Introduction:

The greatest impediment looming over the disposal of justice in a country as vast and densely populated as India is perhaps the pendency of cases. In March 2026, the total number of pending cases at all levels was above 4,89,00,000, including over 40,00,000 court cases pending for more than 10 years in district and high courts.[1] Dealing with the behemoth of pending cases has called for holistic judicial reforms and their robust implementation. The traditional adversarial system that is followed in India[2], characterised by the pursuit of justice through a “contest” between the opposing parties, in addition to being laborious and exorbitant, is no longer able to shoulder the weight of expectations of litigants who turn to the glorious institution of Indian Judiciary to seek justice.

Against this backdrop, it becomes increasingly essential to shift the burden from traditional courtroom proceedings to a “multi-door courthouse” approach, where courts function as comprehensive centres for speedy dispute resolution and not merely trials. The multi-door courthouse approach envisions a courthouse with multiple doors, with each door representing a different dispute-resolution process such as mediation, arbitration, negotiation, traditional litigations, etc. [3] Hence, litigation is merely one of the many doors available to the seeker of justice, and not the only option. It suggests that the court should be a place for the litigants that directs them to the most appropriate door.

In the Indian legal landscape, Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation, and Lok Adalats serve as the primary Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms. The foundation for ADR emanates from section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It lays down methods of settlement of disputes outside the court.

 These are governed by statutes ranging from the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Mediation Act, 2023 to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Historical Context and Constitutional Mandate:

Historically, the concept of alternative dispute resolution mechanism is not alien to the Indian society. Long before the British introduced the formal adversarial court system to the subcontinent, India practiced deeply entrenched indigenous forms of dispute resolution. Prior to the establishment of formal courts in India, disputes were predominantly resolved through community-led mediation known as the Panchayat. Comprising respected members of the locality and led by the village headman (sarpanch), the Panchayat adjudicated disputes between individuals, families, and even villages. This system prioritised the preservation of relationships alongside resolution, thereby limiting recourse to formal courts and sustaining social harmony beyond the immediate dispute.[4] These bodies acted as facilitators of “restitutive justice” aiming to restore the social fabric along with balancing the scales of justice.  

ADR mechanisms are not merely a matter of convenience. They also fulfil the Constitutional mandate under Article 39-A, which provides for ensuring equal access to justice. They uphold the values of social, economic, and political justice as enshrined in the Preamble.[5] In a country where a significant portion of the population is marginalized, ADR is the primary vehicle for ensuring that "Access to Justice" is a reality rather than an aspirational myth.

The Arbitral Landscape in India:

The law on arbitration in India has been consolidated in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Act is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law[6]. Arbitration is broadly conducted in two forms: non-institutional or ad-hoc arbitration, and institutional arbitration.[7] Institutional arbitration is a proceeding where the parties designate an institution to administer the arbitral process in accordance with its arbitration rules.[8] By contrast, an ad hoc arbitration is a proceeding that requires the parties to select the arbitrator(s), and the rules and procedures. If necessary, the parties can still designate an arbitral institution as an appointing authority and adopt an institution’s arbitration rules, if the rules allow the parties to opt out of case administration by that institution. The parties may also adopt the UNCITRAL ad hoc rules for domestic and international disputes.[9] Arbitral institutes like New Delhi International Arbitration Centre (NDIAC), Hyderabad Arbitration Centre (HAC), Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), etc. have been established to facilitate arbitration proceedings.

The Act has undergone three amendment cycles (2015, 2019, and 2021), with The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in works. These amendments aim at ensuring timely conclusion of arbitration proceedings, neutrality of arbitrators, minimizing judicial intervention in the arbitral process and quick enforcement of arbitral awards. The amendments are further aimed at promoting institutional arbitration, updating the law to reflect best global practices and resolve ambiguities thereby establishing an arbitration ecosystem where arbitral institutions can flourish.[10] Yet, the mechanism remains riddled with enforcement deficiencies.

The year 2025 has been characterised by a catena of judgements that have addressed gaps in the arbitration framework, especially recognising the limits of judicial intervention, among others.

In Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.[11], a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Courts have only a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Apex Court delineated limited circumstances in which the power to modify can be exercised for instance, when the offending portion of the award is severable, or to correct obvious clerical or computational errors, or to modify post award interest. Relying on M. Hakim[12], the dissenting opinion underscored that Section 34 only gives the courts power to “set aside” the award and not modify it. It was reasoned that doing so may affect the international enforceability of such awards as the award itself may lose its character under the New York Convention. The minority opinion further reasoned that Courts cannot rewrite or improve upon law based on convenience. Had the same been deemed necessary by the Legislature, it must have been introduced expressly.

Dealing with issues of cross-border jurisdiction, the Apex Court in Disortho S.A.S. vs. Meril Life Sciences (P) Ltd.[13], the Court distinguished between lex contractus (law governing the contract), lex arbitri (law governing the arbitration), and lex fori (law governing the procedure before the supervisory Court). The “three stage test” as laid down in Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros S.A. vs. Enesa Engenharia S.A.[14] was reaffirmed. It lays down the following three tests, in order to determine the law governing the arbitration agreement:

(i) express choice (ii) implied choice and (iii) closest and most real connection

The Supreme Court held that since the seat of arbitration was Bogota, Colombia, Indian Courts had no jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Act.

The thresholds as provided for by the Act act as constraint on Judicial intervention in order to prevent the mechanism of arbitration from becoming an offshoot of litigation.

Conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

Part III of the Act underlines the law related to conciliation.  The Halsbury’s Laws of England defines conciliation as a process of persuading the parties to reach an agreement. It is a procedure where a neutral third person is appointed as a conciliator by the parties to the dispute to reach a settlement. The mutual consent in this allows parties to engage in a friendly search for a solution, without litigation and formal technicalities and enables parties to envision alternatives which provide solutions keeping in view the interests and priorities of both.

The mechanism of conciliation is based on the pillars of independence & impartiality[15], objectivity, fairness & justice[16], co-operation[17], and confidentiality[18].

The settlement agreement signed by the parties under section 73(3) has been given the status and effect of legal sanctity of an arbitral award under section 74.[19]  

For a litigator, conciliation provides an expeditious, principled compromise that also acts as a safety valve which resolves disputes and ensures that only legally complex move towards arbitral and judicial proceedings, thus preventing overburdening.

Mediation in India in Light of the Mediation Act, 2023:

The Mediation Act, 2023 enacted to promote and facilitate mediation, has the potential to transform mediation into the most potent tool for easing the burden on Judiciary.

Provisions such as Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation[20] attempt to embed mediation in the ADR framework in the country. Moreover, certain provisions in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015[21], Companies Act, 2013[22], etc. also specifically provide for mediation. These provisions act as floodgates for filtration at the entrance of the judicial system.

Mediation in India was earlier shaped by judicial pronouncements. In M.R. Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.[23], the Supreme Court underlined the need for the institutionalisation of mediation in India and the enactment of a standalone legislation to standardise mediation in the country.

In Afcons Infrastructure and Ors. vs. Cherian Varkey Construction and Ors.[24], the court opined that resorting to alternative disputes resolution processes is necessary to give speedy and effective relief to the litigants and to reduce the pendency in and burden upon the courts. 

Section 32 of the Act provides for the establishment of The Mediation Council of India in order to discharge the duties and functions as enumerated in the Act. Section 38 further delineates the mandatory functions to be performed by the Council. These include the prerogative to promote and regulate mediation, to lay down guidelines for continuous upskilling of mediators, to regulate standards of professional conduct, etc. The institutionalisation of mediation will promote it as a professional discipline.   

Lok Adalat: A Successful Indigenous ADR Experiment

Lok Adalats, governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 are an attempt to tackle the astronomical volume of petty and compoundable cases that suffocate the judiciary.  it is a forum where disputes/cases pending in the court of law or at pre-litigation stage are settled/ compromised amicably.[25]

The establishment of Lok Adalats at various levels (National[26], State[27], High Court[28], District[29], Taluk[30]) facilitate voluntary settlement of disputes. It is a people centric forum where disputes are settled by consensus.[31] Cases that are disposed typically include petty offences, utility disputes, motor accident claims, etc.

The number of total disposed of cases through National Lok Adalat as on 14.03.2026 stood at 4,06,39,056[32]. The sheer volume of cases disposed of is a testament to the fact that at the grassroots, the justice system is carried by simple dispute resolution methods.

Moreover, Permanent Lok Adalats, as established under Section 22B also have adjudicatory powers and facilitate the provision of compulsory pre-litigative mechanism for conciliation and settlement of cases relating to Public Utility Services like transport, postal, telegraph etc. Here, even if the parties fail to reach to a settlement, the Permanent Lok Adalat gets jurisdiction to decide the dispute, provided, the dispute does not relate to any offence. Further, the Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and binding on all the parties.[33] This ensures that consumers are no left in a limbo and such matters do not progress into civil suits.

Implementation of ADR Mechanisms at Grassroot Level and the Socio-Legal Impact on Common Man:

The true test of success of these mechanisms would lie in its ability to penetrate the “last mile” of litigants in the society. For the common man, uninitiated with the legal environment of the country, the courtroom can feel intimidating, making the pursuit of justice daunting or even impossible.

While methods like arbitration are often perceived as reserved for high stake commercial matters, it is important to acknowledge that the ADR framework holistically covers all kinds of disputes. Mediation and Lok Adalats specifically address the lived reality of common citizens.

Localised alternatives and resurrection of traditional resolution mechanisms in society, such as the Gram Panchayats may be a step in the right direction to transform justice from merely a “battle” to “conversation”.  However, this mechanism needs to be delicately balanced such that it does not reinforce already existing evils under the guise of “tradition”. Hence, rigorous vigilance is necessary to ensure that justice does not remain a mere distance dream for many.

Conclusion: