Role of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Justice Delivery System

A final project submitted in partial fulfillment of the course Alternative Dispute

Resolution, Semester VI during the academic year 2018-19

Submitted by-

Saad Ahmad

Roll No.- 1641

B.B.A LL.B

Submitted to-

Mr. Hrishikesh Manu

March, 2019

Chanakya National Law University,

Mithapur, Patna, 800001

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my Professor of Jurisprudence, Mr.

Hrishikesh Manu Sir, who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the
topic ‘ Role of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Justice Delivery System’ which also helped me
in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things.
I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this project
within the limited time frame.

Thank You

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER 2. KINDS OF JUSTICE.................................................................................................... 6

2.1.MEANING ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE .............................................................................................. 6

2.3.PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ............................................................................................... 7

2.4.RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE ................................................................................................ 7

2.5.RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ............................................................................................... 8

2.6.CORRECTIVE JUSTICE ................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER 3. JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION VS. ADR ........................................................... 9

3.1.JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................... 9

3.2.ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION .................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 4. MECHANISM OF ADR............................................................................................ 13

4.1.ARBITRATION ............................................................................................................ 13

4.2.MEDIATION ............................................................................................................... 13

4.3.CONCILIATION .......................................................................................................... 14

4.4.NEGOTIATION............................................................................................................ 14

4.5.LOK ADALAT ............................................................................................................ 14

CHAPTER 5. ANALYSIS ON EVOLUTION OF ADR MECHANISMS IN INDIAN JUDICIARY ...... 16

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION .............................................................................. 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 19

3|Page
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Method of Research

The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made
extensive use of the library at the Chanakya National Law University and also the internet
sources.

Objective of the study- The objective of study is to know about how ADR helps in delivery of
justice that is to provide cheap, simple, quick and accessible justice.

Hypothesis- ADR system seeks to provide cheap, simple, quick and accessible justice.

Sources of Data-

Primary Sources-

1. Statutes

2. Books

Secondary Sources-

Websites& Articles

Limitation- The presented research is confined to a time limit of one month and this research
contains doctrinal works, which are limited to library and internet sources and empirical research

4|Page
 1. INTRODUCTION

Justice is the foundation and object of any civilized society. The quest for justice has been an
ideal which mankind has been aspiring for generations down the line. Preamble to our
Constitution reflects such aspiration as “justice-social, economic and political”. Article 39-A of
the Constitution provides for ensuring equal access to justice. Administration of Justice involves
protection of the innocent, punishment of the guilty and the satisfactory resolution of disputes.
The world has experienced that adversarial litigation is not the only means of resolving disputes.
Congestion in court rooms, lack of manpower and resources in addition with delay, cost,
procedure speak out the need of better options, approaches and avenues. Alternative Dispute
Resolution mechanism is a click to that option.

Alternative Disputes Resolution is a generic term that refers to a wide array of practices, the
purpose of which is to manage and quickly resolve disagreements at lower cost and with as little
adverse impact as possible on business and other relationship. The term alternative dispute
resolution also refers to any means of setting disputes outsides the formal Courts/ Tribunals
established by the State in exercise of its sovereign function to decide disputes between citizens
and also disputes between itself and citizen. There are two types of dispute resolution RDR and
ADR. RDR means Regular Dispute Resolution which refers to the resolution of dispute through
regular judicial proceedings or through the formal legal system and ADR means Alternative
Dispute Resolution which is an alternative to the Formal Legal System. It is an alternative to
litigation. It was being thought of in view of the fact that the Courts are overburdened with cases.
The said system emanates from dissatisfaction of many people with the way in which disputes
are traditionally resolved resulting in criticism of the Courts, the legal profession and sometimes
lead to a sense of alienation from the whole legal system- thus, the need for alternative dispute
resolution.

5|Page
 2. KINDS OF JUSTICE

Meaning

Justice is a complex concept and touches almost every aspect of human life. The word Justice
has been derived from the Latin word Jungere meaning ‘to bind or to tie together’. The word
‘Jus’ also means ‘Tie’ or ‘Bond’. In this way Justice can be defined as a system in which men are
tied or joined in a close relationship. Justice seeks to harmonize different values and to organize
upon it all human relations. As such, Justice means bonding or joining or organizing people
together into a right or fair order of relationships.1

Justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law. Whether these rules be
grounded in human consensus or societal norms, they are supposed to ensure that all members of
society receive fair treatment. Issues of justice arise in several different spheres and play a
significant role in causing, perpetuating, and addressing conflict. Just institutions tend to instill a
sense of stability, well-being, and satisfaction among society members, while
perceived injustices can lead to dissatisfaction, rebellion, or revolution. Each of the different
spheres expresses the principles of justice and fairness in its own way, resulting in different types
and concepts of justice: distributive, procedural, retributive, and restorative. These types of
justice have important implications for socio-economic, political, civil, and criminal justice at
both the national and international level.2

Types of Justice-

Distributive Justice-

Distributive justice, or economic justice, is concerned with giving all members of society a "fair
share" of the benefits and resources available. However, while everyone might agree that wealth
should be distributed fairly, there is much disagreement about what counts as a "fair share."
Some possible criteria of distribution are equity, equality, and need. (Equity means that one's
rewards should be equal to one's contributions to a society, while "equality" means that everyone
1
K.K. Ghai, Speech on Justice: Meaning and type, YOUR ARTICLE LIBRARY,
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/speech/speech-on-justice-meaning-and-types-of-justice/40361.
2
Morton Deutsch, Peter T. Coleman, Eric C. Marcus, The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice,.
(John Wiley & Sons, 2011). http://books.google.com/books?id=rw61VDID7U4C.

6|Page
gets the same amount, regardless of their input. Distribution on the basis of need means that
people who need more will get more, while people who need less will get less.) Fair allocation of
resources, or distributive justice, is crucial to the stability of a society and the well-being of its
members. When issues of distributive justice are inadequately addressed and the item to be
distributed is highly valued, intractable conflicts frequently result.

Procedural Justice

Procedural justice is concerned with making and implementing decisions according to fair
processes that ensure "fair treatment." Rules must be impartially followed and consistently
applied in order to generate an unbiased decision. Those carrying out the procedures should be
neutral, and those directly affected by the decisions should have some voice or representation in
the decision-making process. (See the essay on public participation.) If people believe
procedures to be fair, they will be more likely to accept outcomes, even ones that they do not
like. Implementing fair procedures is central to many dispute resolution procedures,
including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication.3

Retributive Justice

Retributive justice appeals to the notion of "just desert" -- the idea that people deserve to be
treated in the same way they treat others. It is a retroactive approach that justifies punishment as
a response to past injustice or wrongdoing. 4 The central idea is that the offender has gained
unfair advantages through his or her behavior, and that punishment will set this imbalance
straight. In other words, those who do not play by the rules should be brought to justice and
deserve to suffer penalties for their transgressions. The notion of deterrence also plays in here:
the hope is that the punishment for committing a crime is large enough that people will not
engage in illegal activities because the risk of punishment is too high. In addition to local, state,
and national justice systems, retributive justice also plays a central role in international legal
proceedings, responding to violations of international law, human rights, and war crimes.

3
Michelle Maiese, Type of Justice, BEYOND INTRACT ABILITY, https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/types-of-
justice
4
Mark R. Amstutz, The Healing of Nations: The Promise and Limits of Political Forgiveness, (Rowman &
Littlefield, 2005). http://books.google.com/books?id=gTFnh2GuD8EC.

7|Page
Restorative Justice

It is concerned with healing victims' wounds, restoring offenders to law-abiding lives, and
repairing harm done to interpersonal relationships and the community. Victims take an active
role in directing the exchange that takes place, as well as defining the responsibilities and
obligations of offenders. Offenders are encouraged to understand the harm they have caused their
victims and take responsibility for it. Restorative justice aims to strengthen the community and
prevent similar harms from happening in the future. At the national level, such processes are
often carried out through victim-offender mediation programs, while at the international level
restorative justice is often a matter of instituting truth and reconciliation commissions.5

Corrective Justice

Corrective justice is a fundamental type of justice, concerned with the reversal of wrongs or the
undoing of transactions. Corrective justice also offers powerful insights into tort law, contract
law, and unjust enrichment, among other fields. Yet, theorists provide very different accounts of
its content and justification. For example, prominent accounts draw on moral duties, expressive
meanings, and economic efficiency to justify corrective justice. In addition, the relation between
corrective justice and other types of justice is controversial. Among other concerns, distributive
justice aims may be in tension with corrective justice.6

5
Jeffrey A. Jenkins's discussion on "Types of Justice," in The American Courts: A Procedural Approach, (Jones &
Bartlett Publishers, 2011), http://books.google.com/books?id=yvT5SVwbakUC.
6
Andrew Gold, Corrective Justice, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL,
https://hls.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/catalog/default.aspx?o=69093

8|Page
 3. JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION VS. ADR

Judicial Dispute Resolution

The Judicial Dispute Resolution adjudicates the litigations. Litigation is a suit, a judicial contest,
or a contest in Court of Law. Litigation means dispute and not actual proceedings in a Court of
Law. Dispute may arise in a variety of situations. They may relate to personal disputes, property
disputes. In trade, there may be disputes of breach of contract. Among them, there are some
dispute which can be only settled in the Court of Law.7

The Judicial Dispute Resolution is done successfully through the established courts. Court is a
place where legal cases are heard by those persons authorized to administer justice. Court is an
authority of law established under the Constitution of a state and vested with the power of
rendering judgments, issuing writs, or hearing and deciding appeals. An essential condition of
being a Court is that the court should have the power to give decision or a definite judgment
which has finality and authoritativeness which are essential tests of judicial pronouncement.
Courts derive powers from the state and are exercising the judicial power of the State. Court is
entrusted with judicial functions including that of deciding litigating questions according to law,
that is to say, according to certain rules and procedure which would ensure that the person called
upon to decide, acts with fairness and impartiality. Courts are also called as ‘Law Courts’,
‘Courts of Law’. Every Court contains a Court hall where the judge adjudicates the dispute.8

Problems of Formal Legal system9:

Awareness: The lack of awareness of legal rights and remedies among common people acts as a
formidable barrier to accessing the formal legal system.

Mystification: The language of the law, invariably in very difficult and complicated English,
makes it unintelligible even to the literate or educated person. Only few attempts have been made
at vernacular sing the language of the law and making it simpler and easily comprehensible to
the person.

7
MADABHUSHI SRIDHAR, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Lexis Nexis; First Ed. 2010)
8
DR. S.R. MYNENI, INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW (Allahabad Law Agency, 3rd Ed. 2014).
9
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.B.SINHA, ADR AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE: ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES

9|Page
Delays: The greatest challenge that the justice delivery system faces today is the delay in the
disposal of case and prohibitive cost of litigation. Alternative dispute resolution wads thought of
as a weapon to meet this challenge. The average waiting time, both in the civil and criminal
subordinate courts, can extent to several years. This negates fair justice. To this end, there are
several barricades. The judiciary in India is already suffering from a docket explosion. In fact, as
on 31st October 2005, the number of cases pending before the Supreme Court was 253587003.10
The huge backlog of cases only makes justice less accessible. The delay in the judicial system
results in loss of public confidence on the confidence on the concept of justice.

Expenses and Costs: We are all aware of the ineffectiveness of our cost regime-even the
successful litigant is unable to recover the actual cost of the litigation. The considerable delay in
reaching the conclusion in any litigation adds to the costs and makes the absence of an effective
mechanism for their recovery even more problematic.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

A consequence of the judicial model is that the solution may not be well adapted to the parties’
needs and interests. The range of remedies available to the court is limited. An apology or
acknowledgment of fault may not be awarded. The court is not in a position to try to salvage a
relationship, whether it is commercial or domestic. The court’s decision is also binary in nature,
one is right and one is wrong. This polarizes the parties, creates the need for self-justification and
escalates the dispute into an emotionally charged process. Alternative dispute resolution offers
efficiency and can enhance the quality of dispute resolution by permitting a wider array of
outcomes and more client participation. Alternative dispute resolution is growing nationwide,
providing individuals and businesses with cheaper, faster ways to resolve disputes.

Our courts follow the adversarial method of adjudication, which uses a neutral decision-maker
(judge) who adjudicates disputes after the have been aired by the adversaries in contested
proceedings. Alternative methods of disputes resolution, by contrast, are generally supposed to
be less adversarial and reach speedier results because the neutral person may help to formulate
the result while the process is under way.

10
TNN,3.2 cr cases pending in HCs, lower courts, TOI, Dec 20,2011.

10 | P a g e
Meaning:

ADR is not a recent phenomenon as the concept of parties settling their disputes themselves or
with the help of third party, is very well-known to ancient India. Disputes were peacefully
decided by the intervention of Kulas (family assemblies), Srenis (guilds or men of similar
occupation), Parishad, etc.

The primary object of ADR movement is avoidance of vexation, expense and delay and
promotion of the ideal of “access of justice” for all. ADR system seeks to provide cheap, simple,
quick and accessible justice. ADR is a process distinct from normal judicial process. Under this,
disputes are settled with the assistance of third party, where proceedings are simple and are
conducted, by and large, in the manner agreed to by the parties. ADR stimulates to resolve the
disputes expeditiously with less expenditure of time, talent money with the decision making
process towards substantial justice, maintaining to confidentiality of subject matter. So, precisely
saying, ADR aims at provide justice that not only resolves dispute but also harmonizes the
relation of the parties.

Functions of ADR

1. ADR is not to supplant altogether the traditional legal system, but it offers an alternative
form to the litigating parties.
2. ADR tends to settle the disputes in a neutral and amicable fashion
3. ADR can be seen as integral to the process of judicial reform signifying the “access to
justice approach”.
4. The very raison d’etre of the ADR is an effort towards the etiology of malise and its
elimination rather than treatment of its symptoms. That means, this approach seeks for a
better and longer lasting solution.
5. ADR can be viewed as a compromise where non loses or wins, but everyone walks out a
winner.

Advantage of ADR

1. Reliable information is an indispensable tool for adjudicator. Judicial proceedings make

halting progress because of reluctance of parties to part with inconvenient information.

11 | P a g e
 ADR moves this drawback in the judicial system. The truth could be difficulty found out
by making a person stand in the witness-box and he pilloried in the public gaze.
Information can be gathered more efficiently by an informal exchange across the table.
Therefore, ADR is a step towards success where judicial system has failed in eliciting
facts efficiently.
2. In Mediation or Conciliation, parties are themselves prodded to take a decision, since
they are themselves decision-makers and they are aware of the truth of their position, the
obstacle does not exist.
3. The formality involved in the ADR is lesser than traditional judicial process and costs
incurred is very low in ADR
4. While the cost procedure results in win-lose situation for the disputants
5. Finality of the result, cost involved is less, the time required to be spent is less, efficiency
of the mechanism, possibility of avoiding disruption.

12 | P a g e
 4. MECHANISM OF ADR

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.

Mechanisms of ADR

 Arbitration
 Mediation
 Conciliation
 Negotiation
 Lok Adalat

Arbitration

Arbitration also involves the help of a neutral third party. During arbitration, an "arbitrator" acts
a bit analogously to a trial judge by listening to the parties’ grievances. Unlike a mediator, an
arbitrator is not a passive go-between facilitator. After listening to the parties, an arbitrator (often
a professional in the party’s subject of dispute) actually pronounces a decision. Arbitration is still
less formal than a full-blown trial because many rules of evidence don’t apply to arbitration.11

Mediation

Mediation involves the help of a go-between third party, called a "mediator," whose job is to
help parties reach some mutual agreement. A mediator cannot force parties to agree and is not
even permitted decide the outcome of a dispute. Therefore, while mediating, both parties retain
significant control over the course of mediation. Mediation is fully confidential and agreements
are usually non-binding, so parties may still pursue litigation following the mediation process. 12

11
Sujay, ADR Mechanism in India, LEGAL SERVICES INDIA, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/224/ADR-
Mechanism-in-India.html.
12
Types of Alternative Dispute Resolution, LEGAL MATCH, https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/types-
of-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr.html

13 | P a g e
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. 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.13

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 does not
typically involve any go-between neutrals and is as informal and open-ended as parties wish to
make it.14

Lok Adalat

It roughly means "People's court". India has had a long history of resolving disputes through the
mediation of village elders. It does not have jurisdiction on matters related to non-compoundable
offences. There is no court fee and no rigid procedural requirement (i.e. no need to follow
process given by Civil Procedure Code or Evidence Act), which makes the process very fast.
Parties can directly interact with the judge, which is not possible in regular courts.
Cases that are pending in regular courts can be transferred to a Lok Adalat if both the parties
agree. A case can also be transferred to a Lok Adalat if one party applies to the court and the
court sees some chance of settlement after giving an opportunity of being heard to the other
party. Lok Adalat is very effective in settlement of money claims. Disputes like partition suits,

13
Supra note 11.
14
Supra note 12.

14 | P a g e
damages and matrimonial cases can also be easily settled before Lok Adalat as the scope for
compromise through an approach of give and take is high in these cases.15 The focus in Lok
Adalats is on compromise. When no compromise is reached, the matter goes back to the court.
However, if a compromise is reached, an award is made and is binding on the parties. It is
enforced as a decree of a civil court.

15
S.R.A ROSEDAR, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Lexis Nexis, 1st ed.)

15 | P a g e
 5. ANALYSIS ON EVOLUTION OF ADR MECHANISMS IN INDIAN JUDICIARY

The Law Commission of Indian has maintained that, the reason for judicial delay is not a lack of
clear procedural laws, but rather the imperfect execution, or even utter non-observance, thereof.16
The Law Commission of Indian in its 14th Report categorically stated that, the delay results not
from the procedure lay down by the legislations but by reason of the non-observance of many of
its important provisions particularly those intended to expedite the disposal of proceedings.

The analysis of the Law Commission of India reports sheds light on the factors contributing
towards delays and huge backlog of cases before the Courts. The prominent contributory factors
are the frequent adjournments at the instance of the clients and lawyers17, the boycotts of The
Courts by the lawyers, shortage of presiding officers of the Tribunals and Courts 18 , lack of
adherence to basic procedures and principles of case management and disposal. 19 The
Government is also known to be a huge contributor to delays, in matters where it is a party at
various stages from evading notices, replying to notices and replying without application of
mind, unnecessarily appealing even when the laws are clearly in favour of the other side. 20 The
improper management of Court diary, absence of strict compliance with the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure such as, provisions of the Order 10 Code of Civil Procedure relating to
examination of parties before framing issues, to ensure narrowing and focusing the area of
controversy, the laxity in enforcing the provisions of Order 8, R 1, Code of Civil Procedure by
allowing repeated adjournments with Order 17, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure to be read with
the proviso to Order 17, Rule 2 where Clause (b) for giving adjournments also are the prominent
contributors to the problem of delays and the resultant judicial arrears. The Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment Act) 2002, Act No. 22 was sought to bring a change in the procedure in
suits and civil proceedings by way of reducing delays and compressing them into a year's time
from institution of suit till disposal and delivery of judgment, yet the revised procedures are also
not strictly adhered to. As a result, the time taken in the final disposal of the cases by the Courts
still runs into years by unduly lengthy and winded examination and cross-examination of

16
Law Commission of India, 77th Report, pr.4.1.
17
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344
18
120th Law Commission Report (1987).
19
77th Law Commission Report (1978)
20
Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344

16 | P a g e
witnesses,21 protracted arguments22, inadequate electronic connectivity and use of information
technology and so forth. The problem judicial delay and judicial arrears are spreading like
epidemic at every level of the judicial system and thus it is a major cause of concern for the very
survival of the entire process of litigation.

Alternative dispute resolution was at one point of time considered to be a voluntary act on the
apart of the parties which has obtained statutory recognition in terms of Code of Civil Procedure
Amendment Act, 1999, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Legal Services Authorities Act,
1997 and Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002. 23 The Parliament apart from
litigants and the general public as also the statutory authorities Like Legal Services Authority
have now thrown the ball into the court of the judiciary. What therefore, now is required would
be implementation of the Parliamentary object. The access to justice is a human right and fair
trial is also a human right. In some countries trial within a reasonable time is a part of the human
right legislation. But, in our country, it is a Constitutional obligation in terms of Article 14 and
21. Recourse to alternative dispute resolution as a means to have access to justice may, therefore,
have to be considered as a human right problem. Considered in that context the judiciary will
have an important role to play. Even before the existence of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure
Code, there were various provisions that gave the power to the courts to refer disputes to
mediation, which sadly have not really been utilized. Such provisions, inter alia, are in the
Industrial Disputes Act, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Courts Act and also present in a
very nascent form via Section 80, Order 32 A and Rule 5 B of Order 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.

21
The 14th and 77th Law Commission Reports.
22
79th Law Commission Report (1979).
23
ANIRBAN CHAKRABORTY, LAW & PRACTICE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN INDIA-A DETAILED
ANALYSIS (Lexis Nexis, 3rd ed. ,2015)

17 | P a g e
 6. CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION

ADR is quicker, cheaper, more user-friendly than courts. It gives people an involvement in the
process of resolving their disputes that is not possible in public, formal and adversarial justice
system perceived to be dominated by the abstruse procedure and recondite language of law. It
offers choice: choice of method, of procedure, of cost, of representation, of location. Because
often it is quicker than judicial proceedings, if can ease burdens on the Courts. Because it is
cheaper, it can help to curb the upward spiral of legal costs and legal aid expenditure too, which
would benefit the parties and the taxpayers.

In this juncture, few things are most required to be done for furtherance of smooth ADR
mechanisms. Few of them are:

 Creation of awareness and popularizing the methods is the first thing to be done.
 NGOs and medias have prominent role to play in this regard.
 For Court- annexed mediation and conciliation, necessary personnel and infrastructure
shall be needed for which government funding is necessary.
 Training programmers’ on the ADR mechanism are of vital importance. State level
judicial academies can assume the role of facilitator or active doer for that purpose.

While the Courts have never tired of providing access to justice for the teeming millions of this
country, it would not be incorrect to state that the objective would be impossible to achieve
without reform of the justice dispensation mechanism. There are two ways in which such reform
can be achieved- through changes at the structural level, and through changes at the operational
level. Changes at the structural level challenge the very framework itself and requires an
examination of the viability of the alternative frameworks for dispensing justice. It might
required an amendment to the Constitution itself or various statutes. On the other hand, changes
at the operational level requires one to work within the framework trying to indentify various
ways of improving the effectiveness of the legal system.

Needless to say, this will considerably reduce the load on the courts apart from providing instant
justice at the door-step, without substantial cost being involved. This is also to avoid procedural
technicalities and delays and justice will hopefully be based on truth and morality, as per
acknowledged considerations of delivering social justice.

18 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Article

MADABHUSHI SRIDHAR, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, Lexis Nexis; First edition (2010)

ANIRBAN CHAKRABORTY, LAW & PRACTICE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN INDIA-A

DETAILED ANALYSIS, Lexis Nexis; Third edition (2015)

S.R.A ROSEDAR, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (Lexis Nexis; First edition)

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.B.SINHA, ADR AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE: ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES

Mark R. Amstutz, The Healing of Nations: The Promise and Limits of Political
Forgiveness, (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005

DR. S.R. MYNENI, INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW (Allahabad Law Agency, 3rd Ed. 2014).

Websites

 www.scandinavianlaw.se
 www.srdlawnotes.com
 indialegal.blogspot.com
 lawstudyhelp.blogspot.com
 www.abyssinialaw.com
 www.jstor.org
 www.law.cornell.edu

19 | P a g e