Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to different modes of resolving legal disputes, in addition to ordinary courts. These modes are ensured by legal provisions such as Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The various modes of Alternate Dispute Redressal mechanisms in India are:

• Arbitration: A third party reviews the evidence of the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding on both sides and enforceable with limited rights of review and appeal. It may be mandatory or voluntary as per the contract.
• Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties in amicably resolving their disputes using specified communication and negotiation techniques. The mediator only acts as a facilitator to reach a negotiated settlement and he makes no decisions and does not impose his view of what a fair settlement should be.
• Conciliation: A voluntary process whereby the parties to a dispute use a conciliator, who meets with the parties separately in order to resolve their differences by lowering tensions, improving communications, exploring potential solutions and bring about a negotiated settlement.
• Lok Adalat: They are constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is a form of a public conciliation, presided over by 2 or 3 people who are judges or advocates with experience. They have been given powers of a civil court up to a limited extent.
• Nayaya Panchayats: These village courts are guided by local traditions, culture and behavioural patterns of the village community and thus instill confidence in the administration of justice.Pecuniary claims of upto Rs. 200 may be taken. Its criminal jurisdiction extends to minor cases of Negligence, trespass, nuisance etc. Emphasis is laid on conciliation.

Benefits of ADR :

• Provides easy, fast and inexpensive justice.
• Free from technicalities as in the case of conducting cases in law Courts.

Issues associated with ADR :

• No guarantee towards final resolution unlike the case in traditional judiciary.
• Lack of professional training amongst conciliators and arbitrators, coupled with ignorance amongst the general public.
• Concentrated mainly around big cities thereby limiting its effectiveness.
• Lack of institutional infrastructure in India for the promotion of ADR.
• Some forms of ADR are as costly or even more than the adversarial system of justice.
• Situations where amicable settlement through ADR is not favoured acts as a natural limitation.

Suggestions to increase their effectiveness are:

• There is need to enact a comprehensive legislation governing all facets of ADR to ensure procedural integrity, timely redressal and satisfaction of the parties.
• A code of conduct or code of ethics should be developed for arbitrators, mediators or conciliators for their non-biased performance.
• Expanding the role of ADRs in pre-litigation stages as at present, most of them come into picture once the parties enter into litigation.
• Focus on changing peoples‘ attitudes towards dispute resolution from adversarial to win-win.
• Build trust as an integral component of broader community relations activities.
• Promote legal education in this field.
• Professionalising ADR keeping in mind the changing socio-economic setup of India.