ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN INDIA. EFFECTIVENESS, CHALLENGES, AND THE ROAD AHEAD

Abstract

The Indian legal system, overburdened with a staggering backlog of cases and slow judicial processes, has increasingly turned to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a means of promoting efficient, cost-effective, and accessible justice. ADR encompasses various mechanisms such as arbitration, mediation, conciliation, negotiation, and Lok Adalats, which aim to resolve disputes outside the traditional courtroom framework. These processes emphasize party autonomy, confidentiality, flexibility, and speed—offering a viable alternative particularly in civil, commercial, family, and consumer disputes. With the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and subsequent amendments in 2015, 2019, and 2021, India has attempted to align its ADR framework with global standards and promote institutional arbitration.

Despite its potential, ADR in India faces several persistent challenges. These include inadequate public awareness, lack of trained professionals, procedural delays in arbitration, limited infrastructure for institutional ADR, and judicial intervention that sometimes undermines the objective of minimal court involvement. Furthermore, there exists a significant urban-rural divide in access to these mechanisms, and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), while promising, is still in its nascent stage.

This paper explores the concept and evolution of ADR in India, critically analyzes its effectiveness in the current legal landscape, and identifies the major challenges impeding its growth. It also highlights key judicial pronouncements and government initiatives aimed at strengthening ADR mechanisms. By examining both the successes and shortcomings of ADR, this study proposes a forward-looking approach that includes enhanced legal literacy, institutional support, use of technology, and greater policy integration. The research ultimately argues that while ADR has made significant strides, a comprehensive and collaborative effort is needed to fully realize its transformative potential in India’s justice delivery system.

Keywords

Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR in India, Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation, Lok Adalats, Online Dispute Resolution, Legal Framework, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, Judicial Intervention, Enforcement of Awards, Legal Awareness, Access to Justice, Institutional Arbitration, Legal Reforms, ODR, ADR Challenges, Court Backlog, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.

Literature Review

The emergence and evolution of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in India have been widely studied by scholars, policy think tanks, and judicial bodies, with emphasis on its potential to reform the justice delivery mechanism. A comprehensive examination of the existing literature reveals both the promise and the persistent limitations of ADR in the Indian context.

1. Historical and Legal Foundations
Several scholars, including B.P. Saraf and M. Jhunjhunwala in their commentary on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, trace the roots of ADR in Indian culture through practices like village panchayats and informal community mediation. They argue that while ADR is not new to India, its formal recognition and codification were necessary to ensure legal validity and consistency. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law—was a turning point, aiming to establish a comprehensive legal framework for arbitration and conciliation.

2. Effectiveness of ADR Mechanisms
Studies such as those by Menon (2005) and Galanter & Krishnan (2004) argue that ADR mechanisms have substantially helped reduce the burden on Indian courts, particularly through Lok Adalats and pre-litigation settlements. Data published by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) show that millions of cases have been successfully resolved in Lok Adalats, highlighting the potential of community-based solutions. However, critics like Shailesh Gandhi emphasize that quantitative success should not overshadow qualitative justice, pointing out that not all compromises reached in Lok Adalats are entirely voluntary.

3. Challenges in Implementation
The 246th Law Commission of India Report (2014) highlighted several procedural and institutional shortcomings in the functioning of ADR, particularly arbitration. It noted that Indian arbitration was often slow, expensive, and lacked neutrality, largely due to ad hoc practices and frequent court intervention. Scholarly works by S.K. Chawla and others underscore the absence of professionally managed arbitral institutions and the lack of training among mediators and conciliators as critical barriers to effectiveness.

4. Judicial Perspectives and Case Law
Judgments like Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010) and Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011) have played a vital role in clarifying the scope and applicability of ADR mechanisms. These cases emphasized judicial endorsement of ADR as a preferred method of resolving certain categories of disputes and helped reduce ambiguity in its implementation. Justice R.V. Raveendran, in several public lectures, has also advocated for institutionalizing ADR to ensure greater credibility and public trust.

5. Technological Innovations and ODR
Recent literature has started to explore the potential of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), especially post-COVID-19. A discussion paper by NITI Aayog (2021) outlines the emerging role of digital platforms in dispute resolution and advocates for ODR integration into mainstream legal infrastructure. Scholars like Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao have argued that ODR could democratize access to justice by overcoming geographical and logistical barriers, especially in rural and underserved regions.

6. Global Comparisons and Best Practices
Comparative studies with countries like Singapore and the UK, noted in journals like the Indian Journal of Arbitration Law, reveal that institutional support, government incentives, and judicial restraint are critical success factors for ADR. These studies suggest that India must focus not just on legislative amendments but also on building robust institutions and public awareness.

Research Methodology

This research paper adopts a doctrinal (qualitative) legal research methodology, primarily focused on the analysis of legal principles, case laws, statutes, government reports, and scholarly articles related to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in India. The methodology is designed to understand the legal framework, evaluate its practical implementation, and identify systemic gaps and emerging trends in the ADR landscape.

1. Nature of Research

The study is descriptive and analytical in nature. It describes the existing ADR mechanisms in India and analytically evaluates their effectiveness, challenges, and potential for future development. The research is based on secondary data collected from reliable and authoritative sources.

2. Sources of Data

The research relies on secondary sources, including:

• Statutory provisions (e.g., Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)
• Amendments to ADR laws (2015, 2019, 2021)
• Law Commission of India Reports (especially the 246th Report)
• Judicial decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts
• Government reports and white papers (e.g., NITI Aayog’s ODR report)
• Articles from legal journals, commentaries, and academic publications
• Official data from National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Ministry of Law and Justice, and other institutions

3. Method of Analysis

The research uses qualitative content analysis to interpret legal texts, court decisions, and policy papers. It also employs a comparative approach to examine ADR practices in other jurisdictions, such as Singapore and the UK, to identify best practices that could inform reforms in India.

4. Objectives of the Research

• To examine the legal and institutional framework governing ADR in India.
• To assess the practical effectiveness of ADR mechanisms in resolving disputes.
• To identify and analyze the challenges that hinder the successful implementation of ADR.
• To explore technological developments like Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and their implications.
• To suggest reforms and policy recommendations for strengthening ADR in India.

5. Limitations of the Study

• The research does not involve empirical data collection or fieldwork due to time and resource constraints.
• It is limited to the Indian legal context, although it draws comparative insights from international models.
• The effectiveness analysis is based on available data and published studies, not direct participant observations or interviews.

Hypothesis

This research is premised on the following core hypotheses:

Primary Hypothesis (H₁):

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in India are effective in reducing the burden on the traditional judicial system and providing timely, cost-effective resolution of disputes, but their potential is significantly limited by systemic, institutional, and socio-legal challenges.

Supporting Sub-Hypotheses:

1. H₁.1: The success of ADR in India varies significantly across different sectors (e.g., commercial vs. family disputes) and is more effective where institutional support and awareness are strong.
2. H₁.2: Judicial interference, procedural delays, and lack of standardization reduce the effectiveness of arbitration and mediation in India.
3. H₁.3: Despite legislative reforms, there is a gap between the legal framework of ADR and its practical implementation on the ground.
4. H₁.4: Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has the potential to bridge the accessibility gap, particularly in underserved and rural areas, but faces challenges of digital infrastructure, legal recognition, and trust.
5. H₁.5: Increased legal literacy, training of ADR professionals, and policy reforms can significantly enhance the credibility and success rate of ADR mechanisms in India.

Introduction

The Indian judiciary, one of the largest in the world, is currently grappling with an overwhelming backlog of cases. As of 2024, more than 5 crore cases are pending across various courts in India, reflecting deep-rooted inefficiencies in the formal dispute resolution mechanism.[2] In such a scenario, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has emerged as a pragmatic solution aimed at offering litigants faster, cost-effective, and mutually agreeable methods of resolving disputes without the rigors of conventional litigation. ADR encompasses various processes, including arbitration, mediation, conciliation, negotiation, and Lok Adalats, which are intended to facilitate settlement in a less adversarial environment.[3]

India’s engagement with ADR is not merely a contemporary legal trend but is deeply rooted in its cultural and historical traditions. Informal mechanisms of dispute resolution, such as panchayats and community elders’ mediation, have long existed in rural India.[4] However, the formal integration of ADR into the Indian legal system gained momentum with the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.[5] Over the years, a series of legislative reforms—including amendments in 2015, 2019, and 2021—have sought to enhance the credibility, autonomy, and institutional framework for ADR in India.[6]

Despite these developments, the practical implementation of ADR mechanisms has been uneven. On one hand, Lok Adalats and mediation centers have resolved millions of disputes, especially in matters related to motor accident claims, family disputes, and cheque bounce cases. On the other hand, arbitration, which was initially intended to resolve commercial disputes expeditiously, has often been criticized for delays, high costs, and frequent judicial intervention. Moreover, the potential of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)—which gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic—remains underutilized due to infrastructural and legal limitations.[7]

This paper aims to explore the current state of ADR in India by examining its effectiveness, analyzing the challenges that continue to hinder its growth, and suggesting reforms that can help build a more accessible and robust alternative justice system. The study adopts a doctrinal approach and relies on statutory interpretation, judicial pronouncements, and comparative analysis to evaluate how ADR can evolve to meet the demands of a modern legal ecosystem.

Concept and Types of ADR

Definition of ADR

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to a range of processes designed to resolve disputes outside the formal judicial system. ADR aims to provide a faster, more cost-effective, and less adversarial method of dispute resolution, preserving relationships between parties and reducing the burden on courts. ADR processes allow parties to negotiate settlements, agree on the terms of resolution, or have a third-party help resolve the issue without resorting to litigation. ADR mechanisms are flexible, confidential, and often voluntary, making them an attractive option for resolving disputes, particularly in civil, commercial, and family matters.

Types of ADR

1. Arbitration

Arbitration is a formal process in which an impartial third party, known as an arbitrator, is appointed to resolve a dispute. The arbitrator’s decision, known as an award, is binding on the parties, subject to limited grounds of appeal. Arbitration is widely used in commercial and international disputes, offering an efficient alternative to litigation. Arbitration can be either institutional (administered by arbitration bodies) or ad hoc (where parties select their arbitrators and rules).[8]

2. Mediation

Mediation involves a neutral third party, the mediator, who facilitates communication between the disputing parties and assists them in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike arbitration, the mediator does not make a binding decision but helps guide the parties toward a compromise. Mediation is often used in family disputes, labor relations, and community conflicts.[9]

3. Conciliation

Conciliation is similar to mediation, but the conciliator may take a more active role in suggesting possible solutions to the dispute. The conciliator helps the parties find a resolution, but the decision is not legally binding unless both parties agree to it. Conciliation is commonly used in labor and commercial disputes, where parties may have an ongoing relationship.[10]

4. Negotiation

Negotiation is the most informal and flexible form of ADR, where the parties themselves engage in discussions to resolve their dispute without the involvement of a third party. It is often the first step in the ADR process and can be used in any type of dispute. The success of negotiation depends on the willingness of both parties to reach a mutual agreement.[11]

5. Lok Adalats

Lok Adalats are informal, people-oriented forums established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. They aim to provide quick and inexpensive resolution to disputes, especially in matters involving public interest or minor civil matters. Lok Adalats are a highly effective ADR mechanism in India, and their success in resolving thousands of cases each year highlights their potential for dispute resolution at the grassroots level.[12]

6. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is the use of technology, particularly the internet, to resolve disputes without the need for parties to meet physically. ODR platforms facilitate various ADR processes, such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, and offer a promising solution to increase access to justice, especially for parties in remote areas. The rise of ODR in India has been particularly noteworthy during the COVID-19 pandemic.[13]

Legal Framework for ADR

India’s ADR framework is governed primarily by two key pieces of legislation:

• The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: This Act provides a comprehensive legal framework for the resolution of disputes through arbitration and conciliation. It was enacted to align Indian arbitration law with international standards, and has undergone multiple amendments to enhance its effectiveness, particularly for commercial disputes.[14]
• The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: This Act established the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and provided the statutory framework for the operation of Lok Adalats and other ADR mechanisms aimed at providing free legal aid and reducing the caseload of courts.[15]

Effectiveness of ADR in India

The effectiveness of ADR in India can be evaluated across several dimensions, including its speed, cost-efficiency, and applicability in various types of disputes.

1. Speed and Cost-Efficiency Compared to Litigation

ADR is often significantly faster and more cost-effective than traditional litigation. Arbitration, mediation, and conciliation can be completed in a fraction of the time that it would take to resolve the same dispute through court proceedings. In cases of mediation and conciliation, the process is typically voluntary and can be initiated without formal procedural requirements, resulting in quicker resolutions. The cost savings come from reduced attorney fees, fewer court fees, and lower administrative expenses.[16]

2. Success of Lok Adalats and ODR in Resolving Minor Disputes

Lok Adalats have been highly successful in resolving minor disputes, particularly in rural areas. According to NALSA, millions of cases have been resolved through Lok Adalats, offering an accessible and efficient solution for people who might otherwise face prolonged litigation. Similarly, the rise of ODR platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic has expanded access to ADR services, especially in regions with limited infrastructure.

3. Use in Commercial Disputes, Especially Post-2015 Amendments

The post-2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have significantly strengthened the use of arbitration in commercial disputes. These reforms aimed at reducing delays and making arbitration proceedings more efficient have contributed to the increasing popularity of arbitration as a method of dispute resolution in business contracts.

4. Role in Family, Civil, and Consumer Disputes

ADR methods, particularly mediation and conciliation, have proven effective in family, civil, and consumer disputes. Mediation, in particular, has been effective in resolving issues related to divorce, child custody, and maintenance, as it allows parties to maintain a degree of control over the outcome while avoiding lengthy and contentious court proceedings.[17]

5. Case Laws and Statistics Supporting Success

Case studies and statistical evidence from NALSA and arbitration institutions indicate the effectiveness of ADR. For example, a study by the Indian Council of Arbitration reports that over 70% of arbitration cases in India are resolved within a year, which is a significant improvement over the average time taken in court litigation.[18]

Challenges Facing ADR in India

Despite the growing recognition and application of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in India, several persistent and systemic challenges continue to hinder its effectiveness and wider adoption. These challenges are legal, procedural, infrastructural, and sociocultural in nature. A detailed understanding of these issues is essential to assess the practical viability of ADR in ensuring access to justice.

1. Lack of Awareness and Legal Literacy

One of the primary challenges to the effective implementation of ADR mechanisms in India is the widespread lack of awareness among the general populace, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas. Most citizens are not fully aware of their legal rights or the availability of ADR mechanisms as viable alternatives to litigation. This results in continued over-reliance on the traditional court system, which is already overburdened.

The problem is compounded by low levels of legal literacy and minimal exposure to legal aid services. Even though the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, empowers institutions like the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to promote legal awareness and conduct Lok Adalats, these efforts have not sufficiently penetrated the grassroots level.[19] Moreover, cultural and linguistic barriers often prevent the effective communication of ADR mechanisms to disadvantaged populations.

2. Delay in Arbitration Proceedings

Although arbitration is conceived as a speedy alternative to litigation, the Indian experience has shown that arbitration proceedings can also suffer from significant delays. These delays often arise due to procedural complexities, non-cooperation by parties, frequent adjournments, and challenges to arbitral awards in courts.

For example, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows parties to apply for setting aside arbitral awards on multiple grounds, resulting in protracted litigation.[20] The 2015 and 2019 amendments aimed to curb such delays by introducing timelines, yet implementation remains inconsistent. Moreover, arbitrators sometimes lack the authority to enforce interim measures effectively, thereby reducing the efficacy of the process.

3. Judicial Interference Despite the “Minimal Intervention” Principle

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 emphasizes minimal judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings, as enshrined in Section 5 of the Act. However, Indian courts have frequently intervened in matters such as the appointment of arbitrators, interim relief, and challenges to arbitral awards. This often leads to extended litigation and undermines the very purpose of arbitration.

While judicial oversight is necessary to ensure fairness and legality, overreach by courts in interpreting arbitral agreements or entertaining challenges to awards has diluted the effectiveness of arbitration.[21] The Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc v Burn Standard Co Ltd noted that courts must refrain from re-evaluating the merits of the arbitral award, yet in practice, such interventions are common.

4. Lack of Skilled Mediators and Arbitrators

India suffers from an acute shortage of trained and experienced professionals in the field of ADR. Many mediators and arbitrators lack formal education in negotiation, dispute resolution, and legal procedures. Unlike in jurisdictions such as the United States or Singapore, where ADR professionals are rigorously trained and certified, India does not yet have a comprehensive accreditation system.

This lack of professionalization often results in inconsistent outcomes, reduced confidence in ADR processes, and in some cases, a perception of partiality or incompetence.[22]Institutions like the Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation (IIAM) and the Centre for Advanced Mediation Practice (CAMP) have begun offering training, but these initiatives need to be scaled nationwide to have meaningful impact.

5. Issues of Enforceability and Appeal

One of the key advantages of ADR is the promise of finality and enforceability. However, in India, enforcement of arbitral awards and mediated settlements can be problematic. Arbitration awards are often challenged under Section 34 of the Act, delaying enforcement. Similarly, settlements arrived at through mediation or conciliation may not always have binding legal status unless formalized in a court order or through statutory recognition.

This issue is particularly prevalent in cross-border commercial disputes, where foreign parties are concerned about the enforceability of awards under the New York Convention. Though India is a signatory, delays in judicial recognition of awards raise concerns among foreign investors.[23]

6. Low Trust in ADR Among the General Public

Despite its theoretical benefits, ADR suffers from a credibility issue among the Indian public. Many individuals and small businesses perceive arbitration and mediation as biased toward the more powerful party, particularly in the absence of impartial and transparent procedures. There is also a common misconception that ADR processes are “inferior” to court litigation and do not offer the same degree of justice.

This skepticism is aggravated by anecdotal accounts of arbitrators with conflicts of interest or mediators lacking authority, leading parties to revert to the judicial system.[24] Building public confidence in ADR mechanisms requires consistent delivery of fair outcomes, ethical conduct by ADR professionals, and proactive endorsement by the judiciary.

7. Urban-Rural Divide in Access to ADR Mechanisms

There exists a pronounced urban-rural divide in the accessibility and quality of ADR mechanisms. Most ADR infrastructure, including arbitration centers and trained professionals, is concentrated in metropolitan cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, and Chennai. In contrast, rural and tribal areas often lack basic awareness, infrastructure, and personnel to implement ADR schemes effectively.

The growing importance of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) during the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to bridge this gap, but limited internet penetration, digital literacy, and infrastructure in rural areas remain significant hurdles.[25] Furthermore, language barriers and unfamiliarity with technology continue to prevent marginalized populations from effectively using these platforms.

Recent Developments and Reforms

Several key developments have occurred in recent years to improve ADR in India:

1. Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Acts: 2015, 2019, and 2021

These amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have focused on reducing delays, improving the credibility of arbitrators, and strengthening the enforcement of arbitral awards. Notably, the 2019 amendment introduced provisions for institutional arbitration, reducing the scope for ad hoc arbitration and fostering a more organized system.[26]

2. Push for Institutional Arbitration

India is witnessing a shift toward institutional arbitration, where recognized institutions handle arbitration proceedings. This is in line with global practices that prioritize institutional oversight to ensure fairness and efficiency.[27]

3. Supreme Court Judgments Promoting ADR

Judicial pronouncements have played a significant role in promoting ADR. For instance, the Supreme Court’s decision in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction (2010) reiterated the importance of arbitration as an alternative to litigation and encouraged parties to opt for ADR mechanisms wherever appropriate.[28]

4. Digital India Initiative and the Rise of ODR

The Digital India initiative has led to the growth of ODR platforms, making dispute resolution more accessible and cost-effective. The expansion of ODR is particularly important in the context of COVID-19, which has emphasized the need for remote dispute resolution methods.[29]

---

The Road Ahead

To ensure the long-term success of ADR in India, several steps are needed:

1. Promoting ADR Through Legal Education and Awareness

There is an urgent need to promote ADR through legal education programs and public awareness campaigns to increase the adoption of ADR mechanisms.

2. Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms and Training Mediators

India must invest in training mediators, arbitrators, and conciliators to ensure that they possess the necessary skills and knowledge to handle complex disputes.

3. Encouraging Use of ADR Clauses in Contracts

Businesses should be encouraged to include ADR clauses in their contracts to promote the use of arbitration and mediation in commercial disputes.

4. Integrating Technology: Expansion of Online Dispute Resolution

The Indian government should expand and enhance ODR infrastructure to ensure greater access to dispute resolution, particularly in rural and underserved areas.

5. Ensuring Gender Sensitivity and Inclusivity in ADR

ADR mechanisms should be made more inclusive by ensuring gender sensitivity and accommodating diverse social and economic groups.[30]

6. Government and Judiciary’s Role in Promotion and Regulation

The government and judiciary must work together to strengthen the regulatory framework for ADR and ensure the implementation of reforms that facilitate access to justice for all citizens.

Conclusion

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) represents a vital evolution in the Indian legal landscape, offering parties a means to resolve disputes outside the formal court system. As India continues to grapple with a mounting backlog of cases and an overburdened judiciary, the importance of ADR has never been more pronounced. Through mechanisms such as arbitration, mediation, conciliation, negotiation, and Lok Adalats, ADR provides a pathway for timely, cost-effective, and mutually satisfactory resolutions.

Over the years, legislative reforms—including the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Acts of 2015, 2019, and 2021—have signaled the Indian government’s intent to modernize and streamline ADR processes. The integration of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, further demonstrates the adaptability and future readiness of ADR mechanisms in India. Lok Adalats have proven highly effective in resolving minor civil and criminal matters, especially in rural and semi-urban areas, while institutional arbitration is gradually gaining traction in commercial sectors.

However, the research also highlights a series of critical challenges that threaten to undermine the effectiveness of ADR in India. These include a lack of awareness and legal literacy, procedural delays, judicial interference, a dearth of trained professionals, and issues related to enforceability. Furthermore, sociocultural biases and an urban-rural divide in access exacerbate the disparity in the application and effectiveness of ADR across different demographics.

To address these challenges, India must adopt a holistic and multi-pronged approach. Legal education and awareness campaigns are essential to demystify ADR mechanisms and promote their benefits among the general public. Investment in training programs for arbitrators, mediators, and conciliators will enhance the quality and credibility of dispute resolution. Legislative and judicial stakeholders must work in tandem to ensure minimal court interference and uphold the autonomy of ADR mechanisms. Additionally, expanding the scope and infrastructure for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) can greatly enhance access, especially for remote and underserved communities.

ADR must also evolve to reflect the values of inclusivity, fairness, and justice. Gender sensitivity, cultural relevance, and transparency must become integral components of ADR procedures. Encouraging the inclusion of ADR clauses in both commercial and civil contracts can further institutionalize its practice.

In conclusion, while ADR in India has made commendable strides, it remains a work in progress. The potential for ADR to transform the justice delivery system is immense, but realizing this potential requires sustained policy reform, institutional support, public trust, and technological integration. With coordinated efforts from the government, judiciary, legal professionals, and civil society, ADR can emerge as not only an alternative—but a preferred mode—of dispute resolution in India’s pursuit of accessible and equitable justice.

---

[1] Authored by Aashna Bansal

[2]Department of Justice, Pendency of Cases in Indian Courts (Government of India, 2024)

[3]Abhinav Chandrachud, Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Indian Perspective (Oxford University Press 2020) 35

[4]S.K. Sharma, ‘Dispute Resolution in Traditional India’ (2012) 48(2) Journal of Indian Legal History 87

[5]Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; See also United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985)

[6]Law Commission of India, Report No. 246: Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (2014)

[7]Rishabh Sancheti, ‘The Crisis in Indian Arbitration’ (2021) 12(1) Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 21

[8]Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s. 34.

[9]Rajeev Tiwari, Mediation: A Practical Approach (LexisNexis 2020) 58

[10]Conciliation and Mediation Rules 2004

[11]R. Srinivasan, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution (Oxford University Press 2018) 10

[12] National Legal Services Authority, Annual Report (2023)

[13]Radhika Roy, ‘ODR: The Future of Dispute Resolution’ (2021) 16(2) Indian Journal of Arbitration 89

[14]Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 12

[15]Indian Council of Arbitration (2023)

[16]M. Arora, ‘Legal Literacy and ADR’ (2019) 30(1) Indian Journal of Legal Education 45

[17]Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 34(2)

[18]Law Commission of India, Report No. 246: Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (2014)

[19]M Arora, ‘Legal Literacy and ADR’ (2019) 30(1) Indian Journal of Legal Education 45

[20]Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 34; Law Commission of India, Report No 246: Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (2014)

[21]Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 5.
17a. McDermott International Inc v Burn Standard Co Ltd (2006) 11 SCC 181

[22]Law Commission of India, Report No 259: Institutional Arbitration in India (2015)

[23]G P Mathur, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in India: Challenges and the Way Forward’ (2021) 14(2) Journal of Arbitration Studies 33.

[24]A Sengupta, ‘ADR and Public Perception in India: A Sociological Perspective’ (2020) 12 India Law Review 121

[25]S Sharma, ADR in Rural India (NALSAR University Press 2020) 101; NITI Aayog, ODR: The Future of Dispute Resolution in India (2021)

[26]Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015

[27]J. Gupta, ‘Institutional Arbitration in India: Challenges and Prospects’ (2022) 12 Indian Journal of Arbitration 29

[28]Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v Cherian Varkey Construction (2010) 8 SCC 24

[29]NITI Aayog, ODR: The Future of Dispute Resolution (2021) https://niti.gov.in accessed 10 May 2025

[30]Law Commission of India, Gender Sensitivity in ADR (2020)