1

Al
ter
nat
iveDi
sput
eResol
uti
on
[
ADR]

DEXI
NJOYANMANACKAL
ROLLNO;
17
SEMESTER;
VII
I
 2

Tabl
eofCont
ent
s

Chapt
er Page
no;
Acknowl
edgement 2
I
ntr
oduct
ion 3
Const
it
uti
onal
Prov
isi
on 4
Hi
stor
ical
Backgr
ound 5
Reasonsbehi
ndI
ntr
oduct
ionofADRi
nIndi
a 8
Thear
bit
rat
ionandConci
l
iat
ionAct1996 9
Ty
pesofADR 10
1)Ar
bit
rat
ion 12
2)Conci
l
iat
ion 14
3)Medi
ati
on 19
4)Judi
cial
Set
tl
ement 20
5)LokAdal
at 22
6)Negot
iat
ion 25
Di
ffer
encebet
weent
heMedi
ati
onandot
herdi
sput
eresol
uti
on
28
I
mpl
ement
ati
onofADRi
nIndi
a 35
Rol
epl
ay
Concl
usi
on
Bi
bli
ogr
aphy
3
 4

Ac
knowl
edge
ment
:

Iamhi ghlygratef
ultoDr .GeorageJose phforgiv
inganopportuni
tytost
udy
Alte
rnati
veDis puteResoluti
on( ADR).
Thee x
peri
encegai
ne di
nr es
earchi
ngona
topi
cre l
evanttothepr esentti
me shashe lpedmei nenr
ichi
ngmyk nowl
edge
base.IthankAs st.
Prof.ShymaS, Ass
t.Prof.Abhi
l
s hTGwhohav egi v
enmeall
thenece s
s ar
ys upportande ncourageme nttodothispr
oject
.

“
Dis
cour
ageli
ti
gat
ion.
Per
suadeyourne
ighbourst
ocompr
omisewhe
revery
ou
c
an.Poi
ntoutt
othemhowthenominalwinneri
soft
enal
oos
er–infee
,
 5

e
xpe
nse
sandwas
teoft
i
me.
”-
Abr
ahamLi
ncol
n

I
NTRODUCTI
ON
Disputeresol
uti
onisani ndispensableprocessf ormakingsociall
if
e
peaceful
.Disput
er esolut
ionpr ocesstr
iestor esol
veandcheckconf li
cts,
whichenablespersonsandgr oupt omaintainco-oper
ation.I
tcanthusbe
all
egedthatiti
sthesi nquanonofsoci all
ifeandsecurityofthesocial
order,wi
thoutwhichitmaybedi ffi
cul
tforthei ndi
vi
dualstocarryont hel
i
fe
1
together
.
Alternat i
vedi sput eredressal met hodar ebei ngi ncreasingl yacknowl edged
i
nf ieldofl awandcommer cial sect orsbot hatNat i
onal andI nt ernat i
onal
l
ev els.Itsdiv ersemet hodscanhel pst hepar tiest or esolv et heirdi sput esat
theirownt ermscheapl yandexpedi tiousl y.Alter nativeDi sput eResol ution
(ADR)i sat erm usedt odescr ibesev er aldifferentmodesofr esol vingl egal
disput es.Itisexper i
encedbyt hebusi nesswor ldaswel l ascommonmen
thati tisimpr act icablef ormanyi ndi vidual stof i
lelawsui tsandgett imel y
j
ust i
ce.TheCour tsarebackl oggedwi thdocket sr esultingi ndel ayofy ear
ormor ef orthepar ti
est ohav et hei rcaseshear danddeci ded.Tosol vet his
probl em ofdel ayedj usticeADRMechani sm hasbeendev elopedi n
responset her eof .Thegoal ofAl ter nativedi sput er edressal isenshr i
nedi n
theI ndianConst ituti
on’spreambl ei tsel f
, whichenj oinst hest ate: “tosecur e
toal ltheci t
izensofI ndia,j
ust i
ce- soci al,economi candpol it
ical -
li
ber ty,
2
equal it
yandf r
at ernity”.Alternat ivedi sput eredr essal t
echni quesar ein
addi ti
ont ot heCour tsinchar act er .Alternat i
v edi sput eredr essal
techni quescanbeusedi nalmostal lcont entiousmat ters, whi char e
capabl eofbei ngr esolved,underl aw, byagr eementbet weent hepar ties.
Alternat i
vedi sput eredressal techni quescanbeempl oyedi nsev eral
categor iesofdi sput es,especi allyci v
il,commer cial
, i
ndust ri
al andf ami ly
disput es38.For mt hest udyoft hedi fferental ter nativedisput er edressal
techni quesi nt hepr oceedingschapt er sitisf oundt hat,al ternat i
v edi sput e
redressal met hodsof f
ersthebestsol uti
oni nr espectofcommer cial
disput eswher et heeconomi cgr owt hoft heCount r
yr ests.
TheLawCommi
ssi
onofI
ndi
ahasmai
ntai
nedt
hat
,ther
easonj
udi
ci
aldel
ay

1
Par
kandBur
ger
,Intr
oducti
ontotheSci
enceofSoci
ologyp.735
2
ThePr
eambl
eofIndianConst
it
uti
on
 6

i
snotal ackofcl earpr ocedur al l
aws, butr athert hei mper fectexecut i
on, or
3
evenut ternon- obser v ance, thereof. 40TheLawCommi ssionofI ndi ai nits
14t hRepor tcat egor i
cal l
yst atedt hat ,thedel ayr esul tsnotf rom t he
procedur el aiddownbyt hel egi slationsbutbyr easonoft henon-
obser vanceofmanyofi tsimpor tantpr ov i
sionspar t
icul arlythosei nt ended
toexpedi tet hedi sposal ofpr oceedi ngs.Gi vent hehugenumberofpendi ng
cases, t
hegov ernanceandadmi nist rativ econt r
ol ov erj udicialinst i
t utions
throughmanual pr ocesseshasbecomeext remel ydi fficult.TheSupr eme
Cour tmadei tcl eart hatt hisst ageofaf fairmustbeaddr essed: ‘An
i
ndependentandef fi
cientj udicial sy stem i noneoft hebasi cst ructur esof
ourconst i
tut i
on…I tisourConst i
tut ional obligat i
ont oensur et hatt he
backl ogofcasesi sdecl aredandef fort sar emadet oi ncr easet hedi sposal
4
ofcases. ”Wi der angeofpr ocessar edef i
nedasal ter nativedi sput e
redr essal pr ocessof ten, disput er esol ut i
onpr ocesst hatar eal ter nat i
v eto
theadj udi cat iont hr oughCour tpr oceedi ngsar er eferredt oasal ternat i
v e
disput er esol ut i
onmet hods.Thesemet hodsusual lyi nv olveat hirdpar ty
refer redt oasneut ral,aski ll
edhel perwhoei therassi stst hepar tiesi na
disput eorconf li
ctt or eachatadeci sionbyagr eementorf aci l
itatesi n
5
arrivingatasol utiont ot hepr oblem bet weent hepar tyt ot hedi sput e. The
alternat ivedi sput esr esol ut i
onmechani sm byt hev er ymet hodol ogyused, it
canpr eser v eandenhanceper sonal andbusi nessr elat i
onshi pst hatmi ght
other wi sebedamagesbyt headv ersar ial process.I tisal sof l
exi ble
becausei tal l
owst hecont est antst ochoosepr ocedur es, whi chf irthe
nat ureoft hedi sput eandt hebusi nesscont exti nwhi chi toccur s.Thet erm
“Alter nat i
v eDi sput esResol ut i
on”t akesi ni tsf old,var iousmodesof
set tl
ementi ncludi ng, Lok- Adal ats, arbit rati
on, conci l
iat i
onandMedi at ion.
ADRi susual l
yl essf ormal ,lessexpensi v eandl esst i
meconsumi ngt hen
regul art rial.ADRcanal sogi vepeopl emor eoppor tuni tyt odet er mi newhen
andhowt hei rdi sput ewi llber esolv ed.
Const
it
uti
onal
Prov
isi
ons
Arti
cle39-AoftheConsti
tuti
onofIndi
apr ovi
dest
hattheSt ateshal
lsecur
e
thattheoperati
onofthel
egal sy
stem pr
omot esj
ust
ice,ont hebasi
sof
equal oppor
tuni
tyandshall
inparti
cul
ar,prov
idef
reelegalaid,bysui
tabl
e

3
LawCommi ssi
onofIndia,
77thRepor
t,pr.4.1.
4
Bri
jMohanLalvs.UnionofIndi
a&Other(2002-4-
scal
e-433)
,May6,
2002
5
Tani
aSourdin,
Alt
ernati
veDisput
eResoluti
on.p.4
 7

l
egislationsorschemesori nanyot herway ,t
oensur ethatoppor t
uniti
esf
or
securingj usti
cearenotdeni edt oanyci t
izenbyr easonofeconomi cor
otherdi sabili
ti
es.Art
icle14alsomakesi tobligatoryfortheStatetoensure
equalitybef orelawandal egal system whichpr omotesjusticeonthebasis
ofequal opportuni
tytoal l
.Thus, accesstojustice,pr
ov i
sionoflegalai
dfor
poorandneedyanddi sseminationofequal andspeedyj ust
icearethe
cheri
shedgoal sofourConst i
tutionalRepubli
c.

Hi
stor
ical
Backgr
ound
Thehi stor yofADRcanbet racedt oourhi st orical pat h.TheconceptofLok
Adal ats( Peopl e‟sCour t
)isani nnov ativecont ribut i
onofI ndi at ot heWor l
d
Jurispr udence.I ndi ahasal ongt radi t
ionandhi st oryofADRpr ocessl ike
Medi at ionandLokAdal atbei ngpr act i
cedi nt hesoci et yatt hegr assr oot
l
ev el,thesear ecal ledPanchay at s.Theanci entconceptofset tl
ementof
disput et hr oughAr bi tration,Conci liati
on, Medi at i
onorNegot iati
onknown
ast hev erdi ctordeci sionof„ Ny ay aPanchay at‟i sconcept ual i
zedand
i
nst it
ut ional izedi nt hephi l
osophyofLokAdal at.Conceptofmedi ationhas
beenpr acticedwi thgr eatf requencyi nt hel astquar teroft he20t hCent ury.
Aftert heemer genceof21stCent ur ythispr act icehasbeendev el opedwi th
mor ef requencyi nt heWest erncount ries.Itsr oot scanbet racedi nUSA,
notabl yatt hePoundConf er encei n1976.I twasf ol l
owedbyt wo
l
egi slations–TheCi v i
lJust iceRef or msAct ,1990andTheAdmi nistrati
v e
Disput eResol utionAct ,1996.Page6Ther ear emanySt at ut esinAmer i
ca
whi chmaket hemedi at i
onmandat or yf ordisput er esol ution.TheSt at eBar
Associ ationshav esetupmedi ationcent ersandt heAmer icanBar
Associ ationhasi tsi ntensi vesect ionf ordi sput er esol ut ion.Ot hercount ri
es
l
ikeUni tedKi ngdom hasal soi ntroducedmedi at i
onsy stem asanal ternate
fordi sput er esol utionmechani sm.I nUni tedKi ngdom, besi des, Ci vil
Procedur esRef ormsof1999, Lor dChancel lor‟sDepar t mentannouncedi n
2001t hatal l gov ernmentdi sput esshoul dber esol vedt hr oughset t
lement
procedur es.Li kewi se, ADRmechani sm wasencour agedandi mpl ement ed
i
nAust ralia, Sout hAf ri
caandSr iLanka.Just i
ceWar r
enBur gert hef or mer
ChiefJust iceoft heAmer i
canSupr emeCour twhi l
edi scussi ngt he
i
mpor t
anceofADR, hadobser ved: “Thehar sht rut hi st hatwemaybeon
ourwayt oasoci et yov errunbyhor desofl awy er s,hungr yasl ocust s, and
 8

bri
dgesofj udgesi nnumber sneverbefor
econt empl ated.Thenot ionthat
ordi
nar ypeopl ewantbl ackr obedjudges,well
-dressedl awy er
s,fi
ne
panelledcour troomsast heset ti
ngtoresolv
et hei rdisputes,isnotcor r
ect.
Peoplewi t
hlegal probl
emsl i
kepeoplewithpai n,wantr el
iefandt heywant
i
tasqui cklyandi nexpensiv elyaspossibl
e.”“Theobl i
gat i
onoft helegal
professionist oserv easheal ersofhumanconf l
ictandweshoul dpr ovi
de
mechani sm thatcanpr oduceanaccept ableresul tinshor testpossibleti
me,
withthel eastpossi bl
eexpenseandwi thami nimum ofst ressont he
parti
cipants.Thati swhatj usticeisal
labout.
”
ADRor i
ginatedi ntheUSAi nadr ivet of i
ndal ternati
v estothetradi
ti
onal
l
egal system, felttobeadversarial,cost l
y ,unpredictable,r
igi
d,over
-
professional
ised, damagingt orelationshi ps,andl i
mi tedtonarrowright
s-
basedr emedi esasopposedt ocr eat i
v eproblem sol ving.TheAmer i
can
origi
nsoft heconceptar enotsur prising,gi v
encer tainfeatur
esoflit
igat
ion
i
nt hatsy st
em, suchas:t
rialsofci v
il actionsbyaj ury ,
lawyer
s'conti
ngency
fees,lackofappl i
cat
ioni
nf ullofther ule"theloserpay sthecosts"
.
Begi nningi nt hel ateni net eent hcent ur y,
cr eat
iveef f
ortstodev eloptheuse
ofar bitrati
onandmedi ationemer gedi nresponset othedisrupti
v e
conf li
ctsbet weenl aborandmanagement .I n1898, Congressf ol
lowed
i
nitiativesthatbeganaf ewy ear sear l
ierinMassachuset tsandNewYor k
andaut horizedmedi ationf orcol l
ectivebar gainingdisputes.Intheensui ng
year s,speci almedi at i
onagenci es, suchast heBoar dofMedi ati
onand
Conci l
i
at i
onf orr ailwayl abor ,(1913)( r
enamedt heNat i
onal Mediati
on
Boar di n1943) ,andt heFeder al Medi ati
onandConci li
ati
onSer vi
ce( 1947)
wer ef ormedandf undedt ocar r youtt hemedi ationofcollecti
vebar gaini
ng
disput es.Addi t
ional stat elabormedi ati
onser v i
cesf ol
lowed.The1913New
l
andsActandl aterl egi slationr efl
ect edthebel iefthatstableindustrial
peacecoul dbeachi ev edt hr ought hesettlementofcol l
ectivebargaining
disput es;set tl
ementi nt ur ncoul dbeadv ancedt hroughconci l
iat
ion,
6
medi ati
on, andv olunt ar yar bit
ration.
Ataboutthesamet i
me, andfordif
fer
entreasons,vari
edformsof
mediat
ionfornon-
labormat t
erswereint
roducedint hecourt
s.Whena
gr
oupoflawy er
sandj ur
istsspokeonthetopictoanAmer i
canBar
Associ
ati
onmeet i
ngin1923, theywereabletoassesscourt-r
elat
ed

6
ht
tp:
//cour
ts.
stat
e.de.
us/
Cour
ts/
Super
ior
%20Cour
t/ADR/
ADR/
adr
_hi
stor
y.ht
m
 9

conci
li
ati
onprogr
amsinCl
evel
and,
Minneapol
i
s,Nor
thDakot
a,NewYor
k
Cit
y,andMil
waukee.
Concili
ationi nadi fferentf or
m al soappear edindomest icr elationscour ts.
Anout growt hofconcer naboutr i
singdi vorceratesint hepost war1940' s
andthe1950' s,thepr i
mar ygoal ofthesepr ogramswast or educet he
numberofdi vorcesbyr equir
ingef fortsatr econcili
ati
onr athert hant o
faci
li
tatet heachi ev ementofdi vorcest hroughl essadv ersar ialpr oceedi ngs.
Foll
owingpr ivatelyf undedmedi ati
onef f
ortsbyt heAmer icanAr bit
ration
Associationandot hersi nthelate1960s, theCommuni tyRel ationsSer vice
(CRS)oft heUni tedSt atesDepar tmentofJust i
cei ni
tiatedi n1972a
mediationpr ogram f orcivilr
ightsdi sputes.Althoughasmal l numberof
i
ndivi
dual l
awy ershadbeeni nter estedinandwer epract i
cingmedi ation
ADRi nBr itai
nf orsomey ears,itwasonl yin1989whent hef irstBr iti
sh
basedADRCompany-I DREur opeLt d.-boughtt heideaacr osst heAt l
ant i
c
andopenedi tsdoor sf orbusiness.Thi swast hest artofADRGr oup.Si nce
thenmanyot herADRor ganizations, i
ncludingCEDR( Cent r
ef orDi spute
Resoluti
on) ,
followedsui teandassi stedint hedev el
opmentandpr omot ion
7
ofADRi nt heUK.
ADR, ormedi ation( asitisnowsy nony mousl yknownas) , i
susedwor l
d-
widebyGov ernment s,corpor ati
onsandi ndi vi
dual st oresolvedisputesbig
orsmal l
,ofv i
rtual l
yanynat ureandi nmostcount ri
esoft hewor ld.I
n
devel opingcount ri
eswher emostpeopl eoptf orl i
tigationtor esolve
disput es,ther ei sexcessiv eov er-
bur deningofcour tsandal argenumberof
pendi ngcases, whi chhasul t
imatelyl eadt odi ssat isfacti
onamongpeopl e
regar dingt hej udicialsystem andi t
sabi l
i
tyt odi spensej usti
ce.Thi sopi
nion
i
sgener atedl ar gelyont hebasi soft hepopul arbel ief,“Justi
cedel ayedis
j
ust i
cedeni ed” .Howev er,thebl amef orthel argenumberofpendi ngcases
i
nt hesedev el opi ngcount ri
esordocketexpl osi on,asi tiscal l
ed,cannotbe
attr
ibut edt ot heCour tsalone.Ther easonf ori tbei ngt henon-
i
mpl ement at i
onofnegot i
at i
onpr ocessesbef or elitigati
on.Itisagainstthi
s
backdr opt hatt hemechani smsofAl ternati
v eDi sput eResolutionarebeing
i
nt r
oducedi nt hesecount ries.Thesemechani sms, whi chhav ebeen
wor kingef fect i
v elyinprovidinganami cableandspeedysol utionfor

7
/
/www.
adr
group.
co.
uk/
hist
ory
.ht
ml
 10

confl
i
ctsindevelopedeconomi es,ar
ebeingsuit
ablyamendedand
i
ncorporatedi
nthedev el
opingcountri
esinordertostr
engthenthejudi
cial
syst
em.Manycount r
iessuchasI ndi
a,Bangl
adeshandSr i
Lankahav e
adoptedtheAlt
ernati
veDisputeResoluti
onMechanism.Howev er,i
tisfor
ti
met oseehowef fecti
vetheimplementati
onofthesemechanismswoul d
beinthesecountri
es.

Reasonsbehi
ndi
ntr
oduct
ionofADRi
nIndi
a:
Alt
er nat i
v eDi sputeResol ut i
oni nI ndiaisanat temptmadebyt he
l
egislat or sandj udiciaryaliket oachi evethe“ Const i
tutionalgoal”of
achiev i
ngCompl eteJust i
cei nI ndia.ADRf irststartedasaquestt of i
nd
solutionst otheper plexingpr oblem oft heev erincreasingbur denont he
cour t
s.At hought -
processt hatst artedofftor ecti
fydocketexpl osion,later
developedi ntoasepar at
ef i
eldsol elycateri
ngt ov ariouskindsof
mechani smswhi chwoul dr esolvedi sputeswi thoutappr oachingt heFor mal
Legal Sy st em (FLS).Ther easoni nggi ventot heseADRmechani smsi st hat
thesoci ety ,
stateandt hepar tyt ot hedisputear eequal lyunderan
obligationt oresolvet hedi sputeassoonaspossi blebef or
eitdi st
urbst he
peacei nt hef ami l
y,businesscommuni ty,societyorul ti
mat el
yhumani tyas
awhol e.
Inacivi
lisedsociety,pri
nciplesofnat ur aljusticealongwi tht he“Rul eof
Law”shoul dresultincompl etejusticeincaseofadi spute.Rul eofLawi s
defi
nedast hestateofor derinwhi chev entsconf or mtot helaw.I tisan
authori
tati
ve,legaldoctr
ine, pr
inciple,orpr eceptappl i
edtot hef actsofan
appropri
atecase.Thesedef ini
tionsgi veust hei ndicati
ont hattheRul eof
Lawi saaut hori
tati
veconceptwhi chmi ghtl eadt oawi n-l
osesi tuationin
casesofdi spute.Therefore,ADRusest hepr i
nciplesofnat uraljusticein
consonancewi t
htheRul eofLaw, inor dert ocr eateaf avourable
atmospher eofawi n-winsi t
uation.Thisi smuchneededi ncount ri
eslike
Indi
awher el i
ti
gati
oncausesagr eatdeal ofani mosi tybetweent hepar t
ies
duetotheagonycausedbyt hel ong-standi ngl i
ti
gat i
on.ADR, t
hus, gainsit
s
 11

8
moment
um i
nIndi
atoday
.
Alternat iveDi sput eResol utioni nIndiawasf oundedont heConst itutional
basi sofAr ticles14and21whi chdeal withEqual i
tybef or eLawandRi ght
tolifeandper sonal li
ber tyrespect ively.TheseAr t
iclesar eenshr inedunder
Par tIIIoft heConst itutionofI ndiawhi chlistst heFundament al Ri ghtsof
theci tizensofI ndia.ADRal sot riest oachi ev et heDi r ectivePr inci pleof
StatePol i
cyr elatingt oEqual just i
ceandFr eeLegal Ai dasl ai
ddownunder
Article39- Aoft heConst itution.TheAct swhi chdeal wi thAl ternat ive
Disput eResol utionar eAr bi
trat i
onandConci l
iationAct , 1996( di scussedi n
detai llater)andt heLegal Ser v i
cesAut hor i
tiesAct ,1987.Sect ion89oft he
CivilPr ocedur eCode, 1908makesi tpossi blef orAr bi trationpr oceedi ngst o
takepl acei naccor dancewi tht heAct sst atedabov e.I nI ndia,thequestf or
j
ust icehasbeenani deal ,whi cht heci tizenshav ebeenaspi ri
ngf or
gener ationsdownt hel ine.OurConst itutionr eflectst hisaspi rationi nt he
Preambl eitsel f,whi chspeaksaboutj usticei nal li
tsf orms: social ,
economi candpol itical.Just i
cei saconst ituti
onal mandat e.Abouthal fa
cent ur yoft heConst i
tut i
onatwor khast ossedupmanyi ssuesr elat i
ngt o
thewor kingoft hej udi ciary; t
hemosti mpor t
antbei ngcour tcloggi ngand
j
udi cial delay s.Par ticul arlydi sturbinghasbeent hechr oni candr ecur rent
themeofanearcol lapseoft hej udici
al t
ri
al syst em, itsdel aysand
mount i
ngcost s.Her e,thegl or i
ousuncer t
aintiesoft hel awf r
ust rat edt he
aspi rationsf oranequal ,predi ctableandaf fordabl ej ust i
cei sal soa
quest i
on, whi chcr opsupof teni nt hemi ndsoft hepeopl e.
Wear eacount ryofabill
ionpeople.Thefundamentalquestionis:Howdo
wedesi gnandst ruct
urealegalsystem,whichcanrenderjusticetoabil
li
on
people?Thepossi bil
i
tyofajusti
ce-deli
ver
ymechani sm i
ntheI ndian
contextandt heimpedimentsfordispensi
ngjusti
ceinIndi
ai sani mport
ant
di
scussi on.Delayinj
usti
ceadmi ni
strat
ioni
st hebi
ggestoper ati
onal
obstacl
e, whichhastobet ackl
edonawarf ooti
ng.AsJusticeWar r
en
Burger,theformerChiefJusti
ceoft heAmer i
canSupremeCour tobser
ved
i
nt heAmer i
cancontext:
“Theharshtrut
hist hatwemaybeonourwayt oasociet
yov
err
unby
hordesoflawyers,hungryaslocust
s,andbridgesofj
udgesi
nnumber
s
neverbeforecontemplated.Thenoti
on—t hatordi
nar
ypeopl
ewantbl
ack-

8
ht
tp:
//www.
icadr
.or
g/news-
speechcj
hc.
html
 12

robedjudges,well
-dressedlawy ers,
andf i
nepaneledcourtroomsast he
sett
ingtoresolv
et heirdi
sputes, i
snotcorrect
.Peoplewi t
hl egal
problems
l
ikepeoplewithpain, wantrel
iefandt heywantitasquickl
yand
i
nexpensivel
yaspossi bl
e.”
Thi
sobser
vat
ionwi
thgr
eat
erf
orceappl
i
esi
ntheI
ndi
ancont
ext
.
Therefore,thisexplai
nstheneedf orAlt
ernativeDi sput
eResol ut
ioninIndia.
Inacount ry,whichaimst oprotectthesocio-economi candcul t
uralr
ights
ofcit
izens, i
tisextremelyimportanttoquickl
ydi sposet hecasesinIndia,
astheCour tsalonecannothandlethehugebackl ogofcases.Thi scanbe
eff
ectivelyachievedbyappl y
ingthemechani smsofAl ternat
iveDispute
Resolution.Thesear ethereasonsbehindt heintroducti
onofADRi nIndia.

TheAr
bit
rat
ionandConci
l
iat
ionAct
,19969
TheAr bitrati
onandConci l
iationAct ,
1996waspassedont hebasi softhe
UNCI TRALModel LawonI nter nationalCommer ci
alArbitr
ation, 1985and
UNCI TRALConci liati
onRul es, 1980.I tshadbeenr ecommendedbyGener al
Assembl yoft heUni t
edNat ionst hatallcountri
esshouldgiv edue
consider ationt othesai dModel Lawi nv i
ewoft hedesirabi
lityofuni for
mity
ofthel awofar bi
tralpr ocedur esandt hespecificneedsoft hei nternati
onal
commer cial arbit
rat i
onpr actices.I thasal sorecommendedt heuseoft he
saidRul esi ncaseswher eadi sput earisesinthecont extofint ernati
onal
commer cial relat
ionsandt hepar ti
esseekonami cablesettlementoft hat
disputebyr ecour set oconci li
at i
on.Theser ul
esar ebeli
evedt omakea
signi
ficantcont ri
but i
ont ot heest abli
shmentofauni fi
edlegal f r
amewor k
forthef airandef fici
entset tl
ementofdi sputesarisi
ngininter national
commer cial relat
ions.Theseobj ect i
veshav ebeenl ai
ddowni nthe
Preambl et ot heAr bi
trationandConci l
iati
onAct ,1996.

TYPESOFALTERNATI
VEDI
SPUTERESOLUTI
ONS:
-
Themostcommont
ypesofADRf
orci
vi
lcasesar
eAr
bit
rat
ion,
Conci
l
iat
ion,

9
www.
indi
alawi
nfo.
com/
bar
eact
s/ar
bc.
html
 13

Medi
ati
on,
Judi
cial
Set
tl
ementandLokAdal
at.
InIndia,thePar l
iamenthasamendedt heCi vil
Procedur eCodebyi nserti
ng
Section89aswel l
asOr der10Rul e1- Ato1- C.Section89oft heCi v
il
Procedur eCodepr ovidesf ort hesettlementofdi sputesout si det heCour t.
Itisbasedont herecommendat ionsmadebyt heLawCommi ssionofI ndia
andMal imat hCommi tt
ee.I twassuggest edbyt heLawCommi ssionof
Indiathatt heCour tmayr equireat t
endanceofanypar t
yt ot hesui tor
proceedingst oappeari nper sonwi t
hav i
ewt oarri
vingatanami cable
settl
ementofdi sput ebet weent hepar ti
esandmakeanat tempt stosettl
e
thedisput ebet weent hepar tiesami cabl y.MalimathCommi ttee
recommendedt omakei tobligatoryf ortheCour ttor eferthedi spute,aft
er
i
ssuesar ef r
amed, forset tl
ementei therbywayofAr bitrat
ion, Conci li
ati
on,
Medi ati
on, andJudi cialSettlementt hr oughLokAdal at.Iti
sonl ywhent he
parti
esf ailtogett hei rdisputesset tl
edt hroughanyoft heal ternat e
disputesr esolutionmet hodt hatt hesui tcouldpr oceedf urther .Inv i
ewof
theabov e, newSect ion89hasbeeni nser tedintheCodei nor dert oprovide
foralter
nat ivedisput er esolution.
Sec.89.Set tl
ementofdi sputesout si
dethecourt.-(1)Whereitappearsto
theCour tthatthereexistel
ement sofaset t
lementwhi chmaybe
acceptabletot heparti
es,theCour tshal
lformulatethetermsofset t
lement
andgi v
et hem tot heparti
esf ort
heirobserv
ationsandaf t
errecei
vingthe
observationsoft heparti
es,theCour tmayreformulatetheter
msofa
possiblesettl
ementandr eferthesamef or–
(
a)Ar
bit
rat
ion;
(
b)Conci
l
iat
ion;
(
c)Judi
cial
set
tl
ementi
ncl
udi
ngset
tl
ementt
hroughLokAdal
at;
or
(
d)Medi
ati
on.
(
2)Wher
eadi
sput
ehasbeenr
efer
red–
(a)Forarbi
tr
ationorconci
l
iat
ion,
theprovi
sionsoftheArbi
trat
ionand
Concil
iati
onAct ,
1996(26of1996)shal
lapplyasifthepr
oceedingsf
or-59
-arbi
tr
ationorconcil
i
ati
onwer er
efer
redforsett
lementunderthe
provi
sionsofthatAct;
(
b)t
oLokAdal
at,
theCour
tshal
lref
ert
hesamet
otheLokAdal
ati
n
 14

accordancewit
htheprovi
sionsofsub-
sect
ion(1)ofsect
ion20oft
he
LegalServi
cesAuthor
it
yAct,1987(39of1987)andallot
herpr
ovi
si
onsof
thatActshal
lappl
yinrespectoft
hedisput
esor ef
err
edtotheLokAdal
at;
(c)f
orjudi
cial
set t
lement,
theCour tshall
refert
hesamet oasuit
abl
e
i
nsti
tut
ionorpersonandsuchi nst
ituti
onorpersonshallbedeemedtobea
LokAdalatandalltheprovi
sionsoft heLegalServi
cesAuthor
ityAct
,1987
(39of1987)shallappl
yasi fthedisputewererefer
redtoaLokAdalat
undert
hepr ovi
sionsofthatAct;
(d)Formedi
ati
on,
theCourtshal
lef
fectacompromisebet
weent
hepar
ti
es
andshall
fol
l
owsuchprocedureasmaybepr escr
ibed.
"

Theobjectbehi
ndSection89islaudabl
eandsound.Resortt
oADRprocess
i
snecessarytogivespeedyandef f
ecti
ve-60-r
eli
eftotheli
ti
gant
sandto
reducethependencyi
nandbur denupontheCourt
s.
Ofcourse,
Sect
ion89hast
ober
eadwi
thRul
e1-
AofOr
der10,
whi
chr
uns
asfol
lows:-
Order10Rule1- A.Dir
ecti
onoft heCour tt
ooptf oranyonemodeof
alt
ernati
vedisputeresol
uti
on.--
Afterrecordingtheadmi ssi
onsanddeni al
s,
theCourtshalldir
ectthepart
iestot hesui tt
ooptei t
hermodeoft he
sett
lementoutsidetheCourtasspeci fiedinsub-section(1)ofsecti
on89.
Ont heopti
onoft heparti
es,t
heCour tshallfi
xthedateofappear ance
beforesuchforum orauthor
ityasmaybeopt edbyt heparti
es.
Order10Rule1-
B.Appearancebefor
etheconcil
iat
oryfor
um orauthori
ty.
--
Whereasuitisr
efer
redunderrul
e1A, t
hepart
iesshall
appearbeforesuch
for
um orauthor
it
yforconci
li
ati
onofthesui
t.
Order10Rul e1-C.Appearancebeforet heCour tconsequenttothef ail
ure
ofeff
or t
sofconci l
i
ation.
--
Wher easuitisreferredunderrule1Aandt he
presi
dingoffi
cerofconci l
iat
ionfor
um oraut hor i
tyi
ssat i
sfi
edthatitwould
notbepr operintheinter
estofjust
icetopr oceedwi t
ht hematterfurther,
then,
itshallref
erthemat teragai
ntot heCour tanddirectthepart
iest o
appearbeforetheCour tont hedat
efixedbyi t.
Onjoi
ntr
eadi
ngofSect
ion89readwit
hRule1-
AofOrder10ofCivi
l
Pr
ocedur
eCode,i
ttr
anspi
rest
hattheCour
ttodi
rectt
hepart
iest
o-61-opt
 15

foranyofthefi
vemodesoft
heAl
ter
nat
iveDi
sput
eResol
uti
onandont
hei
r
opti
onrefert
hematt
er.
Thus,
thef
ivedi
ff
erentmet
hodsofADRcanbesummar
izedasf
oll
ows:
-
1.Ar
bit
rat
ion
2.Conci
l
iat
ion
3.Medi
ati
on
4.Judi
cial
Set
tl
ement&
5.LokAdal
at
6.Negot
iat
ion

1)ARBI
TRATI
ON:
Arbi t
ration,af orm ofalternativedi sput er esol uti
on(ADR) ,isat echni quefor
ther esol uti
onofdi sputesout sidet hecour ts, wherethepar tiestoadi spute
referi ttooneormor eper sonsar bi tr
at ors, bywhosedeci siont heyagr eeto
bebound.I ti
sar esoluti
ont echniquei nwhi chat hi
rdpartyr eviewst he
evidencei nthecaseandi mposesadeci siont hatislegallybindingf orboth
sidesandenf orceable.Ther earel imi tedr ight sofreviewandappeal of
Arbi t
rationawar ds.Ar bitr
ationisnott hesameasj udici
al proceedingsand
Medi at i
on.Ar bit
rationcanbeei therv olunt ar yormandat ory.Ofcour se,
mandat or yArbitrati
oncanonl ycomef rom sst atut
eorf rom acont r
actt hat
i
sv oluntaril
yent eredinto,wher et hepar tiesagr eet oholdal lexist
ingor
futuredi sputest oar bit
rati
on, withoutnecessar il
yknowing, speci f
ically,
whatdi sputeswi lleveroccur .
Theadv
ant
agesofAr
bit
rat
ioncanbesummar
izedasf
oll
ows:
-
a)I
tisof
tenf
ast
ert
hanl
i
tigat
ioni
nCour
t.
b)I
tcanbecheaperandmor
efl
exi
blef
orbusi
nesses.
c)Ar
bit
ral
proceedingsandanar
bit
ral
awar
dar
egener
all
ynonpubl
i
c,and
canbemadeconf i
denti
al.
 16

d)I
nar bi
tr
al pr
oceedi
ngst helanguageofarbi
trat
ionmaybechosen,
whereasinjudi
cialpr
oceedingst heof
fi
cial
languageoft
hecompetent
Cour
twi l
lbeaut omati
cal
lyapplied.
e)Ther
ear
ever
yli
mit
edav
enuesf
orappeal
ofanar
bit
ral
awar
d.
f)Whenthesubj
ectmatterofthedi
sput
eishi
ghl
ytechni
cal
,arbi
tr
ator
s
wit
hanappropri
atedegreeofexper
ti
secanbeappoi
ntedasonecannot
choosej
udgeinli
ti
gati
on.
Howev
er,t
herearesomedi
sadv
ant
agesoft
heAr
bit
rat
ion,
whi
chmaybe
summari
zedasfoll
ows:
-
a)Ar
bit
rat
ormaybesubj
ectt
opr
essur
esf
rom t
hepower
ful
par
ti
es.
b)Ift
heArbi
tr
ati
onismandat
oryandbi
ndi
ng,
thepar
ti
eswai
vet
hei
rri
ght
s
toaccesst
heCourt
s.
c)Insomearbi
tr
ati
onagr
eements,
thepart
iesar
er equi
redt
opayf ort
he
arbi
tr
ator
s,whi
chaddanaddi
ti
onalcost
,especi
all
yinsmallconsumer
di
sputes.
d)Therear
everyli
mitedavenuesf
orappeal
,whi
chmeanst
hatan
err
oneousdeci
sioncannotbeeasi
lyov
ertur
ned.
e)Alt
houghusuall
ythoughttobespeedi
er,
whenther
earemult
ipl
e
arbi
tr
ator
sont hepenal
,juggl
ingt
hei
rschedul
esf
orhear
ingdat
esinl
ong
casescanleadtodelay
s.
f)Arbit
rat
ionawardsthemselv
esar
enotdi
rect
lyenf
orceabl
e.Apart
y
seekingtoenfor
cearbit
rat
ionawar
dmustr
esorttoj
udici
alr
emedies.
I
nv i
ewofpr ovi
sionsofSect
ion89oftheCivi
lPr
ocedureCode,i
fthemat
ter
i
sreferr
edt ot
heAr bi
tr
ati
onthentheprov
isi
onsoftheArbi
tr
ati
onand
Concil
i
ationAct,1996wil
lgover
nthecase.
Undert heArbi
tr
ationandConci l
iat
ionAct
,1996; “ar
bit
rati
on”meansany
arbitrati
onwhetherornotadmi nist
eredbyaper manentar bi
tral i
nstit
uti
on.
Thishasbeendi scussedinS. 2oftheAct,alongwi t
hotherdef ini
tions,
whi char epecul
iartotheAct .UndertheAct,writ
tencommuni cationis
deliveredwheni treachestheot herpar
ty’
splaceofbusi ness,habi t
ual
residenceormai li
ngaddr ess.Ifsuchanaddr esscannotbet racedr ecorded
attemptt ofindoutandmai ltotheoldaddressissuffi
cient(S.3).Inthe
 17

eventthateitheroftheparti
esknowofapr ovi
si
onf r
om whi cheither
parti
esder ogate,oranypartoftheagreementhasnotbeencompl i
edwi t
h,
i
fnoobl igati
oni srai
sedtosuchnon- compli
ance,iti
st akent hattheparty
hasgivenuphi sri
ghttoobjectandthatri
ghtwillbewai ved.(S.4)The
extentofJudi ci
alInt
ervent
ionandAdmi ni
strat
iveassistancear ediscussed
i
nSs.5&6oft heAct.
2)CONCI
LIATI
ON:
Concil
iationisanal ternat
ivedisputeresolut
ionprocesswher ebythe
part
iest oadi sputeuseaconci l
i
ator,whomeet swi t
ht heparti
essepar at
ely
i
nor dertor esolvetheirdif
fer
ences.Theydot hi
sbyl oweri
ngt ensions,
i
mpr ovingcommuni cati
ons,i
nterpret
ingissues,provi
dingtechnical
assi
stance, explori
ngpot enti
alsoluti
onsandbr i
ngaboutanegot i
ated
sett
lement .Itdif
fersfrom Arbi
trati
onint hat
.
Conci l
iationisav olunt arypr oceedi ng, wher ethepar tiesinvol vedar efreet o
agr eeandat temptt or esolvet hei rdi sput ebyconci li
ation.Thepr ocessi s
fl
exi ble, all
owi ngpar tiest odef inet het ime, struct ureandcont entoft he
conci liationpr oceedi ngs.Thesepr oceedi ngsar er arelypubl ic.Theyar e
i
nt erest -based, ast heconci liat orwi l
l whenpr oposi ngaset tl
ement ,notonl y
takei nt oaccountt hepar ti
es' legal posi ti
ons, butal sot heir
;commer cial,
10
fi
nanci al and/ orper sonal int er est s.Thet er msconci l
iati
onandmedi ation
arei nt erchangeabl ei nt heI ndi ancont ext .Conci l
iat i
oni sav olunt ary
processwher ebyt heconci liat or,at rainedandqual if
iedneut ral,facili
tates
negot iati
onsbet weendi sput i
ngpar ti
esandassi st sthem i nunder standing
theirconf li
ctsati ssueandt hei rint erest sinor dert oar r
iveatamut ually
accept abl eagr eement .Conci li
at i
oni nv olvesdi scussi onsamongt hepar t i
es
andt heconci li
at orwi thanai mt oexpl oresust ainabl eandequi t
abl e
resol ut i
onsbyt argetingt heexi stenti ssuesi nv olvedi nt hedi sput eand
creat ingopt ionsf oraset tlementt hatar eaccept abl etoal lpar ti
es.The
conci liatordoesnotdeci def ort hepar ti
es, butst rivest osuppor tt hem in
gener atingopt ionsi nor dert of indasol ut i
ont hati scompat i
bl et obot h
par ti
es.Thepr ocessi sriskf r eeandnotbi ndingont hepar tiest il
l they
arriveatandsi gnt heagr eement .Onceasol utioni sr eachedbet weent he
disput ingpar t i
esbef or eaconci li
at or, t
heagr eementhadt heef fectofan

10
ht
tp:
//www.
disput
e-r
esol
uti
on-
hambur
g.com/
conci
l
iat
ion/
what
-i
s-conci
l
iat
ion/
 18

11
ar
bit
rat
ionawar
dandi
slegal
l
ytenabl
einanycour
tint
hecount
ry.
Mostcommer cialdisputes,
inwhichitisnotessenti
alt
hatthereshoul
dbe
abindingandenforceabledeci
sion,areamenabletoconcil
i
ation.
Concil
iat
ionmaybepar ti
cul
arl
ysuit
ablewher ethepart
iesi
ndi sput
ewish
tosafeguar
dandmai ntaint
hei
rcommer ci
alr
elati
onshi
ps.
Thepr oceedingsr el
ati
ngtoCONCI LI
ATIONar edealtundersections61t o
81ofAr bitrat
ionandConci l
iat
ionAct ,
1996.ThisActi saimedatper mitti
ng
Mediationconci li
ati
onorotherproceduresduringthearbitr
alproceedings
toencour ageset tl
ementofdisputes.ThisActalsoprovidesthata
settl
ementagr eementreachedbyt heparti
esasar esultofconcili
ati
on
proceedingswi llhavethesamest atusandeffectasanar bit
ralawardon
agreedt ermsont hesubst
anceoft hedisputerenderedbyanar bitr
al
tr
ibunal.
Thef
oll
owi
ngt
ypesofdi
sput
esar
eusual
l
yconduci
vef
orconci
l
iat
ion:
•Commer
cial
,
•Fi
nanci
al,
•Fami
l
y,
•Real
est
ate,
•Empl
oyment
,int
ell
ect
ual
proper
ty,
•I
nsol
vency
,
•I
nsur
ance,
•Ser
vice,
•Par
tner
shi
ps,
•Env
ironment
alandpr
oductl
i
abi
l
ity
.
•Apartf
rom commercialt
ransacti
ons,t
hemechani sm ofConcil
iati
onis
al
soadoptedforset
tli
ngvarioustypesofdi
sputessuchasl abourdisput
es,
serv
icematt
ers,ant
it
rustmat t
ers,
consumerprotecti
on,taxat
ion,exci
se
etc.

11
ht
tp:
//www.
fi
cci
-ar
bit
rat
ion.
com/
htm/
what
isconci
alat
ion
 19

Conci
l
iat
ionpr ngs12:
oceedi
Eitherpar t
yt othedi sput ecancommencet heconci li
ationpr ocess.When
onepar tyinv i
test heot herpar tyforr esol utionoft heirdisput et hrough
conci li
at ion,theconci liationpr oceedi ngsar esai dt ohav ebeeni nitiated.
Whent heot herpar tyaccept st hei nv itation, theconci l
i
at ionpr oceedi ngs
commence.I ftheot herpar tyreject st hei nvitati
on, therear enoconci liat
ion
proceedi ngsf orther esol ut i
onoft hatdi sput e.Gener al
ly ,onl yone
conci li
at orisappoi ntedt or esol vet hedi sput ebet weent hepar ties.The
par ti
escanappoi ntt hesol econci liatorbymut ual consent .I fthepar tiesf ai
l
toar riveatamut ual agr eement ,t
heycanenl istthesuppor tofany
i
nt ernat ional ornat i
onal i
nst i
tut i
onf ort heappoi ntmentofaconci l
iator .
Ther ei snobart ot heappoi ntmentoft woormor econci li
at ors.In
conci li
at ionpr oceedi ngswi tht hreeconci liators,eachpar tyappoi nt sone
conci li
at or.Thet hi r
dconci li
atori sappoi nt edbyt hepar ti
esbymut ual
consent .Unl ikear bitrationwher et het hirdar bitratoriscal l
edt hePr esiding
Ar bit
rat or,thet hirdconci liatorisnott ermedasPr esidingconci li
ator .Hei s
j
ustt het hirdconci l
iator .Theconci liatori ssupposedt obei mpar ti
al and
conductt heconci liationpr oceedi ngsi nani mpar ti
al manner .Hei sgui ded
byt hepr inciplesofobj ectivity,fairnessandj ustice, andbyt heusageoft he
tradeconcer nedandt heci r
cumst ancessur roundi ngt hedi sput e, i
ncl uding
anypr ev iousbusi nesspr act i
cesbet weent hepar ti
es.Theconci l
iatori snot
boundbyt her ulesofpr ocedur eandev idence.Theconci l
iatordoesnot
giv eanyawar doror der .Het r
iest obr inganaccept ableagr eementast o
thedi sput ebet weent hepar ti
esbymut ual consent .Theagr eementso
arrivedati ssi gnedbyt hepar tiesandaut hent i
catedbyt heconci l
iator .In
somel egal sy stems, theagr eementsoar ri
vedatbet weent hepar ti
es
resolv i
ngt heirdi sput ehasbeengi vent hest atusofanar bitralawar d.I fno
consensuscoul dbear ri
vedatbet weent hepar t
iesandt heconci l
iation
proceedi ngsf ai
l,thepar t
iescanr esor tt oar bi t
ration.
Aconcil
iat
orisnotexpectedt oact,
aftertheconciliat
ionproceedingsar e
over
,asanarbitr
atorunlesstheparti
esexpr esslyagreethattheconci l
iator
canactasarbit
rator
.Similar
ly,t
heconcili
ationproceedingsar econfidential
i
nnature.Rul
esofConci li
ati
onofmostoft heinternati
onalinsti
tut
ions
prov
idethatt
hepar t
iesshallnotrel
yonori ntroduceasev idenceinar bit
ral
12
Conci
li
ati
onasanEffecti
veModeofAlt
ernat
iveDi
sput
eResol
vi
ngSystem Dr
.Uj
walaShi
nde
Pr
inci
palI
/CShri
.Shi
vajiMarat
haSoci
ety
’sLawColl
egePuneUni
ver
sit
yMaharasht
ra.I
ndi
a
 20

orj
udi
cial
proceedi
ngs,
(a)Thevi
ewsexpressedorsuggest
ionsmadef
orapossi
bleset
tl
ement
duri
ngtheconci
l
iati
onproceedi
ngs;
(b)Admissi
onsmadebyanypar
tydur
ingt
hecour
seoft
heconci
l
iat
ion
proceedi
ngs;
(
c)Pr
oposal
smadebyt
heconci
l
iat
orf
ort
heconsi
der
ati
onoft
hepar
ti
es;
(d)Thef actthatanypart
yhadi ndi
cat
editswill
i
ngnesstoaccepta
proposal f
orsettlementmadebyt heconci
li
ator;
andthattheconcil
i
ator
shallnotbepr oducedorpresentedasawitnessinanysucharbi
tralor
j
udicialproceedings.
Concili
ationhasr ecei vedstatut
oryr ecognitionasithasbeenpr ov
edusef ul
thatbeforer ef
er r
ingt hedisputetot heci v
ilcourtorindust
ri
alcourtor
familycour tetc,effor tstoconcil
ebet weent heparti
esshouldbemade.I tis
simil
artot heAmer icanconceptofcour t
-annexedmedi ati
on.Howev er
withoutst r
ucturedpr ocedure&st atut orysanction,
itwasnotpossi bl
ef or
concili
ati
ont oachi evepopul ari
tyint hecount r
iesli
keUSA&al soinot her
economi callyadv ancedcount ri
esJust i
ceM.JagannadhaRaohas, inthe
arti
cle“CONCEPTSOFCONCI LI
ATI ONANDMEDI ATIONANDTHEI R
13
DIFFERENCES” ,
st atedasunder :
“Inordertounder standwhatPar li
amentmeantby‘ Concil
iati
on’,wehav e
necessaril
yt or efertothef uncti
onsofa‘ Conci liator’asvisuali
zedbyPar t
I
IIoft he1996Act .I
tistr
ue, secti
on62oft hesai dActdeal swithreference
to‘Concili
ati
on’ byagreementofpar t
iesbutsec.89per mitstheCour tto
referadisput ef orconcil
iati
onev enwher epar t
iesdonotconsent ,
prov i
ded
theCour tthi
nkst hatthecasei sonef itforconci li
ation.Thismakesno
differ
enceast ot hemeani ngof‘ conciliati
on’ undersec.89because; i
tsays
thatoncear eferencei smadet oa‘ conciliator ’
,the1996Actwoul dapply.
Thust hemeani ngof‘ concili
ati
on’ ascanbegat her edfrom the1996Act
hast ober eadi ntosec.89oft heCodeofCi vilPr ocedure.The1996Acti s,
i
tmaybenot ed, basedont heUNCI TRALRul esf orconci l
i
ation.
Nowundersect
ion65oft
he1996Act
,the‘
conci
l
iat
or’
mayr
equesteach

13
Judge,
Supr
emeCourtofIndi
a.Seeht
tp:
//l
awcommi
ssi
onof
indi
a.ni
c.i
n/adr
_conf
/concept
s
%20med%20Rao%201.
pdf
 21

partyt osubmi tt ohi m abr iefwr ittenst at ementdescr i

bi ngt he“ gener al
natur eoft hedi sput eandt hepoi nt sati ssue” .Hecanaskf or
suppl ement aryst at ement sanddocument s.Sect ion67descr ibest her ole
ofaconci liator .Sub- sect ion( 1)st at est hatheshal l assi stpar tiesi nan
i
ndependentandi mpar ti
al manner .Subsect ion( 2)st atest hatheshal lbe
guidedbypr inci plesofobj ect i
vity,f airnessandj ust ice, giv i
ngconsi deration,
amongot hert hings, tot her i
ght sandobl igat ionsoft hepar ties, theusages
ofthet radeconcer nedandt heci rcumst ancessur roundi ngt hedi spute,
i
ncludi nganypr ev iousbusi nesspr act i
cesbet weent hepar ties.Subsect ion
(3)st atest hatheshal ltakei ntoaccount“ theci rcumst ancesoft hecase,
thewi shest hepar tiesmayexpr ess, includi ngar equestf oror al
statement s”.Subsect ion( 4)i si mpor t
antandper mi t
st he‘ conci l
iator’to
makepr oposal sf oraset tlement .I tst atesasf ollows: “Sect ion67( 4)-The
conci li
at ormay , atanyst ageoft heconci l
iationpr oceedi ng, make
proposal sf oraset tlementoft hedi sput e.Suchpr oposal sneednotbei n
wr i
ti
ngandneednotbeaccompani edbyast at ementoft her easons
theref or.”Sect ion69st atest hatt heconci li
atormayi nv i
t epar tiest omeet
him.Sec.70deal swi thdi sclosur ebyt heconci liatorofi nf or mat iongi vent o
him byonepar ty,tot heot herpar ty.Sec.71deal swi thcooper at ionof
partieswi tht heconci liator,sec.72deal swi thsuggest ionsbei ngsubmi tted
totheconci l
iat orbyeachpar tyf ort hepur poseofset tlement .Fi nally,Sec.
73,whi chi si mpor tant ,stat est hatt heconci li
atorcanf or mul at et ermsofa
possi bleset tlementi fhef eelst her eexi stel ement sofaset tl
ement .Hei s
alsoent itl
edt o‘ ref ormul atet het er ms’ af terr eceiv ingt heobser v ationsof
thepar ties.Subsect i
on( 1)ofsec.73r eadst hus: “Sec.73( 1)set tlement
agreement .( 1)Wheni tappear st ot heConci l
iatort hatt her eexi stel ement s
ofaset tl
ementwhi chmaybeaccept ablet ot hepar t
ies, heshal l formul ate
thet ermsofapossi bleset t
lementandsubmi tt hem t ot hepar tiesf orthei r
obser v ations.Af terr ecei vingt heobser vat ionsoft hepar t i
es, theConci li
at or
mayr ef ormul atet het ermsofapossi bleset tlementi nt hel ightofsuch
obser v ations. ”
Theabov eprov
isi
onsinthe1996Act ,makeitcl
earthatthe‘Conci
liator
’
underthesaidAct
,apartfr
om assist
ingthepart
iestoreachaset t
lement ,
is
alsopermit
tedtomake“ pr
oposalsforasett
lement”and“ f
ormulatethe
termsofapossibl
esettl
ement”or“ r
efor
mulatetheterms”.Thisi
si ndeed
theUNCITRALconcept.”
 22

3)MEDI
ATI
ON:
Now, worl
dwidemedi ationset t
lementi
sav ol
untaryandinf
ormalprocess
ofresol
utionofdi
sput es.Itisasimple,vol
untar
y,part
ycenter
edand
str
uctur
ednegot i
ati
onpr ocess,whereaneutral
thir
dpartyassi
stst
he
part
iesinamicablyr
esol v i
ngtheirdi
sputesbyusingspeci
fi
ed
communi cati
onandnegot iat
iontechni
ques.
Medi ati
onisapr ocesswher ei tiscont r
olledbyt hepar t
iesthemsel ves.The
medi atoronl
yact sasaf acil
itatorinhelpingt hepar t
iestoreacha
negot i
atedsett
lementoft heirdi spute.Themedi atormakesnodeci sions
14
anddoesnoti mposehi sviewofwhataf airsettl
ementshoul dbe. I nt he
medi ati
onprocess, eachsi demeet swi thaexper i
encedneut ralmedi ator.
Thesessi onbeginswi theachsi dedescribingt heproblem andt he
resoluti
ontheydesi re–f rom t heirpointofv iew.Onceeachsi des’
respectiveposit
ionsar eaired, themedi atort henseparatest hem into
priv
at erooms,beginningapr ocessof“ CaucusMeet i
ng”andt hereaf t
er
“j
ointmeet i
ngswi ththepar t
ies” .Theendpr oductistheagr eementofbot h
thesides.Themedi atorhasnopowert odi ctatehisdecisi
onov ert hepar ty
.
Therei sawin–wi nsi t
uationi nt hemedi ation.
Thechi
efadv
ant
agesoft
hemedi
ati e15:
onar -
1.Theagr
eementwhi
chi
sthatoft
hepar
ti
est
hemsel
ves;
2.Thedi
sput
eisqui
ckl
yresol
vedwi
thoutgr
eatst
ressandexpendi
tur
e;
3.Ther
elat
ionshi
pbet
weent
hepar
ti
esar
epr
eser
ved;
and
4.Theconf
ident
ial
i
tyi
smai
ntai
ned.
5.f
ixabl
eandspeedy
Accor
dingt
oFol
uber
gandTay
lor“
Medi
ati
oni
sapr
ocesswhywhi
cht
he

14
AnAr t
icl
e“DisputesamongBusi nessPartner
sshouldbeMedi atedorArbi
tr
ated,Not
Liti
gated”byWi l
li
am Shef
fiel
d,Judge,SupremeCourtofCalif
ornia(Ret
.)publ
ishedinbook
“Alt
ernativ
eDisputeResoluti
on–Whati tisandhowi tworks”EditedbyP.C.RaoandWi ll
i
am
Sheffi
eld,pageNo. 291

15
I
bidpage289
 23

part
icipantstogetherwitht
heassist
anceofneutralpersonorpersons,
syst
emat icall
yisolat
edisputedi
sssuesi
nor dert
odev elopopt
ions
consideralter
nativesandreachaconsensualset
tlementthatwil
l
16
accommodat etheirneeds.
”
Rol
eofmedi
ator
I
nter
msofrul
es15oft
hedr
aftmedi
ati
onRul
es2003amedi
atorhast
o
pl
ayt
her
oleas;
1)Vol
unt
aryResol
uti
on:att
emptt
ofaci
l
itat
evol
unt
aryr
esol
uti
onoft
he
di
sput
ebythepart
ies.
2)Communi
cat
ion:
communi
cat
ethev
iewofeachpar
ti
est
otheot
her
.
3)Avoi
danceofmi
sunder
standi
ng:
Redui
ngmi
sunder
standi
ngi
nthe
pr
ocessofmedi
ati
on.
4)Cl
earpr
ior
it
y:Amedi
atorhasar
olet
ocl
ari
fyi
ngpr
ior
it
ies.
5)Areaforcompr
omise:
explor
ingar
easofcompr
omi
seandgener
ati
ng
opti
onsinanat
tempttosolv
ethedisput
e.
6)Conf i
dential
i
ty,
Disclosur
eofinformati
on;whenamedi at
orrecei
ves
factualinf
ormati
onconcer ni
ngthedisputef
rom anypart
y,heshall
disclosethesubstanceoftheinfor
mationtoot
herparty.
I
nj udgmentofSupremeCourtofI
ndi
ainSalem BarAssoci
ati
onv .uni
on
ofIndiat
heSChasdi rect
edt
hecommi t
teetopurposedraf
tmodel rul
es
fortheADRandal sodraf
tmodelRul
esformediati
onu/s89(2)0fCivi
l
Procedur
eCode, 1982.
4)JUDI
CIALSETTLEMENT:
Section89oft heCi v
ilProcedureCodeal soref
erstot heJudi cial
Settl
ementasoneoft hemodeofal ter
nat i
vedisput
er esol uti
on.Ofcourse,
therearenospeci fi
edr ul
esframedsof arforsuchset tlement .However,
theterm Judi
ci alSet
tlementisdefi
nedi nSecti
on89oft heCode.Ofcour se,
i
thasbeenpr ov i
dedthereinthatwhenthereisaJudi cial Sett
lementthe
provisi
onsoft heLegal Servi
cesAuthori
tiesAct,1987wi l
l apply.I
tmeans
thatinaJudicialSettl
ementt heconcernedJudget ri
est osettlethedi
spute
16
Fol
bergandTay
lor
,medi
ati
on;
ACompr
ehensi
veGui
det
oresol
vbi
ngconf
li
ctswi
thout
Li
ti
gat
ion,
1984
 24

betweent hepar t
iesami cably.I
fatt heinst
anceofj udi
ciaryanyami cabl e
sett
lementisr esortedtoandar r
ivedati nt
hegi vencaset hensuch
sett
lementwi l
l bedeemedt obedecr eewithinthemeani ngoft heLegal
Servi
cesAut horiti
esAct ,1987.Sect i
on21oft heLegalSer vi
cesAuthor i
ti
es
Act,1987pr ovi
dest hatev er
yawar doftheLokAdal atshal lbedeemedt o
beadecr eeoft heCi v
ilCourt.Ther earenowr i
tt
enguidelinesprescribedin
Indi
aast ojudicialsett
lement .ButinAmer ica,ethi
csrequi ri
ngjudi
cial
sett
lementhasbeenenumer atedbyGol dschmi dtandMi lfordwhichar eas
under:
1)JUDI
CIALSETTLEMENTGUI NES17
DELI
Thef
oll
owi
ngar
egui
del
i
nesf
orj
udi
ci
alset
tl
ementet
hics:
1.Separ
ati
onofFunct
ions:
Wherefeasi
ble,
thej
udi
cialf
unct
ionsint
heset
tl
ementand
t
ri
alphaseofacaseshouldbeperfor
medbysepar
ate
j
udges.
2.I
mpar
ti
ali
tyandDi
squal
i
ficat
ion:
Ajudgepr esidi
ngov erasettl
ementconferenceis
perf
ormi ngjudici
alf
unctionsand,assuch,theappli
cable
provi
sionsoft hecodeofj udi
cial
conduct,
par ti
cul
arl
ythe
di
squalifi
cati
onr ul
es,shouldapplyi
ntheset t
lementcontext
.
3.Conf
erenceManagement
:
Judgesshoul dencour ageandseekt of aci
li
tatesettlement
i
napr ompt ,effi
cient,andfai
rmanner .Theyshoul dnot ,
however,takeunr easonablemeasur est hatar el
ikelyunder
normalci
rcumst ances.tocauseparties, at
torneys,orother
repr
esentativesofl i
ti
gantstofeelcoer cedint heprocess.
Thejudgeshoul dt akeresponsi
bil
ityinset tl
ement
confer
ences.
4.Setti
ngGroundRul
esonIssuesSuchasConfi
dent
ial
i
ty,
Discl
osur
eandExParteCommuni cat
ions:
17
GoldschmidtandMil
ford,Judici
alSet
tl
ementEthi
cs,
Amer i
canJudicatureSociety,
1996,gr
ant
SJI-
95-03C-
082from t
heSt ateJusti
ceI
nsti
tut
e;seeht
tp:
//www.j
udiciar
y.stat
e.nj
.us/civ
il
/
Judi
cialSet
tl
ementGuidel
ines.pdf
 25

Inset
tl
ementconf er
ences,judgesshoul destabli
shgr ound
rul
esatt heonset,ei
therorallorinwr i
ti
ng,i
nf or
mi ngparti
es
andtheiratt
orneysoft heproceduresthatwi l
lbef ol
lowed.
Therulesshouldincludegroundr ulesgoverni
ngi ssuessuch
asconfidenti
ali
ty,di
sclosur
eoff actsandposi ti
onsdur i
ng
andafterconferences,andexpar tecommuni cations.
5.Focusi
ngt
heDi
scussi
ons:
Ajudgeshoul
dusesettl
ementtechni
questhatar
eboth
ef
fecti
veandfai
r,andbemindf
uloftheneedtomaint
ain
i
mpar t
ial
i
tyi
nappearanceandi
nf act
.
6.Gui
dingorI
nfl
uenci
ngt
heSet
tl
ement
:
Thejudgeshouldguideandsupervi
sethesett
lement
processtoensur
eitsfundamentalf
air
ness.I
nseekingto
resol
vedisput
es,ajudgeinset
tlementdi
scussionsshoul
d
notsacri
fi
cejust
iceforexpedi
ency.
7.Sancti
onsorOt
herPenal
ti
esAgai
nstSet
tl
ementConf
erence
Part
ici
pant
s:
Ajudgeshouldnotarbi
tr
ari
l
yimposesancti
onorother
punit
ivemeasur
estocoerceorpenali
zel
i
tigant
sandthei
r
att
orneysi
nthesettl
ementprocess.

5)LOKADALAT:
Theconceptt hatisgai ni
ngpopul ari
tyisthatofLokAdal at
sorpeopl e’
s
courtsasest ablishedbyt hegov ernmentt oset t
ledisputesthr
ough
concili
ati
onandcompr omise.Iti
saj udicial i
nsti
tutionandadi sput
e
sett
lementagencydev el
opedbyt hepeopl ethemsel vesforsocialj
usti
ce
basedonset tl
ementorcompr omi sereachedt hroughsystemat i
c
negot i
ati
ons.Thef i
rstLokAdal atswashel di nUnaai mt heJunagadh
dist
rictofGujaratSt ateasf arbackas1982.LokAdal atsaccepteven
casespendi ngi nther egularcourtswithint heirj
urisdi
cti
on.
Secti
on89oftheCi
vil
Procedur
eCodealsopr
ovidesastoref
erri
ngthe
pendi
ngCiv
ildi
sput
estotheLokAdal
at.Whenthematteri
srefer
redtothe
 26

LokAdalatthentheprovi
sionsoftheLegalServi
cesAuthor
iti
esAct,1987
wil
lapply
.Sof arastheholdingofLokAdal
ati sconcer
ned,Sect
ion19of
theLegalServi
cesAuthori
tiesAct,
1987providesasunder:
-
Section19Organizati
onofLokAdal at
s.(1)Ever
ySt at
eAuthorit
yor
Dist
ri
ctAuthori
tyortheSupr emeCourtLegalSer
vicesCommi tt
eeorever
y
HighCourtLegalServi
cesCommi t
teeor,
asthecasemaybe, Tal
ukaLegal
Servi
cesCommi t
teemayor gani
seLokAdalatsatsuchint
ervalsandpl
aces
andforexerci
singsuchjur
isdict
ionandforsuchareasasitt
hinksfi
t.
(
2)Ev
eryLokAdal
ator
gani
sedf
oranar
eashal
lconsi
stofsuchnumberof
:
(
a)ser
vingorr
eti
redj
udi
cial
off
icer
s;and
(b)ot
herper sons,oft
heareaasmaybespeci f
iedbytheStateAuthor
it
y
ortheDistr
ictAuthori
tyortheSupremeCour tLegalSer
vicesCommi t
teeor
theHighCour tLegalServ
icesCommi t
tee,orasthecasemaybe, t
he
TalukaLegalSer vi
cesCommi t
tee,
organisi
ngsuchLokAdal at.
(3)Theexperi
enceandquali
fi
cati
onsofot herper
sonsreferredtoincl
ause
(b)ofsub-
section(
2)forLokAdalat
sorganisedbytheSupr emeCour t
LegalServ
icesCommi t
teeshal
lbesuchasmaybepr escribedbythe
Central
Gov er
nmentinconsul
tat
ionwit
ht heChiefJust
iceofI ndi
a.
(4)Theexperi
enceandqualif
icat
ionsofotherper
sonsr ef
err
edtoincl
ause
(b)ofsub-
secti
on(2)forLokAdalatsothert
hanreferr
edtoinsubsect
ion(
3)
shall
besuchasmaybepr escri
bedbyt heStat
eGov er
nmentin
consult
ati
onwiththeChiefJusti
ceoftheHighCourt.
(5)ALokAdal
atshal
lhavej
uri
sdi
cti
ontodet
ermi
neandtoar
ri
veata
compromi
seorsettl
ementbet
weenthepar
ti
estoadi
sput
einrespectof–
(
i)anycasependi
ngbef
orei
t;
Or(i
i)anymatt
erwhichisfal
li
ngwithi
nthej
uri
sdicti
onof,andi
snot
br
oughtbef
oreanycourtforwhicht
heLokAdalatisorgani
sed:
Provi
dedt
hattheLokAdal
atshal
lhav
enoj ur
isdi
cti
oni
nrespectofany
caseormatt
errel
ati
ngtoanoff
encenotcompoundabl
eunderanylaw.
TheLokAdal
ati
spresi
dedoverbyasitt
ingorret
ir
edjudi
ci
aloffi
cerasthe
chai
rman,
wit
htwoothermembers,usuallyal
awyerandasocialworker
.
Ther
eisnocour
tfee,
thusmakingi
tavailabl
etot
hosewhoar ethe
 27

fi
nanciall
yv ul
nerablesecti
onofsociety.I
ncaset hef eeisalr
eadypai d,the
samei srefundedi fthedi
sputeissett
ledattheLokAdal at
.TheLokAdal at
arenotasst r
ictl
yboundbyr ul
esofprocedurelikeordinarycourtsandt hus
theprocessi smor eeasil
yunderstoodevenbyt heuneducat edorl ess
educated.Thepar t
iestoadisputecanint
eractdirectl
ywi t
hthepr esidi
ng
offi
cer,whichi snotpossi
bleinthecaseofnor mal courtproceedings.
Secti
on21oft
heLegal
Serv
icesAuthor
it
iesAct
,1987i
sal
sor
equi
redt
obe
ref
err
edtoher
ewhichr
unsasfol
lows:-
Secti
on21Awar dofLokAdalat.(1)Everyawar doft
heLokAdalatshal l
be
deemedt obeadecr eeofacivi
l courtor
, asthecasemaybe,anor derof
anyothercourtandwhereacompr omiseorset tl
ementhasbeenar r
ivedat
,
byaLokAdal atinacaserefer
redt oitundersubsecti
on(1)ofsecti
on20,
thecourt
-feepaidi
nsuchcaseshal l
ber efundedint
hemannerpr ovi
ded
undertheCourtFeesAct,1870( 7of1870) .
(2)Ever
yawar
dmadebyaLokAdal atshal
lbefi
nalandbi
ndi
ngonall
the
part
iestot
hedi
sput
e,andnoappealshal
ll
ietoanycour
tagai
nstt
heaward.
I
nv i
ewoft heaf or
esaidprovisi
onsoftheLegal Ser
v i
cesAuthori
ti
esAct ,
1987ifanymat teri
sreferredtotheLokAdalatandt hemember softheLok
Adalatwi
lltr
yt osett
lethedisputebetweenthepar ti
esamicabl
y,ift
he
di
sputeisresolvedthenthesamewi l
lberef
erredtot heconcer
nedCour t,
whichwil
lpassnecessar ydecreetherei
n.Thedecr eepassedtherei
nwi l
lbe
fi
nalandbindingtothepar ti
esandnoappeal willl
i
eagainstthatdecree.
Ont hef l
ipsi de,t
hemai ncondi t
ionoftheLokAdal atist hatbot hpar t
iesin
disputehav et obeagr eeabl etoaset t
lement.Also, thedeci sionoft heLok
Adalatisbi ndingont hepar tiestothedisputeandi t
sor deriscapabl eof
execut i
ont hroughlegal process.Noappeal l
iesagai nstt heor deroff i
nali
ty
attachedt osuchadet ermi nati
onissomet i
mesar etardingf actorfor
howev erbepassedbyLokAdal at,onl
yaf t
erobtainingt heassentofal lthe
partiestodi spute.I
ncer tainsituat
ions,permanentLokAdal atcanpassan
awar donmer i
ts,ev
enwi t
houtt heconsentofpar ti
es.Suchanawar di s
18
fi
nal andbindi ng.From that ,noappeal i
spossible.

18
ADR–I t
sFacet
s,bySnaj
ayKi
shanKaul
.J.Chai
rman,
Over
seeingCommitt
eeDel
hiHi
ghCour
t
Medi
ati
onandconcil
i
ati
oncent
rewri
tt
eni
nSAMADHAN–Ref lecti
ons–2006–10page.97
 28

Thisisnottot hesayt hatLokAdalatdon’thav emanyadvantages.Lok

Adalatareespeci al
lyeffecti
veinset
tlementofmoneycl ai
ms.Di sputesli
ke
part
iti
onsuits,damagesandev enmat r
imonialcasescanalsobeeasi l
y
sett
ledbeforeaLokAdal atasthescopef orcompromiseishigherinthese
cases.LokAdal ati
sadef i
nit
eboontot heli
ti
gantpubli
c,wheretheycan
getthei
rdisput essettl
edf astandfr
eeofcost .Theappearanceoflawy er
s
onbehalfoft hepar t
ies,attheLokAdalatsinnotbarred.
LokAdal
atarenotnecessaril
yalt
ernat
ivestotheexi
sti
ngcourt
sbutrather
onl
ysupplementar
yt othem.Theyareessenti
all
ywin-
winsyst
ems, an
al
ter
nati
veto‘Judi
cialJust
ice’
,whereal
l t
heparti
estothedi
sputehave
somethi
ngtogain.
Therear ecertainhybr i
dsofAl ternat i
veDisput eResolut
ionthatalso
deser veament ion.Thesepr ocesseshav eev olv
edincombi nati
onof
vari
ousAl ternati
veDi sputeResol ut i
onmechani smswi t
ht heul
ti
mat e
objectiveofachievingav oluntaryset tlement.Thepur poseofmanyof
thesehy bri
dsi sthatthepr i
ncipleobj ecti
veofachi evi
ngaset tl
ementi s
keptinmi ndandal lpermutati
onsandcombi nationsshouldbeutili
zed
towar dsthatobjectivetoreducet hebur denoft headjudicat
oryprocessin
courts.Thedi ff
erentAl t
ernati
veDi sputeResol uti
onprocessesandt heir
hybridshav efoundsol uti
onst odi fferentnatureofdisputesandthust he
knowl edgeoft hesepr ocessescanbeasi gnifi
cantai
d.
6)Negot
iat
ion
Negot i
ati
onissel fcounselingbetweenthepar t
iestor esolvetheir
disputeNegotiat
ionhasbeendef inedasanyf or
m ofdi rectorindirect
communi cat
ionwher ebypar t
ieswhohav eopposi nginterestsdiscussthe
form ofanyjointactionwhi chtheymighttaketomanageandul ti
mat el
y
resolvethedisputebet weent hem.Negotiat
ionsmaybeusedt oresolvean
already-
exist
ingpr oblem ortolaythegroundwor kforaf utur
er el
ationshi
p
bet weentwoormor epar t
ies.
Negot i
ati
onhasal sobeenchar acter
izedast he“ preemi nentmodeof
disputeresoluti
on”whi chishardlysurpri
singgi v
eni tspr esenceinv i
rt
uall
y
allaspectsofev erydayli
fe,whetheratthei ndiv i
dual,institut
ional
,nati
onal
orgloballevels.Eachnegot i
ati
oni sunique,di f
feringfr om oneanot herin
termsofsubj ectmat ter,
thenumberofpar ticipantsandt hepr ocessused.
Giventhepr esenceofnegot iat
ionindai l
yli
f e,iti
snotsur pri
singtofi
ndthat
 29

negoti
ati
oncanalsobeappli
edwi
thinthecont
extofot
herdi
sput
e
resol
uti
onprocesses,
suchasmediat
ionandli
ti
gati
onset
tl
ement
confer
ences

Char
act
eri
sti
csofanegot
iat
ion
Negot
iat
ioni
s:

o Vol unt ar y:
 Nopar tyisf orcedt opar ticipat einanegot i
at ion.The
par tiesar ef reet oacceptorr ejectt heout comeofnegot iati
ons
andcanwi thdr awatanypoi ntdur i
ngt hepr ocess.Par tiesmay
par ticipat edi rect lyint henegot iationsort heymaychooset obe
repr esent edbysomeoneel se, suchasaf ami lymember ,fri
end,
al awy erorot herpr of essi onal .
o Bilat eral/Mul til
at eral: Negot iationscani nvol vetwo, thr eeor
dozensofpar ties.Theycanr angef r om t woi ndividual sseeki ng
toagr eeont hesal eofahouset onegot iati
onsi nv ol
v ing
dipl omat sf rom dozensofSt at es( e. g.,Wor ldTr ade
Or gani zat ion( WTO) ).
o Non- adj udicat ive:  
Negot iati
oni nv olvesonl yt hepar ties.The
out comeofanegot iat ioni sr eachedbyt hepar t
iest oget her
wit houtr ecour set oat hi r
d-par t
yneut ral.
o Infor mal :
 Ther ear enopr escr ibedr ulesi nnegot iat i
on.The
par tiesar ef reet oadoptwhat ev errul est heychoose, ifany .
Gener al l
yt heywi llagr eeoni ssuessuchast hesubj ectmat ter,
timi ngandl ocat ionofnegot i
at ions.Fur t
hermat terssuchas
conf i
dent i
al i
ty ,thenumberofnegot iatingsessi onst hepar ties
commi tto, andwhi chdocument smaybeused, canal sobe
addr essed.
o Conf ident ial: 
Thepar tieshav et heopt ionofnegot i
at i
ngpubl icl
y
orpr ivately .Int hegov ernmentcont ext ,negot iati
onswoul dbe
subj ectt ot hecr iteriagov erningdi scl osur easspeci fiedi n
the  Accesst oInf or mat ionAct  andt he  Privacy
Act  (see  conf i
dent i
al i
tysect ion) .Forgener al i
nfor mat ionont he
priv i
legednat ureofcommuni cat ionsbet weensol i
citorand
cli
entdur ingt hecour seofnegot iations, pl
easer ef ertot he
Depar tmentofJust iceCi v i
lLi ti
gat i
onDeskbook.
o Flexi ble: Thescopeofanegot iationdependsont hechoi ceof
thepar ti
es.Thepar tiescandet er mi nenotonl ythet opi cort he
 30

topi
csthatwillbethesubjectofthenegoti
ati
ons,butal
so
whethertheywilladoptapositi
onal
-basedbargai
ningappr
oach
oraninterest
-basedapproach.

Adv
ant
agesofnegot
iat
ion

o Inpr ocedur alt erms, negot iationi spr obabl ythemostf lexi ble
form ofdi sput er esol ut i
onasi ti nv olv esonl ythosepar tieswi th
ani nteresti nt hemat terandt hei rr epr esent ativ es, ifany .The
partiesar ef r
eet oshapet henegot iationsi naccor dancewi th
theirownneeds, forexampl e, set tingt heagenda, select i
ngt he
forum ( publ icorpr i
v at e)andi dent i
fy i
ngt hepar ti
cipant s.By
ensur ingt hatal lthosewhohav eani nt eresti nt hedi sput ehav e
beenconsul t
edr egar di ngt heirwi l
lingnesst opar t
icipat eand
thatadequat esaf eguar dsexi stt opr ev enti nequi tiesi nt he
bargai ningpr ocess( i.e.,ani mbal ancei npowerbet weent he
parties) ,thechancesofr eachi nganagr eementsat isfact or yt o
allareenhanced.
o Likeanymet hodofdi sput er esol ution, negot iat i
oncannot
guar ant eet hatapar t ywi llbesuccessf ul.Howev er ,many
comment atorsf eel thatnegot iationshav eagr eat erpossi bi l
ity
ofasuccessf ul out comewhent hepar tiesadoptani nter est -
basedappr oachasopposedt oaposi tional -
basedappr oach.By
focusi ngont heirmut ual needsandi nter est sandt heuseof
mechani smssuchasobj ect ivest andar ds, ther ei sagr eat er
chanceofr eachi nganagr eementt hatmeet st heneedsoft he
parties.Thi sissomet imesr ef erredt oasa“ wi n- win”appr oach.
o Negot i
at i
oni sav olunt arypr ocess.Noonei sr equi redt o
participat einnegot iat ionsshoul dt heynotwi sht odoso.
o Ther ei snoneedf orr ecour set oat hird- par tyneut ral.Thi si s
i
mpor t
antwhennoneoft hepar tieswant st oi nv olveout side
partiesi nt hepr ocess, e.g.,themat tert obedi scussedort he
disput et ober esol vedmaybehi ghl ysensi t
ivei nnat ure.
o Unliket heout comesofcer tainadj udi cat ivepr ocesses, e. g., the
cour ts,theout comeofanegot iat i
ononl ybi ndst hosepar ties
whower einv olvedi nt henegot iat i
on.Theagr eementmustnot ,
ofcour se, becont raryt oCanadi anl aw( e. g.,anagr eementt o
commi tacr i
mewoul dbei llegal andt husv oidf orpubl i
cpol icy
reasons) .
 31

o Assumi ngthatthepar ti
esar enegotiati
ngingoodf ai
th,
negoti
at i
onwillprovi
det hepartieswi t
htheoppor tuni
tyto
desi
gnanagr eementwhi chrefl
ectstheiri
nterests.
o Negotiati
onsmaypr eser v
eandi nsomecasesev enenhance
therel
at i
onshipbetweent heparti
esonceanagr eementhas
beenreachedbet weent hem.
o Opti
ngf ornegotiati
oni nsteadoflit
igati
onmaybel ess
expensiveforthepar t
iesandmayr educedel ays.

Di
sadv
ant
agesofnegot
iat
ion

o Apar ticul arnegot i

ati
onmayhav easuccessf ulout come.
Howev er ,partiesmaybeofunequal powerandt heweaker
party(ies)maybepl acedatadi sadv ant age.Wher eapar tywi th
aninter esti nt hemat t
eri ndi sputei sexcl udedori nadequat el
y
represent edint henegot iati
ons, theagr eement '
sv aluei s
diminished, ther ebymaki ngi tsubj ectt of uturechal lenge.I nt he
absenceofsaf eguar dsi nt henegot iat i
ngpr ocess, the
agreementcoul dbev iewedbyapar ticipantorot hersout side
thepr ocessasbei nginequi table, ev ent hought hesubst anceof
theagr eementmaybebey ondr epr oach.
o Asuccessf ul negot i
ationr equi r
eseachpar tyt ohav eacl ear
under st andingofi t
snegot iatingmandat e.Ifuncer taintyexi sts
regardi ngt hel imitsofapar t
y '
snegot iatingaut hor ity,thepar t
y
willnotbeabl et opar ti
ci pat eeffect ivel yi nthebar gaining
process.
o Theabsenceofaneut ral thirdpar tycanr esultinpar t
iesbei ng
unablet or eachagr eementast heybemaybei ncapabl eof
defini
ngt heissuesatst ake, l
etal onemaki nganypr ogr ess
towar dsasol ution.
o Theabsenceofaneut ral thirdpar tymayencour ageonepar ty
toat t
emptt ot akeadv ant ageoft heot her .
o Nopar tycanbecompel ledt ocont inuenegot i
ating.Any one
whochoosest ot erminat enegot i
at i
onsmaydosoatanyt ime
i
nt hepr ocess, notwithst andi ngt het i
me, effortandmoneyt hat
mayhav ebeeni nvestedbyt heot herpar tyorpar ti
es.
o Somei ssuesorquest ionsar esimpl ynotamenabl et o
negot i
at i
on.Ther ewillbev i
rtuallynochanceofanagr eement
wher et hepar tiesaredi v idedbyopposi ngi deol ogiesorbel i
efs
whichl eav eli
ttleornor oom f ormut ual concessi onsandt here
 32

i
snowi ll
i
ngnesstomakeanysuchconcessi ons.
o Thenegotiat
ionprocesscannotguaranteethegoodf ai
thor
tr
ustwort
hinessofanyoftheparti
es.
o Negoti
ati
onmaybeusedasast al
li
ngt act
ictopreventanot
her
part
yfrom asser
ti
ngi t
sri
ghts(e.
g.,t
hroughl i
ti
gati
onor
arbi
tr
ati
on).

DIFFERENCEBETWEENTHEMEDI
ATI
ONANDOTHERDI
SPUTE
RESOLUTIONPROCESS:
-
Thealternativedi sput
eresoluti
onpr ocedur escanbebr oadlyclassifi
edinto
twogr oups, fi
rstthosethatareadj udicati
veandadv ersari
al,andsecond
those,whichar econsensualandnon- adversari
al.Thel at
tergroupi ncl
udes
19
mediation. Si rRobertA.Bar uchBushandJosephP.Fol ger,i
n,“The
promiseofmedi ati
on”saythat,inanyconf lict
,thepr i
ncipalobjecti
v eought
tobet ofindawayofbei ngneithervictimsnorv ict
imizers,butpar t
nersin
anongoi nghumani nt
eracti
ont hatisalway sgoingtoi nvolveinstabil
it
yand
20
confl
ict.
Ther earesev er altypesofdi fferentdi sputer edressal met hodst hathav e
evolvedowi ngt othedi fferentneedsandci rcumst ancesoft hesociety.The
studyoft hedi ff
erencesbet weent hem wi l
lhelpt hedi sput antinchoosi ng
thebestandt heaptmet hodofr esol vingtheirdisput esaccor di
ngt otheir
needs.Thedomi nantf orm ofdi sput er edressal methodt hati sbroadly
adopt edf orther esolutionofadi sputei s,byf i
li
ngofcasebef oretheCour t
oflaw.Wi ththebi rdey ev i
ew, itcanbesai dt hat,inthepr ocessof
adjudicationt hroughCour tofl aw, someonehast oloseamongt he
disputingpar ty.Thel iti
gationrout ehasnowbecomesl ow, expensive,and
uncer t
aini nit
sout come.TheCour tsandTr ibunal sdonot' r
esolve'a
dispute,butt heyonl y“ decide”adi sputeor“ adjudicate”ont hem.Wher eas,
i
nt hecaseofmedi ation, t
hepar tiescant ryt oagr eewi t
honeanot her,were
amedi atoract sasaf acili
tator.Medi ationhast headv antageasi tcanl ead
tofinalit
ybecause, i
tallowsf ori nf ormedandun- coer ceddeci sionstobe
takenbyev ery oneinvol ved.Disput esar eresolvedi nt hepr ocessof

19
Manka,ADR:
WhatIsI
tAndWhyDoYouNeedToKnow?47JMoBar623, 625.
20
Rober
tA.Bar
uchBushandJosephP.Fol
ger
,Thepr
omi
seofmedi
ati
on(
1994)at229-59.
 33

21
medi at i
ont hroughconsensual inter act i
onbet weent hedi sput ant s. The
medi at ori npr omot ingori not herwor ds, faci li
tati
ngr esol utionoft he
disput ebyt hepar t
iest hemsel v esdoesnotpur por ttodeci det hei ssue
betweent hem.Medi at i
oni smor ef lexible, qui ckandl essexpensi vet han
thepr ocessofadj udi cat iont hroughCour tofLaw.Thus, thest udyr eveal s
that,litigat i
onpr oducespr ov i
desf orf airandj ustr esults, buti ti s
procedur al l
ydi sadv ant agesascompar edt omedi at i
on.Medi at i
onaf for dsa
fargr eat erdegr eeoff lexibi l
it
y,relat ivei nfor mal it
y ,conf i
dent i
al i
tyand
cont rol ov eri t
sr esol ut i
on.Compar ativest udyoft hepr ocessof‘ medi ation’
and‘ ar bi trat i
on’ showst hat ,mediat ioni saf orm ofexpedi tednegot iation.
Thepar ti
escont rolt heout come.Medi at orhasnopowert odeci de.
Set t
lementi nthedi sput eisdoneonl ywi thpar tyappr ov al.Exchangeof
i
nf ormat ioni sv olunt ar yandi sof tenl i
mi ted.Par t
iesexchangei nf ormat ion
thatwi ll assi sti nr eachi ngar esol ution.Medi atorhel pst hepar tiesdef ine
andunder standt hei ssuesandeachsi de' si nt erest s.Par tiesv entf eelings,
tellstor y ,andengagei ncr eat i
vepr oblem sol ving.Medi ationpr ocessi s
i
nf ormal andt hepar tiesar etheact ivepar ticipant s.Joi ntandpr ivate
meet ingsbet weeni ndi vidual par t
iesandt hei rcounsel arehel di nt his
process.Out comebasedonneedsofpar ties.Resul tismut ual ly
satisfact or yandf inal lyar elati
onshi pmaybemai ntainedorcr eat ed.
Medi at i
onwhencompar edwi t
har bitrationi sofl owcost .Itispr ivateand
conf ident ial.Faci li
tat ednegot i
at i
oni sanar t.Medi atori snott hedeci sion
maker .Medi atori sacat alyst.Heav oidsorbr eaksani mpasse, diff
use
cont rov er sy ,encour agesgener atingv iabl eopt i
ons.Hehasmor econt rol
overt hepr ocess.Thepr ocessofmedi at iongi v est hepar t i
esmany
settlementopt i
ons.Rel ationshipofpar tiesi snotst rainedi nt hepr ocessof
medi at i
on.Ther ei sahi ghdegr eeofcommi tmentt oset tlement .Par ties’
par t
icipat ioni st her ei nt hedeci si
onmaki ngpr ocess.Thus, t her eisno
winnerandnol oseri nt hispr ocess, onl yt hepr oblemsar er esol v ed.I nt his
22
processt hedi sput edpar ti
esmai nt ainst heconf i
dent i
al i
tyofpr oceedi ngs.
TheAr bi
tr
ationandConci l
iat
ionAct,1996hasprovi
dedf orthel
egisl
ati
ve
frameworkoft heprocessesofar bi
tr
ati
onandconcil
iat
ioninIndi
a.The
processof‘arbit
rat
ion’i
sadjudicati
veinnatur
easthearbitr
ator
scontrol
theoutcome.Ar bit
rat
orisgivenpowert odeci
de.Ar
bitr
ationawardisfi
nal

21
TaniaSourdi
n,Alter
nat
iveDisputeResoluti
on,
(2002)p2,
3.
22
L,Boul
le,Mediat
ion:Pr
inci
ples,process,
pract
ice(But
ter
wort
hs,
Sydney
,1996)p10-
14.
 34

andi sabi ndingdeci sion.Of t

enext ensivedi scov er
yi sr equiredi nt his
process.Ar bitratorl istenst ofactsandev idenceandr ender sanawar d.The
parti
espr esentt hecase, andtestif
yunderoat h.Thepr ocessofar bitrati
on
i
sf ormal.Theat torney scancont r
ol thepar typar ti
ci
pat i
on.Ev i
dent iary
hearingisgi veni nt hi sprocess.Nopr ivatecommuni cat ionwi t
ht he
arbit
ratorispossi bl e.Deci si
oni si
nt hef orm ofawar dbasedont hef acts,
evidence,andl aw.Thepr ocessofar bit
rat i
oni smor eexpensi v
et han
medi ati
on, butl essexpensi vethant r
aditional lit
igation.I tisapr ivat e
processbet weent hear bitr
atorandt hedi sput edpar ti
esbuti nsomecases,
decisionsar epubl iclyav ail
able.Thus, i
ti sani nf ormal procedur e, whi ch
i
nv olvesdeci sion- makeri mpassewheni tissubmi tt
edt oanAr bitrator .The
parti
eshav elesscont rol i
nthepr oceedi ngsandt hef i
nal award, ast he
23
decisionmaki ngpr ocessi swiththear bitrat
or .
The‘ Conci liator’undert heAr bitrati
onandConci li
at i
onAct ,1996, apar t
from assi stingt hepar ti
est or eachaset tlement ,i
sal soper mi t
tedtomake
“proposal sf oraset tlement ”and“ f
or mulatet het ermsofapossi ble
sett l
ement ”or“ reformul at et het erms” .‘
Conci l
iation’,isapr ocedur el ike
medi at
ionbutt het hirdpar tycal ledt heconci liator, t
akesamor e
i
nt erventi
oni stroleinbr ingi ngt het wopar ti
est oget herandi nsuggest ing
possi blesol utionst ohel pt hedi sput edpar ti
est or eachaset tlement .The
differencebet weent hepr ocessofmedi ationandconci li
ationl i
esint he
factt hat,the‘ conci l
iator’ canmakepr oposal sf orset tl
ement , ‘
formul ate’or
‘
ref ormulat e’ t
het ermsofapossi blesettlement ,whi lea‘medi ator’
woul d
notdosobutwoul dmer elyf acil
itateaset t
lementbet weent hepar ties.
UnderSect i
on30andSect ion64( 1)andSect ion73( 1)oftheAr bit
rat i
on
andConci liat i
onAct ,1996, theconci li
atorhasagr eaterorapr o-activer ole
i
nmaki ngpr oposal sf oraset t
lementorf ormul ati
ngandr efor mulatingt he
termsofaset tlement .Amedi atori samer ef acili
tat or.Themeani ngof
24
thesewor dsi nIndiai st hesamei nt heUNCI TRAL andConci li
ati
onRul es
andi nUKandJapan.Conci liati
onandMedi ationpr ocessi sdi sti
ngui shable
from Ar bitrationast hepar ties’ will
ingnesst osubmi ttomedi ati
onor
conci li
ati
ondoesnotbi ndt hem t oacceptt her ecommendat i
onoft he
conci li
ati
onormedi at orbutanar bitr
ator’
sawar d,bycont rast,isbindi ngon

23
P.C.Rao,
Secret
aryGener
alI
CADR,
Alt
ernat
iveDi
sput
eResol
uti
on(
1997)at19-
25.
24
UNITEDNATIONSCOMMI SSI
ONONINTERNATIONALTRADELAW
 35

25
t
hepar
ti
es.
THEDI
FFERENCEBETWEENCONCI
LIATI
ONANDMEDI ON26:
ATI
Underourl awandt heUNCI TRALmodel ,ther oleofthemedi atorisnotpr o-
activeandi ssomewhatl esst hant heroleofa‘ concil
iator’
.Wehav eseen
thatunderPar tII
Ioft heAr bit
rationandConci li
ati
onAct ,t
he’ Conci l
i
at or
’s
power sar elar gert hant hoseofa‘ mediator ’ashecansuggestpr oposal s
forsettlement .Hencet heabov emeani ngoft heroleof‘medi ator’i
nI ndiais
quiteclearandcanbeaccept ed, inrel
at i
ont osec.89oft heCodeofCi v
il
Procedur eal so.Thedi fferencel iesinthef actthatthe‘conciliator
’can
makepr oposal sforset tlement ,‘formulate’ or‘r
eformulate’thet er
msofa
possibleset tlementwhi l
ea‘ medi ator
’woul dnotdosobutwoul dmer ely
27
facil
it
at easet tl
ementbet weent hepar ties.Br ownquot es , whi choffersa
rangeofdi sput eresol uti
onpr ocesses, facili
tati
ve,evaluati
veand
adjudicative.Itist herest atedt hatconci li
at i
on“ i
sapr ocessi nwhi cht he
Conci l
iatorplay sapr oact i
ver olet obri
ngaboutaset tl
ement ”andmedi ator
i
s“ amor epassi v
epr ocess” .
Thisistheposit
ioninIndi
a,UKandundert heUNCITRALmodel .Howev er,
i
nt heUSA, t
hepersonhav i
ngthepro-acti
verol
eiscal
leda‘ mediator
’rather
28
thana‘concil
iat
or’
.Brownsays t hattheter
m‘Concil
i
ation’whichwas
mor ewidel
yusedint he1970shas,inthe1970s,i
nmanyot herfi
eldsgiven
wayt otheter
m‘ mediati
on’
.Thesetermsar eel
sewhereoftenused
i
nterchangeably
.
Wherebot hter
mssur viv
ed, someor ganizati
onsuse‘ concil
iation’torefert
o
amor eproacti
veandev aluativeform ofprocess.Howev er,reverseusage
i
ssomet i
mesempl oy ed;andev eni
nUK, ‘
Advisory,Concili
ationand
Arbi
tr
ati
onSer vi
ce’(ACAS)( UK)appl i
esadi ff
erentmeani ng.Inf act,t
he
meaningsarerever
sed.I nrelati
ont o‘
empl oyment ’,
theter m‘ concil
iati
on’i
s
usedtorefertoamedi atoryprocesst hatiswhol l
yfacili
tati
veandnon-
eval
uati
ve.Thedefinit
ionof‘ concil
i
ation’for
mul atedbyt heILO( 1983)isas
25
RobertMer
kin,
Arbit
rat
ionLawedn2004, p168,para6.6.
26
Just
iceM.JagannadhaRao, JudgeSupremeCourtofIndi
a.See
ht
tp:
//l
awcommissionof
indi
a.nic.
in/adr
_conf
/concept
s%20med%20Rao%201.
pdf

27
(atp127)t
he1997Handbookoft
heCi
tyDi
sput
esPanel
,UK
28
Page272,i
bid.
 36

fol
lows: “thepr acti
cebywhi cht heser vi
cesofaneut ralthir
dpar tyar eused
i
nadi sputeasameansofhel pingthedi sput i
ngpar t
iestor educet he
extentoft heirdiff
erencesandt oarriveatanami cablesettlementor
agreedsol ution.Itisaprocessofor derlyorr ati
onaldiscussionundert he
guidanceoft heconci l
iat
or.”Howev er ,
accor dingtotheACAS, ‘
medi ati
on’in
thi
scont extinv olvesapr ocessi nwhi cht heneut ral“
medi atortakesamor e
pro-activ
er olethanaconci l
iatorfort her esoluti
onoft hedispute, whichthe
parti
esar ef r
eet oacceptorr eject.(
TheACASr olei
nAr bitr
ation,
Conciliati
onandMedi ati
on,1989) .Itwi l
lbeseent hathere,thedef init
ions,
eveni nUK, runcont rarytothemeani ngsoft hesewor dsi nUK, Indiaand
theUNCI TRALmodel .
TheNat i
onal AlternativeDi sput eResol utionAdv isoryCounci l,(NADRAC) ,
29
BartonAct2600, Aust r
alia i ni tsrecentpubl ication(ADRt erminology ,a
discussionPaper ,atp15)st at est hatthet er
ms“ concil
iation”and
“medi ati
on”ar eusedi ndiv erseway s.(The‘ New”Medi at i
on: Floweroft he
EastinHar v
ardBouquet :Asi aPaci ficLawRev i
ewVol .9, No.1, p63- 82by
Jagtenbur yRanddeRooA, 2001) .Itpoi nt soutt hatthewor ds‘conci l
i
at i
on’
and‘counsel l
ing’ hav edisappear edi nUSA.I nUSA, thewor d‘ conci
liati
on’
hasdi sappear edand‘ medi ation’ i
susedf ortheneut ralwhot akesapr o-
activ
er ole.Forexampl e: “
Wher east heter ms‘ concili
ati
on’ and‘ conselling’
havel ongsincedi sappearedf rom t hel i
teratureinr efer
encet odisput e
resoluti
onser v i
cesi ntheUni tedSt at esandel sewher e,t
heset ermshav e
remai nedenshr inedi nAust r
alianf ami l
yl aws, with‘medi ation’graftedonas
asepar atedisput er esolutionser vicei n1991. ”
Conv ersel
y ,
pol i
cypaper si
ncountri
essuchasJapanst il
luset het erm
30
‘
conci l
i
at i
on’ rat
herthan‘mediat
ion’fort
hispro-act
iveprocess r eportof
JusticeSy stem Reform Council
,2001,Recommendat ionsforaJust i
ce
System tosuppor tJapaninthe21stCent ury)
.NADRACr efers,ont he
otherhand, tot heviewoftheOECD( TheOrganisat
ionforEconomi cCo-
operationandDev elopment)WorkingPartyonInformation,Secur it
yand
Priv
acyandt heCommi tteeonConsumerPol icywhere‘concili
at i
on’ i
s
tr
eatedasbei ngatthelessfor
mal endofthespectrum while‘medi ati
on’
is
atthemor ef ormalend.Mediati
onisdescribedthereasmor eorl essacti
ve

29
www.
nadr
ac.
gov
.au
30
www.
kant
ei.
go.
jp/
for
eign/
judi
ciar
y/2001/
0612.
 37

gui
dancebytheneut
ral
s.Thi
sdefi
nit
ionisj
ustcont
rar
ytot
heUNCI
TRAL
Conci
li
ati
onRuleswhi
chinArt7(
4)stat
es
“Art
icl
e7(4).Theconci
l
iat
ormay,atanystageoft
heconcil
i
ati
on
proceedi
ngs,makeproposal
sforasett
lementoft
hedisput
e….
”
Inanar ticlef rom USent i
tled“ Cany ouexpl aint hedi fferencebet ween
31
conci liationandmedi at i
on” , anumberofconci liator sMr .Wal l
yWar fiel
d,
Mr .Manuel Sal i
v asandot herst reat‘ conci liati
on’ asl essf or mal and
‘
medi at ion’ aspr o-act i
v ewher et her ei sanagendaandt her ear egr ound
rules.I nUSf rom t hei nfor mal conci l
iationpr ocess, ifitf ails,theneut r
al
per sonmov esont oagr eat erroleasa‘ conci l
iator ’
.Theabov ear ticle
showst hati nUSt hewor d‘ medi ator ’reflectsar ol ewhi chi sat tribut edt oa
pro- activ econci li
at orint heUNCI TRALModel .Inf act ,inWestVi rginia,
‘
Conci liation’ i
sanear lyst ageoft hepr ocesswher epar tiesar ej ustbr ought
toget herandt her eafter ,i
fconci l
iat i
onhasnotr esul tedi nasol ution, t
he
32
Medi ationpr ogr ammei sappl i
edwhi chper mi tsamor eact iver ole.The
posi ti
oni nUSA, int ermsofdef i
nitions, i
st heref orej ustt heot her wayt han
whati ti si nt heUNCI TRALConci liationRul esorourAr bitrationand
Conci l
iat ionAct ,1996wher e, theconci li
atorhasagr eat err oleont hesame
l
inesast he‘ medi ator’ inUS.Ihav et husat t
empt edt ocl earsomeoft he
doubt sr ai sedast othemeani ngoft hewor ds‘conci li
at ion’ and‘ medi at i
on’
.
Underourl aw, i
nt hecont extofsec.30andsec.64( 1)andsec.73( 1)oft he
1996Act , theconci li
at orhasagr eat erorapr o-act iver ol einmaki ng
proposal sf oraset tl
ementorf ormul atingandr ef ormul atingt het er msofa
sett l
ement .Amedi atori samer ef aci li
tator.Themeani ngoft hesewor dsin
Indiai st hesamei ntheUNCI TRALandConci l
iationRul esandi nUKand
Japan.But ,inUSAandi nr egar dt ocer taini nstitut i
onsabr oad, t
hemeani ng
i
sj ustt her ev erse, a‘conci liator’isamer e‘facilitator ’wher easa‘ medi ator’
hasagr eat erpr o-act i
v er ole.Whi l
eexami ningt her ulesmadei nUSi n
regar dt o‘ medi ation’, i
fwesubst itutet hewor d‘conci li
at ion’ wher ev ert he
wor d‘ medi ation’ isusedanduset hewor d‘ conci li
at or’wher ev ert hewor d
‘
medi at or ’isused, weshal l beunder standi ngt hesai dr ul esaswe
under standt hem i nconnect i
onwi th‘ conci l
iation’ inI ndi a.

31
ht
tp:
//www.
col
orodo.
edu/
conf
li
ct/
civ
il
-r
ight
s/t
opi
cs/
1950.
html
32
ht
tp:
//www.
stat
e.wv
.us/
wvhi
c/Pr
e-Det
ermi
nat
ion/
20comc.
html
 38

DI
FFERENCEBETWEENTHEMEDI
ATI
ONANDARBI
TRATI
ON
TOPI
C MEDI
ATI
ON ARBI
TRAI
ON
St
ruct
ureof I
ntr
oduct
ionJoi
ntSessi
on, Claims/count
ercl
aims,
Pr
ocess Causes,Agr
eement Exami nat
ionof
witnesses,Ar
guments
Nat
ureofPr
ocess Negot
iat
ory
,Col
l
abor
ati
ve Adj
udi
cat
ory
,Di
rect
ive
Pr
ocedur
e Non-
procedur
al Procedur
alrul
esand
rul
esofevidence
Neut
ral
thi
rdpar
ty Faci
l
itat
or Adj
udi
cat
or
Rol
eofAdv
ocat
es/ Act
iveanddi
rect Act
iveonl
ydur
ing
Par
ti
es evi
dence
Lev
eloff
ormal
i
ty I
nfor
mal For
mal

DI
FFERENCEBETWEENTHEMEDI
ATI
ONANDLOKADALAT
TOPI
C MEDI
ATI
ON LOKADALAT
For
um Pr
ivat
eConf
erences Onl
yincour
tPr
emi
ses
Mor
phol
ogy St
ruct
uredpr
ocess Per
suasi
onand
di
scussi
on
WhoContr
olt
he Mediatorcontr
ols Pr
esidingOffi
cer
.
pr
ocess st
ructuredprocess Pr
ocessi snot
st
ructure
 39

Sel
ecti
onofneut
ral Gener
all
ypar
ti
es Part
iesdonotenj
oy
thi
rdpar
ty anysayinsel
ecti
on
Ti
me Reasonabl
eti
me Ti
meConst
rai
ns
Whocont
rol
the Par
ti
es Pr
esi
dingof
fi
cer
Out
comes
Conf
ident
ial
i
ty Pr
ivat
e Publ
i
c
Dept
hofAnal
ysi
s Det
ail
edanal
ysi
s Casual
off
act
sand
di
scussi
on l
aw
Typesofdi
sput
es Al
lty
pesofdi
sput
es Recov
ery/Cl
aims
sett
led di
sputes
Rol
eofPar
ti
es Act
iveanddi
rect Notact
iveanddi
rect
I
mpl
ement
ati
onofADRi
nIndi
a:
Thei mpl ement ationofAl ternat i
veDi sput eResol utionmechani smsasa
meanst oachi evespeedydi sposal ofjust i
ceisacr uci al i
ssue. Thesea-
changef rom usi ngl it
igat i
onasat ooltor esolvedi sput est ousi ng
AlternativeDi sput eResol utionmechani smssuchasconci liati
onand
medi ationt opr ov i
despeedyj usticeisachanget hatcannotbeeasi l
y
achiev ed.Thef ir
stst ephadbeent akeni nIndiawaybacki n1940whent he
fir
stAr bitrati
onActwaspassed.Howev er,duet oal otofl oop- hol esand
problemsi nt hel egislation, t
hepr ov i
sionscoul dnotf ullyimpl ement ed.
Howev er,manyy earsl ateri n1996, TheAr bitr
ationandConci l
iationAct
waspassedwhi chwasbasedont heUNCI TRALmodel ,asal ready
discussedi nt hepr evioussect i
onoft hepaper .Theamendment st ot hi
s
Actwer eal somadet aki ngi ntoaccountt hev ariousopi nionsoft hel eading
corpor atesandbusi nessmenwhout il
iset hisActt hemost .Suf ficient
prov i
sionshav ebeencr eat edandamendedi nthear eaofLokAdal atsin
ordert ohel pt her ural andcommonersegment st omakemostuseoft his
uniqueAl t
er nativeDi sput eResol utionmechani sm i nIndi a.Ther efor e,t
oday
thepr ov i
sionsi nI ndiasuf ficientlypr ovidef orAl ternativ eDi sput e
Resol uti
on.Howev er,itsimpl ement ationhasbeenr est ri
ct edt oj ustl ar
ge
corpor atesorbi gbusi nessf irms.LokAdal ats,t houghav eryol dconcepti n
IndianSoci ety,hasnotbeeni mpl ement edt oitsut mostl ev el.Peopl est i
ll
optf orlit
igat i
oni nmanyspher esduet oal otofdr awbacks.Pr ov isions
 40

madebyt hel egisl

atorsneedtobeut il
i
sed.Thi sutil
isati
oncant akeplace
onlywhenadef ini
teproceduretoincerasetheimpl ement at
ionofADRi s
fol
lowed.Inor dertohavesuchani mpl ementationpr ogr
amme, i
tis
necessarytoanal ysewhattheproblemsar eandr ecti
fythem.Pr obl
emsin
i
mpl emenationandsuggest ions:Anyimpl ement ati
onisusuallyconfr
onted
wit
hpr obl
ems.ADRi snoexcaptiontot hi
srule.
Someoft
hepr
obl
emsf
aceddur
ingi
mpl
ement
ati
onar
eenumer
atedas
under
:
1)Attit
udes: AlthoughI ndianl awf av our sdi sput er esol utionbyar bitration,
Indiansent i
menthasal way sabhor r
edt hef inalityat tachi ngt oar bitral
awar ds.Asubst anci alvol umeofI ndiancasel awbear st est i
monyt ot he
l
ongandar dousst rugglet obef reedf rom bi ndi ngar bitral decisi ons.
Aidedandabet tedbyt hel egal f
r aternity, theai m ofev erypar tyt oan
arbitrati
on( domest i
corf or eign)i s:“tryt owi ni fy oucan, ify oucannot
doy ourbestt oseet hatt heot hersi decannotenf or cet heawar df oras
l
ongaspossi ble.”I nt hatsense, ar bitrationasameansofset t
ling
disput esisaf ailure-t houghi tisbei ngi ncr easi ngl yr egar dedasausef ul
mechani sm f orr esol v i
ngdi sput es.Thet roubl ei sthatnei t
hert hepr i
v ate
sect ornort hepubl icsect ori nIndi aar easy etsuf ficient l
yi nf usedwi th
the“ spiri
tofar bitrat i
on.”Anar bitrationawar dshoul donl ybeper mi t
ted
tobesetasi def orr easonsext raneoust oi tscont ent s–suchas, lackof
j
ur i
sdi ct
ionoft hear bi t
rator ,fraudorcor rupt ionoft hear bi tr
at ororoft he
otherpar t
y, oraf undament al miscar riageofj ust icei nt heconductof
arbitralproceedi ngs.Jur isdi cti
ont ocor rectpat entl egal er rorsont he
faceoft heawar dwasapecul i
ar lyEngl ishi nnov ation.Tohav ei mpor ted
thisquest ionabl ej ur i
sdict ioni ntol it
igousI ndi a( aswedi dundert he
Arbitrati
onAct , 1940)wasagr eatmi stake.Then, thi ndi vidingl ine
betweent hemer itsofanawar dander rorsofl awappar entoni tsf ace
areof tenbl urred-f ewquest i
onsoff actcont inuet or emai nsoaf ter
beingchur nedupi nt hemi ndofaski ll
edl awy er!Thesebasi cinf i
rmi ties
i
nt hel awofar bitrat i
on, andt heappr oachofuser s, leftthei rmar kon
33
domest i
car bit
rat ionundert heAr bitr
at i
onAct ,1940.Fi rstandf oremost ,
therei saneedt ochangeourt radi ti
onal appr oacht or esol vingdi sput es,

33
F.
S.Nar
iman,
“Al
ter
nat
iveDi
sput
eResol
uti
on”
,1sted.1997,
p.45
 41

evenaneedt ochangeourbasi cat t

itudes.Per hapst hel egendar y
basket ballcoachofTempl eUni versity,JohnChaney ,saiditbestwhen
hesai dt hat" wi nningi sanat tit
ude. "Hemi ghtwel lhav ebeenspeaki ng
aboutdi sput er esolut ionandADR.Weneedt or edef inet hev erymeani ng
ofwhati tist o" wi n."Consi st entwi thwhatourcl ientswantanddeser ve,
theul ti
mat e" wi n"r equi resourunder standi ngoft hecl i
ents'interests
andgoal sandourabi lit
yt osol vet heirpr obl ems.Thespi ri
tofADR
mechani smsi st ocr eat eaWI N- WINsi tuat ion, butt heat ti
tudet opeopl e
i
schangi ngi ti ntoaWI N-LOSEsi tuat i
on, whi chi snotv erydifferentf rom
aliti
gat i
on.I nsomanyl argei nternational ar bitrationst hedef endantwi l
l
doev er
yt hi
ngt opost ponet hemomentoft heawar d; atandbef oret he
hear i
ng,t hepar ti
eswi lldepl oyal lconci ev abl e,andsomei nconci ev able,
procedur al dev icest ogai nanadv ant age; theel ement ,ofmut ualrespect
i
sl acking; andt hel oserr athert hanpay ingupwi thf ortit
ude, willtr
y
eit
hert ohav et heawar dupset ,ortoat leasthav ei tsenf orcementl ong
post poned.I ti sint hi sbackgr oundt hatt henewI ndianl aw( ofar bitrati
on
andconci li
ation)wasconci ev edandenact ed.Buti tisnotenought o
hav eanewl aw-i tisnecessar yf orjudgesandl awy erst or eali
set hatt he
eraofcour t-struct uredandcour t
cont roll
edar bitrati
oni seffectivelyatan
end.Ourat titudesr equi rer eadj ust ment ; weneedt or e-adj usttot he
spiri
tofADR, andadher etoi t sunder l
yingphi losophy , whichi sthatof
utmostgoodf ai t
hoft hepar ties.
2)Lawy erandCl ientI nterests:Lawy ersandcl i
ent sof t
enhav edivergent
att
itudesandi nt erest sconcer ningset tlement .Thi smaybeamat terof
personalit
y(onemaybeaf i
ght er,theot herapr obl em sol ver)orof
money .Insomeci rcumst ances, aset tl
ementi snoti nt heclient’
s
i
nterest.Forexampl e, t
heclientmaywantabi ndi ngpr ecedentormay
wantt oimpressot herpot entialli
tigantswi thi tsf ir
mnessandt he
consequentcost sofasser t
ingcl aimsagai nsti t.Al t
ernat i
vely,t
hecl i
ent
maybei nasi tuationi nwhi cht herear enor elational concer ns;theonl y
i
ssuei swhet heri tmustpayoutmoney ; t
her eisnopr e-judgement
i
nterest;andt hecostofcont estingt heclaimi sl esst hant heintereston
themoney .I
nt hese, andasmal lnumberofsi tuat ions, sett
lementwi ll
34
notbei nthecl ient’sinterest. St i
ll
,asat i
sf actor yset tl
ementt y
picallyi
s
i
nt heclient’
sint erest .I
tisthei nabi l
itytoobt ainsuchaset tlement ,
in

34
Supr
an.
33
 42

fact ,thati mpel sthecl ientt oseekt headv i

ceofcounsel inthef irstplace.
Thel awy ermustconsi dernotonl ywhatt hecl ientwant sbutal sowhy
thepar tieshav ebeenunabl et oset tlet hei rdisput eandt henmustf i
nda
disput er esol ut i
onpr ocedur et hati nlikel yt oov ercomet hei mpedi ments
toset tl
ement .Not e,howev er ,that ,ev ent houghi tmayi ni t
iall
yappear
thatt hepar ti
esseekaset t
lement ,somet imes, anexami nationoft he
i
mpedi ment st oset tlement sr ev ealst hatat leastonepar tywant s
somet hingt hatset tl
ementcannotpr ov ide( eg.Publ i
cv indicat i
onora
rulingt hatest ablishesanenf or ceabl epr ecedent .)Anat torneywhoi s
pai donanhour lybasi sst andst opr of i
thandsomel yf rom at rial, and
may bel essi nterestedi nset tlementt hant hecl ient.Ont heot herhand,
anat torneypai donacont i
ngentf eebasi si si nt erest edi napr ompt
recov er ywi t
houtt heexpenseofpr epar ingf ororconduct i
ngat rial,and
may bemor einterest edi nset t l
ementt hani st hecl ient .Itisi npar t
becauseoft hispot ent ial conf lictofi nt erestt hatmostpr ocessest hat
seekt opr omot eset tlementpr ov i
def ort hecl ient sdi recti nv olvement .
Forl awy er s,thismeansnewappr oachest hati niti
allyseem al most
count erintuitive.Forexampl e, ther ecov eryofl ar gesumsofmoneyi s
usual lyr egar dedast heul ti
mat e"wi n"f orpl aint i
ffsi ncommer cial cases.
Yet ,Wal lSt r
eetv aluesl ongt erm st r
eamsofr ev enueev enmor ehi ghly
thanl ar gesumsofcash.Per hapst her est ruct ur i
ngofal ong- ter m
relationshi pwoul dof ferabet t erresul t.Oncei nmedi ation, l
awy er s
usual lyt ryt oexer tahi ghdegr eeofcont rol overt hepr ocess, notunl i
ke
i
nadeposi ti
onoratt r i
al .Howev er ,directi nv olv ementoft hecl ienti nthe
medi ationpr ocessi sof tent hebestwayt osucceed.Lawy ersal so
frequent lyengagei na" we-they "appr oacht onegot iationst hatr arely
resul tsinazer o-sum gai n.Lawy ersneedt ohav eabet terunder st anding
oft hei mpor t
anceofi nt egrat i
v ebar gai ning, wher elawy er scansi tont he
samesi deoft het ableandt ryt o" expandt hepi e."Lawy ersal soneedt o
reflectupont hemeani ngofEt hical Consi der at ion,whi chi mposesadut y
tor epr esentacl i
entzeal ousl y.Ef fect ivemedi at ionadv ocat esneedt o
abandonanydesi ref orr evengei nf avorofamor egoal -oriented
appr oachi ftheyar etosecur et he" wi n"t hatbestser vest heircl ient's
i
nt erest s.I nmanyi nst ances, iti snott hel awy erbutt heangr ycl ientwho
want sr ev enge.Fort hesecl ient s,ev er ynewcasebecomesamat t
erof
principl eunt i
l t
hecl ientr ecei vest hel awy er'st hirdorf our t
hbi ll-thent he
clientwant st ospel lt hewor d" pr i
nci ple"di ffer ent ly
.Her e,ev enmor eso,
 43

thelawyerhasaresponsi
bil
i
tytomakeanearl
yandr eal
ist
ic
assessmentofthedisput
eandt oser
veasananchorforthecl
i
ent
.
35
Thesediff
erencesi
ninter
estneedtobesor
tedout.
3)Legal Educat ion: Lawschool st rai nt heirst udent smor eforconf l
ictthan
fort hear tsofr econci liationandaccomodat i
onandt hereforeser vet he
prof essionpoor ly .Al ready ,lawy er sdev ot emor et imet onegot i
at i
ng
conf li
ctst hant heyspendi nt hel ibrar yorcour t
room andst udieshav e
shownt hatt heiref fortst onegot iatewer emor epr oduct i
v efort he
cli
ent s.Ov ert henextgener at ion, soci ety’sgreat estoppr tunitieswi l
lin
tappi nghumani ncl inat ionst owar dscol l
abor ationandcompr omi se
rathert hanst i
rri
ngourpr ocliv i
tiesf orcompet it
ionandr i
valry.Iflawy ers
arenotl eader sinmar shal l
ingco- oper ationanddesi gningmechani sms
whi chal lowi ttof lour ish, theywi llnotbeatt hecent reoft hemost
36
creat ivesoci alexper iment sofourt ime. Aser i
ousef forttopr ov ide
cheapermet hodsofr esol vi
ngdi sput eswi l
lrequi r
eski l
ledmedi atorsand
j
udges, whoar et rai nedt opl ayamuchmor eact iv
epar tingui ding
proceedi ngst owar dsaf airsol ut ion.I nshor t,ajustandef fectivel egal
syst em wi llnotmer elycal lforar ev isedcur ri
culum; itwi l
l entail t
he
educat i
onofent irenewcat egor iesofpeopl e.Forl awschool s,ther eisa
needt or ecogni zet hatt hedemandsoft hemar ketplacehav ef orev er
changedt hedy nami csofdi sput er esol ut i
on.Obv i
ousl y,an
under standingoft headv ersar ial sy stem, staredeci sis,andt hepr ocess
oflitigationr emai ncr iti
cal .Att hesamet i
me, student sneedt oenhance
theirski ll
sasnegot i
at orsandt oappr eci ate,forexampl e,thev alueof
l
isteni ngort headv ant ageofmaki ngt he" fir
stcr edibleof fer.
"Law
student salsoneedt ounder st andt hesui t
abilit
yandadv ocacyi ssuesi n
ADRatmor esophi sticat edl ev elsandt ounder standt hei mpor tantkey s
topr obl em sol ving.I tist imet hatourl awschool sbegant otaket helead
37
i
nhel pingt odev isesucht ri
ani ng.
38
4)I
mpedi mentstosettl
ement :Justast
her
emaybepr obl
emsinthe
i
mpl ementat
iontechni
ques,therearei
mpedimentsev
enaft
ert
hatstage,
i
.e.duri
ngthetimeofsettl
ement .Someofthem ar
e:
35
http:
//www.ce9.
uscourts.gov
/Web/OCELibra.
nsf/
0/9ce38a05659d753988256949006625a5?
OpenDocument
36
Supran.22
37
http:
//www.fi
ndart
icl
es.com/p/ar
ti
cles/mi
_qa3923/i
s_200102/ai_
n8950563/pg_2
38
FrankE.A.Sander&StephenB.Goldberg,“
Fitt
ingt
heforum tothefuss”
,1sted.1997,p.
338
 44

a)Poorcommuni cati
on: Ther elationshipbet weenthepar t
iesand/or
theirl
awy ersmaybesopoort hatt heycannotef f
etci
v el
y
communi cate.Neitherpar t
ybel i
ev estheot her
.Aninabil
ityto
communi cateclearlyandef fect ively,
whi chimpedessuccessf ul
negotiat
ions, i
sof t
en, butnotal way s,theresul
tofapoorr el
ati
onship.
If,
forexampl e, t
hepar tiescomef rom differ
entcul
turalbackgrounds,
theymayhav edi ff
icultyinunder standingandappreciati
ngeach
other’
sconcer ns.Or ,ifther
ehadbeenal onghist
oryofant agonism
betweent hekeypl ay ers,al
l effortstocommuni catearelikel
ytobe
hamper edbyant agonism.
b)Theneedt oexpr essemot ions:Atti
mes, nosettlementcanbe
achievedunt i
lthepar t
ieshav ehadt heoppor tunitytoexpr esstheir
viewst oeachot heraboutt hedisputeandeachot her’
sconduct .Such
venting,combinedwi tht hefeel
ingthatonehasbeenhear dbyt he
otherpar ty
,hasl ongbeenr ecognizedasanecessar ystepi n
resolvi
ngf amil
yandnei ghbourhooddi sputes.Busi nessdisputesar e
nodi ff
erent.Afterall
,theydonott akepl acebet weendi sembodi ed
corporationsbutbet weenpeopl ewhomanaget hosecor por at
ions,
andwhomayhav easmuchneedt oventasany oneel seinvolvedina
dispute.
c)Diff
erentv iewsoff act s:Usuall
yi nadi sput e,t
herearet
woormor e
parti
es, eachbel ievingt hattheyar et hehur tpart
yinsomewayort he
other.Eachbel iev est hattheot herist hewr ong-doer
.Tothisbel
ief,
theyhav etheirownj ustif
icati
ons.Justaseachoneoft hem hasa
diff
erentper spect iveonwhatt her esul tofthedisput
eshouldbe, t
hey
alsohav etheirownv iewr egardingt hef actsofthecase.Bothpart
ies
havet heirownv ersionast owhatt hef actsareandreconci
lingt
hese
diff
erentv i
ewsi si tselfamaj oepr oblem.
d)Diff
er entviewsofl egal outcomei fsett
lementisnotreached:
Disput antsoftenagr eeonf actsbutdisagreeont hei
rlegal
i
mpl ications.Onepar t
yasser tsthat,
ont hebasi
soft heagreedupon
facts,hehasa90per centlikel
ihoodofsuccessi ncourt
;theother
party,wi t
hequal fervour,assertsthatshehasa90per centchanceof
success.Whi l
ether emaybeal egit
imatedisputeovertheli
kely
outcome, boththeseest i
mat escannotber i
ght.
 45

e)Issuesofprinciple:Ifeachoft hedisput i
ngpar ti
esisdeepl yat
tached
tosomef undament alprincipl
ethatmustbeabandonedor
compr omisedinor dert oresolvethedi spute, thenresoluti
onisli
kely
tobedi f
fi
cult.Twoexampl es:asuitchal l
engingt her i
ghtofneo-
Nazistomar chi ntoat ownwher emanyHol ocaustsur viv
orsli
ve;and
asuitbyar eli
giousgr oupobj ecti
ngt ot hewi thdrawal ofli
fe-
support
systemsf r
om acomat osepat i
ent.Inviewoft hei nt
ensityoffeel
ings
i
ncasessuchast hese, i
tisunl i
kel
yt hatev aluativetechniqueswill
be
helpfuli
nreachingaset tl
ement .
f
)Const i
tuencypressures:Ifoneormor eofthenegot i
atorsrepresent
s
aninsti
tut
ionorgroup, constit
uencypressuresmayi mpede
agreementintwoway s:diff
erentelementswithintheinsti
tuti
onor
groupmayhav edifferentinter
estsinthedispute,orthenegot i
ator
mayhav estakedherpol i
ticalorjobfutur
eonat tai
ningacer tai
n
resul
t.
g)Linkagetoot herdi sput es: Ther esolut
ionofonedi sputemayhav ean
effectonot herdisput esi nvolvi
ngoneorbot hpar t
ies.Ifso, t
his
l
inkagewi llenterintot heircalculat
ions,andmaysocompl i
cate
negotiati
onsast oleadt oani mpasse.Forexampl e, anaut omobil
e
manuf acturerinadi sput ewi thoneofi tsdealersconcer ningthe
dealer’
srighttosel l aut osmadebyt heothercompani esmay
ulti
mat el
ybewi ll
ing–f orreasonsspeci fi
ctot hatdealer–t oall
owit
doso.Butt hemanuf act urermaysof eartheeffectofsuchan
agreementonsi milardi sput eswithotherdealerst hatthepar ti
es
arri
veatani mpasse.I ti spossiblethatthemanuf acturerdidnot
maket hisconcer nexpl i
citinitsnegot i
ati
onswi ththedeal erbecause
i
tdi dnotwantt hedeal ert oknowi twasengagedi nsimilardisputes
elsewhere.
h)Multi
pleParti
es:Wheret
herearemul t
ipl
epart
ies,
wit
hdiver
se
i
nterests,
theprobl
emsaresimilart
othoserai
sedbydiv
erse
consti
tuenci
esandissuel
inkages.
i
)The“ Jackpot”syndrome: Anenor mousbar r
iert
osettl
ementoft
en
exi
stsinthosecaseswher etheplai
ntif
fisconfi
dentofobt
aini
ngina
Courtafi
nancialrecover
yf arexceedingit
sdamages, andt
he
def
endantthinksitisunl
ikely.Forexample,thecasemaybeonei n
 46

whichthecont rol
li
ngstatuteprovi
desforthediscreti
onaryawardof
punit
ivedamagest othesuccessfulpl
aint
iff
.Ift
heunder lyi
ng
damagecl ai
mi sforRs.10lakh,andtheplai
ntif
fthinksthatRs.50
l
akhinpuni t
ivedamagesi sarealpossi
bil
it
ywhi l
et hedefendantdoes
not,t
hev astdi spari
tyincasevaluati
onmaymakeset t
lementcloseto
i
mpossi ble.
5)Ignorance: Oneoft hemaj orr easonsf ort hefailurei nimpl ement at
ioni s
theignoranceoft heexi stingpr ov i
sionsofl aw.Legi slat
orshav emade
thenecessar yl aws, buthav enev erthoughtofi mpl ement ingt hem att he
grass-rootlev el.Theydonothel pi nbui l
dingupt heawar enessoft hose
l
aws, sot hatpeopl ewi l
lutili
set hem.ADRpr ovisionsar ewel l known
onlyinthebi gbusi nesscircles.Mostoft heeducat edelitear ealso
unawar eoft heav ail
abil
ityandpossi bi
li
tyofsuchmechani smsi nIndia,
l
etalonet her ural sector.Mostoft herural segment ,aft
eral lthesey ears
ofindependence, isnowunder standi ngthef ormal l
egal sy st
em andi s
makinguseofi tatat i
mewhent hecount ryandt hewor l
datl argeis
revert
ingbackt ot heol dcommuni ty-basedpr oblem sol vingandot her
ADRt echniquessowel lknowni nrur alI
ndia.Ignor anceofl awsi snotan
excusei nourcount ry
.Howev er ,whennoawar enessi spresent ,how
wouldpeopl eknowabouti tandut ili
seit?
6)Corruption:Corruptionisnotanewi ssuei nourcountr y
.Ithasal ways
beenapar asit
et othenationandi ssucki ngoutthev erypur poseof
i
ndependence.Today ,notasinglewor kgetsdonewi thouthav ingto
bri
bet hewayt hrough.Peoplehav est oppedchallengingitaswi t
hout
beingapar tofit,l
i
febecomesdi fficult.ADRmechani smshav eav er
y
greatriskofbei ngriddenbycor r
upt i
on.Fori nst
ance,incasesof
negotiationbetweenar i
cheducat edper sonandpoori l
li
teratemanov er
alanddi spute,chancesoft henegot iatorbeingbribedbyt her i
chperson
i
sv eryhi gh.Thus,corrupti
oncanbecomear agi
ngpr oblem i nADR.
7)Thoughrecour
set oADRassoonast hedisput
earisesmayconfer
maximum advantagesonthepart
ies;
itcanbeusedt or
educethe
numberofcontenti
ousissuesbet
weent hepar
ti
es;anditcanbe
ter
minat
edatanyst agebyanyoneoft hedi
sputi
ngpart
ies.However
,
 47

39
t
her
eisnoguar
ant
eet
hataf
inal
deci
sionmayber
eached.
8)ADRpr oceduresar
esaidt obehelpf
ulinreachingadecisi
oninan
amicablemanner.Howev er,
thedecisi
onsarri
vedatafteranon-l
it
igat
ive
procedurearenotbi
ndingast heyar
ev ol
untary.Thi
smakest heenti
re
exerci
sefutil
easpart
iesdonotst i
cktotheirdecisi
onr
esulti
ngina
wasteoft i
meandmoney .
9)ADRpr ocedurepermitspartiestochooseneut r
alswhoarespeci
ali
stsin
thesubjectmatterofthedisputes.Thisdoesnotmeant hatt
herewill
be
adiminishedrol
ef orlawyers.Theywil
l cont
inuetopl
ayacentralr
olein
ADRpr ocesses;howev er
,theywi l
lhav
et oadaptthei
rrol
eADR
requi
rements.Neut r
alsandt rai
nedADRexper tsarever
yfewtocaterto
thevastpopulat
ion.
10) Sincet
heADRpr oceedingsdonotrequi
reaveryhi
ghdegreeof
evi
dence,mostofthef act
sr egar
dingt
hedisput
ewhichwouldhav
e
beenprov
edot her
wi secontinuet
obeabanei nthedi
scussi
onwhich
mayleadtodissat
isfacti
on.
11) InADR,
thepar
tiescanchoosethei
rownrulesorprocedur
esf
or
di
sput
eset
tl
ement.Arr
ivi
ngatthem i
sthemajorhurdl
e.
12) ADRpr ogrammesar efl
exibl
eandnotaf fl
i
ctedwit
hrigour
ousrul
esof
procedure.Ther ei
s,theref
ore,apossi
bil
i
tyoft hepar
ti
esgoingbackon
theagreedr ulesandpr ogr
ammes.Thiscr eatesadel
ayandslowsthe
processofdi sputeresolut
ion.
13) Flexibi
lit
yandunconfi
rmedpr oceduresmakei textremelydif
fi
cul
tto
quoteandusepr ecedent
sasdi r
ectiveshavi
ngt obribethewayt hr
ough.
ADRpr ocedureswereint
roducedtolessenthebur denoft hecourt
s.
Howev er,si
ncether
eisanopt i
ont oappealagainstthefinal
it
yofthe
arbi
tralawardtothecourt
s,ther
ei snodiff
erenceint heburden.
14) Therear
ealsosomesi
tuat
ionsunderwhi
chanami
cabl
eset
tl
ement
t
hroughADRisnotfav
our
ed.Theyare:
•Onepartymaybeowedmoneyandsi
mpl ybel
ooki
ngfort
hef i
naland
enf
orceabl
edeci
sionwhi
chcanbeobt
ainedbyr
esor
tingdi
rect
lyto

39
Dr.S.R.Myeneni
,“Ar
bit
rat
ion,
Conci
l
iat
ion,
andAl
ter
nat
iveDi
sput
eResol
uti
onSy
stems,
”1st
ed.2004,p.
18
 48

l
i
tigat
ion.AnyADRpr
ocedur
eonl
ycompr
omi
seshi
ssi
tuat
ion.
•Apartymayowemoneyandseekt ouseami cabl
esett
lementasa
del
ayanddiscov
erymechanism –theotherpartymay,t
heref
ore,
be
concer
nedaboutthedel
ay,i
ncurri
ngextracostsandbei
ng
di
sadvant
agedinthesubsequentl
iti
gat
ion
•Adjudi
cati
vemet hodsmaybemostappr opr
iateforresol
vingsome
si
tuati
ons,suchasf r
ivol
ousclai
ms,cl
aimswhichcompr omi sea
part
icul
arprinci
ple,caseswhichinv
olv
ebodil
yinjuryorall
eged
cri
minali
ty.
Al
lthesepr
oblemsarenotpermanentinnature.Theyall
havesoluti
ons.An
at
tempttomakesuggestionsfort
hesoluti
onsoft heabovel
isted
pr
oblemshasbeenmadebel ow.Thisli
stofsuggestedsolut
ionsismerely
i
ll
ustr
ati
veandnotexhausti
ve.Anin-
depthresearchfort
hisi
sv it
al.
Iti
sf eltthatanat ti
tudinal changet owar dsADRwoul dr esul tinact i
v e
i
mpl ement ationofADRandt hebur denont hecour tswi llreduce.Yet ,
whet heriti sint heur bansegmentori nt her uralsegment ,ther ei sst i
lla
l
ackofknowl edgeaboutADR.Aneedf ori nsti
lli
ngawar enessi s
i
mper ati
v etobr i
ngi nachangei ntheat t
itudes.Theur bansect orwhi ch
hasahi gherl it
er acyr atecoul dber eachedbyi nser tingsl idesi nmov i
e
theatres, hav i
ngadv er ti
sement sint elevi
si onchannel sandnewspaper s,
conduct ingper i
odi cal semi nar sandhav ingadedi cat edhel pline.I tisthe
ruralsegmentwhoseat titudei sdif
ficultt ochange.Fr om t hei niti
al
gramasabhasy st em, ittookmanyy ear sf orthem t oadoptl itigat i
on.To
revertbackt ot heol dsy stem, whichi sinf actanADRconceptwoul d
requiretremendousamountofcommuni cat i
onbyt rainedpr of essi onals
bespel li
ngt hest r engthsoft hesy stem.Ani nsighti nt ot headv antagesof
conciliati
onandnegot i
at i
onwoul dbr ingi nthedesi redchange–change
ofattitude.Tokeepact iveher eisawar eness, byi nt eract i
v e
communi cation.Adedi cat edhel pli
newoul dexhi lerat et hepr ocessof
atti
tudinal changebygi vingcl ari
tytocommuni cat ion.Peopl ear e
gener all
yi gnorantaboutl egal terminol ogyandt heoppor tuni ties
avail
abl ei ndisput eresool uti
on.Theot hergnar l
ingi ssuei scor ruption.
Tocombatt heset wof or ces, impar tingknowl edgei samust .Dr iv
ing
i
gnor anceawaywoul di nf act, hel
pi ncur taili
ngcor rupt iont oo.TheNGOs
shouldputi nt heiref fortsi npr ovi
dingaknowl edgebaset ot heneedy .A
 49

commi t
tedper
sonineachNGO,
wor
kingi
nrur
alar
eas,
shoul
dhel
pin
reachi
ngthegoal
quickl
y.
Themaj orl
acunainADRi sthatiti
snotbi nding.Onecouldst i
ll
appeal
agai
nsttheawar dordelaytheimplementationoftheawar d.“Just
ice
del
ay edisj
usti
cedenied.”TheveryessenceofADRi slostifiti
snot
i
mpl ementedinthetr
uespi r
it
.Theawar dshoul dbemadebi ndi
ngont he
part
iesandnoappeal tothecourtshouldbeal lowedunlessitisar
rived
atfr
adulentl
yorifi
tagainstpubli
cpoli
cy.Rul esofprocedurearebeing
for
mul at
edonacasebycasebasi sandt he
rul
esmadebyt hepar t
iesthemselves,wit
hmay be,someinterv
entionof
l
egalprofessional
s.Howev er,ageneralgui
deli
neandast i
pulated
for
matwoul dassi sti
nbringingcl
arit
ytotheformulati
onofanADR
award.Thiswoul dalsohelpincutt
ingdowni gnoranceandassisti
n
bett
ernegotiati
on.
Legaleducati
onandlawschoolsshoulfocusonthear
tsofconcil
i
ation
andnegot i
ati
onandnotmerelyonli
ti
gation.Lawy
ercl
i
entint
erest
s
shouldalsobemouldedtowardsaprimar yf
ocusonADRfail
i
ngwhi ch
therecourseshoul
dbetowardsli
ti
gati
on.

Concl
usi
on
Becausej usti
ceisnotexecut edspeedil
ymenper suadet hemselvesthat
therei snosucht hingasjust i
ce.Shari
ngthesamesent iment s,
Chief
Hust iceBhagwat isaidi
nhi sspeechonLawDay ,“Iam painedtoobserve
thatthej udici
alsystem i
nt hecountryisonthevergeofcol l
apse.Theseare
strongwor dsIam usingbuti ti
swi t
hconsider
ableangui shthatIsayso.
Ourj udicialsyst
em iscreekingundertheweightoferrors.”
Arrear scausedel ayanddelaymeansnegat i
ngtheaccessi bi
l
ityofjusti
cein
tr
uet ermst othecommonman.Count l
essroundstot heCourtsandt he
l
awy ers’chamber scanturnanypersoninsane.Eventhenloit
er i
ngand
wast ingtimei nthecorr
idorsofCourtshasbecomeawayofl i
f efora
maj orityofIndianswhodaybydayar ebecominglit
igous.Someoft he
mai nr easonsf ordel
ayinthedisposalofcasesar
eabnor mal increasein
 50

thenumberofcasesgoi ngt oCour tsandTr i

bunal s,mai nlyduet of aulty
l
egi slationenact edhur ri
edl y,ar bitraryadmi nistrativ eorder s, i
ncreased
consci ousnessofone’ srightsandgambl er’sinst i
ncti nal i
tigantduet o
mul tiplicit
yofappeal sandr ev isionspr ov i
dedi nlaw. ”Thedi sput ant swant
adeci sion,andt hattooasqui ckl yaspossi ble.Ast hepr obl em of
over bur denedCour tshasbeenf acedal lov erthewor l
d,newsol utionswer e
sear ched.Var i
ousTr ibunal swer et heanswert ot hesear ch.I nIndia, we
hav eanumberofTr ibunal s.Howev er,t
hef actoft hemat t
eri sthatev en
aftert hef ormat ionofsomanyTr ibunal s,theadmi nistr
ationofj usticehas
notbecomespeedy .Thus, i
tcanbesaf el ysai dt hatt hesol ut i
onl i
es
somewher eelse.Al lovert hegl obet her ecentt rendi stoshi ftfr
om
l
iti
gat iont owar dsAl ternativeDi sput eResol ut i
on.I tisav erypr actical
suggest i
on, whichifimpl ement ed, canr educet hewor kloadofCi vi
l Courts
byhal f.Thus, i
tbecomest heboundendut yoft heBart ot aket hisoner ous
taskofi mplement i
ngADRoni tselfsoast ogetmat tersset tledwi thout
goingi ntothel aby r
inthofj udi cial procedur esandt echnical i
ties.TheBar
shoul dbesuppor t
edbyt heBenchi nthisher culeant asksot hatnoonei s
deni edj usticebecauseofdel ay .
I
tisimportanther
etomenti
onthestat
ementmadebyJohnF.Kennedyi
n
thi
srespect:“
Letusnev
ernegot
iat
eoutoffearbutl
etusnev
erf
earto
negoti
ate.
”

“Ir
eal
izedthatt
hetruefunct
ionofalawyerwast ouniteparti
es.
..The
l
essonwassoi ndel
ibl
yburntint
omet hatalargepartofmyt imeduringt
he
twent
yy ear
sofmypr acti
ceasal awy
erwasoccupiedi nbringi
ngabout
pri
vat
ecompr omiseofhundredsofcases.Il
ostnothingtherebynoteven
money;cert
ainl
ynotmysoul”.--
-MahatmaGandhi
 51

Bi
bli
ogr
aphy

ht
tp:
//www.icadr
.org/news-speechcjhc.ht
ml
ht
tp:
//pi
b.ni
c.i
n/f
eature/feyr
2002/ f
jan2002/ f
140120021.
html
ht
tp:
//www1. wor
ldbank.org/publ
icsector/
legal/
adr.
htm
ht
tp:
//www1. wor
ldbank.org/publ
icsector/
legal/
ADR%20Wor kshop.
pdf
ht
tp:
//l
awcommi ssionofi
ndia.ni
c.i
n/alt
_dis.pdf