REFORMS TO BE MADE IN ADR LAWS- A COMPARITIVE STUDY WITH UK LAWS
Main Article Content
Abstract
Due to its quicker and more effective alternative to the traditional court system, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has grown in significance within India's legal system. The current ADR legislation in India were passed more than 20 years ago, and since then, they have undergone some changes. However, in order to address the current issues the ADR system is facing, further extensive reforms are required. This essay examines the current ADR rules in India, examines the difficulties the system faces, and contrasts them with the UK's ADR legislation. The report makes suggestions for ADR legislative amendments in India based on the UK model. The report emphasises the necessity for strengthening the Indian ADR system to increase its effectiveness because it is still in its infancy. The ADR system has difficulties such as inadequate training of ADR practitioners, low public awareness of the ADR system, and the requirement for an efficient enforcement mechanism. The article makes the case that India's ADR regulations could be improved by using the UK model as a model. The ADR system in the UK is more extensive, with many ADR mechanisms that are well-regulated and have explicit standards on the education and training requirements for ADR practitioners. The study concludes by advising India to implement extensive reforms to strengthen its ADR laws. The suggested reforms include broadening the use of ADR procedures, creating a governing organisation for ADR practitioners, establishing minimal requirements for the education and experience of ADR practitioners, and creating a strong enforcement system. India can enhance the efficiency and efficacy of its ADR system by adopting the UK model of ADR laws. This will assist to decrease the backlog of cases in the courts, provide timely justice to litigants, and lessen the strain on the judiciary.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Konkan Rly. Corp v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. Appeal (civil) 5880-5889 of 1997.
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A (2002) 4 S.C.C. 105.
Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Limited (2008) 4 S.C.C. 190
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005
Renusager Power Co. v. General Electric Co (1994) 1 S.C.C. 644
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Saw Pipes Ltd (2003) 5 S.C.C. 705
Marc Rich Agricultural Trading SA v Agrimex Ltd [2000] EWHC 193 (Comm).
Sec38(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
Hiscox Underwriting Ltd v Dickson Manchester & Company Ltd. [2004] EWHC 479 (Comm).