“We find that many sitting or retired Judges, while participating in Lok Adalats as members, tend to conduct Lok Adalats like courts, by hearing parties, and imposing their views as to what is just and equitable, on the parties. Sometimes they get carried away and proceed to pass orders on merits, as in this case, even though there is no consensus or settlement. Such acts, instead of fostering alternative dispute resolution through Lok Adalats, will drive the litigants away from Lok Adalats. Lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of Judges and constantly strive to function as conciliators.”
quoted from para 9 of judgement of State Of Punjab & Anr vs Jalour Singh & Ors on 18 January, 2008
“People’s Court” and it’s Ground Reality
The concept of “Lok Adalat” (People’s Court) is a quint essentially India’s contribution to legal framework of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and its jurisprudence. Rooted in the ancient traditional Panchayats, it was a modern spin off and given statutory legitimacy by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The prime objective to be served was providing a “tri-benefit” system: zero-cost litigation, speedy disposal of disputes, and not so formal, conciliatory atmosphere that preserves social order and harmony, upholding the consent and agreement of the people above all.
Modus Operandi: Lok Adalats or People’s court function under the aegis of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and State Legal Services Authorities (SLSA). They tend to operate as non-adversarial forums where the bench which usually comprises of a sitting or retired judicial officer and a social worker or legal aid officer who does not act as an adjudicator, but a facilitator between parties. The bench proposes the middle grounds and helps parties to reach a mutually acceptable terms of compromise and to resolve the dispute. Once an agreement is obtained, its recorded as an “Award” granted, and the case to be marked as disposed.
Displacement of Purpose while practise: While the legislative intent for the same was resolution of deep-seated and old or petty compoundable disputes through it, field observations (particularly at major district courts like the District courts in Delhi, India) revealed a significant shift in operational terms to focus. Today, the “National Lok Adalat” will often be seen synonymous with the mass disposal of “Traffic Challans” for earning heavy commissions out of exploitation of the incredulous people who are away from awareness.
In this environment, the core principle of People’s court frequently gives way to an administrative “disposal spree” and takes away the spirit of selfless service. There is a visible trend where individuals, law students or middlemen in black coats view these sessions as commercial opportunities for volume-based disposal to earn a bit of bread while meeting their personal targets out of it. When the focus shifts to clearing thousands of petty challans in a single afternoon, the “transformative” potential of the People’s Court which was intended for major issues and especially those which lack the means of being stretched over the long period of litigation, risks being overshadowed rather than being set as the primary goals.
Similarly, common man starts to view it as “hurried clearinghouses” as the lack of knowledge and rush sometimes leads to mismanagement or overcrowding, and affects the dilution of unwavering specialized attention required for the same which is crucial especially to those without a lawyer brings hurdle for a commoner to grant his free consent and agreement without being intimated, as no matter how informal the structure might be on paper but the feeling of standing before a judge is very much overwhelming to a majority of people.
Statutory Foundation: Concept of “Deemed Decree”
The legal weight of settlement in Lok Adalat is anchored by the Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. This section gives power providing the “teeth” of the act that make the informal process as legally binding decree, not to be challenged.
Section 21(1) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Every award passed by a Lok Adalat bench is deemed decree of a civil court. This is a crucial provision; which ensures the award is executed by a court of law, providing the finality of same as a judgment passed after a full-fledged trial but without the traditional costs and delays.
Refund Mechanism: As added incentive to reduce judicial pendency of cases, if a case pending before a court is settled in Lok Adalat, the court fees that is paid by the litigants are duly refunded in full under the Act. This makes Lok Adalat the only forum where “justice” effectively saves the cost and pays the litigant back as well.
Paradox of Finality of awards: Reward and Remedy
The definitive characteristics of the Lok Adalat is the finality of its award along with its most controversial aspect as well. It tends to create a tension between the need for the judicial efficiency and the fundamental right to a legal remedy and appeal for the same.
Statutory Bar: The law under Section 21(2) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 explicitly states about no appeal to any court against a Lok Adalat award/decree. The legislative intent for the same was ensuring that a compromised settlement reached by consent is not to be reopened, thereby it is prevented in the very cycle of litigation which it seeks to avoid.
Prerequisite of Consent: Because Lok Adalat has zero adjudicatory power, it cannot be used to “decide” a case. As held in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2008), if both the parties do not reach a voluntary agreement, the bench must return the matter to the court and cannot interfere to adjudicate the same. An award which is passed without genuine and informed consent by both is a nullity.
Moral Hazard: This “final and binding” qualities can become a dead end for a litigant who, post-settlement, realizes that he was misled, coerced, or simply did not understand the legal circumstances of implications of the waiver. In a crowded court complex, “voluntary consent” is often a product of the intimidation that we discussed above and “decision fatigue” rather than a satisfied negotiation, unless backed by a “pre-reached settlement” by both the parties.
Narrow Window for Judicial Review
Since an appeal is completely barred, the only remaining alternative or recourse is the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to seek remedy.
Restrictive Grounds: In Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy (2018), the Supreme Court ruled to clarify that a writ is not a “backdoor appeal.” It can only be invoked on very limited grounds:
Lack of Actual Consent: Where the party was not there or the consent was demonstrated to be obtained by coercion by external parties.
Fraud: Where a signature obtained in order to agree was through deceit or concealment by another.
Procedural Illegality: Where Lok Adalat will be exceeding its prescribed jurisdiction (e.g., having settled a non-compoundable criminal offense).
The Burden of Proof : This high threshold aims to protect the ADR process and it means from being undermined by “buyer’s remorse.” However, it places a huge burden on vulnerable or few of those litigants who are aggrieved in order to prove procedural failure happening in a system where records are often not complete.
Critical Challenges: Issues and Observations
Scholarly research and field observations identify several hurdles in Lok Adalats systems from achieving their goal of “Justice for All”:
Proxy Problem: Litigants often send proxies or representatives due to fear of being present before the judge and because of their lack of awareness about Lok Adalat not being a strict proceeding. This take, anyhow never let them understand and fully grasp the legal consequences of waiving their own right to appeal, leading to settlements that are legally bound but personally detrimental.
Power Imbalances: In insurance, Negotiable instruments or bank recovery matters, the individual often aims and accepts a “half-justice” settlement, a significantly lower amount than they deserve, simply in order to get immediate relief and avoid decades of wait in traditional courts procedures.
Overcrowding and Management: Large-scale National Lok Adalats often remain crowded making it harder for the presiding officer to maintain decorum rather than court days. Long queues and chaotic calling systems often lead to a rushed atmosphere causing the nuances in proceedings where effectiveness is sacrificed for the speed of disposal.
Practical Reforms
Ensuring that the Lok Adalats will not become a doormat and stays as the wall of fame to be decorated in its own success, the following structural reforms are proposed:
Cooling-Off Period: For high-valuation matters (like land or family disputes), a 48-hours long “cooling-off” period should be introduced before the award become binding, allowing parties thee chance to withdraw if they feel pressured during the heat or overwhelmed emotion arising during the session.
Pre-Adalat Counseling: Parties should undergo mandatory counselling, even if just for 10-20 minutes by legal aid volunteers to let them be aware and familiar before the actual session to ensure they understand the finality of the award and non-appealable nature. This makes “informed consent” more solid and not just being a mere formality.
Digital Management & Appointment Systems: To resolve the overcrowding, a digital appointment system and rather absolute given time limit for challans and petty cases should be implemented, giving more clarity. This would separate “administrative disposal” being time bound and more efficient, giving the latter the time and space it requires along with the free environment to breathe.
Strict Monitoring of Proxies: Rules should be tightened and mandates introduced to ensure that in cases of permanent waiver of rights, the principal party must be present via video conferencing if not physically present, and might even add an affidavit to be attached in case of appointing the representative preventing middlemen from settling matters without the party’s informed consent and full comprehension.
Conclusion: Beyond Disposable Statistics
Lok Adalats are very essential factors of survival of the Indian judicial system, having settled millions and more of disputes saving the exchequer billions in litigation costs and court fees. However, the system’s success should be introspective and measured by the equity and absoluteness of the outcome, not just by number of disposal.
The “finality” of the award is a necessary player of the system, saving it from the further judicial intervention and upholding the true spirit but it must be built upon the foundational stone of genuine, un-coerced consent by the parties. By implementation of digital management and pre-settlement systems of counselling, the judiciary may ensure that the “People’s Court” remains a forum for equity, justice and right to seek justice for all rather than a factory for quick disposal. The power of judicial review must remain the final safety valve, ensuring that the quest of speed never goes beyond the constitutional mandate of substantial justice.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY YATHARTH SINGH PURSUING LLB FROM LAW CENTRE – II, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
REFERENCE :
The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660.
Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, (2018) 13 SCC 480.
P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478.
Constitution of India, Art. 226 & 227.
Tameem Zainulbhai, Justice for All: Improving the Lok Adalat System in India, 35 Fordham Int’l L.J. 248 (2016).
Yug Bhatia & Dharvi Talwar, Access to Justice: Through Lok Adalat Issues and Challenges, 3(3) Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Humanities 1487 (2020).
NALSA, National Lok Adalat Guidelines & Operating Procedures, (2023).