Articles
The Law Commission of India in its 222nd report emphasized the need for Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR) for the dispensation of justice, because the courts are inaccessible owing to various factors, e.g., poverty, social and political backwardness, illiteracy, ignorance, procedural formalities and inordinate delay in judgments. During the ancient period the disputes were resolved in an informal manner by neutral third persons or people’s court in villages and it continued till the middle of the 20th century. Unfortunately, after the Independence of India in 1947, this system was dissuaded and the government permitted to continue the adversarial system of justice. In 1980, a committee was set up. It recommended Lok Adalats (People’s Courts). In 1987, the Legal Services Authorities Act was enacted. This Act obligates the states to provide free legal aid to poor persons. Besides this, the Act provides for the establishment of permanent Lok Adalats.
This is one of the important modes of ADR. Lok Adalats have been established in all the districts of the country. They bring conciliatory settlement in complicated cases arising out of matrimonial, landlord-tenants, property, insurance and commercial disputes. There are four methods of ADR, viz., negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration are widely preferred. They are alternatives to litigation. The Arbitration Act for the first time was enacted in 1889 and it was subsequently amended many times. On the objections raised by the Supreme Court of India and also on the adoption of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, in 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act was enacted. This law is almost the same as is almost in all the countries.
Further, the Government of India established International Centre for Alternative Disputes Resolution (CADR) with the objectives of promotion, propagation, and popularizing the settlement of domestic and international disputes by different modes of ADR.
Comments
The development of alternative dispute resolution procedures raises a number of new problems and questions for jurisprudence and legal practice. Many of these are closely related to the implementation of mediation procedures. Significant attention has been paid in the legal literature to the need for mediators’ legal education. Nowadays a professional lawyer usually performs the functions of a mediator. Nevertheless, in some countries the competence of mediators can be limited. In fact, such persons may be prohibited from providing any legal assistance to the parties. A direct prohibition of this kind exists in Russian legislation. To what degree is this prohibition realistic and reasonable? Different countries enjoy different approaches to the possibility of providing disputing parties with a mediator’s legal assistance in addressing issues requiring legal advice or in the drafting of legal documents. Different approaches to this issue have appeared for various reasons. The absence of consensus is caused by a contradiction between the principle of mediator neutrality in the conflict resolution process and the goals of dispute settlement in which a legally competent intermediary is involved. To ensure the effectiveness of the mediation process, legislators should seek out more flexible ways of regulating procedure. Mandatory regulation itself contradicts the spirit of ‘semi-formal’ alternative (extrajudicial) methods for conflict resolution. As such, the presence of direct prohibitions or severe restrictions may not only become challenging in the performance of law but such peremptory norms can also make mediation unattractive and ineffective for some particular types of dispute, such as labor disputes. The principle of preserving a mediator’s neutrality is possible if exercised within the framework of a balanced approach to reasonable limits and discretionary rules for the provision of certain types of legal assistance to disputing parties.
The present article aims to consider the possibilities and limitations on a mediator’s ability to provide particular types of legal assistance where the guarantee of non-discrimination between disputing parties’ interests is presupposed.
Book Review Notes
Conferences Review Notes
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)