Abstract

There was need for another forum to reduce the burden of the court as there were increase in the number of lis pendent in the court. Some people found that the court proceedings were complicated and involved a lot of technicalities. The court process was found to be more rigid for the given situation. The main objective of Alternative dispute resolution is to have a different method to resolve a conflict between parties in an amicable manner. This process will lead to satisfaction for both the properties and will aid them to reach a settlement out of the court. This has been in practice for a long time in the form of panchayat where a neutral third party who is an elder of a particular community. The 222nd Report of the Law Commission of India highlights the significant barriers to accessing justice, particularly for the economically and socially disadvantaged. Recognizing the challenges posed by poverty, illiteracy, and ignorance, the legal system has promoted Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms to provide quicker, more cost-effective, and less adversarial solutions. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, introduced ADR methods such as arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and judicial settlement. The primary objective is to reduce the burden on courts and ensure timely justice. Similarly, the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was a significant step towards modernizing arbitration laws in line with international standards under UNCITRAL. ADR offers a more accessible platform for dispute resolution, especially for individuals who cannot afford prolonged litigation. It also promotes amicable settlements, which is particularly beneficial in civil, commercial, and family disputes. The government’s support for ADR showcases its commitment to making justice accessible for all, aligning with the constitutional mandate of Article 39A.

Keywords