…Lok Adalat mechanisms…

It is a fact that a large number of civil disputes pending in the courts, and to a small extent petty criminal matters, have been ‘disposed of ’ through the Lok Adalats that are a permanent ‘embedded’ feature of the functioning of legal services authorities. While one point of view sees this as a success, another questions whether the Lok Adalat as presently institutionalized is really a tool of ‘case management’ which essentially addresses the problems of an over-burdened judiciary and not so much as an instrument of justice delivery for the litigant. If the ‘success’ of the Lok Adalat stems from negative reasons attributable to the failures of the formal legal system, the utility of this mechanism may also be short-lived. In other words if the incentive for litigants to accept Lok Adalat decisions is that if they didn’t they would be faced with the prospect of further delays, uncertainties and costs, it constitutes a confirmation for them that the formal legal system is unable to provide an acceptable quality of legal services or justice. This in turn would not augur well for the legitimacy of the system in the long run. What this then means is that there has to be a gradual but conscious effort to offering positive reasons, and not negative ones, for litigants to be willing consumers of the ADR processes.

An ADR system that is both transparent and accountable is in the circumstances imperative in order to make the crucial difference to those presently engaged in the formal legal system which is largely perceived as lacking in this area. As has been pointed out by several speakers, a successful implementation of ADR processes will have to be preceded by an identification of categories of cases or specific dispute areas that are most amenable to their introduction.

Despite the challenges that face the ADR processes today, the benefits in the long run that they are capable of generating appear to outweigh the factors that may in the short run deter their enforcement. We have listened to many positive experiences of ADR in the past few days and this should encourage us to move forward with the reform process. The diverse nature of the country’s population defies any uniform approach or set pattern and this is perhaps the biggest strength of the ADR mechanisms. Their flexibility and informality, the scope they offer for innovation and creativity, hold out the promise of a great degree of acceptability lending them the required legitimacy. Their utility as a case management tool cannot be over emphasized. ADR processes provide the bypasses to handle large chunks of disputes thus leaving the formal legal system to handle the more complex litigation. Even while they do not offer to be a panacea for all the ills of the formal legal system, ADR processes offer the best hope yet of complementing and helping to fortify the formal legal system.