Access to justice is a fundamental right in India, however it is not always certain that the justice
provided would be swift or even that a individual would be able to provide the cost that the
justice system requires from it.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Anita Khushwa v. Pushpa Sadan (judgment
delivered on July 19, 2016) “has not only affirmed earlier declarations that ‘access to justice’ is a
fundamental right under Article 21, but has tried to identify the various components of access to
justice.  CJI TS Thakur, speaking for the Bench, declared that access to justice is not only to be
found in Article 21 but also under Article 14.  The CJI further identified four facets of access to
justice- a) the state must provide an effective adjudicatory mechanism; b) the mechanism so
provided must be reasonably accessible in terms of distance; c) the process of adjudication must
be speedy; and d) the litigant’s access to the adjudicatory process must be affordable.”

What is ADR?
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to a range of strategies aimed at resolving disputes
outside the traditional court system. This includes various methods like arbitration, mediation,
conciliation, and Lok Adalat, all of which emphasize flexibility, efficiency, and cost-
effectiveness. The main goal of ADR is to enable quick resolutions while avoiding the intricacies
of litigation. In India, the legal framework supporting ADR is outlined in statutes such as the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987. ADR is
especially advantageous for resolving commercial disputes, family matters, and minor claims,
offering solutions that are more accessible and less adversarial.
“ADR includes Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation, Negotiation, Expert Determination, Early
Neutral Evaluation by a third person, Mini-Trial, Dispute Resolution Board and Lok Adalat etc.
The approach of judges, lawyers and parties throughout the world is changing towards adoption
of ADR instead of Court-litigation. Arbitral institutions provide ADR services for quicker, less
costly and consensual resolution of civil disputes outside the crowded Court system. ADR
provides creative options to the parties to resolve the disputes that are not available in traditional
dispute resolution forums. ADR promotes communication between the parties. ADR enables the
parties to work together to solve the real concerns underlying the conflict by focusing on the
parties and real interest instead of their positions and claims.”

Challenges in tradition litigation
The Indian judicial system faces significant challenges in ensuring timely and affordable access
to justice for all citizens. One of the primary issues is the high cost of litigation, which includes
court fees and legal representation, making it difficult for economically disadvantaged
individuals to seek redress. This problem is compounded by the overwhelming backlog of over
4.4 crore cases pending in various courts, leading to extended periods of uncertainty for those
involved in legal disputes. Additionally, the complex procedural requirements can be daunting
for individuals without legal expertise, particularly for those from rural or marginalized
communities.
These systemic issues disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, highlighting the urgent
need for more accessible alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options to bridge the justice gap.
By implementing effective ADR mechanisms, the judicial system can alleviate some of the
burdens associated with traditional litigation, providing a more equitable path to justice for all
individuals, regardless of their economic status or legal knowledge. Addressing these challenges
is essential for fostering a more inclusive and efficient legal framework that serves the needs of
the entire population.

Cost-Effectiveness of ADR
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) presents a financially viable option compared to
conventional litigation, as it minimizes procedural costs and expedites the resolution of conflicts.
Institutions such as Lok Adalat deliver resolution services at little to no expense, which is
particularly advantageous for economically disadvantaged groups. Mediation serves as a means
to circumvent the substantial costs associated with protracted legal battles, particularly in matters
related to family and commercial disputes.
While arbitration may sometimes incur significant costs, it frequently proves to be more efficient
and requires fewer resources than traditional court proceedings. This efficiency makes ADR an
appealing choice for organizations and individuals seeking to resolve disputes without the
burdensome expenses and time commitments typically associated with litigation.
“ADR offers significant cost savings compared to traditional litigation, which often entails
substantial legal fees, court costs, and ancillary expenses. By streamlining the dispute resolution
process and minimizing procedural formalities, ADR mechanisms reduce the financial burden on
disputants while maximizing the allocation of resources towards substantive resolution efforts.”

Limitations of ADR
Although alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers numerous benefits, it also has significant
limitations that cannot be overlooked. A major challenge is the lack of awareness regarding ADR
options, especially in rural areas, which results in their underutilization. Additionally,
enforcement issues arise since agreements reached through mediation or conciliation do not carry
binding authority unless they are ratified by a court, complicating the resolution process.
In some cases, the costs associated with arbitration can rival those of conventional litigation,
particularly when private arbitrators or specialized institutions are involved. This financial
burden can deter parties from pursuing ADR as a viable option. Furthermore, the quality of
outcomes may be compromised by the presence of mediators or arbitrators who lack adequate
training, which can undermine the overall effectiveness of the resolution process.

Conclusion
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) signifies a notable progression in enhancing access to
justice within India. By providing economical, prompt, and inclusive options, ADR effectively
tackles numerous obstacles associated with conventional litigation methods. Nevertheless, its
complete potential is not fully realized due to challenges such as insufficient awareness,
difficulties in enforcement, and concerns regarding quality. To improve the acceptance and
efficacy of ADR, it is vital to undertake strategic reforms, which may include enhanced training,
more robust enforcement mechanisms, and increased public awareness initiatives. Given its
capacity to democratize justice and alleviate the strain on the judicial system, ADR has the
potential to become an essential element of a more accessible and efficient justice delivery
framework in India.

This article was authored by Suphia Haque, who was the top 40 scorer in the ADR quiz competition organized by Lets Learn Law.