Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

BLOG/ NEWS Civil Procedure Code LAW EXPLAINED
Spread the Love

INTRODUCTION

It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps the justice alive.”

                                                                                                            LJ Earl Warren

The concept of Conflict Management through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has introduced a new mechanism of dispute resolution that is non adversarial. A dispute is basically ‘lis inter partes’ and the justice dispensation system in India has found an alternative to Adversarial litigation in the form of ADR Mechanism.

New methods of dispute resolution such as ADR facilitate parties to deal with the underlying issues in dispute in a more cost-effective manner and with increased efficacy. In addition, these processes have the advantage of providing parties with the opportunity to reduce hostility, regain a sense of control, gain acceptance of the outcome, resolve conflict in a peaceful manner, and achieve a greater sense of justice in each individual case. The resolution of disputes takes place usually in private and is more viable, economic, and efficient. ADR is generally classified into at least four types: negotiation, mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration. (Sometimes a fifth type, conciliation, is included as well, but for present purposes it can be regarded as a form of mediation

Need of ADR in India: 

The system of dispensing justice in India has come under great stress for several reasons mainly because of the huge pendency of cases in courts. In India, the number of cases filed in the courts has shown a tremendous increase in recent years resulting in pendency and delays underlining the need for alternative dispute resolution methods. It is in this context that a Resolution was adopted by the Chief Ministers and the Chief Justices of States in a conference held in New Delhi on 4th December 1993 under the chairmanship of the then Prime Minister and presided over by the Chief Justice of India.

It said:

“The Chief Ministers and Chief Justices were of the opinion that Courts were not in a position to bear the entire burden of justice system and that a number of disputes lent themselves to resolution by alternative modes such as arbitration, mediation and negotiation. They emphasized the desirability of disputants taking advantage of alternative dispute resolution which provided procedural flexibility, saved valuable time and money and avoided the stress of a conventional trial”.

In a developing country like India with major economic reforms under way within the framework of the rule of law, strategies for swifter resolution of disputes for lessening the burden on the courts and to provide means for expeditious resolution of disputes, there is no better option but to strive to develop alternative modes of dispute resolution (ADR) by establishing facilities for providing settlement of disputes through arbitration, conciliation, mediation and negotiation.

Impact/resulting acts of ADR:

The technique of ADR is an effort to design a workable and fair alternative to our traditional judicial system. It is a fast track system of dispensing justice. There are various ADR techniques viz. arbitration, mediation, conciliation, mediation-arbitration, mini-trial, private judging, final offer arbitration, court-annexed ADR and summary jury trial.

These techniques have been developed on scientific lines in USA, UK, France, Canada, China, Japan, South Africa, Australia and Singapore. ADR has emerged as a significant movement in these countries and has not only helped reduce cost and time taken for resolution of disputes, but also in providing a congenial atmosphere and a less formal and less complicated forum for various types of disputes.

The Arbitration Act, 1940 was not meeting the requirements of either the international or domestic standards of resolving disputes. Enormous delays and court intervention frustrated the very purpose of arbitration as a means for expeditious resolution of disputes. The Supreme Court in several cases repeatedly pointed out the need to change the law. The Public Accounts Committee too deprecated the Arbitration Act of 1940. In the conferences of Chief Justices, Chief Ministers and Law Ministers of all the States, it was decided that since the entire burden of justice system cannot be borne by the courts alone, an Alternative Dispute Resolution system should be adopted. Trade and industry also demanded drastic changes in the 1940 Act. The Government of India thought it necessary to provide a new forum and procedure for resolving international and domestic disputes quickly.

Thus “The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996″came into being. The law relating to Arbitration and Conciliation is almost the same as in the advanced countries. Conciliation has been given statutory recognition as a means for settlement of the disputes in terms of this Act. In addition to this, the new Act also guarantees independence and impartiality of the arbitrators irrespective of their nationality. The new Act of 1996 brought in several changes to expedite the process of arbitration. This legislation has developed confidence among foreign parties interested to invest in India or to go for joint ventures, foreign investment, transfer of technology and foreign collaborations.

The advantage of ADR is that it is more flexible and avoids seeking recourse to the courts. In conciliation/mediation, parties are free to withdraw at any stage of time. It has been seen that resolution of disputes is quicker and cheaper through ADR. The parties involved in ADR do not develop strained relations; rather they maintain the continued relationship between themselves.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Part I of this act formalizes the process of Arbitration and Part III formalizes the process of Conciliation. (Part II is about Enforcement of Foreign Awards under New York and Geneva Conventions.)

  • Arbitration:

The process of arbitration can start only if there exists a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties prior to the emergence of the dispute. As per Section 7, such an agreement must be in writing. The contract, regarding which the dispute exists, must either contain an arbitration clause or must refer to a separate document signed by the parties containing the arbitration agreement. The existence of an arbitration agreement can also be inferred by written correspondence such as letters, telex, or telegrams which provide a record of the agreement. An exchange of statement of claim and defence in which existence of an arbitration agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by other is also considered as valid written arbitration agreement.

Any party to the dispute can start the process of appointing arbitrator and if the other party does not cooperate, the party can approach the office of Chief Justice for appointment of an arbitrator. There are only two grounds upon which a party can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator – reasonable doubt in the impartiality of the arbitrator and the lack of proper qualification of the arbitrator as required by the arbitration agreement. A sole arbitrator or panels of arbitrators so appointed constitute the Arbitration Tribunal.

Except for some interim measures, there is very little scope for judicial intervention in the arbitration process. The arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over its own jurisdiction. Thus, if a party wants to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal, it can do so only before the tribunal itself. If the tribunal rejects the request, there is little the party can do accept to approach a court after the tribunal makes an award. Section 34 provides certain grounds upon which a party can appeal to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for setting aside the award.

Once the period for filing an appeal for setting aside an award is over, or if such an appeal is rejected, the award is binding on the parties and is considered as a decree of the court.

  • Conciliation

Conciliation is a less formal form of arbitration. This process does not require an existence of any prior agreement. Any party can request the other party to appoint a conciliator. One conciliator is preferred but two or three are also allowed. In case of multiple conciliators, all must act jointly. If a party rejects an offer to conciliate, there can be no conciliation.

Parties may submit statements to the conciliator describing the general nature of the dispute and the points at issue. Each party sends a copy of the statement to the other. The conciliator may request further details, may ask to meet the parties, or communicate with the parties orally or in writing. Parties may even submit suggestions for the settlement of the dispute to the conciliator.

When it appears to the conciliator that elements of settlement exist, he may draw up the terms of settlement and send it to the parties for their acceptance. If both the parties sign the settlement document, it shall be final and binding on both.

Note that in USA, this process is similar to Mediation. However, in India, Mediation is different from Conciliation and is a completely informal type of ADR mechanism.

  • Mediation

Mediation, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or “appropriate dispute resolution”, aims to assist two (or more) disputants in reaching an agreement. The parties themselves determine the conditions of any settlements reached— rather than accepting something imposed by a third party. The disputes may involve (as parties) states, organizations, communities, individuals or other representatives with a vested interest in the outcome.

Mediators use appropriate techniques and/or skills to open and/or improve dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with concrete effects) on the disputed matter. Normally, all parties must view the mediator as impartial.

Disputants may use mediation in a variety of disputes, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters.

A third-party representative may contract and mediate between (say) unions and corporations. When a workers’ union goes on strike, a dispute takes place, and the corporation hires a third party to intervene in attempt to settle a contract or agreement between the union and the corporation.

  • Negotiation

Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is the primary method of alternative dispute resolution.

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. Those who work in negotiation professionally are called negotiators. Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers

  • Lok Adalat:

Lok Adalat was a historic necessity in a country like India where illiteracy dominated other aspects of governance. It was introduced in 1982 and the first Lok Adalat was initiated in Gujarat. The evolution of this movement was a part of the strategy to relieve heavy burden on courts with pending cases. It was the conglomeration of concepts of social justice, speedy justice, conciliated result and negotiating efforts. They cater the need of weaker sections of society. It is a suitable alternative mechanism to resolve disputes in place of litigation. Lok Adalats have assumed statutory recognition under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. These are being regularly organized primarily by the State Legal Aid and the Advice Boards with the help of District Legal Aid and Advice Committees.

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was brought into force on 19 November 1995. The object of the Act was to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen. The concept of legal services which includes Lok Adalat is a revolutionary evolution of resolution of disputes. Though settlements were affected by conducting Lok Nyayalayas prior to this Act, the same has not been given any statutory recognition. But under the new Act, a settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalats has been given the force of a decree which can be executed through Court as if it is passed by it. Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act deal with Lok Adalat. Section 20 provides for different situations where cases can be referred for consideration of Lok Adalat.

Honorable Delhi High court has given a landmark decision highlighting the significance of Lok Adalat movement in the case of Abdul Hasan and National Legal Services Authority v. Delhi Vidyut Board and Others. The court passed the order giving directions for setting up of permanent Lok Adalats.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING MECHANISMS

 The evolution of ADR mechanisms was not of that much success. Thereby, the trend is the imposition of responsibility and duty on Court

  1. i) Courts are authorized to give directives for the adoption of ADR mechanisms by the parties and for that purpose Court has to play important role by way of giving guidance. Power is also conferred upon the courts so that it can intervene in different stages of proceedings. But these goals cannot be achieved unless requisite infrastructure is provided and institutional frame work is put to place.
  2. ii) The institutional framework must be brought about at three stages, which are:
  1. Awareness: It can be brought about by holding seminars, workshops, etc. ADR literacy program has to be done for mass awareness and awareness camp should be to change the mindset of all concerned disputants, the lawyers and judges.
  2. Acceptance: In this regard training of the ADR practitioners should be made by some University together with other institutions. Extensive training would also be necessary to be imparted to those who intend to act as a facilitator, mediators, and conciliators. Imparting of training should be made a part of continuing education on different facets of ADR so far as judicial officers and judges are concerned.
  3. Implementation: For this purpose, judicial officers must be trained to identify cases which would be suitable for taking recourse to a particular form of ADR.

iii) ADR Mechanisms to be made more viable: The inflow of cases cannot be stopped because the doors of justice cannot be closed. But there is a dire need to increase the outflow either by strengthening the capacity of the existing system or by way of finding some additional outlets.

iv)Setting up of Mediation Centres in all districts of each state with a view to mediate all disputes will bring about a profound change in the Indian Legal system. These Mediation centres would function with an efficient team of mediators who are selected from the local community itself.

  1. v) Not many Indians can afford litigation. This kind of state of affairs makes common people, especially rural people, cynical about judicial process. We must take the ADR mechanism beyond the cities. Gram Nyayalayas should process 60 to 70 percent of rural litigation leaving the regular courts to devote their time to complex civil and criminal matters.
  2. vi) More and more ADR centres should be created for settling disputes out-of-court. ADR methods will achieve the objective of rendering social justice to the people, which is the goal of a successful judicial system.

vii) The major lacuna in ADR is that it is not binding. One could still appeal against the award or delay the implementation of the award. “Justice delayed is justice denied.” The very essence of ADR is lost if it is not implemented in the true spirit. The award should be made binding on the parties and no appeal to the court should be allowed unless it is arrived at fraudulently or if it against public policy.

CONCLUSION

With the advent of the alternate dispute resolution, there is new avenue for the people to settle their disputes. The settlement of disputes in Lok Adalat quickly has acquired good popularity among the public and this has really given rise to a new force to ADR and this will no doubt reduce the pendency in law Courts. There is an urgent need for justice dispensation through ADR mechanisms. The ADR movement needs to be carried forward with greater speed. This will considerably reduce the load on the courts apart from providing instant justice at the door-step, without substantial cost being involved. If they are successfully given effect then it will really achieve the goal of rendering social justice to the parties to the dispute.

REFERENCE/ BIBLIOGRAPHY-

  1. O P Malhotra, Indu MalhotraLexis Nexis, The Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation (2nd, 2006)
  2. Hon’ble Thiru Justice S.B.Sinha, Judge Supreme Court of India, ‘ADR and Access to Justice: Issues and Perspectives’.
  3. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/adr-mechanism-in-india-224-1.html
  4. Nishita Medha, Alternative Dispute Resolution in India-A study on concepts, techniques, provisions, problems in
  5. Government of India, Law Commission of India, 222ndreport, ’Need for Justice-dispensation through ADR etc.’, at ¶ 1.69.

 


Spread the Love

Leave a Reply