Tweet
The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system if properly applied can work wonders. If the system became a part even at the pre-litigative stage many disputes may not come to court thereby controlling docket explosion, Altamas Kabir, Supreme Court Judge, said on Saturday.
Laying the foundation stone for an ADR Centre here, he explained the causes for the increasing number of cases before courts. Population explosion and increasing number of disputes were among the reasons. The courts were not geared to handle the rising number of cases. Lok Adalats, arbitration and conciliation were certain mechanisms to check docket explosion.
Mr.Justice Kabir, who is also the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, New Delhi, said the authority was actively projecting Lok Adalat centres and clinics if not in every village, at least one for a cluster of villages.
Lawyers need not have any hesitation that they would lose clientele because of ADRs. Because of the quick disposal of cases through alternative methods, more number of clients would go to them with problems. The advantages of ADR system were saving time, money and reaching finality in the matter.
Recently, in Madhya Pradesh on a single day, six lakh cases were disposed of through Lok Adalats. Similarly, in Karnataka, one lakh cases were disposed of. Cases relating to ‘bouncing of cheques' had choked much of the judicial system. “These are cases which should not be allowed to come to court.” They could be referred to ADR. However, the alternative system should be properly applied. He cited an instance where a motor vehicle accident case which had been referred to ADR, was pending for a long time as the ‘Memo of appearance' had not been filed. That was not the way the system should work.
‘Delay eroded public trust'
P.Sathasivam, Supreme Court Judge, said delay in disposal of cases eroded public trust in the judiciary and undermined social justice. It also slowed down socio-economic development. The reasons included disproportionate strength of judges to population, lack of infrastructure and inadequate allocation for the judiciary and impact of new legislations leading to more cases. It was every judicial officer's duty to persuade litigants to arrive at an amicable settlement. Motor vehicle accident and consumer cases could be referred to ADR.
The government also should consider utilising the ADR instead of approaching the regular courts, adding to the backlog. Only when a point of law was involved, they should go to courts.
Mr.Justice Sathasivam said whenever a new court was constructed, lawyers' chambers should be provided. The government could also think of providing house sites to members of the Bar at the lowest rate. A rider could be that a lawyer should have rendered free legal assistance in at least one case per year.
The Chief Justice of Madras High Court, M.Y.Eqbal, said in the context of globalisation, there was a demand for speedy and effective mechanism for resolving domestic and international disputes. This had resulted in adopting ADR mechanism. The proposed ADR building here would be a model building for other States.
State Law Minister G.Senthamizhan, Justices P.Jyothimani, C.Nagappan, D.Murugesan, Elipe Dharma Rao and R.Banumathi of the Madras High Court were among those who spoke.
Advocate-General A.Navaneethakrishnan said the lawyer community should discipline itself. Certain untoward incidents were taking place. It gave a wrong picture of lawyers.
Laying the foundation stone for an ADR Centre here, he explained the causes for the increasing number of cases before courts. Population explosion and increasing number of disputes were among the reasons. The courts were not geared to handle the rising number of cases. Lok Adalats, arbitration and conciliation were certain mechanisms to check docket explosion.
Mr.Justice Kabir, who is also the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, New Delhi, said the authority was actively projecting Lok Adalat centres and clinics if not in every village, at least one for a cluster of villages.
Lawyers need not have any hesitation that they would lose clientele because of ADRs. Because of the quick disposal of cases through alternative methods, more number of clients would go to them with problems. The advantages of ADR system were saving time, money and reaching finality in the matter.
Recently, in Madhya Pradesh on a single day, six lakh cases were disposed of through Lok Adalats. Similarly, in Karnataka, one lakh cases were disposed of. Cases relating to ‘bouncing of cheques' had choked much of the judicial system. “These are cases which should not be allowed to come to court.” They could be referred to ADR. However, the alternative system should be properly applied. He cited an instance where a motor vehicle accident case which had been referred to ADR, was pending for a long time as the ‘Memo of appearance' had not been filed. That was not the way the system should work.
‘Delay eroded public trust'
P.Sathasivam, Supreme Court Judge, said delay in disposal of cases eroded public trust in the judiciary and undermined social justice. It also slowed down socio-economic development. The reasons included disproportionate strength of judges to population, lack of infrastructure and inadequate allocation for the judiciary and impact of new legislations leading to more cases. It was every judicial officer's duty to persuade litigants to arrive at an amicable settlement. Motor vehicle accident and consumer cases could be referred to ADR.
The government also should consider utilising the ADR instead of approaching the regular courts, adding to the backlog. Only when a point of law was involved, they should go to courts.
Mr.Justice Sathasivam said whenever a new court was constructed, lawyers' chambers should be provided. The government could also think of providing house sites to members of the Bar at the lowest rate. A rider could be that a lawyer should have rendered free legal assistance in at least one case per year.
The Chief Justice of Madras High Court, M.Y.Eqbal, said in the context of globalisation, there was a demand for speedy and effective mechanism for resolving domestic and international disputes. This had resulted in adopting ADR mechanism. The proposed ADR building here would be a model building for other States.
State Law Minister G.Senthamizhan, Justices P.Jyothimani, C.Nagappan, D.Murugesan, Elipe Dharma Rao and R.Banumathi of the Madras High Court were among those who spoke.
Advocate-General A.Navaneethakrishnan said the lawyer community should discipline itself. Certain untoward incidents were taking place. It gave a wrong picture of lawyers.