Understanding ADR: Transforming the Indian Judicial System

---

Introduction

The Indian judicial system has long been burdened by an overwhelming backlog of cases. As of recent years, millions of civil and criminal cases continue to pend before courts across the country. To address this crisis, the judiciary and legislature have increasingly emphasized Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a means of delivering speedy, cost-effective, and amicable settlements.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), ADR was formally introduced through the Amendment Act of 1999, which inserted Section 89 and Order X Rules 1A to 1C, thus institutionalizing mechanisms such as arbitration, conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement, and Lok Adalats. This amendment represented a significant shift from traditional adjudication toward cooperative dispute resolution.

Understanding ADR

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to methods of resolving disputes without resorting to formal litigation. The objective is not only to reduce the burden on courts but also to foster a culture of collaboration, confidentiality, and mutual respect among disputing parties.

The most recognized forms of ADR in India include:

1. Arbitration – A quasi-judicial process where parties submit their dispute to an arbitrator whose decision (the award) is binding.
2. Conciliation – A more informal process where a conciliator helps parties reach a mutually acceptable settlement.
3. Mediation – A voluntary process in which a neutral third party facilitates communication and negotiation to assist in reaching a settlement.
4. Judicial Settlement – Settlement of disputes under the guidance and supervision of a judge or a person nominated by the court.
5. Lok Adalat – A forum established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, where disputes are resolved through compromise or settlement.

Section 89 of CPC: The Statutory Framework

The cornerstone of ADR in civil procedure is Section 89 of the CPC, which mandates the court to encourage settlement of disputes outside traditional litigation. The section reads:

“Where it appears to the court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the court shall formulate the terms of settlement and refer the same for— (a) arbitration, (b) conciliation, (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat, or (d) mediation.”

This provision thus makes it obligatory for courts to explore the possibility of settlement through ADR before proceeding with a full-fledged trial.

Furthermore, Order X Rules 1A to 1C provide the procedural mechanism by which the court directs parties to choose an ADR mode suitable to their dispute.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

The judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping the implementation of ADR under Section 89 CPC.

1. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2003) 1 SCC 49
   The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 89 CPC, clarifying that it does not compel parties to settle disputes but merely facilitates an opportunity for amicable resolution. The Court also directed the framing of model mediation and conciliation rules to guide courts in referring cases for ADR.
2. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010) 8 SCC 24
   This landmark case provided a detailed interpretation of Section 89 CPC. The Supreme Court held that mediation and conciliation should be the preferred modes of ADR and clarified that cases involving serious fraud, public interest, or non-compoundable criminal offences are not suitable for ADR.
3. Shakuntala v. State of Haryana (2012) 3 SCC 210
   The Court reiterated that ADR is a vital component of the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution and that courts should make genuine efforts to encourage settlements through ADR before commencing trial.

Objectives and Benefits of ADR under CPC

The inclusion of ADR in CPC serves multiple objectives:

• Speedy Justice – It helps in reducing delays and expedites the resolution of civil disputes.
• Cost-Effectiveness – ADR saves litigation costs by avoiding lengthy court procedures.
• Confidentiality – Proceedings in mediation or conciliation remain private, unlike public court trials.
• Preservation of Relationships – Particularly in family, business, and community disputes, ADR maintains cordial relations.
• Reducing Court Burden – It helps in easing the backlog of cases pending before civil courts.

Through ADR, the judiciary aims not just at dispute resolution but also at dispute prevention – cultivating a culture of consensus and understanding.

Challenges in Implementation

Despite its statutory recognition, ADR faces certain practical challenges in India:

• Lack of Awareness among litigants and even some advocates about ADR mechanisms.
• Insufficient Infrastructure for mediation and conciliation centers, particularly in rural areas.
• Absence of Qualified Mediators and lack of proper training.
• Reluctance of Parties to compromise due to a win-lose mindset.

The success of ADR depends not merely on legal provisions but on a change in attitude – from adversarial litigation to cooperative problem-solving.

Recent Developments

Recognizing the importance of ADR, the Indian judiciary and government have taken several proactive steps:

• Establishment of Mediation Cells in courts across India.
• Enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023, providing a comprehensive framework for institutional and community mediation.
• Promotion of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms, especially in commercial and consumer disputes.

These developments mark a shift toward a modern, accessible, and technology-driven justice system.

Conclusion

The integration of ADR into the Civil Procedure Code marks a transformative step in India’s legal landscape. It aligns with the constitutional vision of speedy justice and the global movement toward peaceful resolution of disputes.

However, the real success of ADR under the CPC depends on effective implementation, capacity building, and public awareness. As the Supreme Court aptly observed in Afcons Infrastructure, ADR is not an alternative but an integral part of the justice delivery system.

The future of India’s civil justice system lies not merely in courts but in the corridors of collaboration, where parties resolve conflicts not as adversaries but as partners in peace.

---

References:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 89 and Order X Rules 1A–1C
2. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2003) 1 SCC 49
3. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010) 8 SCC 24
4. Shakuntala v. State of Haryana (2012) 3 SCC 210
5. Mediation Act, 2023

---

Also Read : Execution of Court Decrees

#ADRinCPC #AlternativeDisputeResolution #CivilProcedureCode #Mediation #Arbitration #Conciliation #LokAdalat #LegalRemedy #SpeedyJustice #IndianJudiciary #MediationAct2023 #AfconsCase #SalemAdvocateCase