IIIII YEAR B.B.B.A. LL. B. (Div.

-X) – Semester-XXII (202_-2_)

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT I- CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

Research Paper on:

“Streamlining Justice: Enhancing ADR for a Swifter Justice

System in India.”
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

INTRODUCTION

Indian courts, have for a long time operated under the adversarial system. Although this
system is morally satisfying, it tends to prolong cases, which is contrary to the saying ‘justice
delayed is justice denied’. Thus, we find ourselves at a dilemma. On one side, we have an
ever-increasing population that is in the middle of a digital revolution becoming more legally
aware and demanding enforcement of their rights. On the other, there rather lies a behemoth
of a problem, that of case backlog, prepared to overload the system in place. The only
possible option seems to be clearing up the higher judiciary fast, and disposing of the
prospective and suitable cases through the peaceful means of outside court settlement
(Alternate Dispute Resolution). Some inherent powers of several courts should be curtailed
and new, more appropriate, and better-endowed forums should be created. The current
independent and institutional setups are rendered powerless because of their restricted
jurisdiction, insufficient physical infrastructure, and, more importantly, no enforcement
authority. These defects greatly hinder their effectiveness in operation, delivering justice and
solving disputes within the grassroots level thus affect judicial productivity.

In countries like the U.S. ADR is a long appreciated and promoted method of resolution, with
undoubtedly its greatest president Abraham Lincoln, advocating for outside court settlement,
writing to one of his client “I wish you may settle this case, since it’ll fetch your money
easily and without going through much troubles.” On the British Isles King’s court weren’t
always preferred forums but informal courts chaired by respected member of the community
also held their significance, with the King readily agreeing to such decisions sometimes. This,
highlights that the benefit of ADR.

2
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. How can the promotion of ADR mechanisms in India reduce the pendency of cases in the
judicial system?

2. What limitations can be imposed on the inherent powers of courts to ensure the priority of
ADR?

3. What reforms have been implemented in the ADR framework, and what outcomes have
they yielded?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To analyse the impact of ADR in reducing backlog.

2. To examine legal framework for ADR laid down in the CPC and inherent powers of the
court.
3. To propose potential reforms and limitations on judicial intervention to enhance ADR's
efficacy.

BODY

RQ 1. The promotion of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) has the potential to

significantly reduce the pendency in Indian courts by offering more efficient and amicable
solution to the old, time and resource consuming adversarial litigation. ADR includes:

 Arbitration.
 Conciliation.
 Mediation.
 Lok Adalats.

All these setups aim to settle dispute outside the conventional courtroom, thereby alleviating
the burden on the overburdened courts. One of the main reasons for increased importance of
ADR in India is the increasing number of backlog of cases pending in courts. India is poor
performer in terms of timely enforcement of contracts, it ranked 163 rd out of 190 countries
according to the World Bank Report, this is caused largely due to the high number of cases

3
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

already bogging down the judicial system. Thus, highlighting the need and necessity for other
mechanisms to enter the judicial system to expedite conflict resolution and prevent clogging
of cases. The constitutional validity of tribunals was upheld in the case of Union of India v.
Delhi High Court Bar Association1 where it was challenged that legislature can only make
tribunals for the areas specified in the Constitution, these contentions were denied by the
Apex Court, stating that tribunalisation is possible for the which aren’t explicitly mentioned
u/a 323B2.

This is the data from National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) showing Number of pending cases.

In India Section 893 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides for settlements outside
the court. This provision empowers courts to refer the cases to a suitable ADR mechanism
sighting possibility of settlements in such cases. This section has the potential to prevent
unnecessary litigation and reduce number of cases entering litigation. This was highlighted by
the Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey
Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.4 Where the court observed that civil and commercial should be
sent to ADR to relieve the pressure on the courts.

1
Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association (2002) 4 SCC 275
2
INDIA CONST. art. 323B.
3
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, §89, No. 05, Acts of Imperial Legislative Council, 1908 (India).
4
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24

4
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

ADR mechanisms are designed in such a way that they resolve disputes more efficiently as
compared to traditional litigation. The Ministry of Law and Justice reported that mediation
centres had resolved 34,614 cases out of 61,168 filed cases by March of 2021, this data
brings forth the tremendous potential that ADR has to reduce case pendency and that it serves
as a practical solution for outside court settlements.

Lok Adalats were established under National Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 5, it is an
alternative to formal litigation, as these courts are empowered to settle both civil and criminal
(compoundable offences) cases and its decisions have the same force as the decree of a civil
courts. Additionally, its decisions are binding, with limited scope of appeal reducing the
likelihood of appeal against its decision. Mediation is very popular ADR method due to its
informal nature, cost-effectiveness and quick case disposal rate, it helps party engage in
discussion and arrive at an agreement, its utility in matrimonial and business disputes is
invaluable and has been recognised by the highest court in India in many cases like B.S.
Krishna Murthy v. B.S. Nagaraj6 and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan7.

Indian Judiciary has increasingly encouraged the use of ADR. The Apex court in plethora of
its judgment has underlined its great role in disposing cases and encouraged subordinate
courts do the same and promote amicable settlements. This will help shift disputes from

The graph shows pre-litigation cases disposed by Lok Adalat.

conventional court system to ADR mechanism, leading directly to decrease in pending cases.
5
The National Legal Services Act, 1987, No. 39, Acts of Parliament, 1987 (India).
6
B.S. Krishna Murthy v. B.S. Nagaraj, (2011) 15 SCC 464
7
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544

5
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

RQ. 2 One of the effective ways of promoting ADR mechanisms is to limit the scope of
judiciary’s intervention in ADR proceedings. In India, this concern has been given
considerable thought for the past few decades with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
having a specific provision, that is, Section 58 which states that courts shall not intervene in
arbitration proceeding except where it is expressly provided by the legislation. This is an
instrumental provision which protects the autonomy of ADR mechanism like Arbitration,
likewise inclusion in other legislations governing Lok Adalats and Mediation is expected.

In spite of this judicial overreach remains a concern. In S.B.P & Co. v. Patel Engineering
Ltd.9, the Supreme Court moved towards limiting courts intervention by clarifying that
judicial authorities should only interfere in ADR proceedings when it is absolutely necessary
to, for example when questions of jurisdiction or public policy arise. The inherent power of
courts given under Section 151 of CPC, 190810 enables the courts to pass decrees that secure
the ends of justice and prevents abuse of power. However, these inherent powers often clash
with principles of ADR where the idea is to settle dispute resolve disputes with minimal
intervention from the courts. For promotion coupled with quick and effective disposal of
cases, it is essential to impose certain limits on the inherent powers of courts, so, that that
they do not interfere unnecessarily in ADR processes.

Effective ‘Tribunalization’, can limit the scope of judicial powers. By ensuring that tribunals
are granted exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters. The creation of the Intellectual
Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), further
tribunalization is ought to reduce the burden on courts by settling disputes within specific
domains outside traditional judicial system. In Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar
Association11 establishment of further tribunals has been encouraged. Further special statutes
also bar the inherent powers of a civil court as held in Dhulabai v. Stale of Madhya
Pradesh12.

In several countries other than India, similar efforts have been made to curtail judicial
intervention in ADR processes for example: In the United States, the Federal Arbitration
Act, 1925 (FAA), limits court intervention in arbitration, allowing the courts to interfere only
in specific circumstances like enforcement of arbitral awards or in cases which involve fraud,

8
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, §5, No. 05, Acts of Imperial Legislative Council, 1908 (India).
9
S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 288
10
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, §151, No. 05, Acts of Imperial Legislative Council, 1908 (India).
11
Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association (2002) 4 SCC 275
12
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78.

6
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

corruption or public policy. This approach minimizes the interference of courts and allows for
arbitration to operate smoothly as the primary method of dispute resolution. In India S.B.P. &
Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd.13 similar guidelines for courts to interfere when it’s necessary,
allowing arbitration to function freely.

Likewise, in the U.K., the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) encourages the role of mediation
and arbitration and courts are discouraged from intervening ADR proceedings. Courts in the
U.K. are authorized to impose monetary penalties on the parties who refuse to engage in
ADR unreasonably, as settled in the case of Dunnett v. Railtrack plc14. By limiting the courts
discretion to intervene, ADR gains popularity and becomes the prioritized method for dispute
resolution.

The graph above shows case clearance rate in lower courts.

The clearance rate in Gujarat is commendable and the success is owed to many factors, like
the promotion of ADR mechanisms i.e. Mediation, Arbitration and Lok Adalats; periodically
reviewing the performance of the lower courts; integration of technology like e-filing, digital
case tracking and virtual hearing; infrastructure development like better equipped computer
and other accessories required for smooth functioning, all these factors have contributed
greatly to the clearance rate in Gujarat’s subordinate courts.

13
S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 288
14
Dunnett v. Railtrack plc, [2002] EWCA Civ 303

7
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

RQ. 3. Before we talk about reforms let’s talk about the problems and the most pertinent
problems that plague ADR mechanism in India. The problems are:

1. Lack of Awareness and Infrastructure: The success of ADR depends on awareness among
litigants and legal practitioners, which is unfortunately low in India. Additionally, the
infrastructure required for effective ADR, such as the availability of qualified and impartial
arbitrators and mediators, is inadequate. In Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail
Co. Ltd.15 the court pointed out how delays by lack of arbitrators can lead parties to return to
traditional litigation undermining confidence in ADR processes in the country.

2. Enforcement Issues: The enforcement of ADR awards, such as arbitral awards, is often
plagued with delays. The Apex Court in Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa 16 case
brought forth challenges in enforcement of ADR awards, with courts even sometimes
annulling awards on limited grounds, leading to prolonged litigation.

3. Inconsistent Application of ADR across courts: There’s a difference how courts apply ADR
mechanisms. Some courts actively promote ADR others prefer to retain cases within the
formal judicial system, leading to a lack of uniformity in ADR application. This inconsistency
was evident in the case of Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh & Sons17, where
excessive judicial intervention delayed arbitration proceedings.

These are the problems, now let’s look at reforms that have been introduced:

1. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Acts of 2015 and 2019 : In 2015 a
major reforms were introduced aimed at reducing delays in arbitration proceedings and
enhancing its independent functioning. It introduced a timeline of twelve months to
conclude arbitration proceedings, with an additional six months extension possible if the
parties agree. The act also sought to reduce courts interference, specifically in the matters
of interim relief and appointment of arbitrators.
In 2019, the amendments made further improvements to arbitration in India. The
establishment of Arbitration Council of India (ACI) was a notable reform under the
amendment. The amendment was responsible for regulating arbitral institutions and
setting standards for their performance. The reform also sought to professionalise
15
Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 4 SCC 665
16
Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano SpA, (2014) 2 SCC 433
17
Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons, (1981) 4 SCC 634

8
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

arbitration and improve its quality. The case of Ssangyong Engineering & Construction
Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India18 illustrate the positive impact of these
reforms in improving the speed of dispute resolution.

2. Promotion of Mediation and Lok Adalats: Mediation and Lok Adalats are essential
components of the ADR framework that are received increasing attention of the
legislature and judiciary. The National Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 19, which
provided statutory backing to Lok Adalats, allows it to hear and resolve civil and criminal
cases outside the court.
Mediation has also been increasingly promoted through court-annexed mediation centers
and NGOs across India. Data from the Ministry of Law and Justice shows that mediation
centers have been successful in resolving a significant number of cases by March 2021.
The judiciary has actively encouraged mediation, as demonstrated in the case Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.20, where the Supreme
Court emphasized that certain types of disputes are better suited for mediation.

3. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Initiatives: During the COVID-19 pandemic the
adoption of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) mechanisms in India accelerated. Courts
and tribunals across the country transitioned to virtual hearings to keep the work going
during lockdowns, with the Delhi High Court launched the e-Dispute Resolution
Tribunal (e-DRT), for parties to resolve commercial disputes online. The platform uses
artificial intelligence and machine learning to match disputes with qualified arbitrators
and mediators, facilitating faster and more cost-effective resolutions.
Such an initiative has improved access to justice for small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) and individuals who may not be able to pursue conventional litigation.

Over the years, the courts in the United States have upheld that arbitration agreements are
enforceable and reemphasised on it regularly, even in cases like consumer and
employment contracts as seen in the case AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion21.

18
National Highways Authority of India v. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine
Del 11334.
19
The National Legal Services Act, 1987, No. 39, Acts of Parliament, 1987 (India).
20
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24
21
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011)

9
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

Singapore is a well-established global arbitration hub, with the Singapore International

Arbitration Centre (SIAC) playing a major role in resolving commercial disputes
globally. Singapore’s International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) is a legislation that
limits judicial intervention and promotes the autonomy of arbitral tribunals, making
Singapore one of the preferred destination for international arbitrations. These measures
has boosted Singapore’s economy further and made it a global leader in ADR disputes.

SUGGESTIONS

We have analysed the research questions, have also conducted comparative study with ADR
is managed and promoted in foreign jurisdictions. Now let’s move on to suggestions:

 Legislature should contemplate and draft Statutes while keeping the perspective of ADR
in mind, incorporating provisions that mandate ADR as forum for resolving disputes
arising from these statutes.
 Commercial Contracts should mandatorily include ADR clauses, specifically contracts
being entered upon in sectors like construction, real estate and corporate law. These
clauses should require parties to either appear in front of Mediation or Arbitration centres
first if a dispute arises out of their mutually agreed contract.
 Courts should impose monetary penalties on the parties who unreasonably refuse to
engage in ADR forums. This penalisation will act as a deterrent and send a message to
others.
 Public awareness campaigns should be launched alongside more ADR activities like Lok
Adalat and Mediation shall be promoted and institutionalised in cases involving certain
some of money or mutual divorce agreement cases.
 Infrastructure of ADR tribunals should be made better and enforcement powers should be
vested with them, training and appointing retired judges as arbitrators, mediators and
councillors would infuse public confidence and fast track the process.

10
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it's pretty clear that promoting and improving Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) in India is very important if we want to tackle the massive backlog of cases clogging
our courts. ADR methods like Arbitration, Mediation, and Lok Adalats offer a faster and cost
effective way to resolve disputes compared to traditional adversarial litigation, which is less
cost effective and tiresome for both regular people and businesses.

However, there are challenges that remain. Inadequate infrastructure, awareness, and
qualified arbitrators or mediators is still to impeding the full realization of ADR's potential.
Additionally, inconsistent application of ADR across different courts and delays in enforcing
ADR awards are some of the areas that needs attention and improvement. Addressing these
issues require dedicated efforts from the legislature, judiciary, and the legal community,
alongside long term investments capacity building and infrastructure.

The experiences of countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore
show that when ADR is institutionalized and promoted by appropriately, it becomes the
primary method for disputes resolution, hence, reducing the burden on courts and providing
quicker, fairer outcomes.

Words- 2867 (excluding Citations, Front page and Bibliography).

11
 1st INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Tribunalization of Justice in India;

https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/actj2006&i=360

2. Future of ADR in India: "Alternative" to "Appropriate" Dispute Resolution;

https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/injloitd2&i=908
3. REFORMS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: BEATING THE
BACKLOG;
http://www.jstor.org/stable/45163064
4. Indian Judiciary: An Analysis of the Cyclic Syndrome of Delay, Arrears and
Pendency; https://doi.org/10.1177/2322005817733566

12