful way. That’s where methods like arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and negotiation come into play.
These methods are collectively known as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). As the name suggests, ADR provides alternatives to court proceedings and focuses on resolving matters with the help of a neutral third party who is independent and unbiased. The whole idea behind ADR is to offer a smoother, faster, and more affordable way of resolving disputes compared to traditional litigation.
ADR can be broadly categorized into two types: non-adjudicatory and adjudicatory processes. In non-adjudicatory methods like mediation and conciliation, the neutral party doesn’t give a final decision. Instead, they help the parties talk things out and reach a solution they both agree on. These methods encourage cooperation, communication, and compromise rather than confrontation. The goal is not to “win” the dispute but to solve the problem together.
A good example to understand this approach is the story of two cooks fighting over an orange. A judge might just give it to one person, while an arbitrator could split it equally. But a mediator would ask why each cook wants the orange. One wants the peel to make marmalade, and the other wants the juice. So, the mediator gives the peel to the first and the inside to the second—this way, both get what they truly need. This is what ADR is all about—understanding interests rather than just positions.
On the other hand, adjudicatory ADR methods like arbitration involve a final and binding decision given by the neutral party. Though these processes are conducted outside the regular courts, they are formal and the decision must be followed by both parties once they agree to use such a method.
There are also hybrid forms of ADR like Med-Arb (mediation followed by arbitration) and Con-Arb (conciliation followed by arbitration), where both types of processes are used together. These allow flexibility and combine the benefits of both negotiation and decision-making when needed.
In simple words, ADR gives people a better, faster, and more flexible option to solve disputes, especially in cases where court processes are just too slow, expensive, or complicated.
Origin of ADR System
In India, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is not a new concept; it has deep roots in the country’s history. The idea of resolving disputes amicably has always been preferred. The Indian legal system has always been closely linked to community-based systems, like the Panchayat, where local leaders helped resolve issues without involving formal courts.
While the modern ADR system in India is largely influenced by the Western model, the core principles of ADR have existed in India for centuries, even before the British introduced the formal justice system. Panchayats, in their early form, were key to maintaining law and order, providing a platform for conciliation and arbitration within communities. In ancient India, various groups like Kulas (family councils), Srenis (guilds), and Parishads played a crucial role in resolving disputes through peaceful interventions.
The Constitution of India, through Article 39A, mandates equal access to justice, which later led to the creation of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. This Act facilitated the organization of Lok Adalats, an important aspect of ADR.
In 1989, the Malimath Committee was set up by the Indian government to suggest reforms for reducing the backlog of judicial cases. Its report, submitted in 1990, identified the reasons for case accumulation and supported the suggestions of earlier Law Commission reports (124th, 129th, and 246th) to make arbitration laws more effective.
Further, the Justice Sharaf Committee also proposed amendments to arbitration laws to promote quicker resolution of cases and reduce litigation through amicable solutions. To strengthen arbitration laws, many countries, including India, have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law. As a result, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted in India, marking a significant step in promoting ADR.
The real breakthrough for ADR in India came with the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically through the introduction of Section 89. This legislative change allowed courts to refer cases to ADR processes, and the Supreme Court of India played a major role in advocating for the widespread use of ADR. Over the years, courts have actively promoted ADR, and it has grown significantly in India, continuing to gain momentum with time.
.jpeg)
