top of page
Search

Beyond the Courtroom: The Complete Journey of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Updated: Oct 30

INTRODUCTION:

  • You file a simple property dispute in court today. By the time the case is decided — your grandchildren might be attending law school. Sounds exaggerated? It isn’t. As of 2025, over 5.02 crore cases are pending in Indian courts.(Source: Department of Justice, Government of India – National Judicial Data Grid, 2025) At the current rate, it could take 324 years to clear the backlog if no new cases were filed. (NITI Aayog Report, 2018) So, what do you do when your legal highway is jammed bumper to bumper? You take the ADR express lane — where resolution happens not through confrontation, but through conversation. India’s formal justice system is like a majestic and ensure rule of law, the truth is: Justice delayed becomes justice denied.


  • Think of the traditional courtroom like a boxing ring — someone wins, someone loses. ADR, on the other hand, is like a roundtable — everyone talks, everyone wins something. Reasons like Case Backlog Crisis with over 5 crore pending cases, with each judge handling over 1,800 cases at a time (Source: Economic Times, March 2025) and India having 21 judges per million people, while the global average is 50+ (Law Commission of India, 245th Report) are just tip of the Ice burg. Furthermore, issues related to huge litigation costs can cripple small businesses and drain families emotionally and financially.


  1. In 2024, a family property dispute worth ₹30 lakhs in Delhi was settled through mediation within three sittings — saving nearly ₹10 lakhs in legal fees and five years of time. (Source: Delhi Mediation Centre Annual Report, 2024) this shows that ADR is not just an alternative anymore — it’s becoming the mainstream philosophy of justice. Some form of ADR mechanisms are

    1. Arbitration – like a private judge for commercial disputes.

    2. Mediation – a guided conversation toward a mutual solution.

    3. Conciliation – softer, flexible cousin of arbitration.

    4. Lok Adalats – people’s courts under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

    5. Judicial Settlement- Judge's help parties in attaining amicable solution, mentioned under Section 89 of C.P.C., 1908

    6. Ombudsman- Public Sector entity established by Govt. to monitor Executive's branch's administrative acts.; Lokpal deals with complaints from ministries or secretary in Centre or State Government; Lokyukta deals with complainst from other Officials.


In one single National Lok Adalat in 2023, over 1.25 crore cases were disposed of in a single day. (Source: NALSA Annual Report, 2023). Moreover, 90% of Fortune 500 companies insert arbitration clauses in their contracts. India’s Arbitration Act (1996) aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law, making Indian ADR globally recognised. In international trade, mediation and arbitration are now vital for India’s “Ease of Doing Business” ranking.


To make you fall in love with the idea of ADR —not as an academic topic, but as the future of justice delivery. You’ll learn through this blog:

  1. How ADR complements courts, not competes with them.

  2. How it restores the human element in law — dialogue, empathy, compromise.

  3. How it empowers individuals and businesses to solve problems faster, cheaper, and smarter.

This blog will:

  1. Simplify the structure of India’s dispute resolution ecosystem.

  2. Analyse why ADR is no longer optional but essential.

  3. Explore its constitutional and philosophical basis.


DEFINITIONS AND MEANING:

Let’s start with a question. If you and your best friend argue over a borrowed laptop, what do you do?

A. File a case in court. ; B. Stop talking forever. ; C. Sit with a neutral third friend who helps you both sort it out calmly.

Most of you would pick C — and that’s ADR in essence! Because it’s not about skipping the law. It’s about using the wisdom of law to settle disputes without the chaos of courtrooms.


  • Statutory definitions under Indian Law:

    • Section 89 is the gateway provision of ADR in India, which if translated in layman terms states that before you turn the courtroom into a boxing ring, let’s see if we can turn it into a roundtable discussion. So, under Indian law, ADR has four main routes:

      1. Arbitration – a private judge decides.

      2. Conciliation – a neutral helps you agree.

      3. Mediation – you both decide with guidance.

      4. Lok Adalat / Judicial settlement – people’s court with compromise.


    • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives flesh and bones to ADR — especially Arbitration and Conciliation. Section 2(1)(a) of the act defines “arbitration” and Section 30 states that even when you’re mid-battle, the law allows you to make peace.


  • International Definitions and Institutional Perspectives:

    • UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) defines ADR as “ A range of procedures that serve as alternatives to court adjudication for resolving disputes, where the parties are encouraged to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution.” (Source: UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, 1980). In simple terms the meaning of that definition is that The UN says ADR is any peaceful shortcut to justice — faster, cheaper, and fairer.

    • ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) considers ADR like the international customer service for global businesses — solving problems before they explode.

    • AAA (American Arbitration Association) defines ADR as “ A broad spectrum of processes designed to resolve conflict short of formal litigation.” (Source: AAA Handbook on Arbitration and ADR, 2018) and in short it means ADR = “Don’t go to war when you can talk it out.”


  • Judicial Interpretations:

    • Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (2008 & 2010)

    • Bharat Aluminium Co. (BALCO) Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services (2012)

    • ONGC V. Saw Pipes LTD. (2003)

    • Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. V. SBI Home Finance LTD. (2011)


  • Comparative Definitions: ADR in Common Law (U.K., U.S.A., India) vs. Civil Law Systems (France, Germany, Japan)

    1. Philosophy : Under Common Law system, ADR compliments courts but emphasizes party choices. Whereas, Under Civil Law system, ADR is often state regulated and integrated into procedure.

    2. Process: Common Law provides for a flexible, informal- Mediation, Arbitration, Conciliation- flourish, on the other hand, Civil Law provides for a more structured Conciliatio and Court-annexed mediation are common.

    3. Example: U.K.'s Civil Procedure Rules (1999) make ADR a recommended step before litigation. But, France mandates Conciliation Attempts before certain civil cases proceed.

    4. Spirit: Common Law provides for Private Justice where parties control the process and Civil Law has Public Peace at its foundation whereby State ensures reconciliation.


NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS:

Two neighbours fight over a mango tree that sits between their houses.

  • Neighbour A storms into court. Five years, 30 hearings, 200 pages of documents later, he wins… but never speaks to Neighbour B again.

  • Neighbour B, in another town, sits with a mediator for 2 hours. They agree to share the fruits — literally. Case closed, friendship saved.

  • Both got “justice” — but one got it peacefully. That’s the soul of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): justice without war.

Now, let’s unpack its ten defining characteristics — the DNA of ADR that makes it so powerful, efficient, and beautifully human.


  1. Non-Adversarial Nature: Justice as collaboration, not combat:

Courts are built on adversarialism — plaintiff vs. defendant, winner vs. loser. ADR flips the script. Here, it’s “we vs. the problem”, not “me vs. you.” In mediation or conciliation, parties work together to find solutions instead of attacking each other’s positions. This transforms conflict into conversation. According to the Delhi Mediation Centre’s 2024 Report, over 70% of successfully mediated cases ended with both parties continuing their relationship afterwards. That’s not just settlement — that’s social healing.


  1. Consensual Nature: Because agreement is power:

In ADR, nothing happens without your consent. No judge imposes, no jury decides — you do. It’s like co-writing the ending of your own story. Mediation, conciliation, and negotiation all rely on voluntary agreement. Even arbitration clauses are inserted only by mutual consent of parties. Consent is not just a procedural step — it’s the heartbeat of ADR.


  1. Confidentiality: What happens in ADR, stays in ADR:

If court is a public theatre, ADR is a closed conference room. Every discussion, proposal, or apology remains confidential — protected both by ethics and law (Section 75, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996).Why it matters:

Businesses can discuss trade secrets.; Families can speak openly without fear of public shame. It encourages honesty — because privacy builds trust. According to the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC, 2023), confidentiality is cited by 92% of users as the primary reason they choose ADR over litigation.


  1. Party Autonomy: You control the steering wheel:

ADR’s golden rule: “The dispute belongs to the parties.” That means you choose:

  • Your mediator/arbitrator

  • The venue and procedure

  • Even the law that governs your case (in international arbitration).

It’s like designing your own justice system. In BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium (2012), the Supreme Court reaffirmed this by saying: “Party Autonomy is the brooding and guiding spirit of the arbitration. In simple terms: the law steps back; the parties step forward.


  1. Speed and Efficiency:

In India, the average civil case takes 11.3 years to conclude. (Source: NITI Aayog, Strengthening Judicial Systems in India, 2021). Compare that with ADR- The Delhi International Arbitration Centre resolves cases in an average of 12 months. ; Mediation settlements often happen in weeks, not years. Speed doesn’t mean haste — it means focus. No adjournments, no procedural labyrinths. Just resolution.


  1. Cost Effectiveness: Justice that doesn’t cost a fortune:

Litigation can drain not just your bank account but your patience. ADR, by contrast, is financially friendlier: No endless filing fees, witness expenses, or adjournment costs and in Lok Adalats, settlement is free — zero cost justice. A NALSA Report (2023) found that Lok Adalats collectively saved litigants over ₹3,200 crore in litigation expenses in one year! So ADR is not just “alternative” — it’s affordable democracy.


  1. Creative Solutions: Beyond Black-and White Justice:

A judge can only decide who’s right. A mediator can help both sides get what they need. Example: In a business dispute, a court can award money damages. In mediation, parties might agree to a future collaboration instead — creating win-win outcomes. ADR doesn’t just close files; it creates possibilities. As one ICC mediator once said, “Courts deliver judgments; ADR delivers relationships.”


  1. Informal Proceedings: No Robes, No Rigid rules:

Forget wigs, Latin phrases, and intimidating benches. ADR settings are informal — sometimes even over coffee tables. Why that’s powerful:

  • It reduces stress and hostility.

  • It allows parties to speak freely in their own language.

  • The focus shifts from procedure to problem-solving.

ADR replaces “Your Lordship” with “Let’s talk.”


  1. Restorative Focus: Healing, not just Winning:

ADR is deeply restorative — it aims to repair relationships, not break them. It’s based on the idea that justice isn’t complete unless peace is restored. In family disputes, mediation heals emotional wounds. ; In community conflicts, Lok Adalats restore harmony. ADR echoes Gandhi’s philosophy: “ The true function of a lawyer is to unite parties riven asunder”. In other words, ADR is law returning to its moral roots.


  1. Adaptive Framework: Evolving with society:

ADR is like water — it takes the shape of the vessel it’s poured into.

  • It adapts to digital mediation (ODR platforms like Sama, Presolv360).

  • It suits both village panchayats and international trade disputes.

  • It evolves with culture, technology, and commerce.

During the pandemic, over 10 lakh cases were resolved via online Lok Adalats across India (NALSA Report, 2021). That’s justice without borders — literally.


SCOPE AND APPLICATION:

Imagine this: A family in Delhi, a factory in Chennai, a football club in Madrid, and a tech giant in California — all face disputes. Different people, different laws, different worlds. Yet, all of them use one universal language to resolve their conflicts — ADR. That’s how wide its reach is. ADR today isn’t a side road — it’s the main highway of modern justice. Let’s explore where it travels.


  • Civil and Commercial Disputes:

    • Let’s start where ADR shines brightest — civil and commercial conflicts.Think of contract breaches, partnership disputes, property disagreements — all the endless courtroom sagas that clog our judiciary. (Over 4.4 crore cases are pending in Indian courts as of 2025, Source: National Judicial Data Grid). ADR steps in as the pressure valve.

    • Real Life Example: Two companies — one Indian, one Japanese — disagree over a machinery supply contract. Instead of a decade in court, they choose arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. They appoint a neutral arbitrator, decide their rules, and resolve it in 10 months.

    • Why ADR fits here:

      1. Commercial disputes demand confidentiality.

      2. Parties prefer expert arbitrators (like retired judges or engineers).

      3. Speed and neutrality keep business relationships alive.

This is why India established Commercial Courts with ADR mandates under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. So in trade and business, ADR isn’t optional — it’s the industry standard.


  • Family and Matrimonial Disputes:

    • Now, let’s step away from commerce and into the heart. When marriages break or families fight, courts can’t mend hearts — but ADR can. Under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, every family court must make efforts for settlement through mediation or conciliation. A couple considering divorce sits across from a mediator. Instead of blaming each other, they talk — about their children, their peace, their next steps. Sometimes, they reconcile. Sometimes, they part amicably. In Delhi alone, over 68% of matrimonial mediations in Family Courts end in settlement (Delhi High Court Mediation Centre Report, 2023) Because ADR here is not about winning arguments, but restoring dignity.


  • Industrial and Labour Disputes:

    Factories stop. Workers strike. Companies lose crores. Litigation in such cases can paralyze industries — so ADR takes over as the bridge between employers and employees. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, mechanisms like:

    • Conciliation officers,

    • Mediation boards, and

    • Arbitration panels

    help settle strikes, retrenchment disputes, and wage issues without shutting factories or feeding resentment. In 2022, a major automobile manufacturer in Tamil Nadu resolved a labour unrest through conciliation proceedings, avoiding losses estimated at ₹120 crore. ADR in labour law is not just about disputes — it’s about industrial harmony.


  • Consumer Disputes and E-Commerce Conflicts:

Welcome to the digital age, where even disputes are online. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, India introduced e-Mediation and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for consumer cases. For example, A buyer orders a laptop online, but receives a defective one. Instead of waiting months for a consumer forum, they log onto the ODR platform, submit evidence digitally, and settle it within days. ODR platforms like Sama, CADRE, and Presolv360 are now resolving thousands of such cases. According to NITI Aayog (2023), ODR can cut resolution time by 80% and costs by up to 90% in consumer disputes. That’s not science fiction — that’s justice made digital.


  • International Trade and Investment Disputes:

    When two countries or global corporations lock horns, courts are useless — they’re too local for global problems. Here, International Arbitration steps in — governed by global rules like:

    • UNCITRAL Model Law,

    • ICC (International Chamber of Commerce),

    • ICSID (for investor-state disputes).

    When Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computers (2008) arose, it highlighted how Indian companies could be subject to international arbitral awards — bringing global standards into Indian jurisprudence. Multinational contracts rely on neutral forums like SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre). It boosts investor confidence and foreign trade. Over 70% of cross-border commercial contracts today include arbitration clauses (Source: ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics, 2023). In short: International ADR is diplomacy in disguise.


  • Emerging Sectors: ADR in Environment, Sports, and the Digital Realm

    • ADR is now expanding into unconventional territories — because conflict evolves, and so must justice. Courts are burdened with green cases — pollution, land degradation, climate disputes. Institutions like the National Green Tribunal (NGT) often recommend mediation for community-led restoration. For example, Delhi Ridge preservation saw success through community mediation, not litigation.

    • The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, resolves doping, selection, and contract disputes — swiftly, before tournaments collapse. It’s ADR at Olympic speed.

    • From fintech disagreements to social media privacy conflicts — ODR is the future frontier. Platforms like Sama and AGAMI are pioneering this in India. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, over 10 lakh disputes were settled digitally through Lok Adalats and ODR systems (Source: NALSA Report, 2021). That’s law meeting technology — in real time.



ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

THE BRIGHT SIDE: ADVANTAGES OF ADR:


  1. Reduced Litigation Burden on Courts:

India’s judicial system is choking under pending cases. As per the National Judicial Data Grid (2025), there are over 4.5 crore cases pending in Indian courts. ADR acts as the safety valve. Each successful mediation, arbitration, or Lok Adalat settlement removes one more file from the judge’s desk — and brings justice closer to people who really need it. The E-Lok Adalat of 2021, conducted online across India, disposed of over 10 lakh cases in a single day (NALSA Report, 2021). That’s not just efficiency — that’s judicial CPR.


  1. Cost and Time Efficiency:

Litigation is like an endless Netflix series — expensive, slow, and never-ending. ADR is a limited series with a satisfying ending. Arbitration averages 6–12 months, compared to 11 years for civil suits (NITI Aayog, Judicial Efficiency Report, 2021). No endless adjournments, no court fees stacking up, no travel costs for years. In mediation, parties pay only for a few sessions — and many Lok Adalats offer free settlements. Time saved = Money saved = Peace earned.


  1. Preservation of Relationships:

Courts divide. ADR repairs. In business, family, or employment, the goal isn’t revenge — it’s resolution. Mediation, especially, helps parties maintain communication and respect. In Delhi Mediation Centre’s 2023 report, over 65% of family disputes ended not in divorce, but in mutual understanding or reconciliation. ADR turns “us vs. them” into “we against the problem.”


  1. Enhanced Party Control and Satisfaction:

    In court, a judge decides your fate. In ADR, you do. Parties choose:

    • The mediator/arbitrator

    • The venue, language, and rules

    • Even the time schedule

    This control boosts satisfaction — because when you shape the solution, you’re more likely to accept it. A study by the World Bank (2023) showed that over 80% of mediated disputes resulted in voluntary compliance — compared to 55% in court judgments. Because ADR gives justice by choice, not by force.


  2. Confidentiality and Privacy:

    Court cases are public dramas; ADR sessions are private conversations. Section 75 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ensures strict confidentiality.This matters especially in:

    • Business disputes (to protect trade secrets),

    • Matrimonial cases (to protect dignity), and

    • Celebrity or media-related cases.

    In a courtroom, reputations are risked. In ADR, trust is protected.


  3. Global Acceptance and Enforceability:

    ADR isn’t just local — it’s global law in action. Under the New York Convention, 1958, arbitral awards from one country can be enforced in 160+ nations. That’s why international contracts (from Apple to Tata Steel) almost always include arbitration clauses. It’s justice that travels with your business card.


    THE FLIP SIDE: DISADVANTAGES OF ADR:

    • No Guaranteed Finality:

    No Guaranteed Finality unlike court decrees, ADR settlements can sometimes fall apart. If one party refuses to comply, you might have to return to — yes, the very courts you tried to avoid. Even arbitral awards can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on grounds like bias or illegality. So, ADR isn’t always a happily-ever-after.


    • Limited Power:

    ADR bodies can’t issue summons, enforce attendance, or punish for contempt like courts can. If someone simply doesn’t show up, a mediator can’t drag them in. This makes ADR heavily dependent on good faith — a noble idea, but not always realistic.


    • Unequal Bargaining Power:

    ADR works best when parties are equal — but what if they aren’t? A poor consumer vs. a corporate giant, or a worker vs. a multinational employer — these imbalances can tilt negotiations unfairly. Without a strong mediator or legal support, ADR can mirror inequality instead of curing it.


    • No Formal Rules of Evidence:

    Courts rely on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — ADR does not. That flexibility speeds things up, but it can also lead to decisions based on incomplete or informal proof. So while mediation is about conversation, arbitration can sometimes suffer from “soft justice” — fair-sounding but fact-light.


    • Lack of Precedent:

    In courts, every judgment creates precedent — a guiding light for future cases. ADR settlements are private and confidential — meaning no record, no guidance. While this protects privacy, it limits legal development. That’s why ADR can solve problems, but not always build law.


    • Confidentiality Can Hide Wrongdoings:

    Privacy is powerful — but it can also protect the powerful. Some critics argue that confidential settlements have been used to silence victims in sexual harassment or corporate fraud cases. (Harvard Law Review, 2022, “The Dark Side of Confidential Settlements”) When justice hides in closed rooms, accountability can disappear.


    • Costs Can Still Be High:

    Yes, ADR saves money — usually. But in complex commercial arbitration, costs can shoot up:

    • High arbitrator fees

    • Multiple sittings

    • International travel

    In fact, ICC’s 2023 report noted that average arbitration costs can reach USD 150,000 for mid-sized disputes. So, “cheaper” depends on your.


    • No Appeal in Most Cases:

    ADR often gives final and binding decisions, especially arbitration. Sounds great — until you lose. No second chances. No appellate courts. Even a mistake by the arbitrator might go uncorrected unless it meets strict legal grounds. It’s quick — but it’s one-shot justice.


The Evolution and Historical Background of ADR in India


  • Imagine standing under a vast banyan tree in a quiet Indian village. Five elders — the panchas — sit before two disputing neighbours. No lawyers, no pleadings, no adjournments. Within an hour, harmony is restored, and life moves on. What those villagers practiced centuries ago is what we now call Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) — the art of resolving disputes outside the formal judicial system.

  • The story of ADR in India is, therefore, not a borrowed Western innovation. It is a homegrown philosophy, as ancient as Indian civilization itself, later re-shaped by colonial influence, independence reforms, and global harmonisation. Let us walk through this journey.Long before the advent of formal courts, Indian society resolved its disputes through collective wisdom and community conscience. The Vedic texts and the Dharmashastras refer to various assemblies such as Puga, Sreni, and Kula — early guilds and community bodies that mediated disagreements within families, trade groups, and castes.


1. Ancient and Traditional Forms of Dispute Resolution in India


  • Long before the advent of formal courts, Indian society resolved its disputes through collective wisdom and community conscience. The Vedic texts and the Dharmashastras refer to various assemblies such as Puga, Sreni, and Kula — early guilds and community bodies that mediated disagreements within families, trade groups, and castes.

  • The Panchayat system — from panch, meaning five — became the most enduring form of community justice. Panchayats settled civil and minor criminal disputes through consensus. The emphasis was not on punishment but reconciliation, guided by the moral weight of social respect. This model ensured speedy, inexpensive, and socially accepted justice.

  • Post-independence, several states revived this tradition through Nyaya Panchayats, such as under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. These forums provided local justice in rural India, maintaining cultural legitimacy and accessibility.

  • The 1980s witnessed a more structured version in the form of Lok Adalats — literally “People’s Courts.” The first experimental Lok Adalat was held in Gujarat in 1982, and its success led to statutory recognition under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Lok Adalats combined traditional mediation with modern legal authority, offering settlement at virtually no cost. By 2023, according to data from the National Legal Services Authority, over one crore cases had been settled through Lok Adalats across India — a testament to their continuing relevance.


2. British Colonial Influence and Early Institutionalisation


  • When the British East India Company established its courts, they replaced indigenous forums with formal, adversarial, and codified processes modeled on the English system. While this introduced procedural certainty, it displaced centuries of community-based justice and created a legal culture dependent on lawyers, documentation, and appeals.

  • The colonial period also marked the beginning of institutional arbitration. The Bengal Regulation of 1772 permitted reference of disputes to arbitration with consent of parties. However, the decisive step came with the Arbitration Act of 1940, which consolidated various pre-independence provisions. Unfortunately, it mirrored British procedural rigidity — excessive judicial intervention, delay in enforcement, and cumbersome technicalities.

  • Thus, while arbitration found statutory legitimacy, it lost the speed and informality that defined India’s earlier models. The British era, in short, institutionalised but also bureaucratised the process of ADR.


3. Post-Independence Legal Framework and Judicial Reforms


  • After 1947, India faced a paradox: a progressive Constitution guaranteeing access to justice, and a judicial system plagued by delay. The 1958 Law Commission of India noted that the civil court process was “impossible to navigate for the common citizen.” Over the decades, the number of pending cases spiralled — today exceeding 5 crore across all levels of courts (as per the National Judicial Data Grid, 2024).

  • This crisis pushed the State to explore alternatives. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to provide free legal aid and institutionalise Lok Adalats nationwide. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2008) described Lok Adalats as “a new chapter in the history of the judicial system,” capable of bringing justice to the doorstep of the common man.

  • Judicial reforms in the 1990s also encouraged court-annexed mediation and Gram Nyayalayas (village courts). These developments collectively recognised ADR not as an alternative to justice, but as a necessary partner to it.


4. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: A Paradigm Shift


  • The watershed moment arrived with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which replaced the outdated Arbitration Act of 1940. This legislation, drafted in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), revolutionised Indian arbitration.

  • The 1996 Act introduced four transformative principles:

    1. Party Autonomy – parties were free to choose procedure, seat, and arbitrators.

    2. Minimal Court Intervention – courts could intervene only in limited circumstances.

    3. Speed and Finality – time-bound awards and limited grounds for challenge.

    4. Recognition of Conciliation – formal legal status to voluntary settlement procedures.

  • For the first time, Indian arbitration aligned with global standards, boosting foreign investor confidence and marking India’s entry into the global ADR network. Later amendments in 2015 and 2019 further strengthened timelines and institutionalisation, responding to business needs for efficiency and certainty.


5. Influence of Global Models: UNCITRAL and International Treaties


  • ADR’s modern framework cannot be understood without recognising the influence of international cooperation. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) provided a model that harmonised arbitration procedures across jurisdictions.

  • India’s 1996 Act explicitly incorporated this model, making it consistent with the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). As a signatory to the Convention, India is obliged to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards, facilitating global trade and investment.

  • According to a 2023 report by the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA), nearly 90 percent of international commercial contracts now include arbitration clauses, reflecting the growing global reliance on ADR mechanisms. India’s integration into this regime ensures that its legal framework speaks the same language as London, Singapore, or Paris.


6. Contemporary Institutional Growth: ICA, MCIA, Nani Palkhivala Centre and Others


  • ADR in India today is no longer confined to ad hoc proceedings. It is being institutionalised through specialised centres that combine legal expertise, administrative efficiency, and international credibility.

  • The Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA), established in 1965 under the aegis of FICCI, has long served as India’s premier arbitral body. In 2016, the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) was launched as India’s answer to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), attracting both domestic and foreign disputes. The Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (NPAC) in Chennai, along with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC) in New Delhi, mark India’s aspiration to become an international arbitration hub.

  • These institutions embody the professionalisation of ADR. They offer modern facilities, panels of accredited arbitrators, digital hearings, and rule-based frameworks, thereby enhancing confidence among litigants and investors alike.


Key ADR Mechanisms and Their Functioning:


When you think of “dispute resolution,” you probably imagine courtrooms — judges in robes, thick files, and endless adjournments.

But what if justice could be faster, private, flexible, and even collaborative?

That is the promise of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) — a family of mechanisms designed to replace confrontation with cooperation. Let us dissect the six pillars that sustain this system: arbitration, mediation, conciliation, negotiation, Lok Adalats, and the emerging field of online dispute resolution.


  1. Arbitration: Legal Framework, Procedure, and Award Enforcement

Arbitration is the most formal and legally binding of ADR mechanisms. It is, in many ways, a private courtroom — chosen, designed, and conducted by the disputing parties themselves.

  • Legal Framework: Arbitration in India is governed primarily by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which draws heavily from the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985). The Act consolidates laws relating to both domestic and international arbitration and establishes minimal judicial interference — a principle affirmed in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services (2012), commonly known as BALCO.

  • Procedure: The arbitration process begins with an arbitration agreement, typically a clause in a contract stipulating that disputes will be referred to arbitration rather than litigation. Once invoked, an arbitral tribunal is constituted — often a sole arbitrator or a panel of three. The procedure is highly flexible, parties may determine their own rules or adopt institutional ones such as those of the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) or Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA). Evidence is taken, arguments presented, and hearings conducted with procedural simplicity compared to courts. The arbitral award — the final decision of the tribunal — carries the same force as a civil court decree under Section 36 of the Act.

  • Award Enforcement: Enforcement is straightforward: the award is executable like a judgment. However, a party may challenge it under Section 34 on limited grounds such as incapacity, violation of public policy, or procedural irregularity.

According to the Ministry of Law and Justice (2023), over 85% of arbitral awards in India are ultimately upheld by courts — a testament to arbitration’s growing reliability.


  1. Mediation: Process, Role of Mediator, and Settlement Agreements

If arbitration resembles a private court, mediation is a private conversation. Here, the parties themselves craft the solution, guided by a neutral facilitator — the mediator — who neither imposes a decision nor represents any side.

  • Process: Mediation unfolds in structured stages:

    1. Opening Session – The mediator explains rules and objectives.

    2. Joint Discussion – Each side presents its version without interruption.

    3. Caucuses – Private sessions where the mediator explores interests, emotions, and potential concessions.

    4. Negotiation and Settlement – The mediator assists parties in drafting a mutually acceptable agreement.

The process thrives on confidentiality, voluntariness, and flexibility. The mediator’s role is to clarify communication, identify underlying interests, and reframe disputes from “positions” (what I want) to “interests” (why I want it).

  • Role of the Mediator: The mediator functions as a catalyst, not a judge. A skilled mediator combines legal understanding with emotional intelligence, often transforming hostility into dialogue.

  • Settlement Agreements: When mediation succeeds, the settlement agreement becomes binding as a contract. If conducted under the court-annexed system, the settlement may be recorded as a decree. The Mediation Act, 2023, recently enacted, gives statutory recognition to pre-litigation mediation, mandating mediation before certain suits and providing enforceability to mediated settlements.

According to data from the Supreme Court Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC), mediation achieves settlement in nearly 60% of referred cases — a remarkable success rate compared to the protracted timelines of litigation.


  1. Conciliation: Distinction from Mediation and Legal Standing under 1996 Act

Conciliation is often confused with mediation, yet it carries a distinct legal contour. While both are facilitative processes, conciliation under Indian law has statutory recognition and more formal legal consequences. Under Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, conciliation is defined as a process where a neutral conciliator assists parties to reach a settlement. Unlike mediation, the conciliator may actively propose terms of settlement rather than merely facilitating discussion. The critical distinction lies in enforceability. A settlement agreement reached through conciliation has, under Section 74, the same status and effect as an arbitral award. It is immediately enforceable, without the need for separate execution proceedings.


The procedure is detailed: commencement through a written invitation (Section 62), appointment of conciliators (Section 64), confidentiality (Section 75), and termination (Section 76). The statutory structure makes conciliation particularly suitable for commercial and cross-border disputes where finality and enforceability are essential. The Indian judiciary has consistently upheld conciliation’s sanctity — as seen in Haresh Dayaram Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2000), where the Supreme Court emphasised the binding nature of conciliation settlements.


  1. Negotiation: Informal Settlement Mechanism and Strategic Value

Negotiation is the most elemental and flexible form of ADR — the art of reaching agreement through direct dialogue, without any third-party facilitator. It is, as one scholar puts it, “the DNA of all dispute resolution.” Negotiation operates informally but strategically. Parties assess their BATNA — Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement — to evaluate when settlement is preferable to litigation. Techniques include positional bargaining (competing for advantage) and interest-based bargaining (collaborative problem-solving).


Its value lies in autonomy and confidentiality. In commercial contexts, negotiation preserves business relationships and reduces transaction costs. In diplomatic contexts, it prevents escalation — from trade conflicts to border disputes. Although negotiation lacks statutory form, it forms the first step in nearly every ADR process. As per a 2022 study by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR, London), over 70% of civil disputes globally are resolved through direct negotiation before formal mediation or arbitration ever occurs. Negotiation, therefore, represents the invisible yet indispensable foundation of ADR.


  1. Lok Adalats and Judicial Settlement: Role under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

Lok Adalats, or “People’s Courts,” are India’s most successful indigenous ADR mechanism — merging traditional community justice with constitutional legitimacy. Statutorily established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Lok Adalats function under the aegis of the National and State Legal Services Authorities. Their jurisdiction covers pending cases as well as pre-litigation disputes, provided both parties consent to settlement. The procedure is informal and non-adversarial. The presiding panel — typically a judicial officer, lawyer, and social worker — encourages compromise through persuasion and fairness.


There is no court fee, and if one has already been paid, it is refunded upon settlement. The hallmark of Lok Adalats is finality: an award of the Lok Adalat is deemed a decree of a civil court and is binding on all parties, with no appeal permitted (Section 21 of the Act). As per the National Legal Services Authority Annual Report (2023), Lok Adalats disposed of over 1.2 crore cases in a single year — a scale unmatched by any other ADR mechanism in the world. This demonstrates their indispensable role in reducing judicial backlog and enhancing access to justice.


  1. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): Technology-Driven ADR for the Digital Era

In an era defined by virtual courts, e-contracts, and cross-border commerce, the future of ADR is undeniably digital. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) represents the evolution of traditional ADR into the technological domain. ODR uses digital platforms for conducting arbitration, mediation, and negotiation entirely online. Parties file claims, exchange documents, and attend hearings through secure portals or video conferencing tools. India’s ODR ecosystem has grown rapidly. Platforms such as Sama, Presolv360, and CADRE now resolve thousands of disputes — from e-commerce grievances to fintech recoveries — at a fraction of the cost and time.


The NITI Aayog’s 2020 policy paper on ODR advocates for institutional adoption of digital ADR to decongest courts and promote ease of doing business. Data from Sama (2024) shows that average resolution time in ODR cases is less than 45 days, compared to years in court litigation. The Supreme Court’s e-Committee has also recognised ODR as “an inevitable component of the future of justice delivery.” With the integration of AI tools for case matching, document review, and predictive analytics, ODR embodies the intersection of law and technology. However, challenges persist — digital literacy gaps, confidentiality risks, and cross-jurisdictional enforcement — which call for robust regulatory frameworks and judicial endorsement.


Recent Developments and Current Status of ADR (India — 2023–2025)

Think of ADR as a living organism that has woken from a long colonial slumber and is sprinting into a high-speed, digital, global age. Below is a compact, professor-style tour through the headline developments of the last three years (2023–2025): legislation, institutions, courts, technology, cross-border dynamics and even the new intersection with ESG. Each section highlights what changed, why it matters, and the pragmatic consequence for users of ADR (practitioners, businesses, mediators and judges).


1. 2023–2025 legislative and policy updates — the single biggest shift: the Mediation Act, 2023


The standout legal development is the Mediation Act, 2023 — a statutory framework that for the first time gives mediation a nationwide, institutional scaffold: registration and accreditation of mediators, enforceability of mediated settlement agreements, encouragement of institutional and online mediation, and promotion of community mediation. The Act was tabled and notified in 2023 and signals Parliament’s intent to make mediation a mainstream, enforceable route to dispute resolution rather than an optional nicety.


Why this matters: by giving mediated settlements statutory backing and creating infrastructure for mediator registration and institutional mediation, the Act materially reduces uncertainty about enforceability and aims to move mediation from “soft” practice to a routinised, law-anchored remedy. Commentators and practitioners see this as the legal hook that will push mediation into pre-litigation workflows and institutional case-management


2. Growth of institutional arbitration in India (MCIA, DIAC, IAMC Hyderabad and others)


India is no longer only an ad hoc arbitration market. There is rapid institutional growth: established and emerging centres (Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration — MCIA; Delhi/DIAC; India International Arbitration Centre; IAMC Hyderabad; Nani Palkhivala and others) are actively building case-management systems, rosters of arbitrators, hearing infrastructure and user-friendly rules. The MCIA’s recent annual materials report steep growth in new cases and users; industry reports cite near-double digit increases in institutional filings in India over 2023–24, illustrating rising domestic confidence in institutional arbitration.


Why this matters: institutions offer predictability, administrative support, and reputational assurance (important for cross-border parties). The availability of robust Indian seats reduces the need to select fora abroad, helps retain Indian disputes in India, and improves enforceability and efficiency,


3. The Mediation Act, 2023 — codification, standards and enforceability (practical impact)


Beyond the headline of “there is a Mediation Act,” the statute operationalises three practical changes: (a) it encourages institutional mediation (rules and recognition of institutional processes), (b) it provides for a mediation regulator/registry framework (registration of mediators and institutions), and (c) it creates a statutory route for recorded settlements to be enforced as decrees/awards (so mediated settlements are not merely contractual but enforceable). These provisions directly tackle two core friction points that previously made mediation underused: doubts about enforceability and lack of professional standards.


Practical consequence: counsel and in-house teams can safely propose mediation as a cost-effective, legally secure first step; courts and institutions are likely to integrate mediation into pre-trial case management.


4. Digitalisation and emergence of ODR platforms — policy + market momentum


Online dispute resolution has moved from experiment to policy priority and practical scale. NITI Aayog’s ODR policy planning (2021) provided a roadmap; since then regulators and ministries have launched sectoral digital schemes (for example, an MSME ODR portal and SEBI’s online dispute guidance for securities disputes). Private ODR platforms (Sama, Presolv360, CADRE and others) are scaling, and market analyses report hundreds of thousands of ODR resolutions and strong CAGR projections for the ODR market in India. Government-led portals and regulator circulars have normalised online, low-value resolution as part of the justice architecture.


Why this matters: ODR reduces geographical, language and cost barriers; it is already the practical fix for consumer, e-commerce and MSME payment claims and will increasingly be the front door for low-value commercial friction.


5. Judicial support and landmark judgments — Afcons and Vidya Drolia (and what they teach us)

Recent judicial pronouncements have continued to clarify when ADR should be used and which disputes may be arbitrated.


• Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (Supreme Court): the Court set guardrails for courts referring matters under Section 89 CPC and clarified procedures and limits for court-led ADR referrals — emphasising that some ADR routes require party consent and that procedural safeguards must be followed. The judgment is frequently cited when courts consider active case-management and ADR referrals.


• Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (three-judge bench, Supreme Court): the Court refined the arbitrability test for certain civil disputes (notably lease and property-adjacent disputes), setting out a multi-factor (four-fold) approach to determine arbitrability. This decision clarified the boundary between special statutes/consumer protection and party autonomy to arbitrate. It has been consequential for commercial parties drafting arbitration clauses and for courts assessing whether to refer matters to arbitration.


Why this matters: together these cases strengthen judicial support for ADR while clarifying limits (arbitrability, consensuality and procedure). Practitioners must read these decisions before advising on ADR referrals and drafting dispute resolution clauses.


6. ADR in cross-border and investment disputes post-COVID-19 — rebound and recalibration


Globally, arbitration and investment dispute work rebounded strongly after the pandemic-related slowdowns. Institutional statistics (ICC, SIAC and others) show robust post-COVID caseloads; ICSID and other investment-dispute institutions continued to register new claims through 2021–24. The drivers: complex supply-chain disputes, pandemic-related contract failures, energy and infrastructure claims, and continued investor-state treaty litigation. India’s institutions and practitioners have engaged more with complex cross-border matters, and institutional capacity-building (MCIA, IIAC etc.) is a deliberate policy to capture more of that caseload domestically.


Practical consequence: parties and counsel must expect pandemic-era contractual ruptures and ESG-adjacent commercial disputes to appear in both domestic institutional forums and international seats; enforcement strategies must consider multi-jurisdictional angles.


7. ADR and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) compliance — a growing front of disputes


ESG has moved from reporting checklists into contractual obligations and dispute drivers. International arbitration practice notes and IBA/other reports demonstrate that parties are increasingly inserting ESG undertakings into supply contracts, procurement documents and financing terms; disputes over ESG performance (sustainability covenants, decarbonisation commitments, labour and human-rights obligations) are thus becoming arbitrable subjects — provided arbitrability is carefully drafted and regulatory mandates do not exclude arbitration. Arbitration practitioners now tailor clauses and remedies for ESG outcomes (jurisdiction, evidence, experts, remedies), and ADR institutions and arbitral tribunals are waking up to how to handle complex ESG fact-finding and public interest overlays.


Why this matters: counsel should draft ESG clauses with clear measurement, remedies and dispute escalation paths; ADR providers will need ESG-aware panelists and expert networks.





 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page