Judiciary III — Contents
01Overview & Constitutional Basis of ADR
02Types of ADR Mechanisms
03Comparison: ADR Methods
04Lok Adalats
05Permanent Lok Adalats
06Gram Nyayalayas
07Nyaya Panchayats
08Family Courts
09Commercial Courts
10Plea Bargaining & Collective Bargaining
11Tribunals — Overview & 323A vs 323B
12CAT, SAT & Key Tribunals
13National Green Tribunal (NGT)
14Current Affairs 2024–25
15Mock Mains Questions
01 — Overview & Constitutional Basis of ADR
Court of Law
A formal, adversarial adjudicatory process presided over by a judge. Decisions are binding and appealable. E.g., High Courts, Supreme Court, Tribunals.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Any method of resolving disputes outside the formal court system. E.g., Mediation, Arbitration, Conciliation, Lok Adalat, Negotiation.
Constitutional & Statutory Basis for ADR
| Provision | Relevance to ADR |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | Equality before law — ensures equal access to dispute resolution for all citizens |
| Article 21 | Right to life and personal liberty — interpreted to include right to speedy justice and a healthy environment (basis for NGT) |
| Article 32 | Right to constitutional remedies — provides the right of people to seek justice |
| Article 39A (DPSP) | Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid — directs the State to ensure justice is not denied due to economic or other disabilities. Direct basis for Lok Adalats and NALSA. |
| Section 89, CPC | Settlement of disputes outside the court through: (1) Arbitration, (2) Conciliation, (3) Judicial settlement through Lok Adalat (governed by Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987), (4) Mediation |
| Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 | Governs Arbitration and Conciliation; amended in 2019 to make India a hub of institutional arbitration |
| Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 | Gave statutory status to Lok Adalats; established NALSA, SLSAs, DLSAs |
| Mediation Act, 2023 | New First standalone law dedicated to mediation in India; provides for pre-litigation mediation, online mediation, and community mediation. Mediator registration and mediation councils established. |
02 — Types of ADR Mechanisms
| Mechanism | Governing Law | Nature & Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| Mediation | Mediation Act, 2023; CPC S.89 | An unbiased, impartial, non-imposing third-party mediator facilitates the parties in reaching a mutually agreeable settlement. Not an adjudicatory process — parties decide their own settlement. Mediator’s role is facilitative, not decisive. A binding settlement is reached only if both parties agree. Personal appearance and active participation required. Confidentiality is the essence. |
| Arbitration | Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (amended 2019) | A quasi-judicial adjudicatory process. Dispute submitted by agreement of parties to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision (award). Award is subject to challenge only on specified grounds. Formal proceeding held in private. Service of lawyer available. Confidentiality is the essence. 2019 Amendment aims to make India a hub for institutional arbitration. |
| Conciliation | Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 | Resolution of disputes through compromise or voluntary agreement. Conciliator does NOT render a binding award — parties are free to accept or reject recommendations. Conciliator is a neutral third party whose role is more active than a mediator’s. Consent of parties is mandatory for referring a case to conciliation. Voluntary process; confidentiality maintained. |
| Negotiation | No statutory recognition in India | Simplest form of ADR. Self-counselling between parties — no third-party involvement. No fixed rules. Useful when there is mutual understanding and patience. No legislation governs it in India. |
| Lok Adalat | Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 | A non-judicial, informal proceeding held in private. Presiding officer (neutral third party) plays a persuasive role. Consent of parties is NOT mandatory for referral. Award is final, binding, and not appealable. Deemed a decree of a civil court. Parties not actively involved in negotiation — presiding officer facilitates. No fee payable. Confidentiality not observed. |
| Judicial Settlement | CPC Section 89 | Court itself effects a compromise between the parties. Court acts as a mediator/conciliator. If settlement is reached, it is given effect to as a decree of the court. |
| Plea Bargaining | Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (erstwhile CrPC Ch. XXI-A) | Accused negotiates with prosecution for lesser punishment by pleading guilty to a less serious offence. Primarily pre-trial stage. Introduced in India in 2006 as Chapter XXI-A (Ss. 265A–265L) of CrPC. Cases where allowed are limited (not for offences punishable by death, life imprisonment, or offence affecting socio-economic conditions). |
| Collective Bargaining | Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 | Technique to resolve employment-related disputes by agreement rather than coercion. Workers (through trade unions) negotiate wages, working conditions etc. with employers. SC defined it as resolving “dispute as to conditions of employment amicably by agreement rather than coercion.” |
03 — Comparison: Judicial Process vs ADR Methods
| Parameter | Judicial Process | Arbitration | Mediation | Conciliation | Lok Adalat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature | Adjudicatory — judge decides | Quasi-judicial adjudicatory — arbitrator decides | Negotiation — mediator facilitates, parties decide | Compromise — conciliator actively assists | Non-judicial — persuasive, parties voluntarily agree |
| Proceeding | Formal, public, strict procedural stages | Formal, private, strict procedural stages | Informal, private, flexible | Informal, private, flexible | Informal, private, flexible |
| Governing Law | Relevant statutes (CPC, CrPC/BNSS) | Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 | Mediation Act, 2023; CPC S.89 | Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 | Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 |
| Binding? | Yes — binding decree | Yes — binding award | Only if parties mutually agree | Not binding — parties free to reject | Yes — binding, deemed civil court decree |
| Appealable? | Yes — appealable | Challenge only on specified grounds | Not appealable | Not appealable | Not appealable — no appeal against Lok Adalat award |
| Party Consent for Referral? | N/A | Required (agreement) | Not mandatory | Mandatory | Not mandatory |
| Party Participation | Not always required | Not always required | Active & direct participation required | Active & direct participation required | Not as actively involved |
| Confidentiality | No — open court | Yes | Yes — essence of mediation | Yes | No — confidentiality not observed |
| Lawyer Services | Available | Available | Available | Available | Available (but not required) |
| Voluntary? | No — court can compel | Voluntary | Voluntary | Voluntary | Voluntary |
04 — Lok Adalats
1982
First Lok Adalat (Junagadh, Gujarat)
1987
Legal Services Authorities Act (Statutory Status)
3.09Cr
Cases Settled — 1st Nat’l Lok Adalat 2025
₹0
Court Fee Payable
0
Appeals Against Award
What is Lok Adalat?
Based on Gandhian principles. An ADR forum where settlement is reached through mediation, negotiation, and conciliation. The first Lok Adalat was held on 14 March 1982 at Junagadh, Gujarat. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 gave statutory status to Lok Adalats. Organised at national, state, district, and taluk levels. Cases can be referred at pre-litigation stage or when already pending in court.
Composition
- Presided by a sitting or retired judicial officer as Chairman
- Two other members: one lawyer and one social worker
Jurisdiction
- Any case pending before any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised
- Any matter at pre-litigation stage (not yet brought before any court) within its jurisdiction
- Can compromise and settle criminal cases which are compoundable under relevant laws
- Types of cases: matrimonial/family disputes, criminal compoundable offences, land acquisition, labour disputes, workmen’s compensation, bank recovery, motor accident claims, cheque dishonour etc.
- Cannot settle non-compoundable criminal offences
Powers of Lok Adalat
- Has the powers of a civil court under CPC, 1908
- Power to specify its own procedure for determination of disputes
- Every Lok Adalat is deemed to be a Civil Court for purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of CrPC (now BNSS)
Key Features of Lok Adalat Award
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Binding | Award is binding on all parties — no party can refuse after settlement is reached |
| Not Appealable | No appeal lies against the order of a Lok Adalat in any court |
| Civil Court Decree | Award is deemed a decree of a civil court and can be executed as such |
| No Court Fee | No court fee is payable by the parties |
| Refund of Fee | If a case already filed in court is settled in Lok Adalat, the court fee originally paid is refunded |
| No Lawyers Required | Parties don’t need to be represented by lawyers (though they may have one) |
| Natural Justice | Strict rules of CPC and Evidence Act do not apply — principles of natural justice and equity are applied |
| Informal | Decision is by informal sitting |
Levels / Authorities Organising Lok Adalats
- Supreme Court Legal Services Committee — at SC level
- High Court Legal Services Committee — at HC level
- State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) — at state level
- District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) — at district level
- Taluk Legal Services Committee — at taluk/sub-district level
Major Defect of Lok Adalat
A Lok Adalat cannot take a decision if even one party is unwilling for settlement, even if all members believe the case is fit for settlement. The adamant attitude of one party renders the entire process futile. All unsettled cases are returned to the originating court and do not remain pending with the Lok Adalat.
05 — Permanent Lok Adalats (PLAs)
- Established in 2002 through amendment to Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
- Deals with disputes related to public utility services — transport, postal, telegraph, insurance, supply of power/water, hospitals, educational institutions etc.
- Jurisdiction up to ₹1 Crore
- Pre-litigation matters ONLY — unlike regular Lok Adalats which handle both pending and pre-litigation matters
- Composition: Chairperson (a person qualified to be a District Judge) + 2 other persons with adequate experience in public utility services
- If parties fail to reach a settlement, PLA can adjudicate the dispute on merits (unlike regular Lok Adalat, which cannot impose a decision)
- Award of PLA — made on merit or in terms of settlement — is final and binding; deemed a civil court decree; not appealable
Key Distinction: Lok Adalat vs Permanent Lok Adalat
| Parameter | Lok Adalat | Permanent Lok Adalat |
|---|---|---|
| Case Stage | Pending + Pre-litigation | Pre-litigation only |
| Scope | All matters | Public utility services only |
| Pecuniary Limit | No fixed limit | Up to ₹1 Crore |
| If No Settlement? | Case returned to court — cannot impose decision | Can adjudicate on merits and impose a decision |
| Permanent? | Ad hoc — organised at intervals | Permanent standing body |
06 — Gram Nyayalayas
2008
Gram Nyayalayas Act
2009
Act Came Into Force (2 Oct)
313
GNs Functional (Oct 2024)
16,000+
GNs Required (Target)
6 months
Case Disposal Mandate
What are Gram Nyayalayas?
Village courts established under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 at the grassroots level. Aim: to provide access to justice to citizens at their doorsteps and ensure opportunities for securing justice are not denied due to social, economic, or other disabilities. Based on Law Commission’s 114th Report recommendations.
Establishment
- Established for every Panchayat at intermediate level or a group of contiguous Panchayats in a district
- Seat at the intermediate Panchayat headquarters but functions as a mobile court within its jurisdiction area
- State Government establishes on recommendation of HC
Composition
- Presided over by a Nyayadhikari
- Nyayadhikari is equivalent to a Judicial Magistrate of First Class in terms of powers and salary
- Appointed by the State Government in consultation with the respective High Court
Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction over an area specified by notification by the State Government in consultation with the HC
- Has both civil and criminal jurisdiction
- Criminal cases and civil suits specified in the First and Second Schedules of the Act
- Pecuniary jurisdictions fixed by the respective High Courts
Key Features
- Functions as a mobile court — travels to villages to hear and resolve cases
- Mandated to decide cases within 6 months from the date of institution
- Proceedings conducted in the official language of the state
- Follows summary procedure in criminal trials and specific procedure in civil cases
- Power to accept certain evidences outside the ambit of Indian Evidence Act
- Gram Nyayalaya shall try to settle disputes through conciliation — utilises appointed conciliators
- Appeals: criminal cases → Court of Session; civil cases → District Court. Appeals to be heard and disposed within 6 months
- Decisions are considered decrees of the court
- Not bound by CPC, CrPC, or Evidence Act — guided by principles of natural justice
Implementation Crisis (Current Affairs)
As of October 2024, only 313 Gram Nyayalayas are functioning across India against the requirement of over 16,000. In 2019, the Supreme Court noted that Gram Nyayalayas were non-operational in most states. States like Jharkhand and Bihar have resisted establishment in tribal/scheduled areas. The SC has directed all states and HCs to submit affidavits on the status of Gram Nyayalayas.
07 — Nyaya Panchayats
Nature
Forms the lowest rung of the judiciary. Rationale: democratic decentralisation, easy/speedy/inexpensive access to justice, revival of traditional village community life.
Composition
- Constitutes a Sarpanch as its head
- Each member must be literate
- Minimum age: 30 years
- Appointment based on nomination and election
Jurisdiction
- Both civil and criminal fields
- Minor criminal offences: simple hurt, theft etc.
- Civil matters of low pecuniary limit
Features
- Procedure is very simple and informal
- Procedure codes (CPC, CrPC, Evidence Act) are applicable
- Unlike courts, they also have the power to investigate the matter
- Enjoy power to punish for contempt
- No representation via lawyers
Gram Nyayalaya vs Nyaya Panchayat — Key Differences
| Parameter | Gram Nyayalaya | Nyaya Panchayat |
|---|---|---|
| Governed by | Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 | State laws (no uniform central law) |
| Presiding Officer | Nyayadhikari (a judicial officer equivalent to JMFC) | Sarpanch (an elected/nominated person) |
| Nature | Formal judicial court with statutory powers | Informal; quasi-judicial |
| Mobile Court? | Yes — can travel within jurisdiction | No |
| Lawyer representation | Allowed | Not allowed |
| Level in hierarchy | Below District Court but above Nyaya Panchayat | Lowest rung of judiciary |
08 — Family Courts
- Established under the Family Courts Act, 1984
- Established by State Governments in consultation with High Courts
- Aim: To promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and connected matters
- Family Courts are free to evolve their own rules of procedure — these override CPC rules
- Special emphasis on settling disputes through mediation and conciliation
- Courts may appoint counsellors and welfare experts to assist in settlement
- Covers: matrimonial disputes, custody of children, maintenance, property of spouses etc.
- District and Sessions Court judges typically head Family Courts
09 — Commercial Courts
Governing Law
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (amended 2018). Scope: disputes involving mercantile documents, exports/imports, IPR, franchising, JV agreements, distribution/consultancy agreements etc.
Structure
HCs with Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (5 HCs)
Commercial Divisions of HCs (min. value ₹1 Cr+) → Appeals to Commercial Appellate Division of the HC (constituted by CJ of the HC; bench of 2 judges)
HCs without Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Commercial Courts at District level (min. value ₹1 Cr+) → Appeals to Commercial Appellate Division of the HC
- Commercial Appellate Division constituted by the Chief Justice of each HC; presided by a bench of 2 judges
- India’s first Commercial Court and Commercial Disputes Resolution Centre was inaugurated at Raipur, Chhattisgarh
- Minimum value of commercial dispute: ₹1 Crore
- Commercial Courts Amendment Act, 2018 mandated pre-institution mediation and settlement before filing a commercial suit (unless urgent interim relief is sought)
10 — Plea Bargaining & Collective Bargaining
Plea Bargaining
- Accused negotiates with prosecution for lesser punishment by pleading guilty to a less serious offence
- Primarily at pre-trial stage
- Introduced in India in 2006 as Chapter XXI-A (Sections 265A–265L) of CrPC. Now in BNSS, 2023
- Not available for: offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, offences with sentence more than 7 years, offences affecting socio-economic conditions of the country, offences against women or children below 14 years
- Cases for which allowed are limited
- Requires consent of both victim and accused
- Court must satisfy itself the plea is voluntary
Collective Bargaining
- Technique to resolve employment-related disputes by agreement rather than coercion
- SC defined it as resolving disputes on “conditions of employment amicably by agreement”
- Workers (represented by trade unions) negotiate wages, working conditions, benefits etc. with employers
- Governed by: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Trade Unions Act, 1926
- Collective agreements are binding on the parties
- Promotes industrial peace and prevents strikes/lockouts
11 — Tribunals — Overview & Art. 323A vs 323B
What are Tribunals?
Agencies created by specific enactments that perform quasi-judicial functions. They are not regular courts of law but exercise powers similar to courts in specific domains. Tribunals were added to Part XIV of the Constitution by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 through Articles 323A and 323B.
Evolution of Tribunals in India
| Period/Event | Development |
|---|---|
| 1966–mid 1970s | 1st Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended establishment of administrative tribunals |
| 1969 | J.C. Shah Committee recommended establishment of administrative tribunals |
| 1976 | Swaran Singh Committee recommended; 42nd CAA added Arts. 323A & 323B to Part XIV of Constitution |
| 1985 | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — enabled setting up of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and empowered Central Govt to set up State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) |
| 1997 | Chandra Kumar Case — SC ruled that appeals against tribunal orders lie before Division Bench of HC (Art. 226/227). Tribunals cannot oust HC’s jurisdiction. |
Categories of Tribunals in India
| # | Category | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions as part of the Department | Revenue tribunals within a State Dept |
| 2 | Administrative adjudicatory bodies outside the control of the Department involved — decide disputes free from judicial bias | Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) — under Ministry of Law, not Ministry of Finance |
| 3 | Tribunals constituted under Arts. 323A and 323B with constitutional origin — enjoy powers and status of a High Court | CAT, NGT, SAT |
Characteristics of Tribunals
- Created by a statute (e.g., Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985)
- Perform quasi-judicial functions — State functions in a judicial capacity
- Follow principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem, nemo judex in causa sua)
- Not bound by the strict rules of CPC
- Generally faster, cheaper, and more specialised than regular courts
Differences: Article 323A vs Article 323B
| Parameter | Article 323A — Administrative Tribunals | Article 323B — Other Tribunals |
|---|---|---|
| Subject Matter | Public service matters only — recruitment and service conditions of persons appointed to public services | Wider range: taxation, foreign exchange, import/export, industrial & labour, land reforms, ceiling on urban property, elections, food stuff, rent & tenancy etc. |
| Who can establish? | Parliament only | Both Parliament and State Legislatures — within their respective legislative competence |
| Hierarchy? | No hierarchy — only one tribunal for the Centre (CAT) and one for each state/joint state (SAT) | A hierarchy of tribunals may be created |
| Number | Only one tribunal for Centre; one for each state or two or more states jointly | Multiple tribunals possible across levels |
| Example | Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) | NGT, ITAT, CESTAT, SAT, AFT, COMPAT |
Chandra Kumar Case (1997) — Critical Judgment
The SC held that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Arts. 226 and 227 is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Therefore, tribunal decisions cannot be final — appeals against orders of Administrative Tribunals (including CAT) must lie before the Division Bench of the concerned High Court. Parliament cannot oust HC jurisdiction over tribunals. This landmark ruling restored judicial oversight over all tribunals.
12 — Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), SAT & Key Tribunals
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Established | 1985 under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Principal Bench at New Delhi |
| Benches | Currently 18 benches (latest one for UT of J&K and Ladakh) |
| Jurisdiction | Original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of public servants covered by it |
| Composition | Multi-member body — Chairman + Members (currently 65). Chairman is a sitting or retired Judge of a High Court. Members drawn from both judicial and administrative streams, appointed by the President. Post-2006 amendment, members given status of HC judges |
| Appeals | Against CAT orders lie before the Division Bench of the concerned High Court (Chandra Kumar Case, 1997) |
State Administrative Tribunal (SAT)
- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 empowers the Central Govt to establish SATs on specific request of the concerned State Govt
- Chairman and members appointed by the President after consultation with the Governor of the concerned state
Other Key Tribunals
| Tribunal | Established Under | Subject Matter |
|---|---|---|
| ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) | Income Tax Act, 1961 | Appeals against orders of Commissioner of Income Tax. Under Ministry of Law (not Ministry of Finance). |
| CESTAT (Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) | Customs Act; CE Act | Customs, excise duty, service tax disputes |
| NGT (National Green Tribunal) | NGT Act, 2010 | Environmental protection, forest conservation, natural resources. See Section 13. |
| SAT (Securities Appellate Tribunal) | SEBI Act, 1992 | Appeals against SEBI, IRDA, PFRDA orders |
| AFT (Armed Forces Tribunal) | AFT Act, 2007 | Service matters and appeals related to armed forces |
| Water Disputes Tribunal | Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 | Inter-state river water disputes (Art. 262) |
| NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) | Companies Act, 2013 | Appeals against NCLT orders on company matters and insolvency |
13 — National Green Tribunal (NGT)
2010
Established (18 Oct 2010)
3rd
Country with Specialised Env. Tribunal
5
Benches (Delhi + 4 zonal)
6 months
Case Disposal Mandate
10–20
Judicial + Expert Members each
Overview
Established on 18 October 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources. India became the third country in the world — after Australia and New Zealand — and the first developing country to set up a specialised environmental tribunal. It is a statutory body, not a constitutional one.
Composition (Verified)
| Member | Qualification | Term | Appointed By |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chairperson | A retired Judge of the Supreme Court (or a Chief Justice of a HC). Must be qualified to be a SC judge. | 5 years or until age 70, whichever is earlier. Not eligible for reappointment | Central Government in consultation with Chief Justice of India |
| Judicial Members | A retired Judge of a High Court (or SC judge). Minimum 10, maximum 20 full-time members. | 5 years or until age 67 (HC judges) or 70 (SC judges), whichever is earlier. Not eligible for reappointment | Central Government on recommendation of a Selection Committee |
| Expert Members | Must have a Master’s degree in Science/Engineering/Technology and at least 15 years of experience in the relevant environmental/forest field. Minimum 10, maximum 20 full-time members. | 5 years or until age 65, whichever is earlier. Not eligible for reappointment | Central Government on recommendation of a Selection Committee |
Important Correction vs Common Error
The PDF source states “Judicial Members = existing or retired HC/SC judge” — this is incorrect. Per the NGT Act and verified sources, Judicial Members must be retired HC or SC judges. The Chairperson must be a retired SC judge (or retired Chief Justice of HC). The term for Expert Members is until age 65, not a flat 5 years.
Benches
- Principal Bench: New Delhi
- Zonal Benches: Bhopal (Central), Pune (Western), Kolkata (Eastern), Chennai (Southern)
Jurisdiction — Laws Covered
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
- Biological Diversity Act, 2002
NOT under NGT Jurisdiction
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and Indian Forest Act, 1927 are excluded from NGT’s jurisdiction. Also excluded: Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Forest Rights) Act, 2006. This is a major limitation — crucial forest rights issues are directly linked to environment but cannot be heard by NGT.
Powers and Functions
- Vested with powers of a civil court under CPC
- NOT bound by CPC 1908 or Indian Evidence Act 1872 — guided by principles of natural justice
- Mandated to dispose of applications/appeals finally within 6 months
- Appeals from NGT lie directly to the Supreme Court
- While passing orders, must apply: Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle
- NGT does NOT have power to take suo motu cognisance — matter is currently sub judice in the SC (though SC declared NGT has such powers in 2021; still contested)
- Has jurisdiction over all civil cases involving substantial questions relating to the environment
14 — Current Affairs & Recent Developments (2024–25)
Mediation Act, 2023 — Major Development
India Gets Its First Standalone Mediation Law
The Mediation Act, 2023 is India’s first dedicated legislation for mediation. Key provisions:
- Mandates pre-litigation mediation for civil and commercial disputes (with exceptions)
- Recognises online mediation and community mediation
- Provides for registration of mediators; establishes the Mediation Council of India
- Mediated settlement agreements are enforceable as court decrees
- Settlement agreements can be challenged only on grounds of fraud, corruption, impersonation, or dispute not fit for mediation
- Replaces the scattered mediation provisions under Commercial Courts Act, CPC, and other laws
Gram Nyayalayas · October 2024
Only 313 of 16,000+ Gram Nyayalayas Functional
As of October 2024, only 313 Gram Nyayalayas are functioning across India, having disposed of over 2.99 lakh cases from December 2020 to October 2024. The required number is over 16,000 (one per intermediate panchayat). SC has directed states and HCs to file affidavits on implementation status. Bihar, Jharkhand have resisted in tribal/scheduled areas. This severely hampers the objective of grassroots access to justice.
National Lok Adalat · 2024–25
1.14 Crore Cases Settled in 3rd National Lok Adalat 2024; 3.09 Crore in 1st NLA 2025
NALSA organised the 3rd National Lok Adalat of 2024 across 27 States/UTs. Over 1.14 crore cases settled — 94.6 lakh pre-litigation + 19.9 lakh pending cases. Types: criminal compoundable, traffic challans, revenue, bank recovery, motor accident, cheque dishonour, labour, matrimonial (excluding divorce), land acquisition, IPR cases. The 1st National Lok Adalat of 2025 resolved 3.09 crore cases — a record settlement in a single sitting. Government released ₹200 crore to NALSA during 2024–25 (up to October 2024) for legal aid programmes.
Lok Adalat — Permanent Lok Adalats · 2024
98,776 Cases Settled via 17,309 Sittings of PLAs
Permanent Lok Adalats (Public Utility Services) settled 98,776 cases through 17,309 sittings during the same period (Dec 2020 – Oct 2024). As of September 2024, NALSA has 41,775 panel lawyers and 43,050 para-legal volunteers with legal services institutions to improve access to justice.
Arbitration Reforms · 2019–2024
Making India a Hub for Institutional Arbitration
- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019: Introduced institutional arbitration, established Arbitration Council of India (ACI) to grade and regulate arbitral institutions, tightened timelines
- New Delhi International Arbitration Centre (NDIAC): Set up under the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Act, 2019 as a premier arbitration institution
- Goal: reduce ad-hoc arbitration, promote India as preferred seat for international commercial arbitration (competing with Singapore, London, Hong Kong)
- SC has repeatedly held that courts must refer parties to arbitration when there’s an arbitration clause, minimising judicial interference (latest: various 2024 SC rulings)
NGT Current Issues · 2024–25
NGT Facing Staffing Crisis & Judicial Pendency
- As of September 2024, NGT has only 6 judicial members against the required strength of 20 — severe understaffing
- NGT issued notices to states on Corbett Tiger Reserve illegal tree-felling (2025)
- NGT Principal Bench vacancy circular issued in September 2025 for selection of 5 judicial + 5 expert members
- SC ruled in October 2021 that NGT has suo motu powers for environmental issues — though this is still contested in some quarters
- Over 88,400 environmental cases pending trial across courts as of 2022 (NCRB data)
Tribunal Reforms · 2021–2025
SC Strikes Down Tribunal Reforms Act Provisions (2021 & 2025)
The SC struck down several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 for compromising judicial independence of tribunal members (fixing 4-year terms, reducing salaries, executive dominance in appointments). In 2025, SC again struck down certain tribunal appointment provisions citing Arts. 323A, 323B and the Chandra Kumar precedent. The principle of judicial independence of tribunals is now firmly a part of constitutional law.
15 — Mock Mains Questions
Q1. Explain and distinguish between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals. Whether they entertain civil as well as criminal cases?
Approach: Lok Adalat — based on LSA Act 1987, Gandhian principles, non-judicial forum, presiding officer persuasive (not decisive), award = civil court decree, no appeal, no fee, can settle criminal compoundable cases → Arbitration — quasi-judicial, Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, binding award challengeable on specified grounds, lawyer available, formal private proceeding → Key distinctions: binding mechanism, voluntary settlement vs adjudicatory decision, appealability, confidentiality → Criminal cases: Lok Adalat can settle compoundable offences; Arbitration cannot handle criminal cases — only civil/commercial disputes.
Q2. “The enactment of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 was a bold step towards bringing justice to the doorstep of rural citizens, yet over 15 years later, it remains largely unrealised.” Analyse the reasons for this failure and suggest a way forward.
Approach: Importance of Gram Nyayalayas — Art. 39A, Law Commission 114th Report, grassroots justice → What was promised: one per intermediate panchayat (16,000+), mobile courts, 6-month disposal, bilingual proceedings → Current status: only 313 functional (Oct 2024) → Reasons for failure: State resistance (especially Jharkhand, Bihar in tribal areas), funding gaps, lack of Nyayadhikaris, coordination between Centre-State-HC, fear of undermining existing village dispute resolution customs, Low demand awareness → SC’s 2019 directive and current proceedings → Way forward: mandatory central funding linked to establishment, capacity building for Nyayadhikaris, community awareness campaigns, tribal-sensitive procedures, integration with Tele-Law and e-Court systems.
Q3. “The Chandra Kumar judgment fundamentally altered the relationship between tribunals and High Courts in India.” Discuss its significance for judicial independence and access to justice.
Approach: Pre-Chandra Kumar: tribunals could exclude HC jurisdiction → Chandra Kumar 1997: HC’s Art. 226/227 jurisdiction = Basic Structure; tribunal decisions not final; appeal to Division Bench of HC → Significance: (1) prevents executive capture of adjudication; (2) maintains constitutional accountability; (3) balances specialisation (tribunal) with constitutional oversight (HC); (4) subsequent Tribunal Reforms Act provisions struck down on same basis → Concern: delays two-tier system adds to pendency → Balance needed: fast tribunal decisions + limited HC oversight on constitutional questions only.
Q4. What is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)? Discuss the constitutional basis and significance of ADR in addressing India’s judicial pendency crisis.
Approach: ADR definition — any method outside formal courts → Constitutional basis: Art. 14, 21, 39A (DPSP), Sec. 89 CPC → Types: Arbitration (binding, Arb&Con Act), Mediation (facilitative, new Mediation Act 2023), Conciliation (compromise), Lok Adalat (persuasive, binding, no appeal), Negotiation (no statute) → Significance vis-à-vis pendency: 55+ million pending cases (March 2026); 1st NLA 2025 settled 3.09 crore in a day; Permanent Lok Adalats for public utility → Limitations: only compoundable criminal cases; Lok Adalat fails if one party refuses; limited awareness; under-utilised in commercial disputes → Way forward: expand Mediation Act 2023, mandatory pre-litigation mediation, incentivise ADR outcomes, e-Lok Adalats.
Q5. Critically examine the jurisdiction and limitations of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Does its exclusion of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 hamper effective environmental justice in India?
Approach: NGT overview — NGT Act 2010, 3rd country, principal bench + 4 zonal benches, 6-month disposal mandate, applies sustainable development/precautionary/polluter pays principles → Jurisdiction: 7 environmental laws including EPA 1986, Water Acts, Forest Conservation Act, Bio Diversity Act → Limitations: (1) WPA 1972 excluded — cannot hear wildlife cases; (2) Indian Forest Act 1927 excluded; (3) Forest Rights Act 2006 excluded; (4) Cannot take suo motu cognisance (contested); (5) Only 6 judicial members vs 20 required (Sept 2024) → Impact of WPA exclusion: overlapping jurisdiction with wildlife crimes, forest rights, tiger reserve issues handled by SC/HC directly → Way forward: expand jurisdiction to WPA, strengthen staffing, allow suo motu powers, increase budgetary support.
Q6. Differentiate between Article 323A and Article 323B of the Indian Constitution. Discuss the role of Administrative Tribunals in reducing the burden on regular courts.
Approach: 42nd CAA 1976 added Part XIV-A; 323A = administrative/service tribunals (Parliament only; no hierarchy; CAT example); 323B = other matters (Parliament + State legislatures; hierarchy possible; NGT, ITAT examples) → CAT: set up 1985, 18 benches, original jurisdiction in service matters, chairman = retired/sitting HC judge → Role in declogging courts: specialised adjudication, faster disposal, technical expertise, cheaper than HC proceedings → Chandra Kumar check on tribunals → Issues: delays still happen, vacancies, executive control, post-retirement appointments → Way forward: time-bound appointments, independent secretariat, funding security, single unified tribunal body (Law Commission recommendation).
