The process of settling a case of two parties without a court trial is known as Alternative Dispute Resolution. (ADR). This is basically any settling of a case outside the court. This method helps the two parties to cooperate and settle down each case. The main goal is conflict settlement. In most cases, a neutral third party will be there in the resolution of a case. It includes mediation,Arbitration, Negotiation, and conciliation. The result should be a mutually resolving agreement. This is the most flexible, faster, and cost-efficient method of resolving a case.

This process is more informal than a trial. This method is usually used by disagreeing parties who cannot come to a proper agreement through litigation. This method of dispute resolution is also known as Arbitration. In India, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 enables Arbitration among the citizens. Although the method of Alternate Dispute Resolution differs from others in many ways, usually, this method may include a third party to help in dispute resolution. Moreover, ADR is supported by many courts instead of trial sessions.

ADR became a part of the law school curriculum. Since this is the cheaper method, parties usually opt for this method. A harmonious relationship between the parties can be maintained since the final decision is mutually agreed upon. In most of the cases, appeal is not allowed. This is mostly out of court process. There are no court fees involved in the dispute settlement. The third-party, in some cases, can be determined by the parties. The place to settle disputes can also be suggested by the parties. Nowadays, virtual platforms are available to promote Alternative Dispute Resolution. This is the most effective and speedy method of dispute resolution

History of Arbitration in India

Indian Arbitration Act of 1989 was the first statute regarding Arbitration in India, but this was only applicable to the Presidency towns like Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. The second one that came into force was the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The comprehensive legislation of Arbitration was laid down by the Arbitration Act of 1940. This Act was based on the English Arbitration Act of 1934. The Act of 1940 dealt with domestic Arbitration. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is the Act based on which Arbitration is carried out in India.

This Act of 1996 deals with matters of domestic, international, and commercial Arbitration. UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law), Which is a Model Law for International Commercial Arbitration,1985. This was adopted on June 21, 1985, and contains 36 Articles. The aim is the creation of uniform, arbitrary status.Arbitration was a method used before independence in India.

The British Arbitration Act of 1899 was the primary legislation. After independence, legislation was made in 1940 in the form of the Arbitration Act. This was relevant until the new legislation, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, came into force. The basic framework was based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. This Act was amended many times and made the process of Arbitration easier. India established many centers of arbitral institutions in many parts. Some of them are MCIA(Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration), DIAC (Delhi International Arbitration Centre), and ICADR (International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution.

The NITI Ayog has the force of Arbitration, which was recently issued by the government of India. Internationally, India has been recognized as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction. India made a significant contribution to Arbitration, which can be evidently seen in the historical changes that happened in the arbitration process.

There are many dispute resolution times, but there are five types of ADS; Arbitration, Conciliation ,Mediation, and LokAdalat

Arbitration

Arbitration is a legal technique of resolution. This is a method in which a dispute is settled outside the court. It is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted as an agreement between the parties. The parties refer it to two or more persons, namely the arbitrator. The decision taken by the arbitrator should be bound to follow. The dispute is submitted to the arbitral tribunal and the resolution taken by them is binding on all parties. This is a less formal process, so the rules are more relaxed. The parties cannot appeal the decision taken by the arbitrator. There is less judicial intervention in the arbitration process. This provides more flexible results in dispute resolution

Conciliation

This is often known as the settlement of the dispute without litigation. This is an independent process. There are effective methods of dispute resolution.It is a non-binding procedure. There is an impartial third party who is called a Conciliator. The conciliator helps the parties in dispute resolution. This is a method in which a dispute is resolved by a mutually beneficial method. This process is not a formal method of dispute resolution. The final decision depends on the decision of the parties. If both parties are satisfied with the decision, only then the process will become successful. If both parties agree with the decision agreement, then it becomes binding.

According to Halsbury's Law Of England, the term arbitration and conciliation have been differentiated as;

"The term "arbitration" is used in several senses. It may refer either to a judicial process or to a non-judicial process concerned with the ascertainment, declaration, and enforcement of rights and as they exist in accordance with some recognized system of law. An industrial arbitration may well have its function to ascertain and declare, liabilities but not to enforce, what in the parties, and such a function is non-judicial. Conciliation is a process of persuading parties to reach an agreement, and is plainly not Arbitration; nor is the chairman of a conciliation board an arbitrator.

"It is also emphasized that Confidence, trust, and faith are the essential things for conciliation. These processes have some differences when applied in domestic and international dispute resolution. This is also an arbitrary dispute resolution. There is an impartial person called a Mediator who will be there to resolve the dispute. In the presence of the Mediator, both parties sit and resolve the problem.

The Mediator does not interfere in the decision. This method is also informal and out of court. The Mediator helps the parties to settle down the dispute. The mutually decided decision will be the final binding. This is an efficient and cheaper method of dispute resolution. This is a confidential procedure where the parties are not compelled to disclose information. Like the judge in a court, mediators act as decision-makers. Mediation is an interest-based procedure. This is a party-centered process.

The task of a mediator is to make the process of mediation efficient. Mediators use various techniques to make the process open and easier between the parties. The process of mediation starts with a joint session. The decision of mediation is mutually binding since the relationship between the parties will be maintained. This can be done effectively by improving these steps, that is, the determination of the type of mediation. Identifying the parties involved, Identifying the interest of participants, Analyzing the case, Developing the Settlement option, Identifying the settlement position of each party, and considering a negotiation strategy.

Negotiation

This is a non-binding process in which there is no third-party intervention seen. The most common method of dispute resolution is Negotiation. Mostly, this occurs in business proceedings in some non-profit organizations and in some legal proceedings. This also helps to resolve disputes like marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. Here, both parties come together and settle their issue. One of the parties put forward the issue, and the other party will either accept or reject it. This will continue until they reach a conclusion.

This process of Negotiation takes place in individual, business, and government and can be inferred from everyday life. There is no exact time; it depends on the circumstances. It is a fundamental process in which a mutually accepted agreement will be the final decision. When evaluated from the Indian context, this is the common method of dispute resolution. Effective Negotiation in India can be understood effectively by understanding the cultural, legal, and business aspects.

Lok Adalat

Lok Adalat is a volunteer organization in India's legal system. Legal Authorities Act 1987 was established to settle disputes out-of-court settlement. It is a forum where pending cases and disputes are resolved. There is no provision for appeal if the final decision is not satisfactory. There is no court fee. The person deciding the case is called the Members of Lok Adalat. Mainly, the cases referred are pending cases, any case that has not been filed in front of the court.

The Lok Adalat can be set at the State level, High Court level, District level, and Taluk level. A new advancement is Mobile Lok Adalat, which is established in various parts of the country. The jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat is up to 10 lakh rupees. There are National Level Lok Adalat

National Lok Adalat

This is held at regular intervals. In a single day, it is held throughout the country. This happens in all courts that range from the Supreme Court to the Taluk level.

Permanent Lok Adalat
This is organized under Section 22-B of The Legal Service Authority Act, 1987. There is a permanent chairman and two members for permanent pre-litigation for the settlement of cases like transport, postal, telegraph, etc. The decision taken by the Lok Adalat is permanently binding. Lok Adalat, when translated into Hindi, is known as People's Court. This is an informal and conciliatory approach to resolving disputes in the country. This is one of the most effective methods of dispute resolution.

Importance of ADR in India

Arbitrary Dispute Resolution provides scientific development techniques to reduce the burden in court. This method reduces the pendency of cases in the court in India. There are various methods of Arbitrary Dispute Resolution, such as Arbitration, conciliation, mediation, Negotiation, and Lok Adalat. Negotiation does not have statutory recognition in India since this involves self-counseling between two parties. The provision of ADR can be found in

Fundamental Rights, which is Article 14 and Article 21, which deal with equality before the law

The aim of ADS is to provide social, economic, and political Justice to society. Article 39A of DPSP (Directive Principle of State Policy) provides equal Justice and free legal aid. This method has successfully cleared many backlog cases in Indian history. Lok Adalat had settled down many cases, and more than 50 lakh cases had settled in three years. There is a lack of awareness about this in society.ADS is a more efficient method than traditional litigation. There is a quicker resolution and cheaper method. Many processes, such as mediation and Arbitration, offer confidentiality and privacy. The flexibility of the ADS allows creative solutions. This method mainly helps to retain the relationship between the party involved in the dispute resolution process.

The ADS method helps in resolving cross-border disputes. ADS helps empower the weaker sections of the society. Many International trade agreements are encouraged by the use of ADS. That is, this method provides a faster, cost-efficient method to resolve disputes. "Justice delayed is Justice denied."In India,the major problem faced is the backlog of cases in the court;as a result justice is delayed. Many International trade agreements are encouraged by the use of ADS. That is, this method provides a faster, cost-efficient method to resolve disputes. "Justice enforcement of Arbitration.

MCPC (Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee) was established to provide mediation as an effective method of dispute resolution. The statutory body that has been constituted to settle cases is Lok Adalat. This is done by the process of conciliation and mediation. The main aim is the settlement of disputes between the parties.NALSA(National Legal Service Authority) provides free legal services. This will help the weaker section of society. There is a judicial settlement by which judges assist in settlement. Parties can opt for this provision. Mediation rules have been established to regulate the mediation process. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is the online platform for dispute resolution.

This is the use of new technology in dispute resolution. The enforcement of arbitral awards is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This provides recognition and enforcement of domestic and international arbitral awards. The Arbitrary Dispute Resolution ensures confidentiality. This method is widely used to resolve disputes, especially commercial disputes and agreements. These were the provisions that enabled Alternative Dispute Resolution

How does ADR work?
The process of Arbitrary Dispute Resolution involves The Appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Procedure before the Arbitral Tribunal and the Enforcement of Award.

Appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal
In the dispute process, they appoint an Arbitral Tribunal. Chief Justice of the jurisdictional High Court or his nominee for the appointment of arbitral Tribunal under section 11 of the Act. This is ordered after hearing the case. Orders passed by the Chief Justice or his nominee are subjected to be challenged by a Special Leave under an Article 136 of the Indian Constitution before the Supreme Court.

The process begins with the existence of a valid agreement between the parties. One of the parties initiates the process by sending a notice of Arbitration to the other party. The party then appoints an arbitrator. If the party fails to appoint the arbitrator or if the arbitration agreement specifies a single arbitrator, a sole arbitrator is appointed. Parties have a specific time to appoint their arbitrator.

Procedure before Arbitral Tribunal
The evidence is led before the arbitral Tribunal. The process of pleading, affidavit in lieu of evidence, and cross-examination of witnesses is completed in the reasonable period of life. There will not be any lagging in the process. In such a case, this can be considered as a speedy process. The arbitral Tribunal will arrange an initial meeting with the two parties to discuss the procedure and matter involved. The Tribunal issues the timing, guidelines, and other details for further proceedings.

Each party then submits their case and disputes with evidence, and then the Tribunal will set a deadline for the exchange of the document. Then, the hearing of the case will happen where evidence is produced before the court after the hearing party has the opportunity to submit the written arguments before the court. The Tribunal then closes after the evidence and arguments have been provided.

Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
The Tribunal will close for the proper declaration of decision or to provide remedies for the damages awarded. The party can challenge or annul the award. Once the award is final and binding, parties can enforce it through legal channels.The specific procedure may vary based on the arbitration rules of the parties.

How inexpensive is Arbitration?
In usual court proceedings, there is a mandatory payment of court fees, but in the case of Alternate Dispute Resolution, there is no need for the payment of court fees. That is, the absence of ad valorem court fees makes the process affordable. Arbitration is a quicker dispute resolution method than the traditional litigation procedure in court. The faster resolution means fewer legal fees. This is a simple dispute resolution process. This will reduce the time and money. Parties can choose their arbitrators by understanding their expert fields. Thereby, dealing with the expertise topic, the case will be resolved more easily, and as a result, money and time can be saved effectively.

In the Arbitration process, the discovery will be controlled and streamlined; as a result, the cost will be less. In most cases, the arbitration award is final, and as a result, there will not be any lengthy appellate process. Unlike the traditional litigation, this process is not happening in the courtroom. This is an out-of-court process in which the area and venue are selected by the concerned parties. As a result, they can choose less expensive places and can also choose virtual Arbitration; as a result, the travel and accommodation costs can be saved. Since this process is less formal, the money can be saved.

Parties usually choose small legal teams in Arbitration, which lead to low cost. Case management is more efficient and focused; as a result, this can help to control costs. The parties opt to do ADS at mutually scheduled times, and this avoids delays and pending and subsequently reduces cost. The actual cost can vary due to many factors. That is the complexity of rules , circumstances ,chosen arbitrator etc.

Litigation and ArbitrationLitigation and Arbitration are two different methods of dispute resolution. Litigation is a formal method taking place at the court. There were many procedures involved in litigation. That involves filing a lawsuit, a pre-trial procedure. Trial and judgment rendered by the judge. At the same time, Arbitration is less formal and can be private.

There is a neutral third party involved. The arbitrator listens to both sides and give a decision that is binding. The decision maker in litigation is a jury or judge, but in Arbitration, the decision maker is an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators that is often chosen by the disputing parties. In litigation, parties have less control over the process and procedure. These are governed by court rules and procedures.

In Arbitration, the parties have more control in the process; they select the arbitrator, select timings, and rule of procedure. Litigation is a public process that involves court recordings and formal proceedings. At the same time, Arbitration is a private proceeding where the decision is confidential. In litigation, the decision of courts can be appealed to higher courts; as a result, it is considered a prolonged process.

The arbitration decision is legal and binding; it cannot be appealed to higher courts. Litigation is time-consuming and costly because it follows many formal procedures. Arbitration is more efficient and faster than litigation. The amount of money may vary from one another. Litigation is a more adversarial process, whereas Arbitration is more collaborative in nature. The litigation process is more binding, but Arbitration can be binding or non-binding depending on the party. Thus, it can be inferred that litigation is a more formal proceeding than Arbitration.Litigation and Arbitration are two different methods of dispute resolution.

Litigation is a formal method taking place at the court. There were many procedures involved in litigation. That involves filing a lawsuit, a pre-trial procedure. Trial and judgment rendered by the judge. At the same time, Arbitration is less formal and can be private. There is a neutral third party involved. The arbitrator listens to both sides and give a decision that is binding. The decision maker in litigation is a jury or judge, but in Arbitration, the decision maker is an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators that is often chosen by the disputing parties.

In litigation, parties have less control over the process and procedure. These are governed by court rules and procedures. In Arbitration, the parties have more control in the process; they select the arbitrator, select timings, and rule of procedure. Litigation is a public process that involves court recordings and formal proceedings. At the same time, Arbitration is a private proceeding where the decision is confidential. In litigation, the decision of courts can be appealed to higher courts; as a result, it is considered a prolonged process.

The arbitration decision is legal and binding; it cannot be appealed to higher courts. Litigation is time-consuming and costly because it follows many formal procedures. Arbitration is more efficient and faster than litigation. The amount of money may vary from one another. Litigation is a more adversarial process, whereas Arbitration is more collaborative in nature. The litigation process is more binding, but Arbitration can be binding or non-binding depending on the party.Thus, it can be inferred that litigation is a more formal proceeding than Arbitration.

Advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution
The main advantage is that this process is less time-consuming, and people resolve disputes in a short time due to many factors, like the place people choose, the arbitrator, and the absence of court fees. Due to the enhancement of new technology, this can be done by virtual platforms. The final decision is the aggregation of both parties' opinions that help to resolve the dispute easily. Thereby, the relationship between parties will be there forever, especially in case of family disputes.

The arbitrator is often chosen by the parties; hence, they can appoint an efficient one with their consent; therefore, the decision may be satisfactory. The time, place, and person are determined by the parties, thereby reducing travel expenses and other insecurities. This process is speedy when compared with the court cases. Thereby, by all these advantages, the economic level is not a barrier in between. Anyone from any background can apply for Arbitration. Justice will not be delayed and, hence, will not be denied. These were the main advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

Disadvantages of Alternate Dispute Resolution
As a coin, this may have disadvantages also. In some situations, the dispute may not end up by ADR. In such cases, the invested time and money in the resolution of a case will be wasted, and again, the parties plan to do litigation by formal court proceedings. The decision is final; hence, it cannot be appealed further, but in normal court proceedings, there is a chance of appeal to a Higher court.

In Arbitration, the full facts cannot be disclosed, and as a result, there is a chance that the outcome is wrong. Arbitrators may not be experienced as judges, and this may affect the outcome. There is a chance of the production of unreliable evidence. But moreover, there are more advantages than disadvantages.

This method is useful for any people, especially the marginalized. The dispute between two parties can be resolved more efficiently and effectively. There is no time lag between the process. Since many cases are pending in the court, these methods help in the easy remedy to avoid it." Justice delayed is Justice denied." The major problem of denial of a case can be resolved by this method.

Conclusion
Alternative dispute resolution is an effective method of resolving a conflict. This method is widely adopted by many countries, and in some countries, this is in progress. The main advantage is that this will reduce the pending cases in court.ADR process is in a formative stage, so there is much feasibility of alternatives to litigation. The main thing that it ensures is equal Justice for all. This method of dispute resolution is more efficient and effective. The process and procedure are informal and less expensive when compared with others.

An alternative method of dispute resolution is speedy and convenient for everyone. Nowadays, there is a virtual conference available, hence making the process of dispute resolution more convenient. Through continuous research, people should ensure that the Alternative Dispute Resolution is funded more and officers are appointed subsequently. Otherwise, all the efforts to establish ADR will be wasted. As Alexa Rosa said, "Learning from conflict is the best of all experiences.

It brings out the true shrine in our souls".Likewise, through ADR, people can understand great lessons from their conflict. The major advantage is that there can be a major improvement in the communication and listening skills developed other than anything.

For a better ADS, these two parties should believe the third-party arbitrator. Due to the lack of awareness, people refused to do ADS instead of a prolonged process, so proper awareness should be provided. For a developing country like India, this kind of dispute resolution can benefit a lot. Since the cost, court fee, and time are not too much. Thereby, Justice can be obtained easily. Therefore, ADS should be promoted and given more importance in the Indian Judicial system for a better society.

Works Cited:

• Sondhi, Aditya. "Arbitration in India - Some Myths Dispelled." Student Bar Review, vol. 19, no. 2, 2007, pp. 48–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44306675. Accessed 15 Oct. 2023.
• "Alternative Dispute Resolution." Complete Lawyer, vol. 12, no. 2, 1995, pp. 5–6. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23778837. Accessed 15 Oct. 2023.
• https://lawdit.co.uk/readingroom/adr-disadvantages
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
• (Shonk Kate) (What is Alternate Dispute Resolution) Programme On Negotiation, Harvard Law School, 2024