FIELD SURVEY REPORT

ON

EFFECTIVENESS OF LOK ADALATS IN INCREASING TIMELY DELIVERY

AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN INDIA

5.5 CLINIC-I (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION)

Submitted by

Aditya Sharma
UG17-11
Semester-V

Submitted to

Prof. Anirban Chakraborty

Associate Professor of Law

October-2019
MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR
 Introduction and research issue
The constitution of India provides for legal aid and access to justice to all under article 39A. In
furtherance of it, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provided for Lok Adalat forum as
an alternate dispute resolution mechanism. The idea behind such legislation was to provide
cheap, quick and effective remedy to people outside the normal proceedings. This would not
only lessen the burden of the courts but also ensure timely delivery of justice.

However, the aim is far from being achieved. People have not shown the interest and similarly
the judges and lawyers had to also avoid reliance on Lok Adalat. The optimum forum to reduce
the burden of the judiciary is not functioning up to the full potential.

In this backdrop, the students of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur are required
to survey the current scenario of Lok Adalat in India as part of the Clinical-I, Alternate Dispute
Resolution project.

This survey is the study of the effectiveness of Lok Adalat in justice delivery and access to
justice. The survey was done in the Jaipur district, and lawyers and judges in the vicinity were
considered. The purpose of the survey is to identify the problems and also the potential solution
in the view of seven survey participants(1retired judge, 2 district court judges, 3 advocates).

The report is thus empirical in nature and will try to seek insights into the mindset of the
relevant parties which are lawyers and judges. The research purpose is to identify main hurdles
in the success of the mechanism and also the possible solutions in the view of the surveyed
with focus on the ‘access to justice’ theme.
 Analysis of data
The data collected by the survey provided several insights into the ground realities of the
effectiveness of Lok Adalat. The recurring concern among the surveyed was the lack of
willingness among the concerned parties.

The senior-most person who was surveyed was a retired district court judge and had also spend
time as bar association president and was of the opinion that delays in the judiciary are due to
technical reasons and the remaining matters which he would have considered to refer to Lok
Adalat could also be solved just as easily by him and the parties would also cooperate. Thus,
there is lack of initiative on part of judges to refer cases under section 89, C.P.C.

The first question of the survey was about the primary understanding of the concept- Lok
Adalat. All the participants were aware of the concept. The opinion of advocates was that Lok
Adalat is a means to settle disputes in front of a learned bench regarding matters that are not
‘serious’ dispute and can be quickly be solved by the Lok Adalat. The judges had a better
understanding in the sense of the purpose and functioning of the institution. According to a
district judge, the primary purpose of the Lok Adalat was to try non- compoundable disputes
in front of a secondary bench which would try informal counselling and suggest settlement
which will reduce burden on the court as well as save time for the parties.

On the question of personal experience with the Lok Adalat, the surveyed had only
participated as observers and not as a judge or a party. On asking a district court advocate why
that was so to which he said you do not get much cases on regular basis rather, before national
Lok Adalat day, judges try to refer menial cases to Lok Adalat as a means to clear pending
cases. As a result, the process is left more of a formality than a regular undertaking. This is true
as the data for 2018 showed no cases settled by the Lok Adalat in many months at a time.

The surveyed people had varying opinions on the question of the type of cases preferred for
a Lok Adalat adjudication. The retired judge was of the opinion that Lok Adalat if were to
become an engrained part of the dispute resolution, it has to identify a select group of disputes
that would at all times possible be referred to the Lok Adalat and also to train the judges in that
particular set of disputes.

One district court advocate was also of a similar view that there is no particular need of Lok
Adalat as regular judges are generally confident of solving the matters. Lok Adalat references
are made just for the sake of making references and not due to the need of the judge. Thus,
judges too do not press the parties to opt for Lok Adalat even when the dispute is ideal for the
said mechanism.

However, there was indeed a pattern when asked about the successful cases by Lok Adalat.
According to a district advocate, the success is more in cases where both parties are reluctant
to pursue litigation and are willing to trade money for time. Judges are becoming more familiar
with these cases and with time, there will be a particular set of disputes for which the public
will consider Lok Adalat as ideal. These include retirement benefit cases, motor vehicle
insurance cases, neighbourhood disputes, and disputes among the traders, boundary line
dispute.

Another question for which there were irregularities in answers was ‘how much initiative does
the bar and the bench take for the Lok Adalats’. The people currently employed were of a
neutral and optimistic answer however the retired judge and another district advocate was
critical. I assume this discrepancy is due to the small sample size.

A member of bar association stated that judges make references under section 89, C.P.C. if in
his view it can be solved by ADR. However, with no cases referred to Lok Adalat for many of
the months1, it seems unlikely that suitable cases were not available. A district advocate stated
that Lok Adalat gets no proper support from either bar or the bench. The lawyers do not suggest
lok adalaat to their clients due to their habit and comfort in the normal process and judges
instead of suggesting cases to Lok Adalat will ask the advocate and not to the party to consider
settlement (mediation generally) and that too can be easily avoided if any party rejects. Retired
Judge’s view on this was that if the parties are strongly asked to consider ADR, the parties
think that judge is avoiding and ignoring his case. He said that, he knew that if he suggested
Lok Adalat, the advocates would instantly say ‘no’ and thus he would not suggest ADR again
and again in each hearing. According to the judge, this can be resolved by a mandatory
reference for some matters.

The primary question of importance was regarding the hurdles in the process. Both the judges
and advocates had the common consensus that there was a lack of proper infrastructure for
ADR. Although the advocates had faith in process of mediation, the Lok Adalat was not
something that they would confidently suggest to their clients. The primary reason they said
was the people do not get ‘proper’ justice in such situations and capable parties should opt for

1
District Legal Services Authority Reports, available at http://rlsa.gov.in/districtReports.html, (visited 1 oct,
2019)
litigation as far as possible. If party was not interested in litigation but seeking to settle, they
would suggest mediation to the party. No advocate surveyed had referred a client to Lok Adalat.

The retired judge was disagreeing with the idea of improper justice in Lok Adalat and said
that lawyers generally avoid Lok Adalat even if the party could be benefitted. “If the advocate
urges against Lok Adalat then how could the judge refer the case? It would then become
injustice” said the judge. One thing that was common in the survey participants was that the
people considered Lok Adalat as a ‘scheme’ or secondary measure rather than a primary
dispute redressal mechanism.

What is the future of Lok Adalat? The surveyed suggested that at the current pace the forum
would be just another failed scheme. The government needs to bring some changes so that
people themselves opt for Lok Adalat- after all the dispute is between parties and judiciary is
just to support the resolution.

The last question was on how to get more people to choose Lok Adalats. The two judges had
a similar opinion that first the infrastructure needs to be made available, full time dedicated
people need to work on them and are also very optimistic that Lok Adalat can be made a very
effective tool for delivering justice.

One district court advocate had a unique view that government needs to do more advertising
about disputes to take to Lok Adalat similar to ‘jaago grahak’ campaign. Advocates would not
suggest such mechanisms if the client is unaware and pushing for Lok Adalat then would
become a waste as the 2nd opinion lawyer would reject Lok Adalat. Thus, a mindset needs to
be created in the public regarding Lok Adalat which only the government can do.

Along with these opinions was a common theme that judges are not utilising section 89, C.P.C.
as per its full potential and if the judge is confident in the process, he can easily suggest it to
the parties.
 Findings and conclusion
A.D.R. has been prevalent in the Indian society in some or other form but the current initiative
has been in the early stage as for now. Among the surveyed people, the common position that
they held was that it will take time and it is common for a thing which is new for the society to
take time. I certainly agree with this position and thus regardless of the findings from the
sample, am optimistic about the medium-long term future.

As of now there are many problems and hurdles on the way to Lok Adalat as an accepted
dispute resolution mechanism, ranging from parties’ faith, the judges’ acceptance and the
foremost- willingness of people in solving disputes outside court.

The common problem in my view was that all relevant parties- judges, advocates, clients,
treated the forum as a secondary or ‘less than optimum’ mechanism. Furthermore, the public
and the advocates would be much comfortable in approaching Lok Adalat when it becomes the
ideal place to solve the given dispute. There are few recurring parties and most first time
litigants seek tried and trusted methods as advised by the advocate.

One the discretion of the judge under section 89, C.P.C, the judges would be more comfortable
if they had confidence of proper justice delivery and until then most judges would not like to
recommend it to party.

However, the future is not bleak for ADR, people just need time to get accustomed to the
process. The job of the authorities is to make the system updated, smooth and beneficial for the
applicant. In addition, the government can create campaigns to allocate a given set of disputes
to Lok Adalat for first instance so that it becomes implied in the minds of judges, advocates,
and parties.

The survey finally suggests that the Lok Adalat as a dispute resolution mechanism can be a
very powerful tool for providing quick, cheap and reliable means of justice for people and at
the same time allow judiciary to focus on less cases.
 Survey Questionnaire
Effectiveness of Lok Adalat in increasing timely delivery and access of justice in India.

1. What is your first impression on the concept of Lok Adalat?

2. What segment of population generally comes to Lok Adalat?

3. How many cases are generally solved by the forum?

4. Are there any particular type of cases that are solved effectively by this mechanism?

5. What type of cooperation does the bar and the bench provide to the initiative?

6. Your personal experience with Lok Adalat as a judge or advocate?

7. What cases would you refer to Lok Adalat?

8. What according to you are the primary hurdles in the resolution of cases?

9. Where do you see Lok Adalat in future?

10. How do you get more people to choose Lok Adalat for dispute resloution?