S
Sahaj Vidhi
Law optional 2019 Paper II

Alternative dispute resolution mechanism as provided under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has played a pivotal role in dispensation of justice to the needy persons. Explain with the help of legal provisions and case law.

Verified Answer

  1. Core Legal Answer & Context: The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSAA), was enacted to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of society and to organize Lok Adalats for securing justice. A pivotal aspect of the LSAA is its emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, primarily Lok Adalats, and later, Permanent Lok Adalats and mediation. These mechanisms offer an accessible, affordable, and expeditious alternative to traditional litigation, which is often time-consuming and expensive. For needy persons, ADR under LSAA has been instrumental in ensuring access to justice by facilitating amicable settlements and reducing the burden of court proceedings.

  2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

  • Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSAA):
    • Chapter VI (Sections 19-22): Deals with Lok Adalats. Section 19 provides for the organization of Lok Adalats by Legal Services Authorities. Section 20 outlines the cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, including pending cases and pre-litigation disputes. Section 21 states that every award of a Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be final and binding on all parties, with no appeal lying against it.
    • Chapter VIA (Sections 22A-22E): Introduced by an amendment in 2002, this chapter provides for Permanent Lok Adalats for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement in public utility services. Section 22C empowers Permanent Lok Adalats to decide disputes on merits if parties fail to reach a settlement.
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
    • Section 89: Mandates courts to refer disputes to ADR mechanisms (arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including Lok Adalat, or mediation) where it appears that there are elements of a settlement.
  1. Important Landmark Cases:
  • State of Punjab v. Phulan Rani (2004, Supreme Court of India): The Supreme Court emphasized the voluntary nature of participation in Lok Adalats and reiterated that the award passed by a Lok Adalat is a compromise decree, binding on the parties, and cannot be challenged in appeal. This reinforces the finality and effectiveness of Lok Adalat awards.
  • Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (2005, Supreme Court of India): This landmark judgment upheld the constitutional validity of Section 89 of the CPC and provided detailed guidelines for the implementation of ADR mechanisms, including mediation and conciliation. The court stressed the importance of ADR in reducing the backlog of cases and providing speedy justice, particularly for the disadvantaged.
  1. Clear Conclusion: The ADR mechanisms, particularly Lok Adalats, established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, have indeed played a pivotal role in dispensing justice to needy persons. By offering an informal, cost-effective, and swift dispute resolution process, they have democratized access to justice, enabling marginalized sections of society to resolve their disputes without the complexities and expenses of traditional litigation. The statutory backing and judicial pronouncements have solidified their position as an indispensable component of India's justice delivery system.