Some people equate the lok adalat to conciliation or negotiation; yet others compare it with mediation and even arbitration. Those who find it different from all these call it “peoples’ court”. Literally translated, it can be understood as a court (dispute or grievance settlement forum) involving the people who are directly or indirectly affected by the dispute or grievance. It is certainly different from adjudication. Participation, accommodation, fairness, speed, transparency, practically no cost, voluntariness, good neighbourliness, lack of rancour and ill will between parties and efficiency are all distinctive features of this unique Indian institution rooted in India’s history and culture.
The British occupation of India and the anglicization of the Indian legal system practically put this popular institution into disuse in many parts of India and substituted it with the adversarial litigation based on English common law principles. Nevertheless, in private disputes in many of India’s 500,000 villages, some variation of the “peoples’ court” continued to exist, imparting justice to millions of poor who had no access to the formal courts.
Of course, powerful groups in the community abused the institution, bringing it into disrepute in some places. It happened with the formal court system as well. Today, if the lok adalat has once again become popular among litigants, and the government considered it compelling to give it a statutory basis (the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987), it is because of its deep roots in Indian legal history and its close affiliation to the culture and perception of justice in the Indian ethos.
While giving statutory recognition to the institution of lok adalat in the Indian judicial administration, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, has preserved its flexibility and adaptability to different situations in the complex structure of Indian society. It can be organized at any level - Central, state, district and taluka. Committees or authorities in charge of the Supreme Court, state, district or taluka legal services may organize it at such intervals and places and for such areas as they think fit. The number, qualifications and experience of members of lok adalat, other than judicial officers, are to be prescribed by the state government according to rules. Lok adalats have been conferred jurisdiction to settle civil, criminal or revenue disputes in the courts and tribunals in the area for which the lok adalat is organized.
Ordinarily, lok adalats are to consist of three members - a sitting or retired judicial officer, a member of the legal profession (advocate, law officer, law teacher) and a social worker, preferably a woman. The act and the regulations generally require the secretary of the legal services authority or committee to associate students, social activists and voluntary organizations in the community for facilitating the successful conduct of lok adalats.
Pending cases are referred to lok adalats either when both parties agree for such reference or when one of the parties desire it and the court also is satisfied with the prospects of its settlement or when the court itself desires its reference. Of course, in the second and third situations above, the court must give before such reference reasonable opportunity to the parties involved to present their points of view. Besides such pending matters, a lok adalat can take up issues referred to it in any matter if an application is received from any party to a dispute.
Lok adalats are intended to arrive at compromises and settlements. In doing so, it has powers of a civil court in summoning and examining witnesses, discovery of documents, reception of evidence on affidavits and requisitioning of public records. Further, it is open to lok adalats to specify its own procedure. It is considered judicial proceedings. It is to be guided only by the principles of justice, equity and fair play as understood in common law and constitutional law.
Whenever a settlement is reached, an award is made which is deemed to be a decree of a civil court. It is to be written down in simple and clear terms. No appeal is permissible against such awards which are deemed final. If no compromise is reached, it goes back to the same court for regular trial. If settled, the petitioner gets back the court fees paid for registering the plaint.
The methods employed by lok adalat members can be as varied and flexible as the members, and to some extent, the parties’ desire. The object being settlement, parties desire flexibility in procedures. Members ensure fairness and equality so that the weaker party is not compelled to enter into unjust compromises. Lawyers can represent their clients with the permission of lok adalats, though advocacy, as in court, is not encouraged.
The venue of lok adalats can vary between the courtroom (on holidays) and the offices of panchayats, schools and so on. The atmosphere resembles more of a village festival than that of an awe inspiring court room. It is in the nature of a mobile court where the active players are the parties themselves, assisted by the lok adalat members rather than the lawyers and judges. Unlike in litigation, there are no victors and vanquished in lok adalat proceedings; both parties are victors in some sense.
Traditionally, legal aid is conceived of as representation by counsel in court proceedings. The Constitution guarantees the right to counsel of one’s choice [Article 22(I)] in case of arrest. Equal justice to all and free legal aid to those who are unable to secure equal justice because of economic or other disabilities are constitutional obligations of the state (Article 39A). The Supreme Court, in a series of judgments, has read legal aid as part of the guaranteed right of personal liberty (Article 21: Sukh Das, AIR 1986 S.C. 991). Thus perceived, legal aid, as legal representation in judicial proceedings, is part of Indian human rights law and is an enforceable constitutional right.
However, the Indian concept of “legal aid” is much wider in scope and application. All types of legal services, including public legal education (legal awareness), legal advice and counselling, public interest litigation, legal clinics in law- teaching institutions, lok adalats and settlements through similar alternate dispute resolution systems in the community, legal mobilization for
social justice, para-legal and preventive legal services, law reform initiatives intended to help the poor are all brought within the scope of legal aid.
Several expert committees on legal aid appointed by the Central government in the Seventies (Justice Krishna Iyer Committee (1973) on processual justice to the people and the committee for implementing legal aid schemes) popularized this wider understanding to legal aid, taking into consideration the socioeconomic condition of the people of India and the inability of the formal legal system to penetrate the countryside where poor people live. They canvassed for a proactive, people-friendly scheme of legal aid for providing meaningful access to justice.
Many people saw the lok adalat as a measure to divert litigation from formal courts and tribunals and a convenient strategy to reduce the mounting arrears of cases in the formal court system. The insurance companies that found the compensation amounts settled through lok adalats in motor accident cases economically and administratively convenient started opting for the lok adalat route in preference to the tribunals.
Other cases seeking monetary compensation for land acquisition, administrative excesses and so on also found their way to lok adalats. A lok adalat-type mechanism is being invoked currently by government departments and public sector agencies to settle pension and provident fund claims, bank debts, consumer grievances and similar small claims of a civil or revenue nature. Of late, matrimonial disputes and minor criminal cases have entered the lok adalat forum in a big way, resulting in the establishment of what are called “continuous or permanent” lok adalats in many places.
Despite its popularity and success in the delivery of justice expeditiously and at nominal costs, there has not been any systematic study of the lok adalat in terms of its functioning and performance. What is available from official statistics is the total number of lok adalats held during a given period and the amount of compensation or other reliefs awarded. If the justice system is to be reformed, taking lessons from the rich and varied experiences of lok adalat, we need many studies to look at the mechanics and dynamics of the experiment in the context of due process and the right to equal justice under law.
There is some criticism against the wisdom of allowing the lok adalat procedure to be open and flexible. Some others condemn it as “second class” justice, good only for the poor and illiterate masses. A large section of the functionaries of the formal legal system seems to have either rejected the lok adalats or is not reconciled to having them as part of the system of administration of justice despite its statutory status. The lack of close monitoring and scientific evaluation of the institution has compounded the fears and the criticism, keeping the lok adalat as an ad hoc arrangement, extraneous to the justice delivery system of the state.