Alternative Dispute Resolution

Constitution	Article 14, 21 and DPSP of Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid
Legislative measures	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 Section 89 of CPC allows settlement of cases outside courts.
Benefits	Less expensive Less time consuming Parties are free to discuss their differences without any fear of disclosure before court No winning or losing and their grievances also sorted out Free from technologies Justice Malimath Committee Report (1989-90) underlined the need for alternative dispute resolution mechanism such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration, Lok Adalats etc. as a viable alternative to the conventional court litigation
Methods	Arbitration Mediation Negotiation Conciliation Collaborative laws Example : Mahila Panchayts in Delhi (no legal machinery) Justice Empowerment Attitude Legal aid Community support
Limitations	Civil cases No guarantee of resolution Are final  Biasness Availability Appointment  Expertise  Lack of awareness  Informal : more opportunity for the abuse of power
Lok Adalats	alternate dispute resolution mechanism. is a forum where the disputes/cases pending in the court of law or at pre-litigation stage are settled/compromised amicably. Based on the principle of Panch Parmeshwar of Gram sabha Gandhi Also advocated it. Proposed by Justice PN Bhagwati under Legal service authorities Act 1987. Retired judges, social activist, legal professionals etc can preside over Can be held at the basic level eg. Taluka or at the highest level by SC legal service committee. Take matters like civil, compoundable criminal etc. It orders are final and binding and cannot be challenged in any courts

Arbitration and Conciliation(amendment) Act 2015	Arbitration and conciliation Amendment Bill, 2019 Passed.
Need	Slow, expensive and ineffective Ranked at 178/189 countries in term of enforcing contract (WB's EoDB)
Objective	Consolidate and amend domestic arbitration , international arbitration Enforcement of foreign tribunal awards Define the law
Case of China	China follows the policy of binding their partners to compulsorily undergo if any, arbitration with in China. Main reason for this policy is their negotiable capacity which India does not enjoy
Pros	Economy Quicker Investor friendly Cost effective Ease of Doing business Reducing intervention of courts Society DE burdening the Courts Government Revenue Cost of litigation will be saved India as a hub for international arbitration Easy enforcement
Current	Past: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 provides statutory recognition to conciliation Presently bodies like Indian council of Arbitration, International Centre for Alternate dispute Resolution etc are the leader in India Generally international Arbitration hubs are chosen because of their neutral, quick services. Allowed to go for international arbitration rather than first exhausting all
Salient Features	Time Bound disposal Application of appointment of arbitrator within 60 days Challenge petition must be dispensed in 1 year Arbitrator tribunal shall make its award with in 12 months generally Fast track the procedure Grounds of Challenges Narrowed down Enforcement Cost effective Cap on fee of arbitrator Unsuccessful party pay the cost Arbitrator No conflict of interest
Way Ahead	Participation Of private Strengthening institutes Indian council of arbitration International Centre for ADR Skill manpower in arbitration

Commercial branch
Current	Commercial Court, commercial division and commercial appealate division of high courts Act 2015 court at district level, division at state level (in HC) case of business above 1 crore
Benefits	ease of doing promote entrepreneurship----job creation shift burden of judiciary(speedy, pendency) Efficient decision making (specific domain) NPAs
Challenges	Infra Man-power Corruption(huge money involved) skilled manpower Enforceability issues