NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

SEMESTER VII

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROJECT

PROJECT-WORK
ON

CHALLENGES IN INTRODUCING INSTITUTIONALIZED ADR IN INDIA

SUBMITTED TO: -

MR. ABHAY KUMAR MR. AKASH KUMAR

Assistant Professor of Law, NLUO Assistant Professor of Law, NLUO

SUBMITTED BY: -

AMIT BAYDWAL (2016/BA/015)

HITARTH SHARMA (2016/BA/043)
KARTIK MEENA (2016/BA/049)
 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................2

Introduction..............................................................................................................................3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................5

A. SCOPE..........................................................................................................................5

B. Rationale of Research..................................................................................................5

C. HYPOTHESIS..............................................................................................................5

D. METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................5

E. Citation format.............................................................................................................5

ADR system in india.................................................................................................................6

Problems with the Legislation.................................................................................................7

The Role of the Courts.............................................................................................................8

Adequate Human Resources.................................................................................................10

INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON EXSISTING ADR............................................11

FINANCIAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................12

OUTREACH AND TRUST OF SOCIETY........................................................................12

Other Problems......................................................................................................................12

The Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019: A way forward......................13

A. The Designation and Grading of Arbitral Institutions...........................................13

B. Timely Conduct of Proceeding..................................................................................14

C. Qualifications of Arbitrators.....................................................................................14

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................15
Page | 2
CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING ADR SYSTEM IN
INDIA
 INTRODUCTION

This is a universal principle that everybody should be provided a quick and affordable justice.
“Any conflict is like cancer. The sooner it is resolved the better for all the parties concerned
in particular and society in general. If it is not resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, it
grows at a very fast pace and with time and the effort required to resolve it increases
exponentially as new issues emerge and conflicting situations galore. One dispute leads to
another. Hence, it is essential to resolve the dispute, the moment it raises its head.”1
Constitution guarantees the disposal of cases in time as the same is covered as a fundamental
right under Article 21 as the rule of law which provides equal access to justice to every
citizen of India. “Behind almost every human conflict someone feels dismissed, discounted,
disenfranchised or disrespected. Unresolved tensions that may have immersed below the
surface can resurface and make situations difficult.”2

“Denial of justice through delay is the biggest mockery of law, but in India it is not limited to
mere mockery; the delay in fact kills the entire justice dispensation system of the country.
This has led to people settling scores on their own, resulting in a growing number of criminal
syndicates and mob justice in various parts of the country and reflecting the loss of people’s
confidence in the rule of law.”3 In 1996, the Indian Legislature accepted the fact that in order
to lessen the burden on the courts, there should be a more efficient justice delivery system in
the form of arbitration, mediation and conciliation as an Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) options in appropriate civil and commercial matters. Thus, Parliament enacted
“Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996”, was brought to do a speedy resolution to the
commercial dispute by private Arbitration. For the smooth functioning of any business
industry, the fast resolution of the matters is considered as primary concern. ADR has been
brought with the name “Alternative” but sometime due to its procedure and esteemed
outcomes has also been renamed in many areas as “Appropriate Dispute Resolution”.

1
‘Strengthening ‘Lok Adalat’ Movement in India’, Anurag A Agrawal, (AIR Journal, vol.1, March 2006, p. 33).
2
‘Mediation is here to stay’, Anil Xavier, (AIR Journal vol. 2 March 2010, p.7).
3
‘Invite for supporting a community initiative’, Anil Xavier < http://www.arbitrationindia.org/pdf/tia_2_7.pdf>
accessed on August 28, 2019.
Similarly litigation is also being referred as “Judicial Dispute Resolution” or JDR. ADR is
not bound by the jurisdiction boundaries and hence it is being considered as a global system.4

There are various forms of ADR mechanisms exist in India for resolving disputes outside the
courts. This is the inert relation between the parties and the nature of the matter, which decide
the choice of ADR method either by arbitration, conciliation, mediation, Lok Adalat etc.
“Arbitration is a process used by the agreement is limited to help the disputing parties
communicate with each other in the hope that they can find a way to work out their
disagreements and differences. Mediation has been defined as a private, informal dispute
resolution process in which a neutral third person, the mediator, helps disputing parties to
reach an agreement.

For the settlements of the disputes, in reference to Article 39-A of the Indian Constitution
Lok Adalat has been constituted under National Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. This act
also contains different methods for dispute resolutions i.e. Lok Adalats etc. The concept of
Lok Adalat is not a new phenomenon, but an ancient concept is given now statutory basis.
One of the unique features of Lok Adalat is that dispute are settled summarily without going
through the complexities of legal proceedings of the routine Courts. In 1987 Legal Services
Authorities Act was brought to give a statutory status to the establishment of Lok Adalat. Part
VI of the Act contains arrangements accommodating association of Lok Adalats; the power
and elements of the Lok Adalat and the impact of the award made by the Lok Adalat. Under
section 19 of this Act, anyone can get his dispute referred to Lok Adalat for its settlement
through meditation and reconciliation. Once a trade off or settlement is landed at before the
Lok Adalat, at that point the award based thereon, secures the power of a decree of a civil
court. It accomplishes certainty and ties the parties to the dispute. The Act prohibits the filing
of an appeal to any court against such an award aside from on the ground of fraud. In Lok
Adalats, justice is dispensed with free of cost and it is faster. The majority of the Indian
population dislikes approaching the regular Court to resolve their disputes, reason being
illiteracy, economic condition and lengthy procedures to be followed. Therefore, Lok Adalats
could be a boon as an additional mechanism to the judicial institution, thereby reducing the
backlog of cases, which keeps on mounting day by day. The Lok Adalats can settle all civil
cases and compoundable criminal cases.

4
‘Compulsory Mediation’, Paul Randolph <http://arbitrationindia.org/pdf/tia_4_2.pdf> accessed on August 28,
2018.
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. SCOPE

The title of the project is ‘Challenges in Introducing Institutionalized ADR in India’. The
scope of this project is to oversee the laws of ADR system implementation in India

The aim of this project-work is to critically examine the challenges faced by the ADR system
to fruitfully implementation in India. Further, we have also provided suggestions for the
better implementation of ADR system in India.

B. RATIONALE OF RESEARCH

The purpose of this project is to scrutinize different challenges faced in various branches of
ADR i.e. Arbitration, Mediation, Lok Adalats etc. for their implementation in India. The
authors will do the topic wise study of all the branches of ADR system and describe problems
faced by the system in its better implementation in India. The authors have also provided
suggestion for the same.

C. HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis so assumed in this study is that ADR mechanism is marred by various Socio,
Economic and Legal Barriers and that Government and citizens must work hand in hand to
overcome these Problems.

D. METHODOLOGY

The method used in this research project is Doctrinal Method.

In preparing this research project, the authors have referred to both primary as well as
secondary resources. Reference has been made various judicial decisions and interpretations
of various sections Arbitration act etc., various commentaries on the section and some
internet based resources to find out the scenario of ADR implementation in India.

E. CITATION FORMAT

The authors have followed the uniform mode of citation throughout the project.
 ADR SYSTEM IN INDIA

Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 govern the ADR system in India. The
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 legislated on the basis of UNCITRAL (United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law) but Alternate Dispute Resolution as such
was incorporated in laws of India as way back in 1840.5 Before bringing the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, the disputes were dealt with by the The Civil Procedure Code, Indian
Contract Act, Specific Relief Act and by further incorporation of Indian Arbitration Act
1899, subsequently repealed by the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 and them finally by the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which came in force with effect from 25th January
1996.

“Talking about the history, in ancient India, ADR as we know today was the way disputes
were generally settled. The whole village by way of Gram Panchayat used to solve the
problems of the villagers by sitting together and mediating the problems faced by the two
parties.6 Since the advent of the modern legal system, this method of dispute settlement has
largely been set aside. Today, this age old method of dispute settlement has become corporate
savvy and exclusive to big concerns.”7 Now the dispute resolution has been limited to the talk
of the meeting rooms and the same also depends on the way corporates deals with it.

“The reason as to why such a phenomenon is witnessed in our country is very interesting.
First of all, the process still is a very costly affair as very few people specialize in this field
that are competent enough to arbitrate on various matters, thereby resulting in making ADR a
very exclusive and high end service.”8 Secondly, “ADR is just too flexible in nature and there
is no guarantee in its proceedings. There is no set procedure which is required to be followed
while finding solutions through ADR.

The Indian Law perceives basically Arbitration as a method for ADR which essentially
abridges the full extent of ADR. The main drawback because of the same is that Arbitration

5
Act IX of 1840.
6
‘Alternative Dispute Resolution in Construction Industry’, K Ravi Kumar, (International Council of
Consultants (ICC) Jornal), < www.iccindia.org> accessed on August 18, 2019.
7
‘Report on National Juridicare Equal Justice – Social Justice’, (Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs,
1977).
8
Justice K G Balakrishnan, ‘International Conference on Institutional Arbitration in Infrastructure and
Construction, New Delhi’ on October 16, 2008.
includes the guideline of arbitrability of topic. Since most issues which have a particular
enactment to its name are forgotten due to the non-arbitrability of its topic, the actual scope
of ADR is vigorously compromised. It is imperative that if ADR needs to achieve the normal
man and not simply remain a corporate toy then it be permitted to spread out its wings and
fly. Tired of the consistent cases in courts, business people cleverly depended on arbitration,
as countless companies in the world do, just to find shockingly that on the vast majority of
the events it is surprisingly more terrible than litigation.9

PROBLEMS WITH THE LEGISLATION

The 1996 Act was brought on the statute book as the earlier law, the 1940 Act, did not satisfy
the yearnings of the general population of India by and large, and the business network
specifically. The main role of establishing the 1996 Act was to comply with the UNCITRAL
Model Law and along these lines satisfy the global commitment and furthermore to assuage
the business community. Lamentably, around then there was no exhaustive examination of
the Model Law. While the U.K. did not adopt the Model Law totally and a few different
nations, including the U.S., never went to embrace the Model Law, India adopted it
completely.10 As a matter of fact, India simply copied the provisions of UNCITRAL Model
Law. the special needs of business community in India, the legal environment, social
conditions, lack of judges and infrastructure in the courts, etc. were never taken into
consideration while legislating the act..

The new Act has, more than once, ended up being an administrative disappointment. Various
loopholes clauses have made this enactment a decent case of bad legislative efforts.' The
meaning of ―Court in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is generously not quite the
same as that in the prior act of 1940. Because of this new definition, there is tremendous
workload on the District Judge, which was prior shared by different judges in the Civil Court.
The experience of the recent ten years affirms it plentifully that the District Judge can't
dedicate as much time as is required to arbitration matters and the cases are essentially poling
up. It adds to the delay and exacerbates the situation for the litigants.

9
‘The Other Path’, Hernando de Soto,( Harper & Row Journal 1st ed., 1989).
10
‘ARBITRATION IN INDIA’, Paul Whitley, ‘Talk to the European Branch of the C.I.Arb. at Salice d‘Ulcio,
Italy’ on April 2005.
Barring a few cities where the High Court’s exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction, all
matters pertaining to arbitration have to be filed in the principal Civil Court of original
jurisdiction in a district. By definition this is the Court of the ―District Judge‖. Any civil
court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court or any Court of Small Causes has been
intentionally kept out by the legislature. This leaves the Court of the District Judge and only
this court to have jurisdiction over arbitration matters.

Thus, due to the delay in the matters of the arbitration, litigants choose other legal ways to
settle down the dispute, the same is not a good practice for legal field and economy too. “It
brings a bad name to the judicial system and erosion in faith starts taking place. It also forces
foreign investors and business partners to perceive India as a place with slow-moving
judiciary. Therefore, there is an adverse effect on the business in particular and economy in
general.”11

THE ROLE OF THE COURTS

The basic role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques, of which mediation is
the most famous, is to abstain from going to the court. Be that as it may, intervention by
courts is inescapable. Sometimes, the interference is alluring in order to keep the arbitration
procedure from going off to some faraway place. Interference by courts is very much
necessary and the same can also be witnessed in all over the world. In most of the
jurisdictions, the subordinate courts is enabled to investigate arbitration matters, also in that
way, various issues reaches to the Supreme court. India follows a similar framework and an
extensive number of mediation matters are documented in the lower courts.

As arbitration is an outcome of the previous conduct of the parties during a contract. Hence,
in every arbitration, it is necessary to take care of the great interests of the parties. However,
this autonomy is not unbridled. The appropriate law and open approach give the limits to this
autonomy of the parties in the arbitration. Principles of arbitral establishments likewise
abridge the independence of parties. Additionally, the intervention of courts seems necessary
in instances of biasness of arbitrators, wrongdoing of procedures, and so forth. Courts
likewise intervene in putting aside or implementing an award. Complete flexibility to parties

11
‘ Arbitration as a fast tract solution’, Indu Malhotra, (ICA‘s Arbitration Quarterly, ICA, 2006, vol. XLI/No.1
pg. 8)
to do what they like in an arbitration isn't adequate and the common end product is that total
non-obstruction by courts in undesirable. For instance, in the Hooters case,12 the court refused
to uphold the arbitration clause and said,

“The parties agreed to submit their claims to arbitration-- a system whereby disputes are
fairly resolved by an impartial third party. Hooters by contract took on the obligation of
establishing such a system. By creating a sham system unworthy even of the name of
arbitration, Hooters completely failed in performing its contractual duty.”

Hence, the interference by the courts in arbitrations is very much desirable and essential and
the same should not be taken, howsoever strong the critics are.

Major intent and administrative purpose of the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is
to lessen unnecessary legal mediation because of which the prior Arbitration Act, 1940
endured genuine infirmities. Segment 8(1) of the New Act, hence, makes it required
obligation for the judicial authority i.e. court to stay legal proceedings if began, where the
subject matter has alluded to an arbitral tribunal. Similar provisions are made in consonance
with the laws of the New York and Geneva.

Courts capable themselves with rules which would functionally delay arbitral proceedings (be
it by raising erroneous objections to primary issues or by interrupting the appointment
process) which is not in the consonance with the legislative intent to bring Section 13 of the
1996 Act into practice. This thus takes us to what has been called the dispute between high
principles (stressing the necessity for justice, though the heavens fall) and low principles (an
equally firm demand to end litigation) in adjudication today. The expansion of the Court‘s
interference into the judicial scope has aroused serious difficulties; the interpretation of the
term public policy has been first discussed in ONGC’s case, which later on discussed in
various cases which all restate the judiciary‘s right to review the arbitral award. In the case of
Hindustan Zinc, “the Supreme Court has indicated that awards could be set aside on grounds
like being contrary to the terms of contract since ONGC gave license for interference in such
grounds. This indeed sets a dangerous precedent since, as stated earlier; the encouragement of
ADR was based on a need to circumvent the lengthy court process.”

12
Hooters of America v. Phillips, Court of Appeals, US, CA-96-3360-4-22,1999.
The debate between decisiveness and justice is perhaps best determined by the reasoned
judgment of EVANS J., in Indian Oil Case13 where he reiterated ― “these two factors are
not inconsistent with each other. If either of them is to overcome, then it should be the
requirement of justice. But justice is not an intangible concept. It has to be applied in this
context between two parties who were in dispute with each other and who agreed that the
dispute should be resolved by an arbitral tribunal. They agreed that the tribunal's award
should be final. But they agreed this on the basis that the arbitration procedure would be
regulated by law. The Court has statutory power to set aside an award when the arbitrators
misconduct themselves or the references. But it also has the unqualified discretion to remit
the award to the chosen tribunal. If the power is exercised, but only in circumstances when it
would be unjust not to do so, then there is not, in my judgment, an uncovenanted or an
unacceptable restriction on the agreed finality of the tribunal's award.”

ADEQUATE HUMAN RESOURCES

A system is as noble as the people who work it. Because of enormous reasons – the main
reason being the vested interest of different people who are involved in the dispute resolution
process– this process has not been as successful as it should have been. 14 Lawyers too, are
often not skilled in the certain law and exercise of arbitration and there is a propensity among
them to delay arbitrations, pursue needless postponements, compromise arbitrations cases due
to their regular court appearances, etc., all of which add up to a lack of ethics in conducting
arbitration in India. This has been the main reason because of which parties coose to conduct
arbitration as outside of the (Singapore as centers of international dispute resolution and
adding to the gravitational popularity of London), or even go back to opting litigation in
Indian courts as a `lesser evil'.

The availability of expert, skilled and true arbitrators as well as well-resourced arbitral
institutions is vital for the further success of arbitration in India. If there is a promising
opinion that by picking arbitration over litigation, parties have significantly reduced their
chances of getting good quality of justice, which would obviously degrade the future of
arbitration. The much needed step here is to provide a good atmosphere and opportunities for
arbitration among the main participants —the Bench, the bar, arbitral institutions, the
13
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Coastal Bermuda Ltd., [1990] 2 Lloyd‘s Rep., 407.
14
‘Altenative Dispute Resolution and Access to Justice: Issues and Perspectives’, S.B.Sinha, ( SCR,vol.1 2008)
arbitrators, and the consumers of arbitration and to display a sincere commitment to prevent
the `canalization' of arbitration.15

Moreover, there has been no fees or remuneration has been fixed for the arbitrators and also
giving an opportunity to earn after the retirement gives a hint of a little biasness of the
arbitrators and also personal interest for delaying the process comes into the picture. It is not
wrong to also mention that there are very few arbitrators who can manage to manage a
balance between the overloaded work and quick disposal of matters, irrespective of the
monetary related interests.16

INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON EXSISTING ADR

Arbitration, once considered an alternative to litigation, is now afflicted by the same

problems of cost, delay, complexity, and dependence on legal representation. Many questions
remain regarding their actual success in increasing efficiency and in providing broader access
to justice. Even though participants are generally pleased with the conciliatory,
comprehensible, and flexible procedures of ADR, but the efficiency gains are minimal. The
study of those cases, which were appealed from the arbitral tribunal to the Supreme Court of
India led to the conclusion that the aggregate costs for the courts, and average time to
disposition of cases, had not declined. A second challenge concerns the consequences of
ADR on access to justice. Critics argue that the restoration of traditional dispute resolution
mechanisms, as for example in India, subjects women to the application of discriminatory
social norms rather than the relatively fair justice of a rights-based legal system. Coming to
the effectiveness of ADR, unlike a judge, a mediator or arbitrator has no power to order a
party to appear and defend a claim. Nor can a mediator or arbitrator compel the losing side to
comply with a decision. Sometimes the desire to remain on good terms with the other party or
to preserve one’s reputation provides the incentive to submit to an ADR process and abide by
its outcome.

15
‘ADR and Administrative Responsiveness: Challenges for Public Administrators’, Nancy J. Manring, (Public
Administration Review, vol. 54, No. 2 1994).
16
‘ADR and India: an overview’, D. M. Popat , (SCR Journal vol. 3 Dec.2004, pg.756).
 FINANCIAL RESOURCES

A very vital point here to consider that there is enormous expenditure in arbitrations. While
on one side where the judge for hearing the matters in the courts are paid by the state, the
situation is not similar in the case of arbitrators. The Parties pay to the arbitrators on their
own basis. The present scenario is that the arbitrators charges a very huge amount for
conducting an arbitration. We have taken the opinions of lawyers and arbitrators. But we also
need to take care the interest of the parties. Also it should be considered that what will be the
situation if the selection of arbitrators is to be involuntary and if the appointing authority
under Section 11 should consider nothing else.17

OUTREACH AND TRUST OF SOCIETY

Even though with the emerging globalization, more and more matters are being taken out of
the normal courts and vested in regulators 18. people still faith in the higher judiciary. This is
evident from the number of appeals that come before the high courts and the Supreme Court
of India from awards of arbitrator and appellate tribunal bodies. (0 Whether people trust
ADR? Even though with the emerging globalization, more and more matters are being taken
out of the normal courts and vested in regulators. Y’ people still faith in the higher judiciary.
This is evident from the number of appeals that come before the high courts and the Supreme
Court of India from awards of arbitrator and appellate tribunal bodies.

OTHER PROBLEMS

An agreement is required to be signed by the parties before going for the arbitration or
mutually agree to resolve their disputes by ADR. “Arbitrators were frequently and strongly
attacked as partial and immature in resolving the disputes. Probably many persons involved
in the legal world are blissfully ignorant of the Alternative methodology in dispensing the
even justice process through Arbitral process. So the arbitral justice system has co-
extensively remained with the legal system but without much expected success.” The success

17
‘Leaping the Bar: Overcoming Legal Opposition To ADR in the Developing World’, Christine Cervenak,
David Fairman and Elizabeth McClintock, (Dispute Resolution Magazine, Spring 1998).
18
Electricity Regulatory Commissions, now set-up in almost every state in India.
of the ADR system completely dependent upon the faith of the parties in the system. The
decisions of the ADRs do not constitute any kind of precidentiary value. Mostly the the
precedents are not considered valuable during the ADR proceedings. The results of ADR
completely depend upon the participation of arbitrator/ mediators in the process. Poor
mediators, who are not good enough in the field of ADR can lead to a very bad result and
hence such proceedings degrades the value of ADRs.19

THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019: A WAY FORWARD

A. THE DESIGNATION AND GRADING OF ARBITRAL INSTITUTIONS

The 2019 Amendment introduces Part 1A to the Act, which is titled as ‘Arbitration Council
of India’ (Sections 43A to 43M) and which empowers the Central Government to establish
the ACI by an official gazette notification (Section 43B). The ACI shall be composed of (i) a
retired Supreme Court or High Court judge, appointed by the Central Government in
consultation with the Chief Justice of India, as its Chairperson, (ii) an eminent arbitration
practitioner nominated as the Central Government Member, (iii) an eminent academician
having research and teaching experience in the field of arbitration, appointed by the Central
Government in consultation with the Chairperson, as the Chairperson-Member, (iv) Secretary
to the Central Government in the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice
and (v) Secretary to the Central Government in the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of
Finance – both as ex officio members, (vi) one representative of a recognised body of
commerce and industry, chosen on rotational basis by the Central Government, as a part-time
member, and (vii) Chief Executive Officer-Member-Secretary, ex officio (Section 43C(1)(a)–
(f)). The ACI is inter alia entrusted with grading of arbitral institutions on the basis of criteria
relating to infrastructure, quality and calibre of arbitrators, performance and compliance of
time limits for disposal of domestic or international commercial arbitrations (Section 43I).

19
‘The Process of Justice by way of Arbitration’, Justice B.K. Somashekara, (SCC Journal vol. 3 April 2009 pg.
6).
 B. TIMELY CONDUCT OF PROCEEDING

As per the newly introduced Section 23(4), the statement of claim and defence shall be
completed within a period of six months from the date of appointment of the arbitrator(s) and
as per Proviso to the amended Section 29(1), the award in the matter of international
commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible with an endeavour to
deliver it within 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings under Section 23(4).

C. QUALIFICATIONS OF ARBITRATORS

The ACI is also entrusted with the function of reviewing the grading of arbitrators (Section
43D(2)(c)). The qualifications, experience and norms for accreditation of arbitrators shall be
such as specified in the Eighth Schedule, as introduced by the 2019 Amendment (Section
43J). The Eighth Schedule stipulates nine categories of persons (such as an Indian advocate
or cost accountant or company secretary with certain level of experience or a government
officer in certain cases inter alia) and only those are qualified to be an arbitrator.

Thus, a foreign scholar or foreign-registered lawyer or a retired foreign officer is outrightly

disqualified to be an arbitrator under the 2019 Amendment. For obvious reasons, foreign
parties will be discouraged to opt for Indian institutional arbitration where the choice of
candidates as their potential arbitrators is limited by nationality, likelihood of lack of
experience and specialization – both academic and professional – in handling international
arbitrations.
 CONCLUSION

As discussed earlier, there are many legal, socio and economic problems in ADR mechanism
in India. These problems arise due to diverse and culturally rich population of India as well as
lack of political goodwill in this regard.

To overcome these barriers Government must act strictly and should first of all adopt 176th
Law Commission‘s Report. Coupled with this Government at both state and Union Level
must come up with awareness programmes not only for the citizens but also for the
arbitrators. ADR is a honestly new idea and ideas like these not only take time in
implementing to the grass root levels, acceptance of such a idea is also a big problem.
Therefore a healthy programme imparting legal literacy to the people in India, especially in
the field of ADR becomes a necessity. This will not only take the ADR to the common man
but an aware citizen can contribute to growth of such laws in India.

The common citizens are also to be blamed for this error in ADR mechanism too. People
should opt for ADR instead of litigation and use this mechanism wisely in order to get speedy
and cost efficient justice. The purpose which ADR was supposed to achieve. There is a great
need in Indian legal system to take the ADR system seriously into consideration in their
syllabus. These instruments are only considered and taught as a course which is primarily
focuses on corporations such as for mergers and amalgamations. This mechanisms should
also be used in dealing with private matters to burden down the loads of the courts.