Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism in India and Intervention of Judiciary in the Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism

The Intervention of Judiciary in the Alternative Dispute Resolution can bring a lot of failure and challenges in the implementation of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism in India. The Judiciary may impose the limitation on the ADR Process which may impact the parties from accepting the arbitrator decision as final, which can undermine the flexibility of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. In this paper, we will also see how the involvement of judiciary in the ADR Mechanism has brought various debate over the insufficiency of the Dispute Mechanism function in India. Judicial oversight's effect on ADR's timeliness and effectiveness is another crucial factor. Although the goal of court intervention is to guarantee compliance and fairness, it frequently causes procedural obstacles and delays, which negates the goal of pursuing quicker resolutions outside of the established legal system. Moreover, the belief that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a legitimate substitute for litigation is undermined by overbearing judicial intervention, which may discourage parties from using ADR. In summary, even though the judiciary's participation in ADR attempts to protect legal norms and guarantee justice, its overreach may undermine the fundamental principles of ADR. Maintaining the autonomy, confidentiality, flexibility, and efficiency of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes necessitates striking a careful balance between upholding the fundamental values that set ADR apart from traditional litigation and judicial oversight.