Why Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Is Crucial for India’s Courts?

₹4.57 Crore Pending Cases: ADR as the Imperative India's Judiciary Cannot Ignore

On October 6, 2025, the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) reported a staggering 4,57,96,239 cases pending across India's courts — a 14% rise compared to its 2023 figures. This includes nearly 81,768 cases in the Supreme Court and over 62.9 lakh cases clogging the High Courts. While pendency is chronic, the worsening scale highlights systemic inefficiencies and the limits of conventional justice delivery. The debate now pivots from tinkering with courtroom processes to embracing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms as a mainstream pillar of justice delivery.

An Inflection Point in India's Judicial Crisis

What breaks the pattern here is neither the persistence of the backlog nor the litany of judicial vacancies; these are decades-old stories. The crucial shift is the growing legal and infrastructural recognition of ADR as an indispensable ally to the courts:

• The Mediation Act, 2023 mandates pre-litigation mediation for civil and commercial disputes— a legislative acknowledgement of ADR’s untapped potential.
• The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (amended in 2021) introduces time-bound arbitration resolutions capped at 180 days, addressing concerns about prolonged case timelines.
• Lok Adalats under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) have evolved with innovations like Permanent Lok Adalats (Section 22-B) and e-Lok Adalats, attempting to digitize grassroots dispute resolution mechanisms.

These measures together signal a pivot from ADR as a mere supplemental tool to ADR as a co-governor of justice delivery. However, legislation alone cannot resolve decades of entrenched inefficiencies.

Structural Expansions: Institutional Mechanics of ADR

The institutional machinery behind ADR in India is anchored by a deep constitutional and legal framework:

Article 39A of the Constitution, advocating equal justice and free legal aid, embodies the normative vision that ADR seeks to fulfil. On the statutory front, Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides formal recognition to arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and judicial settlements. Further, the Legal Services Authorities Act (1987) institutionalizes Lok Adalats, guaranteeing low-cost dispute resolution for rural and economically vulnerable populations.

The Indian Arbitration Council, established under amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, represents the institutional anchor for arbitration processes. Meanwhile, the Mediation Act, 2023 empowers parties to exit from mediation after two sessions if dissatisfied, ensuring procedural safeguards against misuse or coercion. Critics have questioned whether infrastructure—especially in Gram Nyayalayas—is adequate to handle expanded ADR adoption, but it remains a platform for scalability moving forward.

What the Pendency Numbers Obscure

Despite the rhetoric extolling ADR, the data reveals a disconcerting truth about judicial capacity and outcomes:

First, ADR cannot by itself resolve systemic disparity. The India Justice Report 2025 underscores severe gaps in workforce allocation: 33% vacancy rates in High Courts and 21% vacancy in District Courts, with states like Uttar Pradesh and Kerala burdening individual judges with 4,000 cases annually. Without sufficient human resources, ADR mechanisms will find themselves overrun rather than augmenting the system.

Second, ADR must address costs beyond time. Commercial arbitration, for instance, is riddled with high fees for both arbitrators and legal representation — sometimes higher than trial costs in cases involving small businesses. India’s Ease of Doing Business score in contract enforcement remains stagnant, despite ADR being touted as a solution to bolster investor confidence.

Third, implementation varies dramatically across states. A Lok Adalat in Gujarat or Rajasthan demonstrates efficiency, often resolving disputes amicably within days, but Gram Nyayalayas in states like Madhya Pradesh report prolonged delays due to lack of trained mediators, financial resources, and basic infrastructure.

Uncomfortable Questions About ADR

The shift to ADR as a cornerstone of justice delivery sparks questions that legislators have yet to answer satisfactorily:

Neutrality and Accountability: Can ADR mechanisms truly claim neutrality when arbitrators are often appointed by corporate entities in commercial disputes? What safeguards exist against regulatory capture?

Forced Mediation: The provision under the Mediation Act mandating pre-litigation mediation invited critique for compelling disputants toward resolution without robust accountability. Without standardized metrics for mediator evaluation, there is little assurance of outcome quality.

Community-Level Trust Deficit: Despite Lok Adalat’s participatory ethos, rural populations often view ADR mechanisms with skepticism. The absence of appeals on Lok Adalat decisions feeds narratives of arbitrariness.

These blind spots in ADR adoption reveal the gap between official claims and execution realities, demanding calibrated attention to state-level disparities rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Lessons from Singapore: ADR in Contract Enforcement

India’s ADR push can find inspiration from Singapore’s globally lauded Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). SIAC processed 522 cases in 2024, with 92% being international disputes. Case resolution times averaged 8 months, underscoring procedural efficiency, stringent arbitrator audits, and confidentiality protocols. India, attempting to emulate SIAC through legislation like the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, still lacks comparable infrastructure and trust among foreign investors. The lesson here is simple: legal reforms must synchronize with institutional capacity.

Exam Questions

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions