Alternative dipsute resolution system is informal method of resolving conflicts. there are different modes of ADR viz., negotiations, mediation , conciliation and arbitration etc.

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism
By Dr. Deepa Praveen Patil
Asst. Prof. Ismailsaheb Mulla Law college, Satara

2. Dispute resolution system
 Court as a means of dispute resolution
Litigation has its own strength, weakness & limitations
Voltaire once said “ I was ruined twice in my life,
once when I lost a law suit and once when I won a
law suit !.”
Panchayat system at villages
Alternative dispute resolution creates win –win
situation
Formal dispute resolution system
Non-formal justice delivery system

3. Adversarial system
 Canada and most countries that derive their legal systems from the English
model use what is called the adversarial legal system.The two great
systems of law, the common law and the civil law systems, both have
differing procedures when a case goes to trial.The two approaches are
either adversarial or inquisitorial.
 The Adversarial System
 Our system of justice is based on the adversarial model.The adversarial
system implies that two parties assume opposite positions in debating the
guilt or innocence of an individual. In this scenario, the judge is required to
be neutral at the contest unfolding before him or her.The role of the judge
in this arrangement is to ensure the trial proceeds according to the
procedural rules of trial or due process of law and that evidence entered is
done so according to established rules and guidelines.
 The advantages of the adversarial system include.
 the judge reserves comment until all evidence from both parties are heard.
 this makes the judge appear more neutral since judgement must be
reserved until all the evidence is heard
 The disadvantages of the adversarial system include
 the finding of evidence rests on the resources of the two parties which
may be unequal
 parties only provide evidence favourable to their arguments

4. Inquisitorial Legal Systems
 The inquisitorial system is the common procedural approach in
most civil law jurisdictions.
 In an inquisitorial system, a judge is involved in the preparation of
evidence along with the police and in how the various parties are
to present their case at the trial.The judge questions witnesses in
depth and can even call witnesses to appear while prosecution and
defense parties can ask follow up questions.The judge plays the
central role in finding the truth and all the evidence that either
proves the innocence or guilt of the accused before the court.The
judge takes on the role of prosecutor and judge in the inquisitorial
system. Some other major distinctions is that there are no jury
trials in an inquisitorial system and a judge can compel an accused
to make statements and answer questions.This differs dramatically
from the common law and adversarial right not to take the stand in
one's own defence.

5. Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) System
 ADR is defined as any process or procedure other than
adjudication by a presiding judge in court – litigation, in
which a neutral third party participates to assist in the
resolution of issues in controversy.
 ADR is not a new concept it was in existence from the
ancient period in India what is new is the extensive
promotion & proliferation of ADR models
 Expansion of commercialization & Industrialization
 21st century era of Globalization, clogged court houses –
people inclined either to avoid litigation or to start resorting
to extra judicial remedies
 Presently ADR become sine quo non for justice delivery
system.
 ADR not as alternative dispute resolution, but
appropriate dispute resolution

6. CHARACTERISTICS OF ADR
PROCESSES
 1) Informality:- Most fundamentally ADR processes are less formal than judicial
processes.The rules of procedure are flexible, without formal pleadings, extensive written
documentation or rules of evidence. It is important for reducing the cost and delay in
dispute resolution.
 2) Application of equality:- ADR mechanisms are instruments for the
application of equity, rather than rule of law. Each case is decided by a third party or
negotiated between disputants themselves, based on principles &terms those seem
equitable in the particular case, rather than on uniformly applied legal standards.ADR
system tends to achieve efficient settlements at the expense of consistent & uniform
justice.
 3) Law is relevant in ADR:-Alternative to court redressal system do not deviate
completely from law & legal process. Legality is a necessary requirement, while the myriad
forms of solutions could be invented beyond the law & reach of enforcement regulators.
Thus the need to resort to alternatives has emerged from, the problems arising out of
litigation such as inordinate delay, escalating costs of litigation, mounting arrears, pervasive
corruption, and inequities in system.
 4) Direct participation and communication between disputants:- In ADR
systems, there is more direct participation by the disputants in the process and in
designing settlements, more direct dialogue & opportunity for reconciliation, between
disputants with higher level of confidentiality since public records are not typically kept,
also more flexibility in designing creative settlements.

7. Huge pendency of litigations in 2010
Supreme court* 45,887 cases
High Courts * 4,060,709 cases
Lower Courts* 27,275,953 cases

8. Ratio of Judges to Population
Country Ratio of judges to
population
(per 10 Lac population)
 USA 107 Judges
 Canada 75 Judges
 Australia 57.7 Judges
 England 50.9 Judges
 India 10.5 Judges

9. Government is the largest litigator
 According to rough estimate, 70% of all cases
are either agitated by the State or appealed by
it.
 The State fights cases against citizens at the
cost of citizens.

10. Ability of Courts to disposal off the Cases has
become doubtful
Complicated and burdensome procedural details
which are inherently very slow proving.
Filing of the plaint, serving the process filing the
written statements,
Time irresponsibly taken and given, the discovery
procedure, recording of depositions,
Ineffective court management,
Fragmented and discontinuous trial unattractive
alternatives to trial and
 Indifferent attitudes of legal actors, namely
lawyers, judges and litigants have resulted into
vicious cycles of backlogs and delays.

11. Choice of ADR Mechanisms
Arbitration is a legal techniques for the resolution of disputes outside the
courts, where in the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons
(the “arbitrators”, ”arbiters” or “arbitral tribunal”.) by whose decision
(the award) they agree to be bound.
(The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996)
Conciliation is a non-binding procedure in which an
impartial third party, the conciliator, assists the
parties to a dispute in reaching a mutually agreed
Settlement of the disputes.(Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, )
Arbitration
Conciliation

12. Choice of ADR Mechanism
Mediation
Mediation a private informal dispute resolution process in which a
neutral third party, the mediator helps disputing parties to reach an
agreement the mediator has no power to impose a decision on the
parties.(Section 89 CPC and “Civil Procedure ADR and Mediation
Rules, 2006”)
Lok Adalat:
The word Lok Adalat means peoples court. If the pending suit is not
complicated and disputes in that suit is easily settled by applying
clear legal principles Lok Adalat will be a preferred choice.
(The Legal Services Authorities Act,1987)

13. Some Examples for use of ADR Processes
Two brothers fighting over an orange
Ad-judication – cut into 2 and give each ½ share
Mediation -One Brother may want the orange, the
other may want the cover.
Two children fighting for a larger piece of a cake.
Both demand, they be allowed to cut and have
the cake first. Mediator – One cuts and the
other gets the choice for picking up the piece
first.

14. Disputes suitable for ADR processes :
(i) All cases relating to trade, commerce and contracts, including - disputes arising out of
contracts (including all money claims); - disputes relating to specific performance; disputes
between suppliers and customers; disputes between bankers and customers; disputes
between developers/builders and customers; - disputes between landlords and
tenants/licensor and licensees; - disputes between insurer and insured;
(ii) All cases arising from strained or soured relationships, including - disputes relating to
matrimonial causes, maintenance, custody of children; disputes relating to partition/division
among family members/co- parceners/co owners; and disputes relating to partnership among
partners.
(iii) All cases where there is a need for continuation of the pre-existing relationship in spite of
the disputes, including disputes between neighbors (relating to easementary rights,
encroachments, nuisance etc.) disputes between employers and employees; disputes among
members of societies/associations/Apartment owners Associations;
(iv)All cases relating to tortious liability including - claims for compensation in motor
accidents/other accidents; and
(v) All consumer disputes
(vi) Compoundable offences Plea bargaining

15. Cases not suitable for ADR process
(i) Representative suits under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC which involve
public interest or interest or numerous persons who are not
parties before the court (In fact, even a compromise in such a suit
is a difficult process requiring notice to the persons interested in
the suit, before its acceptance).
(ii) Disputes relating to election to public offices ( as contrasted
from disputes between two groups trying to get control over the
management of societies, clubs, association etc).
(iii) Cases involving grant of authority by the court after enquiry, as
for example, suits for grant of probate or letters of administration.
(iv) Cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud,
fabrication of documents, forgery, impersonation, coercion etc.
(iii) Cases requiring protection of courts, as for example, claims
against minors, deities and mentally challenged and suits for
declaration of title against government.
(v) Cases involving prosecution for non-compunding criminal
offences.

16. Advantages of ADR mechanism
 ADR system can reduce delay in the resolution of
disputes
 Less Expensive
 ADR can increase satisfaction of disputants with
outcomes
 Participation of parties
 Win-Win situation
 No external control
 Informal procedure
 ADR system can increase access to justice for
disadvantaged groups
 Failed ADR proceeding is never a waste
 Finality of decision

17. Limitations of ADR mechanism
 ADR programs do not set precedent, refine legal norms or
establish broad community or national standards, nor do they
promote a consistent application of legal rules
 ADR programs cannot correct systematic injustice,
discrimination or violations of human rights
 ADR programs do not work well in the context of extreme
power imbalance between parties
 ADR settlements do not have any educational, punitive or
deterrent effect on the population
 ADR is inappropriate in disputes of multiparty cases in which
some of the parties of not participate
 ADR may undermine judicial reform efforts
 The settlement through ADR might not result in a binding
solution
 Consensus is the basis of jurisdiction of ADR program
 ADR programs can not resolve non-compoundable offences

18. A Famous quote by - Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi,An Autobiography:The Story of my experiments with
Truth, 134 (6th ed. 1965)
“I had learnt the practice of law. I had learnt
to find out the better side of human nature,
and to enter men’s hearts. I realized that the
true function of a lawyer was to unite parties
driven a sunder….. ..I lost nothing thereby-
not even money, certainty not my soul.”

19. Conclusion
 Indian Judiciary is overburdened with huge backlog of
cases.
 Globalization has also created a great stimulation in the
process of universalizing and simplifying the process of
dispute resolution in different countries across the globe.
 Indian judiciary has also played a substantial role in up
gradation of ADR mechanism.
 ADR aimed at settling disputes in peaceful manner and
cost effective, speedy, simple, convenient to both the
parties
 It aims at providing justice that not only resolves dispute
but also harmonizes the relation of the parties.

20. Thank
you