Lok Adalats in India: A Comprehensive Analysis of their Role inFacilitating Speedy Justice

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to perform a thorough examination of India’s Lok Adalats, with an emphasis on how they contribute to the prompt administration of justice. Along with the legal frameworks of Lok Adalats in India, the research mainly focusses on its organisational structure, jurisdiction, and historical development. The study goes into detail to examine how India’s Lok Adalats operate and their distinct effects on the massive backlog of cases in the Indian judiciary. This research sincerely aims to evaluate the procedural elements and methods used by the Lok Adalats in settling conflicts, highlighting their effectiveness in obtaining prompt justice. [2]

The goal of the study is to determine how well India’s Lok Adalats work as an alternative dispute resolution process and how much they contribute to the slowdown of cases in the Indian legal system. An inventive forum and a much-needed supplement to international jurisprudence for conflict settlement is Lok Adalat. They serve as a remedy for the millions of cases that clog court dockets and represent an autonomous, voluntary, disputant-friendly, effective, justice-oriented, and non-technical platform for the settlement of conflicts.

It will also examine the range of cases that the Lok Adalats have handled successfully in the past and pinpoint any upcoming obstacles or stumbling blocks to their effective operation. This report will also investigate how the stakeholders and the general public see Lok Adalats and their activities. The Lok Adalat has evolved into a mechanism for exaggerating the legal crisis; in addition to serving as physical reminders of the formal justice system’s shortcomings, their open acceptance of these failures and complacencies deters any meaningful reform of the state judicial system.

Keywords: Court backlog, judicial efficiency, legal reforms, accelerated justice, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

INTRODUCTION

[3]The significant case backlog and pending cases are among the main issues facing the Indian judiciary. Since India is the second most populous country in the world, thousands of conflicts arise every day, which is one of the primary causes of the Indian judiciary’s growing workload. The backlog of pending cases hinder the legal system, causing matters to drag on for years before being piled up for later. The legal maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” enters the picture at this point, leading to the introduction of the notion of Alternate Dispute Resolution, or “ADR.” ADR focusses on giving citizens options when they want to pursue justice.  Other forms of mediation, conciliation, Lok Adalat, and arbitration are covered in this section.

With the goal of achieving swift justice, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) aims to offer a more personalised and adaptable method of restitution. “People’s Court” is what the phrase “Lok Adalat” means. The use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to settle conflicts has its roots in Indian history, when Panchayats, which were composed of a few village elder men, used to handle all issues in accordance with the general guidelines for a peaceful resolution.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, STRUCTURE, & FUNCTIONS OF LOK ADALAT

[4]The idea that disagreements might be resolved amongst themselves without going to court was prevalent in ancient society. Conflicts in villages were traditionally referred to as Panchayats, which were tasked with resolving internal issues within their individual communities. In order to help the harmed parties reach a compromise and resolve their differences amicably, the Panchayat (also called Panch) members used to employ the concepts of negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.

Therefore, even at the local level, the ADR process has been used in India since ancient times. Lok Adalat is one of the ADR mechanisms, it is a forum where disputes or cases pending in the court of law or at the pre-litigation stage are settled and compromised amicably. Lok Adalats have been given statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Under the said Act, the award (decision) made by the Lok Adalats is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and is final and binding on all parties, and no appeal against such an award lies before any court of law. The parties may exercise their right to litigate by going to the court of appropriate jurisdiction and filing a case by following the necessary procedures if they are unhappy with the Lok Adalat’s award, even though there is no provision for an appeal against such an award. When a matter is filed in a Lok Adalat, no court fee is required. The court money that was initially paid in the court on the complaint or petition is also returned to the parties if an issue that is still pending in the legal system is referred to the Lok Adalat and is later resolved.

Members of the Lok Adalats are the individuals who make decisions in these bodies, as they are statutory conciliators and have no judicial authority, they can only influence the parties to reach a settlement outside of the courtroom in the Lok Adalat. They are not allowed to directly or indirectly pressure any party to compromise or settle cases or matters. Instead of making a decision on its own initiative, the Lok Adalat will base its decision on the parties’ agreement or compromise. The members are expected to support the parties in their efforts to resolve their disagreement amicably, impartially and independently.[5]

To try to get through the backlog of cases, Lok Adalats were established all over the nation. Parties are encouraged by Lok Adalat to resolve disputes outside of the official judicial system. These courts have resolved millions of disputes over the past 20 years. The forty-second amendment to the Constitution permitted Lok Adalat. To guarantee that no Indian citizen is denied justice because of financial or other limitations, Article 39-A was added to the Constitution in 1976. Additionally, the state is required under Articles 14 and 22(1) to guarantee equality before the law and a judicial system that upholds justice founded on equal opportunity for all. To provide legal aid programs across the nation with a statutory foundation on a consistent framework, the Legal Services Authorities Act was passed in 1987.[6] On November 9, 1995, however, this Act was eventually put into effect. In accordance with the Legal Services Authorities Act, the National Legal Services Authority (henceforth referred to as “NALSA”) was established on December 5, 1995. NALSA’s job is to oversee, administer, and assess the legal aid program. Lok Adalat is conducted by NALSA in collaboration with other legal services institutions. The Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987, Section 19, grants Lok Adalat statutory standing. In India today, the People’s Court, also known as the Lok Adalat, is a powerful institution. It is an alternative dispute resolution process that resolves court-pending cases or disputes in a single day. Most nations have promoted this type of alternative conflict resolution system as a way to escape the maze of litigation, courts, and lawyer chambers. [7]

It is an ancient adjudicating system that was used in ancient India, according to the Supreme Court, and its legitimacy has not been revoked even in the present era. It is a part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system that provides the general public with quick, inexpensive, and informal justice. In 1982, Gujarat hosted the first Lok Adalat camp, which operated as a conciliatory and voluntary organisation with no legal basis for its rulings. As its popularity grew over time, the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 granted it legislative status. The provisions pertaining to the Lok Adalat’s structure and operations are made by the Act. A Lok Adalat has the authority to decide on any case that is ongoing in court or any topic that is within the purview of a court but is not brought before it, as well as to reach a compromise or settlement between the disputing parties. According to the Code of Civil Procedure (1908), a Civil Court has certain extraordinary powers that the Lok Adalat possesses. Lok Adalat will have the necessary authority to outline its process for resolving any dispute that comes before it. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), every Lok Adalat will be considered a civil court, and all actions before it will be considered judicial proceedings under the Indian Penal Code. An award from a Lok Adalat will be considered an order from any other court or a judgement from a civil court. Every decision rendered by a Lok Adalat is final and enforceable against all disputing parties. No appeal against the Lok Adalat’s award may be filed with any court.[8]

[9]Section 22 Clause (1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, which is titled “Powers of Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat,” enumerates the following powers granted to the Lok Adalat:

• calling witnesses and requiring their attendance and examining them under oath;
• finding and producing documents;
• receiving evidence through affidavits;
• requesting copies of public records or documents from any court or office; and
• any other matters as may be prescribed.

However, because of their experience, retired judicial officers are required to serve on Lok Adalats under Section 19 Clause 2(a) of the Act, ensuring high-quality justice. Section 19 Clause 5 mentions the Lok Adalats’ jurisdiction, which is parallel to the jurisdiction of the court that is hosting it. However, Lok Adalats are not authorised by the jurisdiction to make decisions in situations that are not compoundable. The list of common case types that Lok Adalats decide on is endless and includes automobile accident claims, bonded labour cases, family issues like as marriage problems, cases of partition, and even cases that are not sub-judice. As a result, it can be said that Lok Adalats have a broad jurisdiction, but only in instances that are compoundable. Section 20 Clause 1(i)(b) of the Act states that, in order for a Lok Adalat to take cognisance of a case, the assent of at least one of the parties involved is sufficient. Rather than deciding guilt or rendering a definitive conviction against the guilty, Lok Adalat’s goal is to mediate between the harmed parties and help them find a common ground to find a solution. In a scenario where no agreement has been reached,[10]The Lok Adalat has the authority to advise the parties to think about pursuing their case in court. Furthermore, “every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court” (Section 21 of the Act, 13) is legally obligatory. These clauses offer one more confidence to approach a Lok Adalat since they show that this alternative conflict resolution process has authority comparable to that of a court and guarantee that the decision made by a Lok Adalat is final.

[11]Lok Adalat is divided into four levels. At the top is the State Legal Services Authority, which is established in each of the nation’s states. Following this is the High Court Legal Services Committee, which is housed in each High Court’s High Court facility. At the district level, the District Legal Services Authority and at the taluka level, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, follow these. There is a significant backlog of cases even in the tribunal system, according to a 2017 Law Commission report. New systems are therefore being developed, but they are also not being properly outfitted to perform their intended functions. The Lok Adalat’s ruling is considered a civil court’s judgement.[12] There is no appeal process for such an award in any court, and it is final and binding on all parties. In addition to two other members, typically a lawyer and a social worker, the Lok Adalat is chaired by a sitting or retired judicial officer. There isn’t a court cost. When it comes to money claims, the Lok Adalat is incredibly effective. In matters like partition suits, damages, and marital issues, Lok Adalat can also readily resolve disputes because there is a lot of room for compromise through a give-and-take strategy. Over 15 lakh public courts existed in the nation by 2015, and over 8 crore disputes had been resolved there.The Lok Adalat has been supported by the majority of state governments since it lessens the workload for the judiciary.

NALSA organises Lok Adalat in conjunction with other legal services institutions. A forum for the amicable settlement or compromise of issues pending in court or at the pre-litigation stage, Lok Adalat is one of the alternative dispute redressal procedures. By virtue of the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987, Lok Adalat has been granted statutory status. The parties have the right to file a case with the court of appropriate jurisdiction and exercise their right to litigation if they are unhappy with the Lok Adalat’s award, even though there is no provision for an appeal against such an award. The court fee that was initially paid in the court on the complaint or petition is also returned to the parties if an issue that is still pending in the legal system is referred to the Lok Adalat and has since been resolved. Members of the Lok Adalat are the people who decide cases in the Lok Adalat; they are statutory conciliators only and have no judicial authority; as such, they can only convince the parties to reach a settlement outside of the Lok Adalat court and are not allowed to directly or indirectly pressure any of the parties to compromise or settle cases or matters. When the parties are trying to resolve their disagreement amicably, the members will support them impartially and objectively. There are three different kinds of Lok Adalat: National Lok Adalat, which takes [13]place every so often across the nation; Permanent Lok Adalat, which is governed by Section 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; Mega Lok Adalat, which takes place in every state court on a single day; and Mobile Lok Adalat, which is held throughout the nation and moves from place to place to settle disputes.[14]

Legal Framework

[15]Lok Adalats in India derive their legal authority from the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which was enacted in alignment with the constitutional principles of equal access to justice. 

Legal provisions (Statutes, Codes, Acts) are

• The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 

This act is the primary statutory law governing Lok Adalats and provides for their establishment, functions, and powers. 

1. Section 19: This section allows for the organization of Lok Adalats by the various legal services authorities at the state, district, and taluk levels.
2. Section 20: This section outlines the types of cases and disputes a Lok Adalat can handle. It has jurisdiction over any case pending before a court and any dispute that is at a pre-litigation stage, as long as the matter is compoundable.
3. Section 21: The award or decision made by a Lok Adalat is legally binding on the parties and is deemed a decree of a civil court. It is final, and no appeal lies against it.
4. Section 22: A Lok Adalat has the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the powers to summon witnesses and compel the production of documents.
5. Chapter VI-A (Sections 22A to 22E): Added by the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002, this chapter provides for the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats (PLAs). These are permanent bodies established to provide a mandatory pre-litigation mechanism for conciliation and settlement of cases concerning “Public Utility Services”.

Unlike traditional Lok Adalats, a Permanent Lok Adalat can decide a dispute on its merits if the parties fail to reach a settlement, provided the dispute does not relate to a non-compoundable offense. 

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[16]Though not strictly bound by its provisions, a Lok Adalat possesses the powers of a civil court as specified under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 

• Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 

The proceedings before a Lok Adalat are deemed to be “judicial proceedings” under the Indian Penal Code. It is also treated as a “civil court” for certain purposes under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Lok Adalats can handle compoundable criminal cases, but not non-compoundable ones. 

• Constitutional provisions

The concept of Lok Adalat is fundamentally rooted in the constitutional directive for a just and equitable legal system for all citizens. 

1. Article 39A

This Directive Principle of State Policy is the primary constitutional mandate for Lok Adalats. It directs the state to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid to ensure that justice is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. 

2. Article 14

This article guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, which Lok Adalats aim to uphold by providing an accessible and affordable dispute resolution mechanism. 

3. Article 21

The right to life and personal liberty has been interpreted by the courts to include the right to a speedy trial. By resolving cases quickly, Lok Adalats help fulfill the promise of expeditious justice, thereby protecting the fundamental right under Article 21. 

ADVANTAGES AND BENEFITS OF LOK ADALAT

It is an ancient adjudicating system that was common in ancient India, according to the Supreme Court, and its legitimacy has not been revoked even in the present era. It provides informal, affordable, and quick justice to the general public and is a part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system. As a conciliatory and voluntary organisation with no legal support for its rulings, Gujarat hosted the inaugural Lok Adalat camp in 1982. As a result of its increasing popularity over time, the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 granted it legislative standing. The Act contains laws pertaining to the Lok Adalat’s structure and operations. Since there is no court fee and any money paid in advance would be reimbursed if the matter is resolved at Lok Adalat, the People’s Court also provides some support to the general public seeking justice. In these courts, conflicts are tried quickly and with procedural flexibility. When evaluating Lok Adalat’s claim, procedural laws are not strictly applied. It also fills the void left by the traditional courts of justice in providing prompt justice by allowing the parties to the dispute to communicate directly with the judge through their solicitors, something that is not feasible in ordinary courts of law.[17]The Lok Adalat’s award is final and binding on the parties; it has the same legal standing as a civil court order and cannot be challenged, therefore conflict resolution is not delayed.

An inventive forum and a much-needed supplement to international jurisprudence for conflict settlement is Lok Adalat. In addition to providing a remedy for the millions of cases that clutter court dockets, they represent an autonomous, voluntary, disputant-friendly, effective, justice-oriented, and non-technical platform for the resolution of conflicts. No judicial or adjudicatory duty is carried out by the personnel overseeing Lok Adalat sessions. Rather, they are peaceful and picturesque “para-judicial” processes in which the conciliator helps to settle or compromise conflicts through a less formalised, less costly, and more intentional process. By using a combination of mediation, arbitration, and conciliation, they try to amicably [18]resolve conflicts between the parties without adhering to strict legal formalities. Conciliation and other aspects of arbitration are used in the process because the rulings are final. Additionally, the settlement process is modified based on the type of disagreement. For example, it is typically more facilitative (as in mediation) in family conflicts and more evaluative (as in conciliation) in vehicle accident cases. In contrast to traditional court proceedings, where there must be a “winner” and a “loser,” they have demonstrated a functional ability to reduce tension between the parties and establish a compromise or “win-win” situation, making them a favoured choice. By putting an end to disputes and re-establishing harmony within the community, Lok Adalat’s structure and operations naturally encourage friendliness and place a strong emphasis on achieving social objectives. Lok Adalat guarantees procedural flexibility and a prompt dispute resolution process. Unlike in courtrooms, the forum does not need rigorous respect to the procedural laws found in the Indian Evidence Act and Code of Civil Procedure. The ruling made at the conclusion of the Lok Adalat’s hearings is final, enforceable against the disputing parties, and enforceable through the legal system in an approach similar to a civil court order.

Beyond their efficacy, Lok Adalats have other benefits. One of the main disadvantages of the legal system is that those who can afford to pay for court and legal fees over an extended period of time frequently have access to traditional litigation. Lok Adalats have completely resolved this matter because they administer justice without charging the parties involved any fees. In actuality, if a matter is transferred from a courtroom to a Lok Adalat and the latter is authorised and empowered to make an award, Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 187019, permits a recovery of the first paid court fees.[19]

In order to promote the availability of justice, Lok Adalats are crucial since they provide a quick, informal, and cost-effective means of resolving disputes. By offering a practical alternative to the current legal system, they help to lessen the backlog of unresolved cases in regular courts. In Lok Adalat, disputes are not only resolved amicably but also maintain the goodwill of the parties involved. It is a very advantageous way to settle conflicts as a result. Achieving impartial and equitable opportunities to secure justice, which is central to the Indian Constitution, depends on Lok Adalats.

[20]Innovations in technology have played a significant role in this accomplishment. The Legal Services Authorities started virtual Lok Adalats, commonly known as “E-Lok Adalats,” in June 2020 by fusing technology with traditional dispute resolution methods. Since then, virtual and hybrid modes have been used to organise all Lok Adalats, including National Lok Adalats. The nation’s Legal Services Authorities are constantly improving their digital infrastructure to ensure an uninterrupted experience during the proceedings. The Legal Services Authorities started virtual Lok Adalats, commonly known as “E-Lok Adalats,” in June 2020, fusing technology with traditional dispute resolution methods. Since then, virtual and hybrid modes have been used to organise all Lok Adalats, including National Lok Adalats. The nation’s Legal Services Authorities are constantly improving their digital infrastructure to ensure an uninterrupted experience during the proceedings.

Lok Adalats have arrived at the parties’ doorsteps as a result of these technical developments. The parties no longer have to travel or reserve an entire day for an event that ends in a matter of minutes because they can now participate in the Lok Adalat procedures from the comfort of their homes or places of employment. Many people participated in the virtual procedures while seated hundreds of kilometres away from the actual venue where the Lok Adalat was held, according to the authorities.Effective methods of Lok Adalat monitoring and supervision have also been made possible by technology. Another important element in Lok Adalats’ success was the national level development of decisive strategy. In accordance with these plans, the State Legal Services Authorities were directed to meet with all levels of stakeholders to guarantee their complete collaboration and coordination. In addition to encouraging such plaintiffs to settle matters involving settled positions of law, the authorities were instructed to adopt a litigant-friendly stance.[21]

CHALLENGES AND DRAWBACKS OF LOK ADALAT

[22]The presence of antagonistic relationships between judges and attorneys is one of the many elements that have been related to the public’s discontent. Another issue is if one or both parties’ lawyers are ill-prepared, which makes it difficult for the parties to reach a settlement and unavoidably delays the process by requiring the court to grudgingly postpone the hearings. A number of examples show how judges and solicitors have failed to help their clients reach settlements that are best for them, leading to unfair outcomes for all parties. The process fails and the matter returns to the formal court system if one of the parties rejects the settlement. The validity of such assent and the exercise of free will by the parties involved in actions before the Lok Adalat, however, are gravely questioned. It is clear from this that Lok Adalat no longer stands for the quick and fair judicial systems that they were known for in its early years of existence. A false view of justice has been created by an excessive focus on hitting high statistics, which may have distracted from the Legal Services Authorities Act’s main goal of “promotion of justice through the compromise or settlement of disputes.” In contrast, the goal of reaching a mutually beneficial compromise or settlement more frequently leads to the petitioners’ fair minimum claims being denied.

[23]There have been questions over whether creating another unofficial system is actually effective. It is possible to argue that informal forums have two sides. Even while they might be viewed as preferable in terms of judicial effectiveness, ease of use, and access to justice, their flexibility and absence of procedural protections allow for the emergence of unfair, authoritarian attitudes, regional customs, and individual prejudices. The Lok Adalat forum was marketed as a means of giving the underprivileged legal power, but in reality, its informality further disempowers them by establishing a dual legal system. Consequently, the Lok Adalat has turned into a mechanism for exaggerating the legal situation; In addition to serving as physical reminders of the formal justice system’s shortcomings, their open acceptance betrays a kind of complacency and tolerance to failure that deters any significant change of the state court system. The effect that forums that promote conciliation and compromise have on the rights of the impacted parties is another area of criticism. Because of a romanticised vision of marriage and the belief that informal solutions are the best way to settle family conflicts, Western feminists have openly disapproved of the use of mediation and conciliation in family problems. Establishing Permanent Lok Adalats under Section 22D was a crucial component of the 2002 revision to the Legal Services Authority Act.  This new forum, as opposed to the Lok Adalat created under Section 19, has the authority to use binding arbitration to determine issues between parties on their merits.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICIES

[24]To empower the uninformed and impoverished, it is imperative to increase legal literacy and broaden legal assistance initiatives. This is necessary because the people’s voluntary participation is essential to the Lok Adalat movement’s success, and by raising awareness of the forum, people will be more inclined to choose Lok Adalat over official courts for minor issues.This could be accomplished by supporting the grassroots organisation of awareness camps and by using mass media outlets like radios, televisions, and newspapers to spread the word about Lok Adalat and their role in obtaining quick and affordable justice. There is also a need to assess and enhance the standard of legal assistance provided by advocates. Excessive focus on hitting high numbers has led to the formation of a skewed version and may have distracted from the Legal Services Authorities Act’s main goal of “promotion of justice through the compromise or settlement of disputes.”

Even though legal scholars have documented multiple instances of unhappiness among disputing parties, Lok Adalat is being praised for its success. The number of cases they resolve is used to gauge their performance, which is based on their alleged contribution to increasing judicial efficiency. It is imperative to make sure that the benefit of timeliness is not attained at the expense of justice or the calibre of decisions, though. Therefore, it is equally important to incorporate enquiries about their effects on the community or their contribution to the achievement of any significant objectives in the general conversation about Lok Adalat. It would be disastrous for the parties’ rights and the effectiveness of the alternative dispute resolution forum to fail to adequately take these concerns into account. [25]

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

[26]In State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2008), the Supreme Court of India ruled that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial function and cannot issue awards without the express consent of both parties. Their role is purely conciliatory, and any order that attempts to impose a decision is void and without legal standing. 

1. Facts of the case

• Amarjit Kaur was killed in a motor vehicle accident involving a Punjab Roadways bus.
• Her family filed a claim for compensation with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which awarded a sum of Rs. 1,44,000.
• Dissatisfied, the family appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which referred the matter to a Lok Adalat.
• The Lok Adalat, without the consent of both parties, passed an order increasing the compensation amount to Rs. 1,70,200. The order, however, noted that if either party objected, they could approach the High Court to have the appeal disposed of on its merits.
• The State of Punjab filed an application with the High Court to set aside the Lok Adalat’s order, stating it had not consented to the increase.
• The High Court dismissed the application, citing a previous decision that Lok Adalat orders could only be challenged through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
• The State’s subsequent petition under Article 227 was also dismissed, on the grounds that the Lok Adalat’s order had become final. This led the State to appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Court’s reasoning

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, making several key observations about the role and power of Lok Adalats: 

• Conciliatory, not adjudicatory: The court emphasized that a Lok Adalat’s sole function is to facilitate a compromise or settlement through conciliation. It does not have the power to hear or adjudicate a case like a regular court.
• Consent is mandatory: An “award” by a Lok Adalat is only valid if it records a genuine compromise or settlement that both parties have agreed to and signed. The Lok Adalat’s order in this case was not an award because it was passed without the State’s consent and was essentially an arbitrary decision.
• No agreement, no award: If the parties fail to reach a settlement, the Lok Adalat is legally required to return the case to the court that referred it. The Lok Adalat in this instance acted beyond its jurisdiction by trying to impose its view of a “just and reasonable” compensation amount.
• No finality without settlement: The court ruled that since the Lok Adalat’s order was not based on a settlement, it did not have the finality or binding nature of a Lok Adalat award.
• High Court erred: The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction by repeatedly refusing to hear the appeal on its merits. This oversight caused the parties unnecessary delay and hardship. 

The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the Lok Adalat’s and the High Court’s orders and directed the High Court to decide the original compensation appeal on its merits

[27]Lok Adalats are a crucial but criticized alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system in India. They are praised for saving time and money and providing access to justice for the poor, but face criticism for their limited scope, reliance on compromise over adjudication, potential for arbitrary decisions, and lack of public awareness. While they help clear court backlogs, they may also discourage formal legal reform by creating an illusion of efficiency. 

Criticisms of Lok Adalats;

• Limited Jurisdiction:They can only hear civil and compoundable criminal cases and cannot handle serious criminal offenses or constitutional matters. 
• Compromise-focused:Their emphasis on settlement can be a weakness, as they prioritize compromise over adjudication, sometimes leading to a binding arbitration-like outcome even without party agreement. 
• Arbitrary Decisions:The relaxed procedural rules (Code of Civil Procedure and Indian Evidence Act do not apply) can lead to decisions that may be arbitrary or summary. 
• Lack of Awareness:Many people are not aware of their legal rights or the existence and availability of Lok Adalats. 
• Financial Burden:Although Lok Adalats are meant to be free, parties may still have to pay lawyers and other expenses, undermining the claim that they are completely free. 
• Discouraging Reform:By providing a readily available alternative, Lok Adalats may foster a sense of complacency, discouraging the formal legal system from undergoing necessary reforms to address its own inefficiencies. 

[28]In P. T. Thomas v. Thomas Job (2005), the Supreme Court of India ruled that awards issued by a Lok Adalat are legally binding decrees with the same standing as a civil court order. The decision affirms the power of executing courts to enforce such awards and reinforces the finality of alternative dispute resolution. 

2. Case facts

The case originated from a property dispute between two brothers, P. T. Thomas (appellant) and Thomas Job (respondent), concerning a cinema theatre on land they inherited. The dispute was referred to a Lok Adalat during an appeal, resulting in an award on October 5, 1999. The award required the respondent to execute a sale deed for the property to the appellant within two years upon payment of ₹9.5 lakhs. The respondent failed to execute the deed, despite the appellant sending notice and a telegram indicating readiness to pay. The appellant then filed an execution petition, which the executing court allowed, granting the appellant three days to deposit the payment. The appellant complied. The respondent challenged this in the Kerala High Court, arguing the Lok Adalat award was just a record of compromise and the executing court couldn’t extend the payment time. The High Court agreed and set aside the execution order. The appellant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of India. 

Court’s reasoning

• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, reasoning: 
• Lok Adalat awards are legally binding decrees under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, carrying the same weight as civil court decrees. They are final and enforceable. The court stated that frustrating a settlement on technicalities would defeat the purpose of Lok Adalats, which is to provide speedy justice.
• Executing courts have the power to grant necessary relief, such as extending time for payment, to ensure a decree is enforced.
• The court found the appellant’s notice was validly served, as it was properly addressed and returned as “unclaimed,” creating a legal presumption of service.
• The appellant demonstrated readiness to perform his part by depositing the payment as ordered by the executing court.
• The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating factual evidence already considered by the executing court.[29]

Evaluated how well the law works in practice in Lok adalat.

In practice, the Lok Adalat system offers a mix of notable successes and significant limitations in providing justice. While highly effective at quickly and cheaply settling a large volume of routine cases, concerns exist over procedural fairness, unequal bargaining power, and the quality of justice delivered, especially for vulnerable parties. 

Strengths in practice

• Speedy and cost-effective justice:Lok Adalats significantly reduce the time and cost associated with litigation. With no court fees and flexible procedures, disputes that might take years in a traditional court can be settled quickly, sometimes in a single day during National Lok Adalats.
• Reduced burden on the judiciary:By handling millions of pending and pre-litigation cases annually, Lok Adalats effectively reduce the backlog in the formal court system. This allows regular courts to focus on more complex, contentious legal issues.
• High settlement rate:National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) data shows a high volume of cases settled through Lok Adalats. For example, over one crore cases were settled during the National Lok Adalat in September 2024 alone.
• Amicable and consensual outcomes:The process emphasizes conciliation and compromise, which helps maintain cordial relations between parties. Since the resolution is mutually agreed upon, parties are more likely to comply with the settlement.
• Legally binding and non-appealable awards:A Lok Adalat award is legally binding and has the status of a civil court decree. Its non-appealable nature provides finality, though a dissatisfied party can initiate fresh litigation in a regular court.
• Accessible to marginalized groups:Lok Adalats help bring justice to the economically disadvantaged by providing a forum that is free of cost and operates at the district and taluk levels, including mobile Lok Adalats in remote areas. 

Weaknesses in practice

• Reliance on compromise, not justice:The system’s primary goal is to settle cases quickly, which can sometimes come at the cost of justice. Some critics argue that it prioritizes clearing cases over ensuring fair outcomes, potentially burying justice rather than delivering it.
• Pressure to settle for vulnerable parties:In cases involving power imbalances, such as those between insurance companies or banks and individual claimants, the weaker party may feel pressured to accept an unfair settlement out of necessity.
• Limited legal safeguards:Lok Adalats do not strictly apply procedural laws like the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act. While this ensures flexibility, it can raise concerns about due process and legal accuracy, particularly as proceedings lack confidentiality.
• Lack of adjudicatory power (for regular Lok Adalats):If a compromise is not reached, a regular Lok Adalat cannot pass a judgment and must return the case to the court. This can sometimes cause further delay if a settlement was pursued unsuccessfully. Permanent Lok Adalats, however, can adjudicate certain public utility cases.
• Awareness and accessibility gaps:Despite mobile and district-level initiatives, many people, especially in rural areas, are still unaware of Lok Adalats and their function.
• Inconsistent enforcement:While the awards are legally binding, their enforcement is handled by civil courts. A lack of strong enforcement mechanisms can reduce the trust and effectiveness of the system. 

Overall evaluation

The law governing Lok Adalats works well as an efficient, low-cost tool for mass dispute resolution, particularly for cases like traffic challans, bank recoveries, and minor criminal offenses. However, its effectiveness is more questionable when applied to complex disputes or cases with significant power imbalances, where the push for a quick compromise may sideline the deeper principles of substantive justice and fairness. For the Lok Adalat system to truly achieve its potential, a greater focus is needed on quality control, raising public awareness, and providing robust safeguards to protect the interests of vulnerable litigants. 

Recent Developments

Any amendments, new bills, policy changes, or ongoing debates.

[30]While there are no recent amendments or new bills specifically for Lok Adalats, significant policy decisions and events occurred in 2024–2025 aimed at boosting their effectiveness and expanding their scope. The most notable policy change was the Supreme Court’s week-long Special Lok Adalat in mid-2024 to clear a backlog of pending cases. 

Key policy developments in 2024–2025

Special Lok Adalat by the Supreme Court 

• A “historic” event:The Supreme Court of India organized a special Lok Adalat from July 29 to August 3, 2024, to facilitate the settlement of suitable pending cases.
• Purpose and scope:Timed to commemorate the Supreme Court’s 75th year, the initiative focused on cases with “elements of settlement,” including matrimonial, property, land acquisition, and motor accident claims.
• Digital participation:To maximize accessibility, the court allowed parties and advocates to attend the settlement proceedings both physically and virtually via video conferencing. 

Expansion of e-Lok Adalats

• The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has continued to promote and organize e-Lok Adalats, a model that expanded significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• The digital format has broadened access to justice, particularly for those unable to attend physical sessions. 

National Lok Adalat schedule

• [31]NALSA published a full calendar of National Lok Adalats for 2024 and 2025, coordinating efforts across all states and union territories.
• 2024 schedule:March 9, May 11, September 14, and December 14.
• 2025 schedule:March 8, May 10, September 13, and December 13. 

Ongoing debates on Lok Adalats

• Discussions surrounding Lok Adalats continue, primarily focused on improving their efficiency, broadening their mandate, and addressing limitations. 

Mandatory pre-litigation mechanism

• Debates continue regarding making pre-litigation settlement mandatory for a wider range of cases beyond public utility services.
• Advocates’ perspective:Many argue that this could significantly reduce the burden on the formal court system, with permanent Lok Adalats already providing a compulsory pre-litigation mechanism for public utility services.
• Critics’ perspective:Concerns exist that mandatory mediation could pressure parties into unfavorable settlements and circumvent a litigant’s right to a formal court hearing. 

Permanent vs. ad-hoc nature

• A key point of discussion is the non-permanent nature of many Lok Adalats. Cases that do not settle amicably are simply reverted to regular courts.

The debate centers on:

• Maximizing settlement:How to further empower the Lok Adalat system to conclude disputes definitively.
• The role of Permanent Lok Adalats:These bodies have the authority to decide a dispute on its merits if conciliation fails, but this is currently limited to disputes involving public utility services with a monetary value of up to ₹10 lakh.

Challenges with awards

• While the award passed by a Lok Adalat is final and legally binding, it is not always followed.
• A major challenge:There is no appeal provision, so dissatisfied parties must initiate new litigation in a regular court. This can defeat the purpose of a speedy resolution and raise questions about the finality of the process. 

Conclusion: No recent legislative changes, but continued policy action

[32]While no new bills or amendments specifically targeting Lok Adalats have been enacted since the 2002 amendment that established Permanent Lok Adalats, policy continues to evolve through the initiatives of the judiciary and NALSA. The recent Special Lok Adalat organized by the Supreme Court is a prime example of the ongoing effort to strengthen and utilize this alternative dispute resolution mechanism. 

How can the law be improved in Lok adalat

SERVING JUSTICE FOR ALL

This section assesses the knowledge gained from international and Indian conflict resolution systems before offering workable answers to the present issues plaguing the LA system.This section examines cultural and structural changes that can support an efficient local mediation program in India.

Despite its waning popularity, the LA system is important. By giving millions of people a platform for meaningfully settling significant issues, it has the potential to significantly alter India and its legal system.In an ideal world, LAs could be held more frequently if more resources were allocated to them. People would be encouraged to seek redress from LAs if there was a cultural balance between official and informal forums.Through the “indigenisation” of certain official judicial system protections, LAs can combat certain social injustices in rural communities.Therefore, it’s critical to discover answers for LAs’ present issues.

[33]The objective should be to achieve the optimal balance between a local vision of decentralised judicial administration, local self-rule, and popular justice free from the pretence and dishonesty associated with formal courts, and a national perception of rights founded on equality and justice. India has a lot of options for doing this.

In the first place, India ought to invest a proportionately similar amount of funds in ADR as nations like the US, UK, and Australia. The Lok Adalat system currently lacks adequate resources, which can restrict the number of cases handled and result in understaffing, ineffective remedy administration, and general disarray. More personnel, money, and facilities would help LAs function more efficiently, become more structurally solid, and inspire greater public trust in them. To increase efficiency and accessibility, technology might be applied to every step of the procedure.

Using experts other than judges guarantees that all parties’ interests and concerns may be taken care of, which was one of LAs’ initial objectives. If panel members, including presiding judges, social workers, and community leaders, are as knowledgeable as possible about the disagreement, the parties, and the local culture prior to reaching a collective judgement on each case, there is a greater likelihood of suitable and long-lasting conciliation. For this reason, the best framework for LAs is a diverse panel of judges.

Lok Adalats can enhance the law by raising public knowledge, extending their purview, and incorporating technology to make it more accessible and effective. The use of digital tools such as e-filing and virtual hearings, lowering expenses and travel time to make the process more inclusive, and broadening its mandate to embrace more dispute kinds are some specific advances. The system can also be improved by fortifying Permanent Lok Adalats for pre-litigation settlements, particularly for public utility services.

Roles of judiciary, legislature, or civil society to be played for Lok adalat

The judiciary, legislature, and civil society each play a distinct, yet interconnected, role in the functioning and success of Lok Adalats in India. These roles include establishing the legal framework, participating directly in proceedings, and promoting accessibility and awareness among the public. 

Judiciary

The judiciary’s role is integral to the entire Lok Adalat process, as it both constitutes the panels and refers cases for amicable settlement. 

• Constituting benches:The Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 specifies that Lok Adalat benches must include sitting or retired judicial officers at the state, district, and taluk levels.
• Referring cases:The presiding judge of a regular court can refer a case to a Lok Adalat if the parties agree or if the court believes there is a chance of settlement.
• Guaranteeing finality of awards:When a settlement is reached, the Lok Adalat’s “award” is legally binding and is considered a decree of a civil court. The judicial system ensures the finality and enforceability of this award.
• Overseeing quality:The higher judiciary acts as a watchdog to ensure the process is not abused and that the true spirit of justice and mutual consent is upheld. The Supreme Court has clarified that Lok Adalats primarily act as conciliators and do not have judicial power to adjudicate a dispute if no compromise is reached. 

Legislature

The legislature provides the statutory backing and financial support that gives Lok Adalats legal authority and enables their function. 

• Enacting legislation:The Parliament of India enacted the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987, which provides statutory status to Lok Adalats. This law created the framework for their organization and defined their powers.
• Amending and strengthening the system:Through amendments, such as those in 2002 that established Permanent Lok Adalats for public utility services, the legislature expands the scope and effectiveness of this alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism.
• Providing policy direction:By setting policies and principles through legislation, the legislature directs the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to make legal services available and frame schemes for the delivery of legal services.
• Allocating funds:The legislature is responsible for allocating the necessary funds to legal services authorities at all levels (national, state, district, and taluk), which finance the organization of Lok Adalats and other legal aid programs. 

Civil society

Civil society organizations (CSOs) act as a vital bridge between citizens and the legal system, ensuring the grassroots reach and effectiveness of Lok Adalats. 

• [34]Providing members for benches:Benches of Lok Adalats include social workers engaged in the upliftment of the weaker sections of society. This representation ensures that panels have a broad and empathetic perspective on social issues.
• Mobilizing communities:CSOs help promote legal literacy and organize legal aid camps, particularly in rural and marginalized communities. This raises awareness about the existence and benefits of Lok Adalats among those who need them most.[35]
• Representing marginalized voices:CSOs and para-legal workers often represent disadvantaged groups, ensuring their voices are heard and their interests are protected during Lok Adalat proceedings.
• Advocacy for reform:By documenting challenges and limitations, such as the pressure to settle cases quickly, civil society groups advocate for reforms that enhance the quality of justice delivered by Lok Adalat.

CONCLUSION

Lok Adalats can operate on a bigger scale if people are open to it and understand its benefits. In addition, more provisions and creative use are required to enable Lok Adalats to serve as permanent substitutes for courts for those who are unable or unable to use them. An increase in the number of solicitors offering efficient legal aid to individuals in need would surely result from a change in the compensation given by legal services agencies. Two schools of thought can be used to generally categorise the discussions surrounding Lok Adalat. Since Lok Adalat was founded on the admirable goals of advancing justice and bringing it to the people’s doorstep, it might be claimed that it performs a crucial role in resolving disputes even if it still operates with the aforementioned complaints. The forum has the advantage of having a panel with expertise in both social and legal matters. The parties would therefore be in a better position than they were before the choices, which would typically be more or less accurate notwithstanding an emphasis on expediency. In the end, Lok Adalat has successfully accomplished at least some of its main goals by creating a venue that enables claimants to obtain a share of their rights without the exasperation, excessive hold-up, and agonising uncertainty of the legal system. Therefore, it would be stupid to overlook Lok Adalat’s efforts to giving the public better access to justice, as their addition is improving the judicial system. However, the alternative viewpoint is to refute the unquestioning acceptance of the idea that Lok Adalat is better for the judicial system than nothing at all, while also giving fair credit to their contributions.[36]

Even though the outcomes of their performance paint an ambiguous image, they have been hailed as a success story by those engaged in the planning and execution as well as by a sizable portion of the legal community. Though, in practice, a forum does not need to be particularly good to outperform the regular courts, Lok Adalat was created to provide a superior alternative to the formal court system.[37] Critics argue that the forum’s shortcomings are fatal, including the lack of an appeals process, the overpowering and paternalistic attitudes of the presiding officers, the high degree of discretion they have, and the dubious quality of the settlements. Therefore, it is suggested that it is important to consider the criticism of the forum, including the problems covered in the previous section, and to take action to incorporate improvements for the institution of Lok Adalat to continue to grow. There is ongoing discussion about whether Lok Adalat is a legitimate channel for accessing justice or just a legal ploy. Addressing the current issues and extending the reach of Lok Adalat while maintaining the calibre and enforceability of its rulings are crucial if it is to genuinely function as a channel for everyone to obtain justice. By doing this, India can fully utilise the Lok Adalat system to give its citizens prompt and reasonably priced justice.[38]

Given the severe social circumstances in India, the country needs an effective justice system that can address its enormous population, high rate of illiteracy, and poverty while also attempting to streamline the legal system and make it easier for people to access justice. It is necessary for the system to reduce the fear that people have about the judicial system and to give them greater faith in it. Instead of being an experiment in this country, Lok Adalat has evolved into a successful alternative dispute resolution process that contributes to global ADR law.[39]This tool has the potential to improve society and provide fairness in the legal system and in the process of obtaining justice. This conflict resolution approach has been successful in lessening the load on the courts and increasing the likelihood of a bridge being built between the public and the judicial system. This technique nevertheless need improvement and advancement despite its enormous accomplishment. A cooperative effort between the government, the judiciary, the legal representatives, and the general public is required to increase its proficiency and make this a total success. Lok Adalat can be regarded as a true success given the importance and analysis of this alternative conflict resolution process on a number of reasons. However, the system needs to undergo the required adjustments with the backing of the government and judiciary in order to realise its full potential. [40]

The unique conditions of Indian society necessitate a legal administration that is incredibly astute and practical for the weak and oppressed. The Lok Adalat approach is no longer considered national research; rather, it is a comprehensive achievement that requires further development and the disregard of some opinions. This demonstration is comprehensive. [41]Another way to think of Lok Adalats is as a tool for social change. Lok Adalat can influence the organization’s legal counsel and judges, as well as how equities are structured. It can also implement social recreation and real social betterment activities. The benefits of the Lok Adalats should be known to the general population. The majority’s contribution is the fundamental indicator of the judiciary’s effectiveness. We now have the authority to resolve neighbourly disputes because of the dissolution of Lok Adalats. The government’s overall air production should be used to determine the success of Lok Adalats, not the number, existence, or compensation of Lok Adalats kept. In contemporary judicial proceedings, Lok Adalat is an alternate technique that reduces costs and time. Only situations that are within its purview and disposal jurisdiction may be taken into consideration. Therefore, it can be claimed that the Adalat Local Scheme, which provides free legal aid to eligible individuals, is a very honourable mechanism that has not only made it easier for the judiciary to decide cases but has also provided some protection to the litigants, especially those who are less fortunate and cannot afford to represent themselves in court.

Bibliography:

I have referred the following books for my research project:

1. Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan, Lok Adalat: an effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism (A.P.H Publishing House, India, 1st Edition, 2006)
2. Prabha Bhargava, Lok Adalat: Justice at the Door Steps (Ina Shree Publication, India, 1st Edition, 2006)
3. Hemant K. Chand, Lok Adalat in India: Genesis, Law, Practice and Prospects (Satyam Law International, India, 1st Edition, 2016)

I have also referred the following websites for my research project:

1. Lok Adalat: A Critical Analysis, available at, www.jusdicere.in (Last visited on 22nd August 2022).
2. Critical Analysis of Permanent Lok Adalats, available at, www.blog.ipleaders.com (Last visited on 22nd August 2022).
3. Lok Adalats, available at, www.drishtiias.com (Last visited on 22nd August 2022).
4. Lok Adalats, available at, www.nalsa.gov.in (Last visited on 24th August 2022).
5. Lok Adalat: Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism In India, available at www.legalserviceindia.com (Last visited on 24th August 2022)

Cases which I referred for my research paper;

1. State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh(2008)
2. Thomas v. Thomas Job(2005)
3. Srinivasappa & Ors v. M. Mallamma & Ors. (2022)
4. United India Insurance Company Limited v. Ajay Sinha And Another (2008).

[1]Author is a student at Shambhunath Institute of Law, India.

[2]International Journal of Law Management & Humanities.

[3]The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Section 893.

[4]Nitya Mehrotra, Lok Adalat: A Catalyst for change in the Indian Judicial Structure, Manupatra Articles (June 21, 2021, 12:10 PM), https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Lok-Adalat-A-Catalyst-for-change-in-theIndian-Judicial-Structure.

[5]Lok Adalat, National Legal Services Authority (June 6, 2024, 11:45 AM), https://nalsa.gov.in/lok-adalat.

[6]The Constitution of India, Article 14, Article 22(1).

[7]Teena Jha, Judicial Delays – RSTV: In Depth, BYJU’S Exam Prep, https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/judicial delays-rstv-in-depth/

[8]The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, Section 22, Clause 1.

[9]The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, Section 19, Clause 2(a)

[10]Lok Adalats, Drishti IAS, (October 22, 2022, 11:40 AM), https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news analysis/lok-adalats/print_manually.

[11]The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, Section 19, Clause 5.

[12]The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, Section 20, Clause 1(i)(b).

[13]The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, Section 21.

[14]Lok Adalat, National Legal Services Authority, https://nalsa.gov.in/lok-adalat.

[15]The words “except the State of Jammu and Kashmir” omitted by Act 34 of 2019, s. 95 and the Fifth Schedule (w.e.f. 31-102019).

[16]9th November, 1995, vide notification No. S.O. 893(E), dated 9th November, 1995, see Gazette of India, Extraordinary, PartII, sec. 3(ii).

[17]Supra Note 8.

[18]Sneha, Lok Adalats: An Experiment with Informal Dispute Resolution in India, Lex Forti, (September 24, 2020, 11:30 AM), https://lexforti.com/legal-news/lok-adalat/.

[19]The Court Fees Act 1870, Section 16.

[20]Sneha, Lok Adalats: An Experiment with Informal Dispute Resolution in India, Lex Forti, (September 24, 2020, 11:30 AM), https://lexforti.com/legal-news/lok-adalat/.  

[21] Rishi Pandey, Role of Lok Adalats in Promoting Access to Justice, Live Law, (June 9, 2023, 10 AM), https://www.livelaw.in/lawschool/articles/role-of-lok-adalats-in-promoting-access-to-justice-230348.

[22]Ministry of Law and Justice, Emergence of Lok Adalat as the most efficacious tool of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Press Information Bureau (January 12, 2022, 12:20 PM), https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1789360.

[23]Supra Note 18.

[24]Ibid.

[25]The Legal Services Authority Act 1987, Section 22D.

[26] State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2008) 2 SCC 660

[27]https://www.casemine.com/search/in/lok%2Badalat  

[28]P. T. Thomas v. Thomas Job AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 3575, 2005 (6) SCC 478.

[29]See Galanter & Krishnan, supra note 1, at 109 (noting that “[b]y November 30,

2001, 110,600 lok adalats had settled 13,141,938 cases”); see also KHAN, supra note 1, at90 (noting that by the end of 2002, 1.7 million cases were settled in the state of Gujaratalone).

[30]See KHAN, supra note 1, at 1 (noting the establishment of LAs in the 1980s andthe goal of amicable settlements by accommodating both parties); see also Galanter &Krishnan, supra note 2, at 797–98 (describing from the 1970s onward the drive to createLAs and make them a forum for conciliation and informal dispute resolution).

[31]See R.S. Khare, Indigenous Culture and Lawyer’s Law in India, 14 COMP. STUD.SOC’Y & HIST. 71, 80 (1972) (noting how village culture finds informal, out-of-courtconciliations socially and morally desirable as compared to adversarial processes); seealso Whitson, supra note 2, at 398 (noting that the village populations prefer informal settlements to court proceedings).

[32]See ALEXANDER, supra note 6, at 16–17 (referring to empirical data showingthe success of ADR in common law jurisdictions).

[33]See supra Part II.B (describing the ADR systems in place in common law countries).

[34]See Meschievitz & Galanter, supra note 18, at 64 (“[T]he [NP] is thus a body ofmen . . . that handles disputes without regard to applicable rules and yet appears tovillagers as formal and incomprehensible.”); see also Galanter & Krishnan, supra note 2,at 792 (“We believe that [the decline in NPs] was most likely because they represented an unappetizing combination of the formality of official law with the political malleability of village tribunals.”).

[35]See, e.g., Galanter & Krishnan, supra note 2, at 792 (describing how the new NPs made decisions based on statutory law, rather than using indigenous norms); seealso KHAN, supra note 1, at 5–10, 29 (describing the procedure and formal nature of theNPs). The new NPs made decisions based on majority rule rather than unanimity, theirmembership no longer consisted of the leading men of a caste, but rather members were to be elected from territorial constituencies. See Galanter & Krishnan, supra note 2, at 792.

[36]Lok Adalat in India – Access to Justice or Gimmick? Lawvs, (October 30, 2023, 11 AM), https://lawvs.com/blog/lok-adalat-in-india-access-to-justice-or gimmick#:~:text=Title%3A%20Lok%20Adalat%20in%20India%20- %20Access%20to%20Justice%20or%20Gimmick%3F&text=In%20India%2C%20the%20Lok%20Adalat,effective%20justice%20to%20the%20masses.

[37]Supra Note 8.

[38]Ensuring Quality Justice Delivery – Lok Adalats, IAS Parliament, (April 8, 2021, 12 PM), https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/ensuring-quality-justice-delivery-lok-adalats.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Simran Rao, An Analysis on The Effectiveness of Lok Adalats in India and The Measures That Can Be Taken toIncrease Their Efficiency, Legal Services, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9199-an-analysis-on-the-effectiveness-of-lok-adalats-in-india-and-the-measures-that-can-be-taken-to-increase-their-efficiency.html.

[41]Megha Kukreja, An Analysis of Lok Adalat in India, Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research,Volume 6 Issue 3, (March, 2019),https://www.jetir.org/view?paper=JETIREW06077.