INTRODUCTION

Humans’ drive for survival prompted rivalry with their fellow species over scarce natural resources. With
competition came conflicts and conflict, which were settled, first and foremost, as a natural aspect of human
existence, through combat or battle. This natural phenomenon persists to this day.

The Indian judiciary is one of the world’s oldest legal systems, but it is also well-known that it is growing
ineffective in dealing with pending cases, with Indian courts congested with long unresolved cases. The
situation is that, despite the establishment of over a thousand fast track courts that have already resolved
millions of cases, the problem is far from fixed, as pending cases continue to pile up. Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) can be a helpful tool in such a situation since it settles disagreement in a peaceful manner
with a result that is accepted by both parties.

ADR is a non-judicial alternative to litigation that includes mediation, arbitration, conciliation, negotiation,
judicial settlement, and any other procedure of settling a dispute that is not governed by court regulations. ADR
is becoming a more prevalent means of resolving disagreements between parties, particularly in commercial
issues, as time goes on.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADR IN INDIA

The law and practise of resolving private and transactional economic conflicts without resorting to the courts
can be traced back to ancient India. Since Vedic times, India has used arbitration or mediation as an alternative
to local courts for resolving disputes.

The Bhradarnayaka Upanishad is the earliest known text, in which several sorts of arbitral bodies are mentioned,
including:

(i) the Puga,

(ii) the Sreni, and

(iii) the Kula.

Before the British came in and established their rule, arbitration thrived in India in the form of panchayats. The
League of Nations met in 1923 and adopted the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention also included
arbitration clauses. The first dedicated arbitration provision was Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908,
which provided for arbitration, but it was repealed by Section 49 and Schedule III of the Arbitration Act of
1940.

By promulgating legislation in the three presidential towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, the British
administration gave the law of arbitration legislative form. The Bengal Resolution Act of 1772 and the Bengal
Regulation Act of 1781 gave parties the option of submitting their differences to an arbitrator who was
appointed by mutual accord and whose decision was binding on both parties. These were in effect until the Civil
Procedure Code of 1859, and they were extended to the Presidency towns in 1862.

Today with the backlog of cases in courts across the country slowly being reduced, ADR is increasingly being
explored, however; ADR in India is still relatively in its infancy stage.

LAWS RELATED TO ADR IN INDIA

 Civil Procedure Code 1908

 India Arbitration Act, 1899
 The Arbitration (protocol and convention) act 1937
 The Arbitration Act of 1940
 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
VARIOUS MODES OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

 ARBITRATION

Only if the parties have signed a valid Arbitration Agreement prior to the occurrence of the dispute may the
arbitration process begin. Such an agreement must be in writing, according to Section 7.[2] The contract that is
the subject of the dispute must either include an arbitration clause or refer to a separate document signed by the
parties that contain the arbitration agreement. Written correspondence such as letters, telex, or telegrams, which
give a record of the agreement, can also be used to infer the existence of an arbitration agreement. A legitimate
written arbitration agreement is sometimes defined as an exchange of statement of claim and defence in which
one party alleges the existence of an arbitration agreement and the other party does not deny it. Any party to a
contract with an arbitration clause can use the arbitration clause either directly or through an authorised agent,
who will send the issue to arbitration according to the arbitration clause. In this context, an arbitration clause is a
clause that specifies the course of action, language, number of arbitrators, and seat or legal location of the
arbitration in the event of a dispute between the parties.

Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 states that if one party disregards the arbitral
agreement and files a civil lawsuit instead of going to arbitration, the other party may petition the court to refer
the case to an arbitration tribunal as per the agreement, but not later than the submission of the first statement.
The application must contain a certified copy of the arbitration agreement, and the matter will be referred to
arbitration if the courts are satisfied.

 MEDIATION

Mediation, often known as “appropriate dispute resolution,” is a type of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
that tries to help two (or more) disputants achieve an agreement. Rather than accepting something imposed by a
third party, the parties define the terms of any settlements made. States, organisations, communities, people, or
other representatives having a vested stake in the result may be parties to the conflicts.

Mediators utilise appropriate strategies and/or abilities to help disputants open and/or improve discussion, with
the goal of assisting the parties in reaching an agreement (with real consequences) on the disputed topic. In most
cases, all parties must see the mediator as neutral. Mediation can be used in a range of situations, including
economic, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community, and familial disputes. Contracts and mediation between
(say) unions and corporations may be negotiated and mediated by a third-party representative. When a workers’
union goes on strike, a dispute arises, and the company appoints a third party to mediate in an attempt to reach
an agreement between the union and the company.

 CONCILIATION

Conciliation is similar to arbitration in that it is less formal. It is a method of achieving an amicable conclusion
between parties in which the parties to a dispute hire a conciliator to meet with them separately to settle their
differences. Separate meetings with the conciliator are held to reduce tension between the parties, improve
communication, and interpret issues in order to reach a negotiated settlement. There is no requirement for prior
consent, and it cannot be imposed on a side that does not want to reconcile. In that sense, it differs from
arbitration.

 NEGOTIATION

Negotiation is a conversation aimed at resolving disagreements, reaching an agreement on a course of action,

bartering for personal or collective gain, or crafting solutions that fulfil a variety of interests. It is the most
common form of ad hoc dispute settlement. Business, non-profit organisations, government branches, legal
proceedings, international interactions, and personal circumstances such as marriage, divorce, parenthood, and
everyday living all require negotiation. The study of the subject is known as negotiation theory. Negotiators are
people who work for a living in the field of negotiation. Professional negotiators might be specialised, such as
union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, or hostage negotiators, or they can work
under different names, such as diplomats, legislators, or brokers.

 LOK-ADALAT

The chairman of the Lok Adalat, often known as the ‘People’s Court,’ is a sitting or retired judicial officer,
social activist, or member of the legal profession. For the purpose of exercising such jurisdiction, the National
Legal Service Authority (NALSA) and other Legal Services Institutions hold Lok Adalats at regular intervals.
Any case in normal court that is pending or any disagreement that has not been presented before a court of law
can be referred to Lok Adalat. There are no court expenses, and the process is expedited by following a precise
procedure. The court fees originally paid in the court when the petition was filed are also reimbursed back to the
parties if any matter standing in court is referred to the Lok Adalat and is concluded later.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, alternative dispute resolution is a substitute to the conventional court system whereby dispute
between parties is resolved without the intervention of court proceeding. In terms of dispute settlement
procedures, human civilisation has progressed significantly. The ADR movement needs to move at a faster rate.
This would considerably reduce the pressure on the courts while also providing low-cost, immediate justice at
the doorstep. If they are successfully implemented, they will truly achieve the purpose of providing social
justice to the disputants.