Ensuring Quality Justice Delivery - Lok Adalats

What is the issue?

The Lok Adalats system must look beyond swift disposal of cases and focus on just and fair outcomes.

What are Lok Adalats?

Access to justice for the poor is a constitutional mandate to ensure fair treatment under the legal system.
Hence, Lok Adalats (literally, ‘People’s Court’) were established to make justice accessible and affordable to all.
Lok Adalat is one of the alternative dispute redressal mechanisms.
It is a forum where disputes/cases pending in the court of law or at pre-litigation stage are settled/ compromised amicably.
Lok Adalats have been given statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Motor-accident claims, disputes related to public-utility services, cases related to dishonour of cheques, and land, labour and matrimonial disputes (except divorce) are usually taken up by Lok Adalats.

How did Lok Adalats evolve?

Lok Adalats had existed even before the concept received statutory recognition.
In 1949, Harivallabh Parikh, a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, popularised them in Rangpur, Gujarat.
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, inserted Article 39A to ensure “equal justice and free legal aid”.
To this end, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, was enacted by the Parliament.
It came into force in 1995 -
1. to provide free and competent legal services to weaker sections of the society
2. to organise Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity

Why are Lok Adalats significant?

The Indian judicial system is often criticised, perhaps justifiably, for its endemic delays and excessive backlogs.
Over 66,000 cases are pending before the Supreme Court, over 57 lakh cases before various HCs.
Over 3 crore cases are pending before various district and subordinate courts.
As a result, litigants are forced to approach Lok Adalats mainly because it is a party-driven process, allowing them to reach an amicable settlement.

What are the advantages?

Lok Adalats offer parties speed of settlement, as cases are disposed of in a single day.
In this aspect, it is better when compared to litigation, and even other dispute resolution devices, such as arbitration and mediation.
It also offers procedural flexibility, as there is no strict application of procedural laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
There is also economic affordability, as there are no court fees for placing matters before the Lok Adalat.
Another advantage is the finality of awards, as no further appeal is allowed.
This prevents delays in settlement of disputes.
More importantly, the award issued by a Lok Adalat, after the filing of a joint compromise petition, has the status of a civil court decree.

What are the concerns to be addressed?

The Supreme Court, in State of Punjab vs Jalour Singh (2008), held that a Lok Adalat is purely conciliatory.
It has no adjudicatory or judicial function.
As compromise is its central idea, there is a valid concern that in the endeavour for speedy disposal of cases, it undermines the idea of justice.
In a majority of cases, litigants are pitted against powerful entities such as insurance companies, banks, electricity boards, among others.
In many cases, compromises are imposed on the poor who often have no choice but to accept them.
In most cases, such litigants have to accept discounted future values of their claims instead of their just entitlements, or small compensations.
It is being done just to bring a long-pending legal process to an end.
Similarly, poor women under the so-called ‘harmony ideology’ of the state are virtually dictated by family courts to compromise matrimonial disputes.
Even a disaster like the Bhopal gas tragedy was coercively settled for a paltry sum, with real justice still eluding thousands of victims.

What is the way forward?

A just outcome of a legal process is far more important than expeditious disposal.
So, besides efficiency and speed, Lok Adalats both online and offline should focus on the quality of justice delivered.

Source: The Hindu