Introduction
The term Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) traditionally denoted a set of mechanisms that provided an “alternative” to the conventional court litigation process. Rooted in the principles of party autonomy, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and speed, ADR includes arbitration, mediation, conciliation, negotiation, and Lok Adalats. However, in recent years, the perception and legal status of ADR in India have evolved substantially. It is no longer viewed as an alternative to court adjudication but as an additional and integral component of the justice delivery system. The paradigm shift reflects a broader transformation in the Indian legal framework that recognizes ADR as a parallel and complementary mechanism rather than a substitute.
Evolution of ADR in India
The genesis of ADR in India can be traced to traditional community-based dispute resolution systems such as panchayats and nyaya panchayats, which emphasized consensus and reconciliation. The modern statutory recognition began with the Arbitration Act, 1940, followed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which aligned Indian arbitration law with the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Over time, the judiciary and legislature have taken consistent steps to institutionalize ADR:
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Amendment 2002) mandates courts to refer disputes to ADR mechanisms where possible.
The establishment of Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 made ADR accessible at the grassroots level.
The Mediation Act, 2023 has given statutory backing to mediation, signaling the government’s commitment to institutionalize ADR as a mainstream dispute resolution tool.
Judicial Endorsement: From Alternative to Complementary
Indian courts have played a pivotal role in changing the perception of ADR from being “alternative” to “additional.” Through landmark judgments, the judiciary has endorsed ADR as a necessary supplement to the formal justice system:
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2003) 1 SCC 49 – The Supreme Court upheld Section 89 CPC, emphasizing that ADR mechanisms must be encouraged to reduce court congestion.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010) 8 SCC 24 – The Court clarified the applicability of Section 89 and stressed that mediation and conciliation are effective tools for amicable settlements.
K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 – The Supreme Court suggested mediation even in matrimonial disputes to promote reconciliation.
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1 – The Court reaffirmed the pro-arbitration stance of Indian jurisprudence, recognizing arbitration as a robust judicial alternative.
Through these pronouncements, the judiciary has reaffirmed that ADR is not a mere substitute but an additional path toward achieving the constitutional mandate of access to justice under Article 39A.
The Changing Policy and Legislative Landscape
India’s contemporary policy direction reflects a systemic embrace of ADR as a coexisting component of the justice ecosystem:
Mediation Act, 2023: Provides a statutory framework for both pre-litigation and institutional mediation, making mediation an integral step in the dispute resolution chain.
Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Mandates pre-institution mediation for certain commercial disputes, reinforcing mediation as a prerequisite rather than an alternative.
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Acts of 2015, 2019, and 2021: Aim to make arbitration more efficient and credible, encouraging institutional arbitration.
Digital ADR Initiatives: The rise of online mediation and arbitration platforms during and post-COVID-19 underscores technology-driven integration between formal courts and ADR systems.
These reforms reflect the state’s commitment to embedding ADR within the formal justice infrastructure — creating a hybrid system of dispute resolution.
Why ADR Is No Longer “Alternative”
Judicial Overload and Backlog:
With over 45 million pending cases across Indian courts, ADR serves as an essential relief valve, not merely an optional path. Courts themselves now direct parties toward ADR for resolution before formal adjudication.
Institutionalization and Mainstreaming:
The establishment of mediation centers in High Courts and the rise of arbitration institutions like the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) and Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) signify the institutional anchoring of ADR.
Legal Mandate:
Several statutes now mandate recourse to ADR — making it an additional requirement in the justice process rather than an alternative choice.
Corporate and Commercial Acceptance:
Businesses increasingly prefer ADR mechanisms for efficiency and confidentiality, embedding them within contractual clauses as a standard practice.
Global Competitiveness:
For India to emerge as a global arbitration hub, ADR must operate in tandem with, not outside, the formal judiciary — ensuring enforceability, transparency, and trust.
Challenges in the Transformation
Despite its evolving role, ADR in India still faces structural and perceptual challenges:
Lack of awareness and trained mediators in rural areas.
Inconsistent enforcement of arbitral awards.
Limited institutional capacity outside major cities.
Perception of ADR as “non-binding” or “secondary” remains in certain segments of society.
Addressing these issues requires consistent policy support, capacity building, and public legal education.
The Way Forward
To truly make ADR an additional mechanism, the following measures are crucial:
Integration with Judicial Training: Judges and lawyers must be trained to identify ADR-suitable cases early.
Institutional Support: Strengthening ADR centers and promoting uniform standards across institutions.
Public Awareness: Legal literacy campaigns highlighting the legitimacy and benefits of ADR.
Digital Expansion: Promoting Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) to bridge geographical barriers.
Cross-border Collaboration: Aligning Indian ADR institutions with global best practices to attract international disputes.
Conclusion
The transformation of ADR from an alternative to an additional mechanism represents a profound evolution in India’s justice delivery philosophy. ADR is no longer a substitute for litigation but a partner to it — complementing the judiciary’s role in ensuring timely, accessible, and participatory justice. With legislative backing, judicial endorsement, and societal acceptance, ADR has emerged as an indispensable pillar of India’s modern dispute resolution framework.
In the contemporary Indian legal landscape, the “A” in ADR may well stand not for “Alternative” but for “Additional,” symbolizing a new era of collaborative justice — where courts and consensual methods work hand in hand to achieve the constitutional promise of justice for all.
