What is Alternative Dispute Resolution?

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a term used to describe the various ways in
which legal disputes are resolved. The business world as well as common people are
discovering that it is impracticable for many individuals to file lawsuits and seek timely
justice. The Courts are backlogged with case files resulting in a year or more delay for the
parties to hear and resolve their cases. In response to this question of delayed justice, the
ADR Mechanism was created.

Alternate dispute resolutions approaches are gradually being recognized at both

Methods of Alternative Dispute Resolutions

The different methods of ADR can be summarized as under:

1. Arbitration
Arbitration, a type of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a strategy for resolving
conflicts outside of the court system in which the parties to a disagreement refer it to
one or more people, known as arbitrators, to whom they intend to be bound by their
judgement. It is a method of dispute settlement in which a third person examines the
evidence in the case and renders a legally enforceable decision for both parties.
Arbitration awards have limited right of review and appeal. Arbitration is not the same
as civil and mediation proceedings. Arbitration can be optional, or mandatory. Clearly,
mandatory arbitration can only come from a law or arrangement that is mutually
signed where the parties agree to arbitrate all current or future disputes without
necessarily knowing what disputes will ever occur. In India, if the matter is referred to
Arbitration, then the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will
apply.
The main types of ADR are as under:
 Voluntary Arbitration
 Compulsory Arbitration
Other Types of Arbitration
 Ad-hoc Arbitration.
  Institutional Arbitration
 Statutory Arbitration
 Domestic or International Arbitration
2. Conciliation
It is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which the parties to a dispute hire a
conciliator to help them resolve their issues individually. They do this by reducing
conflicts, strengthening coordination, identifying problems, offering technical
assistance, discussing possible solutions and bringing about a negotiated settlement.
In this manner, it is a bit different from Arbitration.
It is a consensual process in which the parties involved are free to reach an
agreement and try to resolve their disagreement through conciliation. The method is
versatile, which helps the parties to determine the time, duration and content of the
conciliation procedure. Those proceedings are seldom public. These are interest-
based, as the conciliator must take into account not only the legal positions of the
parties but also their economic, financial and/or personal interests when negotiating a
settlement. In the Indian sense, the terms conciliation and mediation are synonymous.
Conciliation is a cooperative mechanism through which the conciliator, a qualified
and professional neutral, facilitates negotiations between the disputing parties and
assists them in recognizing their differences and desires in order to reach an
arrangement that is mutually acceptable. Once a settlement has been found before a
conciliator between the parties to the conflict, the resolution has the effect of an
arbitration award and is legally tenable in any court in the country. Many trade
disputes, in which it is not necessary that a binding and enforceable decision should
take place, are subject to conciliation. Conciliation may be especially appropriate
where the parties to the conflict seek to preserve and sustain their commercial
relations.
3. Mediation
Today, mediation is a voluntary and informal method of dispute resolution throughout
the world. It is a simple, voluntary, party-centered and structured negotiation process
in which a neutral third party helps parties resolve their disputes friendly through the
use of specified communication and negotiation techniques. Mediation is a process
where the parties are themselves in control of it. The mediator’s role is strictly that of
a facilitator, assisting the parties in reaching a negotiated settlement of their
 disagreement. The mediator takes no decisions and does not enforce his opinion on
what should be a fair settlement. Both sides meet with an experienced neutral
mediator during the mediation process. The session starts with each side explaining
the issue from their point of view, and the remedy they seek. Once the respective
views of each party is discussed, the mediator then splits them into private rooms,
initiating a “caucus conference” process and then “joint meetings with the parties.”
Both sides agree to the limit. The mediator does not have the power to dictate his
decision regarding the party. Mediation allows a conflict to be handled swiftly, with
minimal stress and expense, while still preserving the parties’ relationship and
maintaining anonymity.
4. Judicial Settlement
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure also refers to judicial settlement as one of
the alternative modes of resolution of disputes. There are, of course, no specific rules
for such settlements framed up to now. The term “Judicial Settlement” is however
specified in Section 89 of the Code. It was provided that the provisions of the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987, would apply when there is a judicial settlement. This
means that the Judge concerned seeks to settle the dispute between the parties in a
legal settlement amicably. Such settlement shall be deemed to be an agreement within
the scope of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, if any friendly settlement is
resorted to and reached in the case at question. Section 21 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 specifies that each Lok Adalat award shall be deemed a Civil
Court decree. India has no written guidance on judicial settlement
5. Lok Adalat
The idea that is gaining popularity is that of Lok Adalats or the courts of the people as
formed by the government to settle disputes through conciliation and compromise. It
is a judicial body and a dispute settlement organization established for social justice
by the citizens themselves, based on the settlement or agreement obtained through
formal negotiations. The first Lok Adalats was conducted as far back as 1982 in Una
village of Junagadh (Gujrat). Adalats also recognize cases within their jurisdiction
which are pending in regular courts. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure also
provides for the appeal to Lok Adalat of pending Civil disputes. When the matter is
referred to Lok Adalat then it will follow the provisions of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987. The holding of Lok Adalat is governed by Section 19 of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Conclusion
People now have a new way to settle their conflicts thanks to the emergence of
alternative dispute resolution systems. The rapid resolution of conflicts in Lok Adalat
has gained widespread public support, giving ADR a fresh impetus that will
undoubtedly lower the number of cases pending in the courts. There is a pressing need
for ADR mechanisms to provide access to justice. The ADR movement must be
encouraged to evolve at a faster pace. This will significantly lessen the burden on the
courts, in addition to offering immediate justice at the doorstep at a low cost. If they
are implemented fully, they will truly achieve the purpose of providing social justice
to the disputants.