REPORT ON LOK-ADALAT

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION- ASSIGNMENT I

A student report on a visit to Lok-Adalat at the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 13/11/2018
By:Stanzin Lakshat To: Dr Neha Awasthi

1 | Page
INTRODUCTION:
It goes without saying that the backlog of pending cases in the courts of India has severed the faith of
Indian citizens in seeking justice. Instead of waiting in queues for years and passing on litigation by
inheritance, people are inclined either to avoid litigation or to start resorting to extra-judicial methods1.
As a measure to restore this faith and encourage speedy disposal of such myriad of cases, the Judiciary
has been actively promoting various Alternative Dispute Resolution methods.

One such effective method is the concept of “Lok-Adalat.” The literal translation of the Hindi moniker,
Lok-Adalat means, “People’s Court.” The idea of Lok-Adalat was mainly advocated by Justice P.N
Bhagwati, a former Chief Justice of India2. Lok-Adalat is India’s unique form of Alternative Dispute
Resolution, which has proven to be a successful alternative to conventional litigation. It has been given a
statutory recognition by the virtue of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 19873.

The system of Lok-Adalat is based on the principles of Panch Parmeshwar of Gram Panchayats. Lok-
Adalat is a non-adversarial system, whereby mock-courts are held by the State Authority, District
Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Legal Services Committee or Taluka
Legal Services Committee. It is a forum where voluntary efforts are aimed at bringing about settlement
of disputes between the parties through conciliatory and persuasive efforts. This service is provided free
of charge to the litigants by Courts and Central/State government.

Typically, a Lok-Adalat panel is a three-member panel who act as conciliators and are generally among
serving or retired judicial officers, social workers and advocates. Both pre-litigation and post-litigation
efforts are invited by the Lok-Adalat. The Lok-Adalat can deal with all civil cases: matrimonial disputes,
land disputes, property disputes, labour disputes and compoundable criminal cases. The award made by
Lok-Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and is final binding on all parties8. No appeal lies
before any court against its award.

To witness such a session of Lok-Adalat, the students of Symbiosis Law School, Pune under the guidance
of Prof. Shirish Kulkarni, were taken to the Pune District Court on August 13, 2016 with the objective to
gain first-hand experience of the same and develop a deeper sense of understanding of its functioning in
reality. This report is an effort to elaborate on this practical experience and explain the legal aspects that
are linked to it.

2 | Page
OBSERVATION OF THE PANEL:
As the students entered the premises of the Court, a brief introduction to the infrastructural aspects of
the Lok-Adalat was given. One of the noteworthy points of the information imparted was that, that
every courtroom had a police station (cell) adjoined to it, which was a manifestation of an effort made
to ensure coordination between different agencies. A list of the number of Lok-Adalat panels, with the
names of the panel members and the nature of the disputes to be heard was briefed upon.

Further, in a dialogue session with one of the senior authorities of the District Legal Services Authority
the students were given additional details of the panel- 6 panels in toto, that were going to hear matters
related to banks, motor vehicles compensation, cheque bouncing cases, and a few criminal matters. The
students were told that the panels were further divided into pre-litigation and litigation forums. An
interactive session on the nature and provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was
conducted. The senior authority also shed light on the success rate this form on alternative dispute
resolution mechanism has achieved in the past years. He mentioned that the dedication among the legal
fraternity is so much that they have successfully arranged mobile clinics- in which these panel members
travel to various villages to resolve disputes.

Students were divided into 6 groups as per the number of panels. The students of Panel 3 before
entering the courtroom were informed that the panel intended to hear only banking matters of the pre-
litigation stage. The courtroom had makeshift tents set up for various banks with their respective
representatives and other litigants. It was informed to the students by a Court officer that the District
Legal Services Authority on the receipt of application from any of the parties of the pre-litigation stage
refer such matters to the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement. These sessions are held usually on 2nd and
4th Saturday of a month. The Panel Members of Panel 3 were a JMFC Judge and two advocates. The
officer mentioned that the litigants either represent themselves or through advocates to negotiate on
the monetary value acceptable to both parties in banking matters. The lawyer is not obligated to
present a ‘Vakalatnama’ to the panel members on appearing on behalf of the litigant.

Typically, in banking matters, the Bank issues a notice to opposite party for payment of credit dues, or
EMI etc, depending on the nature of transaction. On having communicated this, the party approaches
the bank to provide with justification for non-payments or to seek extension. If such a dialogue goes in
vain, both parties agree to settle the matter through Lok-Adalat. The parties negotiate on the terms of
compromise, which is usually a reduction in the interest rate, repayment of credit due in installments
etc. This is done with the assistance and inputs from the panel members, especially to seek clarification
on points of legal value. Once the parties reach to a conclusion, a “Compromise Form” (refer to
Annexure A) is signed and submitted to the panelists. The party is given a ‘no due certificate’ by the
Bank only after the repayment of the entire amount is made in consonance with the terms and
conditions agreed upon before the panel members.

However, there may be instances where the parties have approached the Lok-Adalat over previously
settled matters, in which the payment has not been made by the same party. In such cases, the panel
members seek to make further arrangements of compromise after hearing both the parties. The reasons
could be lack of financial resources, bankruptcy, personal etc. One such case that of a farmer who had
taken a loan from the bank but failed to make payment after a previous attempt to settle the issue. The
panel members after much deliberation and questioning realized that the farmer’s loan was taken to
give dowry for his daughter’s marriage and repayments in such a short span of time was not possible for
him. The Bank later sympathized with his condition and agreed to further reduce the rate of interest and
extend the time-period.

On having a conversation with one of the bank representative who deals with automobile loans, it was
clear that the Banks approached Lok Adalat not with an intention to take money by hook or crook but to
settle the matter in an amicable manner. The representative informed that usually there are internal
guidelines given to them with respect to settle of these issues. However, the can use their discretion in
terms of reduction of interest value or extension of dates after considering the condition of the other
party. He mentioned that the people of all economic strata like from the car owners of Maruti to the car
owners of Mercedes Benz today willingly agree to settle the dispute with the help of Lok-Adalat for its
efficiency. Although, much interaction with the panel members was not possible, the students gathered
information by speaking to various litigants and bank representatives.

However, at the end of day students had a joint session with the panel members of Motor Vehicles
Tribunal presided by Judge A.R Mohammad who shed light on the cases that are brought before him,
the procedure and effective methods used by the panel members in resolving such disputes.
Furthermore, a brief interaction with the authorities of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)
marked the end of the trip.

LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL CONTRIBUTION UNDER LAW:

The Legal Services Authorities Act pursuant to the constitutional mandate of in Article 39-A of the
Constitution of India, contains various provisions for the settlement of disputes through Lok Adalats. It is
an Act to constitute legal service authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker
sections of the society, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by
reason of economic and other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of
legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. In the case of Suku Das v. Union
Territory of Arunachal Pradesh. it has been held that the failure to provide legal aid to an indigent
accused, would vitiate a trial. It might even result in setting aside and conviction or sentence. Thus,
every notion of fair trial is upheld by this statue.

Realizing the need for more number of Lok Adalats, in 2002, the Parliament amended the Legal Services
Authorities Act and made provisions for establishment of permanent Lok Adalats for public utility
services. Dr. A.S Anand, the former Chief Justice of India had emphasized upon the idea of establishing a
permanent Lok Adalat in all districts in the country. He, as an Executive Chairman of the National Legal
Services Authority (NALSA), wrote a letter to all Chief Justices of the High Court requesting them to
establish Permanent Lok Adalats at all levels.

In the significant case of Abdul Hassan v. Delhi Vidyut Board the Delhi High Court also emphasized to the
idea of setting up of Permanent Lok Adalats and mentioned that this should be done not only with the
objective to reduce the pendency of matters in Court, but also in the light of Article 39-A and object of
the Act of 1987. Jurisdiction of PLA is confined only to Public Utility Services and so it cannot dispose of
matrimonial dispute being a public utility services. In the case of Dinesh Kumar v. Balbir Singh the High
Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat can only take cognizance of the matter if it is not pending
before any other court. But in the present case, the matter was pending before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal and the same could only be referred to Lok Adalat and the same could not be referred to
Permanent Lok Adalat. Thus, the order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction and liable
to be set aside.

Besides the Legal Services Authorities Act, there have been several other changes in the law in the
recent times and one of the most important being the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in 2002 has opened scope for introduction of
conciliation, mediation and pre-trial settlement methodologies. Once the model rules framed by the
Committee headed by Justice Jagannadha Rao, Chairman, Law Commission of India under the directions
of the Supreme Court of India have been adopted by the High Courts, there will be need for the funds to
be sanctioned to meet the need for requisite infrastructure and for employment for mediators and
conciliators as a part of justice- delivery system.

The salient features of Lok Adalat in the light of judicial pronouncement is as follows:

1. The jurisdiction of Lok Adalat is hegded by the expression ‘to determine and arrive at a
compromise or settlement.’ In Legal Terminology, it connotes that the jurisdiction that could be exercised
by the Lok Adalat but cannot extend to deciding a dispute where one of the parties is not amendable or
agreeable to arrive at a compromise or settlement. In the case of State of Kerala v. Erakulum District Legal
Services Authority the award was issued by a Lok Adalat pertaining to a decision to request an
investigating officer to do a particular thing in a particular manner. The Court held that such a request has
to be read only as a command to the investigation officer and not a request. Hence, such award passed
by Lok Adalat is not permissible.
2. However, even without the parties agreeing for a reference of a case to the Lok Adalat and
without any application from any one of the parties for such reference, the Court on its own motion on
being satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat, can be
referred to Lok Adalat. But such reference must be made only after providing a reasonable opportunity
of being heard to both the parties. However, in the case of Commissioner, Karntaka State Public
Instructions (Education) Bangalore v. Henamant the High Court held that when the very reference of the
case to the Lok Adalat is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, as the Court could not have referred
the matter to Lok
Adalat when both the parties to the suit had not consented for the matter being referred to the Lok
Adalat. 5 | Page

3. The Lok Adalat is required to see that it shall with utmost effort on or with settlement of parties,
be guided by the principle of justice, equity and fair play. Every Bench of Lok Adalat may evolve its own
procedure for conducting the proceedings before it and shall not be bound by either the Code of Civil
Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure of the Indian Evidence Act.
4. In Sreedharan T v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Baluseery Police Station the High Court highlighted
that the procedure followed by the Lok Adalats and held that the various provisions contained in the Act
also make it clear that the Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory functions. It cannot pass any independent
verdict/order/award arrived at by any decision making process. It can only persuade the parties to the
dispute, by any known methods of conciliation, mediation etc, and with utmost expedition, to arrive at a
compromise or settlement and determine the case in accordance with bilateral compromise.
5. Whenever a case or matter is settled by Lok Adalat, then it passes the award on the basis on
compromise or agreement between the parties. It was held in P.T Thomas v. Thomas Job20 that every
award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court. In the case of Damera Raj Kumar
v. Doli Sriniwas the petitioner and the respondent had compromised the matter outside court. The matter
was referred to the Lok Adalat for recording the compromise and award was made by the Lok Adalat.
Such a compromise was duly signed by the parties and their advocates. The award was challenged on the
grounds that the consent of the petitioner was taken by coercion. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled
that the plea or coercion or obtaining awards by threats predominantly are questions of fact. On such
grounds it cannot be said that compromise arrived at by the parties at Lok Adalat are vitiated.
6. In Board of Trustees of Port of Vishakhapatnam v. Presiding Officer Permanent Lok-Adalat-cum-
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Vishakapatnam the Court directed that the award of Lok
Adalat cannot be challenged by appeal or even by writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and observed that
the award is enforceable as a decree and it is final and binding.
7. The Act does not say anything regarding the manner of execution of award of Lok Adalat. But the
provisions in respect of execution of award are laid down in the Rules made under the provisions of the
Act by the State.
8. Lok Adalat is a unique institution which dispenses justice to the parties to the parties free of cost.
As per Section 21(1) read with Rule 28-A provides that in respect of cases settled through the medium of
Lok Adalat, the Court fees affixed at the time of the institution of the case shall be refunded in a manner
provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870. In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India the Supreme
Court directed to State Government to amend their court fee legislations on the lines of amendments
made in central court fees. The amendment made to refund court fees in cases settled as per Section 89
of CPC.
CONCLUSION:
On the basis of legislative interpretation of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and various judicial
pronouncements given by the Supreme Court of India and the High Court it is evident that the Lok
Adalat system has been established with the objective to promote justice on the basis of equal
opportunity. However, the objective of the Act shall be met only if it reaches the grass root levels,
meaning, more focus should be shed on access to Lok Adalats to the rural population.

These rural Lok Adalats should specially focus on the problems likely to be faced by such population
which could be disputes pertaining to agricultural loans, matrimonial disputes, labour issues etc. One
such suggestion would be the concept of mandatory “public hearing” in the rural set-up under an
institutional set-up which could act as a precursor for a case to be taken up by Lok Adalat. This idea is
inspired by the idea of “Jun Sunwai” programme of contract workers organized by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti
Sangathan.
The idea of these mandatory “Public hearings” is to ascertain whether a case can be settled by sending
an application to the Lok Adalat. These public hearings could have panel members who are social
workers and lawyers who would be able to have a counseling session with these people before
suggesting Lok Adalat as a mode of dispute resolution. The idea is to exclude judicial officers in such
hearings since they are already over-burdened with work. Another advantage would be that this public
hearing would filter the cases that are referred to Lok Adalat, that would prevent in wasting time of the
Lok Adalat panelists. It is to avoid frivolous cases from clogging the machinery of Lok Adalat. It would
help not in giving these rural population an opportunity to be heard at their own convenience but also
to reduce the backlog in cases because of the filtering mechanism. Jun Sunwai and Lok Adalat may act as
a double-filter mechanism if used effectively.

Also, another suggestion could be a permanent Lok Adalat set-up for matters of all nature and not
limited to Public Utility matters. If Lok Adalat has proven to be a successful alternative, then a
permanent Lok Adalat for all matters would only prove to be a boon than a bane.

In conclusion, it can be said that awareness and literacy of such efforts such be given a priority by all
institutions of the society. For a progressive society, it is best to ensure that all citizens are aware of the
judicial remedies available to them. And such a convenient dispute resolution mechanism as them
should be given a preference for speedy disposal of cases.