The Hindu

Key Arguments

1. Judicial Backlog and Systemic Strain
   ○ India’s courts face over 4.57 crore pending cases — including 81,786 in the Supreme Court and 62.9 lakh in High Courts.
   ○ The mounting pendency erodes public faith in justice and delays access to constitutional remedies.
2. ADR as a Constitutional Mechanism
   ○ Rooted in Article 39A of the Constitution — ensuring free legal aid and equal access to justice.
   ○ Operationalized through the Legal Services Authorities Act (1987) and Arbitration and Conciliation Act (1996).
3. Efficiency and Time-Bound Resolution
   ○ The Arbitration Act (2021 Amendment) mandates a 180-day limit for case resolution, encouraging faster settlements.
   ○ ADR aims to make justice affordable, informal, and timely, compared to the lengthy litigation process.
4. Lok Adalats and Mediation
   ○ Lok Adalats, established under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, resolve disputes outside formal courts.
   ○ Offer finality, low cost, and public participation, embodying India’s ethos of community-driven justice.
5. Social and Economic Relevance
   ○ Reflects India’s traditional Panch Parmeshwar spirit of harmony and reconciliation.
   ○ Reduces litigation costs, boosts judicial efficiency, and ensures inclusive justice delivery.
6. Need for Strengthening ADR
   ○ Senior judges like Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasize ADR’s role in restorative and social justice.
   ○ Urgent need for institutional expansion, capacity building, and public awareness.
7. Inter-State Disparities
   ○ High backlogs in states like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh reveal implementation gaps in ADR frameworks.

Author’s Stance

● Reform-oriented and solution-driven stance.
● Advocates integration of ADR into mainstream justice delivery.
● Tone is pragmatic and aligned with constitutional vision rather than critical of judiciary performance.
● Displays mild institutional optimism, trusting state-led reforms to improve ADR adoption.

Possible Biases

● Institutional bias — assumes judiciary’s ability to self-correct structurally.
● Underplays corruption, capacity deficits, and awareness issues in arbitration centers.
● Focuses primarily on urban ADR setups, with limited reference to rural or informal justice systems.

Pros

● Data-backed analysis using official statistics (National Judicial Data Grid).
● Combines legal, administrative, and social dimensions of ADR.
● Policy-relevant — directly aligns with access to justice and inclusive governance.
● Written with clarity and structured logic for general understanding.

Cons

● Lacks deep discussion on systemic weaknesses like poor quality of mediation or weak enforcement.
● No gender or minority focus — overlooks how ADR impacts marginalized communities.
● Urban-centric view; limited insight into rural ADR practices.
● Minimal critique of infrastructure and training deficiencies.

Policy Implications

1. Judicial Decongestion:
○ Institutionalize ADR mechanisms to reduce pendency and restore public confidence in justice.

2. Legal Reforms:
○ Standardize ADR rules across states, strengthen award enforcement, and improve mediator training.

3. Access and Inclusion:
○ Expand ADR centers at district and taluka levels, integrate with Gram Nyayalayas for rural outreach.

4. Public Awareness:
○ Promote legal literacy campaigns and digital mediation platforms for citizen participation.

5. Human Resource Development:
○ Create a specialized ADR cadre; fill judicial vacancies to support hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms.

Real-World Impact

● Judicial Efficiency: Reduces pendency, speeds up case disposal, and lightens court workload.
● Economic Impact: Cuts litigation costs, improves ease of doing business, and attracts foreign investment via arbitration reliability.
● Social Impact: Encourages reconciliation, strengthens community trust and harmony.
● Institutional Impact: Reinforces credibility of judiciary as accessible and efficient.

Relevance to UPSC GS Papers

Balanced Summary and Future Perspectives

The editorial portrays ADR as a cornerstone of judicial reform, essential for delivering speedy, affordable, and inclusive justice. It effectively combines constitutional vision and administrative pragmatism, advocating ADR as both a legal and moral necessity.

Future Outlook:
● Mandatory pre-litigation mediation for civil and commercial disputes.
● AI-enabled case management for ADR platforms.
● Community-based resolution centers under Gram Nyayalaya for rural justice.
● Corporate arbitration hubs to enhance global investor confidence.

Final Takeaway

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) represents India’s shift from adversarial litigation to cooperative justice. By merging traditional ethics of reconciliation with modern efficiency, ADR can bridge the gap between legal formalism and social justice, paving the way for a more humane and responsive judicial system.