Grassroot Governance and It's Role in Mediation: The Role and

Contribution of Panchayat Raj in Amplification of Alternative Dispute

Resolution in India

-Ayushi Pandya

Amity University

ABSTRACT

Every culture has created its own system for resolving conflicts. From ancient times, India
has seen the informal settlement or resolution of local disputes. However, we found no
consistency in dispute resolution processes. Because the majority of India's population lives
in rural regions, democracy should begin there in order to promote effective governance and
the smooth functioning of democracy that we seek. The Panchayati Raj system was founded
in India to provide democracy to rural India. We are not unfamiliar with the concept of
panchayat justice. Panchayats have played an essential role in resolving disputes at the rural
level since ancient times. Panchayat justice is an idea that has been around for a long time.
The panchayat system has played an important role in resolving disputes at the village level
from ancient times. The Panchayat model relied on cultures, norms, religious beliefs, and
habits to resolve conflicts. Individual adjudicators were known for their impartiality and
fairness. This informal technique of resolving village disputes evolved into a formal local
governance system. Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) has begun to share the burden of the
formal judiciary and is facilitating ways to deal with dispute and establish harmony in our
communities. The "Panchayat system" as a conflict settlement mechanism in India from
ancient times to the present is the subject of this study.

INTRODUCTION

Conflicts and wars have plagued humanity since its advent on the earth. The resolution of
these issues has become an integral component of society. Checking the effectiveness of the
society's conflict resolution process is one technique to gauge its development and successful
operation. A well-functioning justice system is not merely a sign of progress, but also a driver
of progress. As a result, access to justice is critical not only for the fulfilment of
constitutionally protected rights, but also for the achievement of broader development and
poverty reduction goals, and it urgently requires adoption as a development indicator.

India is predominantly a land of villages, with rural areas accounting for roughly 72 percent
of the country's overall population. The rural areas are thus the foundations of Indian
governance, and democracy should begin there. Mahatma Gandhi also stated that the village,
not the great cities, should be the focus of development and government because it is where
India resides.

The process of democratising the justice system should begin at the grassroots level, with
current dispute resolution systems being transformed and sensitised to ensure human rights
and constitutional values, and tying them to the official court system.

The majority of disputes were settled using crude and informal procedures throughout the
early portion of history. These ad hoc processes evolved into more formal and structured
methods over time. The efficient resolution of conflicts is regarded as critical to fulfilling the
goals of justice. The function of law and the legal system in place for dispute resolution is
said to be to balance conflicting interests in society1. Every community has developed its own
process for resolving disputes, and each approach has its own distinct characteristics. Rather,
indigenous non-judicial conflict settlement methods have long been used by communities all
across the world. Aside from the traditional court model, most modern societies utilise
various ways of dispute resolution.

ADR

Alternate Dispute Resolution, or ADR, is a way of resolving disputes between parties that is
used by the State or the Sovereign government as an alternative to formal legal methodology
or the convention court system, i.e. settlement of disputes outside of the court. ADR is an
umbrella word that encompasses all legally permissible conflict settlement techniques other
than litigation2. This is the collective name for all of the means used by the parties to resolve
problems outside of the formal structure of the country's judiciary. What's new is the
widespread marketing and multiplication of ADR models, as well as the increased use of
court-connected ADR and ADR as a tool to achieve purposes other than the resolution of

1
The Sociological school of jurisprudence of which Roscoe Pound is the ardent philosopher firmly believes in
this functional approach to the law and legal system. He calls it ‘Social Engineering’. Fitzgerald, Salmond on
Jurisprudence, p.n.9
2
Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edn.)
specific disputes3. Since time immemorial, the belief has also been prominent in India.
Throughout history, man has experimented with procedure in order to make obtaining justice
simple, inexpensive, reliable, and convenient4. Although judicial resolution of conflicts is the
most prevalent way of dispute resolution in the modern period, it has significant
disadvantages due to its formality5. The traditional judicial system has a number of flaws,
including lengthy procedural delays, high expenses, and pointless appeals. Due to these
shortcomings, the sovereign who administers justice through the judiciary in the
contemporary era had to consider alternative modalities of conflict resolution, and ADR
emerged as a viable option. The term "alternative dispute resolution" refers to a variety of
approaches such as mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. Mediation, among these
strategies, has taken on a new significance in the modern period. It's a process that usually
involves a neutral third party, or a trained assistant, who either supports the parties to a
disagreement in reaching an agreement or enables the parties to the dispute in finding a
solution to the problem.

Mediation is nothing more than guided negotiation in its most basic form6. However,
mediation can be broadly described as a voluntary process of dispute resolution in which a
neutral third party (the mediator) assists the parties in reaching an acceptable settlement7 via
the use of effective and specialised communication and negotiation strategies8. It comes from
the Latin word 'mediare,' which literally means 'to be in the centre.' Mediation saves both
money and time. According to current trends around the world, the method of mediation is

3
Alternative Dispute Resolution, Practitioners’ Guide, Centre for Democracy and Governance, Washington,
1998

4
Dr. Shraddhakara Supakar, Law of Procedure and Justice in Ancient India, Deep & Deep Publication, New
Delhi,1986
5
The difficulties include, satisfaction of any one party involved in the dispute which sometimes is not fair,
heavy consumption of time and the costs, technicality, etc.
6
Tom Arnold, “Mediation Outline: A Practical How-to Guide for Mediators and Attorneys” in P.C. Rao and
William Sheffield (Eds.), Alternative Dispute Resolution 210(Universal Law Publishing Company Pvt ltd.,
Delhi, 1997);See also Stephen B Goldberg, Frank E.A. Sander, Nancy H. Rogers & S.R. Cole, Dispute
Resolution:Negotiation, Mediation and other Processes (Aspen Law & Business, New York, 3rd Edn.)
7
Black’s Law Dictionary defines Mediation as a method of non-binding dispute resolution involving a neutral
third party who tries to help the disputing parties to reach a mutually agreeable solution. See Bryan A. Garner
(Ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, 8th Edn., 2004);
Mediation is therefore a facilitative process in which “disputing parties engage the assistance of an impartial
third party, the mediator, who helps them to try to arrive at an agreed resolution of their dispute. See Henry J.
Brown and Arthur L. Mariot, ADR Principles and Practice (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2nd Edn., 1997)
8
Joanne Goss, “An Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution”, 34 (1) Alta. L. Rev. 1 (1995) (Can.)
rising in favour as a dispute resolution mechanism, to the point where even legal bodies are
promoting it9.

MEDIATION AS A CUSTOMARY LAW

Every community and society has its own technique of settling constituent problems, and it is
also noticed that the dispute resolution process is more varied and developed when the
society's history is lengthy and prosperous. India has a glorious past marred by colonial
wounds; it is a land of various cultures, and as a result, several dispute resolution processes
have formed and evolved over time. In India, law was viewed as a moral code or Dharma10,
rather than a set of laws. Dharma, according to Indian tradition, is not a set of laws to be
followed for its own purpose. Dharma is a comprehensive notion with a clear end. Its goal
when employed in the sense of obligation is to keep everyone in their allocated role as
established by the dharmasastras11. The visible objective is to maintain the status quo in
society, while the ultimate goal is to provide each member of society with the opportunity to
achieve his or her ultimate goal of human existence12. Panchayat is not a recent phenomenon
in India; it has existed for centuries. Local disagreements have been resolved informally from
ancient times all around the country, but we couldn't find any consistency in the procedures
utilised. Since the dawn of time, mediation has been a preferred method of resolving conflicts
in India. People used to settle their conflicts through mediation before the advent of law
courts. Mediation was employed to resolve not only civil and criminal disputes between
individuals, but also political disputes between kingdoms. There were Sabha in the Rigvedic
period, approximately 1200 B.C., that had the primary responsibility of administering the
territory. The Sabha was gradually replaced by the panchayat, which was so named because it
was chaired by five persons.

Because of the rise of the Zamindari system in rural areas during the Medieval period, the
panchayati system collapsed. As a result, the duty of administration was gradually
transformed into tax collection. The village had its own administration system at the time,
however the notion of panchayati raj had degraded. Old Indian epics such as the Mahabharata
and Ramayana, as well as ancient writings and formal socio-legal sources guiding people's

9
The Supreme Court of India has constituted a permanent committee of the judges to address the matters
concerning mediation and is mandated to encourage and develop mediation as a dispute settlement mechanism
10
DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN RURAL INDIA: AN OVERVIEW,Written by Dr. Laju P. Thomas, St Mary's
,Thiruvananthapuram, pp 97-98
11
Ibid
12
Ibid
behaviour, give a significant testament to the prevalence of this technique for dispute
resolution13. "India lives in its villages,"14Gandhi famously declared. Bapu had always
advocated for self-rule, believing that people should be able to govern themselves, and he
saw tremendous promise in the nation's countryside.

He also used to argue that India's rural areas are the true India. India is the world's second-
biggest country and its largest democracy, and data suggests that its residents rely extensively
on mediation to settle their disagreements15. People who used to mediate disputes had a good
understanding of social, legal, moral, and religious concepts. Their wise men were held in
great regard in society and maintained these positions for the benefit of the people; they were
neutral and impartial, allowing them to find a solution that was mutually acceptable and
beneficial to both parties. The ancient Indian court system was not distinct from the
executive, which increased the importance of these mediators in conflict resolution. In
ancient India's villages, a permanent system of mediation was developed, referred to as
'Panchayat'. In the olden days, the dispute settlement technique presently known as mediation
was usually held by a person of high respect and prestige among the people, and such
mediation was referred to as "Panchayat"16. Panchayats were separate systems of arbitration
subordinate to normal courts of law, according to Colebrooke, an English scholar and
commentator on ancient Hindu law. The town headmen, along with a council made up of
other notable individuals, used to serve as mediators. The individuals were known as
"panchas," and they were known for their integrity, quality, and character, as well as their
impartiality. The "Sarpanch" led them. When a problem was brought to the panchayat, the
members, along with the parties, discussed and deliberated until a settlement was reached that
was acceptable to both parties in the issue, and only those disputes that could not be resolved
were referred to judicial experts for a final judgement.

Disputes used to infrequently reach the courts in the past. Even difficult criminal, civil, and
personal law concerns were resolved by the panchayat. The issues were resolved while taking
into account the local environment, language, customs, and practises. "Arbitration was indeed

13
Law Beacon, Peer-reviewed, Bi-annual Journal Published by Akola Law College, Vol.1 ISBN 978-81-
930238-0-8, pp 92-96
14
Garg BS. Village First Community Empowerment on Health & Development Based on Gandhian Approach –
An Experience of Working in few Villages of Wardha District, Maharashtra Indian J Med Res 2019 , 149, suppl
S1: 63-67a.
15
Naidu, M. (2006). INDIAN DEMOCRACY: A CASE STUDY IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PEACE
BUILDING. Peace Research, 38(2), 71-97. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/23607991
16
http://delhimediationcentre.gov.in/history.htm
a conspicuous element of ordinary Indian life, and it occurred in all levels of life to a
considerably higher extent than was the case in the case of the Europeans, referring a problem
to a Panch was a natural manner of resolving many issues in India"17, writes Martin, C.J.
"Caste panchayat" and "Village panchayat" were the two most common types of panchayat.
The Village Panchayat was primarily responsible for regulatory responsibilities, but it was
also responsible for resolving civil disputes between villages over land and dispensing
criminal justice. Caste panchayats were in charge of marriages, ceremonies, and jajmani. The
panchayat system had to deal with the blows and scars of foreign domination, particularly the
Mughals, during mediaeval times, yet the people still chose the indigenous way of conflict
resolution to the foreign origin court system."

ADR AND PANCHAYAT RAJ EVOLUTION18 19 20 21

In British India, Galanter and Bernard S. Cohn (1965) discovered two streams of legal
systems forming. 'Local law ways' referred to the local dispute settlement techniques that
were prevalent in rural India, as well as an adversarial mode of dispute resolution through the
use of third-party pleaders in court. The relationship between 'local law methods' and
'lawyers' law' might be characterised by I complementarity and mutually reinforcing
coexistence, or ii) conflict and tension, culminating in a miscarriage of justice-values
represented in either or both (Baxi,1986:75). Cohn noticed a mismatch between traditional
Indian norms and British-based court values (Cohn, 1959: 90). Through constitution, the
Gandhians were unable to establish a government based on village autonomy and self-
reliance. States like Madras, Mysore, and Travancore had a system of village courts when the
constitution was written. Following the Directive Principles of state policy, the states of
Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh formed Nyaya panchayats. For a variety of causes, these
judicial panchayats have been ignored. A number of individuals and groups attempted to
make the Gandhian notion of rural swaraj a reality in various ways. The concepts of liberal
constitutionalism and the Cornwallis model legal system were passed down to the nationalist
movement. It stifled Indian culture's diversity and established a homogeneous worldview of
justice. In contrast to the values of the traditional Indian system of dispute settlement, India's

17
Tewari, O.P, The Arbitration & Conciliation Act with Alternative Dispute Resolution, 4th Edition(2005)
Reprint
2007, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, pp. 2- 4
18
The Constitution of India
19
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
20
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
21
Civil Procedure Code 1908
constitution reflects many of the values inherent in the western legal system. In addition to
the general heritage of local customary dispute resolution techniques, various exemplary
mechanisms were seen in India's rural setting. Among these, sarvodaya social worker
Harivallah Parikh's People's Court was the most impressive. It is fair to claim that the
People's Court of Parikh was a forerunner of India's Lok Adalat movement. 'The head of Lok
Adalat, Parikh, earned credibility and a degree of charisma through his role as a mediator in
village disputes.' In response, he used Lok Adalat as a vehicle for reform-oriented adult
education to translate his vision of socio-economic transformations. He turned adjudicatory
occasions into educational ones, both through actual decisions and plain preaching on a
variety of topics, including family planning, the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption,
honesty in credit transactions, civil liberties, the irrationality of witchcraft belief, women's
equality, agricultural innovation, and so on (Baxi, 1986:77). Lok Adalat is a venue for
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that has the ability to improve access to justice. They are
informal, flexible, and participative forums with the goal of encouraging settlements,
compromises, and avoiding litigation. Lok Adalats are voluntary mediation and conciliation
forums used by parties to a dispute to better understand their rights and obligations under the
law, as well as to facilitate the resolution or compromise of their differences. Lok Adalats do
not have legal standing to enforce its rulings. Lok Adalat judges, who are typically retired
judges, lawyers, or social workers, serve solely as mediators or conciliators. Articles 14 and
21 of the Indian Constitution, which deal with equality before the law and the right to life and
personal liberty, respectively, are the foundations of ADR in India. These Articles are
established in Part III of the Indian Constitution, which lists the people' Fundamental Rights.
ADR also aims to achieve Article 39-A of the Constitution's Directive Principle of State
Policy related to Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid. The Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999 (CPC Amendment Act) was adopted in 1999, and a new Section 89
was added to the Code of Civil Procedure. The concept of 'judicial mediation,' as opposed to
'voluntary mediation,' is introduced in the new Section. A court can now identify
circumstances in which an amicable resolution is possible, construct the terms of such a
resolution, and request the parties to the dispute to comment on it. The Arbitration and
Conciliation Act of 1996 and the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 both deal with
Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures. ADR is not a new concept in India; it existed
long before the 1940 Arbitration Act. To fulfil the UNCITRAL Model's harmonisation
mandates, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 was enacted. The conventional civil
law, known as the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908, has also been altered, and section 89
has been established to streamline the Indian legal system. Section 89 (1) of the CPC allows
for dispute resolution outside of the courtroom. It states that if the court believes there are
components that the parties can agree on, the court may formulate the terms of a possible
settlement and submit it to arbitration, conciliation, mediation, or judicial settlement. In India,
there has been a strong emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques due to the
exceedingly sluggish judicial process. In its working paper on 'Alternative Forum for Dispute
Resolution at Grassroot Level,' the Law Commission stated that the current system of justice
administration is unsuitable for the needs of our people, and that the real solution lies in
reforming the existing judicial system by taking some interim steps right away. ADR has
always been an important, vocal, and dynamic part of our history. Conciliation cells working
on a regular basis in some rural parts of Tamil Nadu are resolving a substantial number of
pre-litigation conflicts in a manner similar to Lok Adalats (Menon, 1986:129). Traditional
communal conflict resolution systems, such as the tribal council of Malana village in
Himachal Pradesh, do not place a strong focus on the procedural side of the law (Chitkara,
1993:33). Undoubtedly, Lok Adalat (Peoples' Court) concept and philosophy is an innovative
Indian contribution to the world of jurisprudence. It has very deep and long roots not only in
the recorded history but even in pre-historical era. It has been proved to be a very effective
alternative to litigation. The system has received laurels from the parties involved in
particular and the public and the legal functionaries, in general. It also helps in emergence of
jurisprudence of peace in the larger interest of justice and wider sections of society. While
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a fairly standard western approach towards ADR,
the Lok Adalat system constituted under National Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is a
uniquely Indian approach.

BRITISH RAJ AND PANCHAYATI SYSTEM- PRE AND POST INDEPENDENCE

During the British reign in India, the Indian legal system underwent significant changes. The
law in mediaeval times was founded on religious texts as well as behaviours and customs.
British officers administered the codified statutory laws, which were written in English. For
the Indians, the foreign legal structure was unfamiliar and confusing. The English legal
system did not take into account Indian customs, practises, or rituals. The British officers
were well-versed in English law but struggled to understand the indigenous legal system,
which turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the Panchayat system. Traditional
institutions served as acknowledged systems of justice administration, not just as alternatives
to the British-established formal court system. The two systems continued to run in the same
direction22. Gandhi, the hero of the Indian freedom struggle, a great lawyer and ardent
proponent of nonviolence and peace, had a deep conviction and faith in the Panchayat system
as a dispute resolution mechanism23. He claimed that because the English judicial system was
not easily accessible, the majority of Indians lived in villages and that panchayat was the only
effective manner of resolving disputes. At the time, ADR was not only a more convenient
alternative, but it was also seen as a politically safe and significant tool of dispute resolution.
However, with the arrival of the British Raj, these old institutions of dispute settlement began
to fade, and the British-imposed formal legal system took over24. To create rule of law,
legislation such as the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Code took over the
panchayats. When respected and neutral village elders were replaced by leaders based on
caste, money, and political affiliations who made judgments based on superstitions, personal
interests, and moral views, the Panchayat system suffered a huge defeat. They imposed
heinous punishments such as excommunication and honour killings, among other things. As a
result, the indigenous dispute-resolution process gradually lost respect and credibility, and the
courts took over as dispute adjudicators. Gandhiji recognised the British legal system, but
believed that the panchayat system should be expanded and run concurrently with the
adversarial court system.

The question of panchayats was widely debated in India's Constituent Assembly. Many
legislators believed that the panchayat form of dispute resolution was Bapus dream and hence
deserved to be included in the Indian Constitution. As a result, several laws in this respect
were put into the Indian Constitution, and it was made mandatory for the Indian government
to adopt measures in this regard25 to some extent. As a result, our Constitution has Article 40,
which states, "The State shall take steps to organise village Panchayats and invest them with
such powers and authority as may be necessary to allow them to function as units of self-
government"26. Unfortunately, in the early years of independent India, little attention was
paid to the growth of the panchayat system because the state's main priority was to improve
the court system and make it more accessible to poor Indians. The importance of the judiciary

22
Sarvesh Chandra, ADR: Is Conciliation the Best Choice, in P.C. Rao and William Sheffield (eds.), Alternative
Dispute Resolution: What it is and How it Works, Universal Law Publishing Co., New Delhi, (1997) p. 85
23
Supra 15
24
K. Jayachandra Reddy, Alternate Dispute Resolution, in P.C. Rao and William Sheffield (eds.), Alternative
Dispute Resolution: What it is and How it Works, Universal Law Publishing Co., New Delhi, (1997) p. 79
25
Part IX and Art.243 of the Indian Constitution make comprehensive provisions for establishment and
regulation of Panchayat system

26
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 40
was emphasised to the point where it became India's primary conflict resolution institution.
As every lawsuit filed had to follow the adversarial court system's strict standards and
procedures, there was a backlog of cases in the courts. The English-made legal system
featured rigid processes, such as the Code of Civil Procedure, Criminal Code, and Indian
Evidence Act, which had an impact on the quality and timeliness of justice delivery. The
burdening of the judiciary began when the English East India Company began to move away
from the Mughal system of justice and toward the English Court system. As more individuals
got educated and empowered after independence, the burdening increased. As a result, the
state began looking for other dispute resolution methods, and the value of panchayats was
once again recognised by the government. In 1957, the then-government established the
Balwantrai Mehta Committee, which suggested a three-tier Panchayati Raj system, with
Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis, and Zilla Parishads at the village, block, and district
levels, respectively. Some states made bold steps to implement the recommendations, while
others remained silent. Globalisation and privatisation swept the globe at the turn of the
twenty-first century. As transportation and communication improved, more and more
individuals began doing business across borders. International growth and advancement of
Mediation and Arbitration as a conflict resolution tool is attributed to the rise in cross-border
conflicts. Since each country had its own set of laws, there was a problem of legal dispute. At
the time, mediation offered a way for resolving disputes amicably without relying on the laws
of any one country. Because of this intrinsic benefit of mediation, it has gained international
acceptability, resulting in a large body of legal law. Many legal experts believe India will
become the world's Mediation centre. The laws governing ADR in India prior to 1996 were
primarily pre-independence and ineffective in dealing with new concerns27. All of those laws
were repealed by the 1996 law that governed and regulated the process of arbitration,
conciliation, and mediation in India. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, together
with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, governs the process of mediation in India
today. To some extent, the Civil Procedure Code also governs mediation28. According to the
Supreme Court of India, mediation is a non-adjudicatory process aimed at a peaceful
resolution of disputes between parties through the use of a Mediator29. The Supreme Court of
India has established unique training programmes for mediators. The mediators become more

27
Before 1996 ADR in India was regulated via Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937; Indian
Arbitration Act, 1940 and Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961
28
Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with Order X, Rules 1A, 1B and 1C
29
In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 24
the court equated mediation to the proceedings before Lok-Adalat
proficient in handling the sessions after completing the training. Organizations like the Indian
Institute of Mediation and the Delhi Mediation Centre have done a lot to promote mediation
in India. Legal Services Authorities are statutory organisations established in India's states
under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, which is included in Article 39-A of the
Indian Constitution, to provide free legal services to citizens. If a person is unable to pay the
legal fees, the authorities will provide them with free legal assistance30 31. Almost every state
in India has its own legal services authority, which is the main organisation in charge of
dealing with legal issues of Mediation, Conciliation and Lok Adalat.

In India, the panchayat system has lost its lustre, although it still remains for some
administrative functions and hasn't fully vanished. The government has recently taken many
initiatives to encourage mediation. In an attempt to revitalise the indigenous Panchayat
system, the Rajiv Gandhi government introduced the 73rd Constitutional Amendment32 in
1992, mandating the establishment of the three-tier Panchayat system in every district. The
administration has made many moves in this direction in order to restore the panchayats'
judicial function. These entail the development of small panels at the village, block, and
district levels to settle local issues with the help of the police and other authorities, with
surprisingly positive results. This concept is working particularly well in Maharashtra and
Madhya Pradesh. Maharashtra's experience in this area is highly encouraging, and it
underscores the relevance of procedures like mediation in dispute resolution33. The success of
this experiment is reinforcing people's faith in the Panchayat system, which they created
themselves.

Taking everything into account, it is extremely likely that India's time-tested Panchayat
system will come to the rescue of the overworked judiciary by providing easy, practical, and
cost-effective conflict resolution. The Panchayat system has proven to be quite effective in
the past, and it has played an important part in dispute resolution throughout history. The
mediators' abilities and competence, i.e. the "Sarpanch" and "panchas," must be channelled in
order to achieve successful dispute resolution. It is critical to ensure that Panchayats across

30
kelsa.nic.in The Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987

31
legalserviceindia.com
32
The Constitution (Seventy Third Amendment) Act, 1992
33
These Committees in Maharashtra are called ‘Tanta Mukta Samiti’ and they are aimed at achieving the goal of
dispute free village (“Tanta Mukta Gaon”) http://www.mahapolice.gov.in/mahapolice/jsp/temp/disputefree.jsp
India are set up in such a way that facilitates the execution of this function of mediation. The
government should make sure that panchayats across India have the facilities they need to
resolve disputes. The Village Headman and his council should be required to attend seminars
and training sessions to improve their skills as adjudicators and mediators in order to conduct
sessions. There is also a need to educate the general public about the benefits of this system
in order to dissuade them from approaching law courts. People should be provided
appropriate incentives and education to settle their disputes through mediation. The
authorities should commend the Panchayats that have successfully implemented the
aforementioned approach. As the bulk of the population lives in villages, this approach will
be critical in giving a compelling alternative for resolving disputes.

INCORPORATION OF PANCHAYAT RAJ IN THE CONSTITUTION

The notion of the village Panchayat continuing to serve as a judicial and administrative body
was discussed in the constituent assembly, but it was rejected. As a result, the only mention
of Panchayats in the Indian Constitution is in the Directive Principles of State Policy, which
no court can enforce. Even after independence, the core basis of the Indian legal system has
remained constant. It was clear soon after the announcement of the first five-year plan that
there were some flaws in achieving the plan's goals. Some states that did not have statutory
village panchayats established laws, while others strengthened their existing panchayats.
During the first decade after independence, the number of panchayats climbed from 14.8
thousand to 164.3 thousand.

Based on the suggestions of the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee, a methodology for
developing state plans for rural development on the basis of district and block plans was
developed during the third five-year plan, and attempts were made to establish a three-tier
system of PRIs (1957). 'Community development can only be true when the community
knows its problems, recognises its duties, exercises appropriate powers through its elected
representatives, and keeps a persistent and intelligent vigilance on local administration,' the
Committee said. (Mehta, 1978, pp. 1-2) However, these concepts were not implemented
since, with the exception of a few states, PRIs were stagnating or falling following the early
enthusiasm for their creation. The National Development Council later confirmed the need
for governmental decentralisation, and panchayats were once again on the political agenda,
with the term "panchayati raj" becoming fashionable (quoted in Mukherjee, 1947). In the late
1960s and early 1970s, Jai Prakash Narayan was a strong supporter of Panchayats, with a
vision that was fairly radical, supporting the idea of party-less democracy. During the sixth
five-year plan, the need of implementing rural development programmes at the block level
was emphasised. The failure of PRIs was attributed to a lack of resources, according to the
Ashok Mehta Committee on Panchayati Raj (1977), which advised that the falling Panchayati
Raj system be revived and strengthened. The Indian states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh,
West Bengal and Telangana have all responded positively to this report. The committee
suggested that Nyaya Panchayats be kept apart from development Panchayats and that a
qualified judge preside over them. The C.H. Hanumantha Rao group (1984) advised that the
district planning process be sufficiently decentralised, with a high level of autonomy,
administrative, and financial adequacy. However, in the late twentieth century, the concept of
Panchayati Raj has resurfaced on the political agenda. Since the early 1990s, there have been
persistent attempts in the states to strengthen and restore Panchayati Raj. By passing the
Constitution Seventy-third Amendment Act, 1992, the Indian Parliament introduced a new
chapter (Part IX) to the constitution. It went into effect in June 1993, marking a watershed
moment in the country's history of local self-government. It grants state governments a
constitutional authority to rebuild and reestablish local organisations as self-governing
entities. The Act calls for I the establishment of a three-tiered PRI system, (ii) the
establishment of a State Election Commission, and (iii) the establishment of a State Finance
Commission.

The constitution's vision of self-government must include judicial powers as well, which is
why 'Nyaya Panchayats,' which imply judicial decentralisation at the grassroots level, were
created. In their State Panchayati Raj Acts, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala,
and West Bengal have not created any statutory provisions for the establishment of Nyaya
Panchayats. However, in places like Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur,
Mizoram, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha, laws are
mostly ineffective.

In India, there are currently about 2.5 lakh Panchayati Raj Institutions. Nyaya Panchayats, if
established at the Gram Panchayat level, can deliver justice to the doorstep.
AMPLIFICATION OF THE CONCEPT

The Indian legislature recognised the necessity of mediation by enacting the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 198734, which established the Lok Adalat system. Lok Adalats give a forum
for resolving pre-litigation problems through amicable settlement.

The 129th Law Commission Report on Urban Litigation and Mediation as Alternatives to
Adjudication, as well as the Arrears Committee Report, popularly known as the Justice
Malimath Committee Report, were both issued in 1988. Given the backlog of cases pending
in Indian courts, the Justice Malimath Committee advised that parties be encouraged to use
alternative dispute resolution procedures (ADRs) to resolve their differences. These
suggestions finally led to the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act of 199935, which
added Section 89 to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). The courts were given the
authority under Section 89 CPC to refer issues to ADRs if they had the potential to be
resolved (which included arbitration, conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement)36.

The Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the first court-annexed mediation centre,
opened on April 9, 2005. Following that, in August 2005, Justice R.C. Lahoti, the ex-Chief
Justice of India, established a Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee to provide
mediation training to judges. Several High Courts now have their own mediation centres with
their own set of rules. In 2018, an amendment to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was
adopted, including Section 12-A, which mandates the parties to attempt to mediate their
disagreements before beginning judicial proceedings, recognising the potential of mediation
for rapid and cost-effective conflict settlement. In January 2020, the Supreme Court
established a team, led by Mr. Niranjan Bhat, to provide recommendations and create
legislation codifying mediation practise in India.

CONCLUSION

In recent years, the role and visibility of informal practises in India has dwindled. The village
elders' conflict resolution procedures are unquestionably expeditious. The way disagreements
are settled at the local level through mediation has a number of advantages. From the poor's
perspective, this is a quick way to settle their conflicts because they lack the time and
finances to engage in legal dispute resolution. As a result, rural India's issues are resolved

34
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
35
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999
36
Section 89 CPC
through conciliation and mediation. This heritage can be seen in ancient India's panchayat
system. We have now adopted court-annexed ADR techniques such as Lok Adalat and
Family Court as a means of extending local level mediation across the country37.

These attempts by the government and the judiciary to mainstream mediation have failed
because mediation's actual potential is still underutilised.

37
https://delhicourts.nic.in/dmc/history.htm, last visited on May 28, 2020