Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is not an “alternative” because courts are optional—it exists because courts are overburdened, slow, and expensive. ADR is a systemic necessity, not a soft compromise. It shifts dispute resolution from rigid adjudication to efficient, party-driven settlement.
Indian law actively promotes Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Any lawyer who treats ADR as secondary is stuck in outdated litigation thinking.
Meaning of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution refers to a set of non-judicial mechanisms through which disputes are resolved outside traditional court litigation, either with minimal court intervention or none at all.
The focus is:
- Speed
- Cost-efficiency
- Flexibility
- Finality
ADR answers one blunt question:
Can this dispute be resolved without a full trial?
Legal Basis of Alternative Dispute Resolution in India
ADR is firmly embedded in Indian law through:
- Procedural statutes
- Special legislation
- Judicial policy
Courts are not hostile to ADR. In fact, courts push disputes toward ADR whenever possible.
ADR is not anti-court. It is court-supported efficiency.
Also Read- Jurisdiction – Territorial, Pecuniary & Subject-Matter
Objectives of Alternative Dispute Resolution
ADR exists to:
- Reduce pendency of cases
- Provide speedy justice
- Preserve relationships
- Encourage voluntary settlement
- Lower litigation costs
ADR prioritises resolution over victory.
Major Types of ADR in India
Indian law recognises four primary ADR mechanisms.
1. Arbitration
Meaning
Arbitration is a binding adjudicatory process where disputes are decided by a neutral arbitrator chosen by the parties.
It is the closest ADR mechanism to a court trial—but faster and more flexible.
Nature of Arbitration
- Binding decision (award)
- Based on party agreement
- Limited court interference
- Enforceable like a decree
Once you choose arbitration, you largely give up the right to a full court trial.
Where Arbitration Is Used
- Commercial disputes
- Contractual disputes
- Infrastructure and construction matters
- Corporate and investment disputes
Arbitration is efficiency-driven, not emotion-driven.
2. Mediation
Meaning
Mediation is a voluntary process where a neutral mediator facilitates negotiation between parties to help them reach a mutually acceptable settlement.
The mediator does not decide.
The parties do.
Nature of Mediation
- Non-binding (unless settlement is recorded)
- Confidential
- Interest-based
- Relationship-preserving
Mediation succeeds where parties want peace, not precedent.
Where Mediation Works Best
- Family disputes
- Matrimonial cases
- Commercial negotiations
- Neighbourhood or partnership disputes
If parties want control, mediation beats litigation.
3. Conciliation
Meaning
Conciliation is similar to mediation but more interventionist.
The conciliator:
- Actively suggests solutions
- Proposes settlement terms
It sits between mediation and arbitration.
Nature of Conciliation
- Flexible
- Confidential
- Settlement-focused
- Less formal than arbitration
Conciliation works when parties need direction, not decision.
4. Lok Adalat
Meaning
Lok Adalat is a statutory Alternative Dispute Resolution forum where disputes are settled through compromise under judicial supervision.
It is designed for mass dispute resolution, not complex litigation.
Nature of Lok Adalat
- Settlement-based
- No court fee
- Award is final and binding
- No appeal lies
Lok Adalat prioritises speed and closure, not legal perfection.
Also Read- Limitation Period – Importance & Calculation
Alternative Dispute Resolution vs Litigation – Reality Check
Time
ADR is faster. Litigation is slow.
Cost
ADR is cheaper. Litigation is expensive.
Flexibility
ADR is flexible. Litigation is rigid.
Finality
ADR settlements end disputes. Litigation invites appeals.
Relationship
ADR preserves relationships. Litigation destroys them.
Litigation is about winning.
ADR is about ending disputes.
Court-Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution
Courts actively refer cases to ADR when:
- Settlement is possible
- Legal issues are not complex
- Parties are willing
Judicial referral to ADR is not weakness—it is case management discipline.
When ADR Is NOT Suitable
ADR is not appropriate where:
- Serious criminal offences are involved
- Public interest requires authoritative adjudication
- Constitutional interpretation is required
- Power imbalance makes consent meaningless
ADR is not justice-lite. It is context-dependent justice.
Enforceability of ADR Outcomes
- Arbitration awards → enforceable like decrees
- Mediation/conciliation settlements → enforceable once recorded
- Lok Adalat awards → final, binding, executable
ADR outcomes are not casual agreements. They have legal teeth.
Common Myths About ADR
- ADR is informal and weak → False
- ADR lacks enforceability → False
- ADR is only for small disputes → False
- ADR undermines courts → False
ADR reduces burden, not authority.
Why ADR Is the Future of Justice
Court-centric justice cannot scale.
Disputes are increasing. Judges are limited.
ADR decentralises justice while preserving legality.
Modern legal systems resolve more than they adjudicate.
Also Read- Role of Advocate in the Indian Legal System
ADR is not a shortcut—it is a strategic choice.
Use litigation when:
- Rights must be authoritatively declared
Use ADR when:
- Disputes must be efficiently resolved
A mature legal system does not force every conflict into a courtroom.
It chooses the right forum for the right dispute.
Connect with us on Instagram – X – LinkedIn for daily updates, quizzes, and other materials
