For Lok Adalats, Speed Overrides Quality

Context: An analysis of the significance and key issues associated with Lok Adalats.

Evolution of Lok Adalats:

• In 1949, Harivallabh Parikh, a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, popularised them in Rangpur, Gujarat.
• The Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act, 1976, inserted Article 39A to ensure “equal justice and free legal aid”.
• The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (came into force in 1995), was enacted “to provide free and competent legal services to weaker sections of the society” and to “organise Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity”.

Box 1:  A picture of endemic delays and excessive backlogs in Indian judiciary

• As per National Judicial Data Grid, 16.9% of all cases in district and taluka courts are three to five years old;
• For High Courts, 20.4% of all cases are five to 10 years old, and over 17% are 10-20 years old.
• Over 66,000 cases are pending before Supreme Court, over 57 lakh cases before various HCs, and over 3 crore cases are pending before various district and subordinate courts.
• Justice V.V.S. Rao, former judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, calculated that it will take around 320 years to clear the existing backlog of cases.

Significance of Lok Adalats

• Act as an alternative dispute resolution tool: To address the problems of crowded case dockets outside the formal adjudicatory system.
  • Lok Adalats are regularly organised to help parties reach a compromise.
  • Motor-accident claims, disputes related to public-utility services, cases related to the dishonour of cheques, and land, labour and matrimonial disputes are usually taken up.
• Huge number of cases disposed off: Data from National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) show that Lok Adalats organised across the country from 2016 to 2020 disposed of 52,46,415 cases.
  • While the formal judicial system is marred with delays and backlogs -> Box 1.
  • The State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) have been organising Lok Adalats on a daily, fortnightly and monthly basis.
  • National Lok Adalats (NLAs) organised under the aegis of NALSA: From 2016 to 2020, NLAs have disposed of a total of 2,93,19,675 cases.
• Party driven process: Allowing them to reach an amicable settlement, with speedy settlements (efficient than litigation, arbitration or mediation).
• Procedural flexibility: No strict application of procedural laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Economic affordability: No court fees for placing matters before Lok Adalat and finality of awards, as no further appeal is allowed.
• Legal status: Award issued by a Lok Adalat, after filing of a joint compromise petition, has the status of a civil court decree.

Associated issues

• Fall in the efficiency of National Lok Adalat: Due to discontinuation of organising NLAs on specific to subject matter (since 2017).
  • In 2015 and 2016, ten NLAs were held each year that disposed of 1,83,09,401 and 1,04,98,453 cases respectively, whereas, in 2017 and 2018, number of NLAs dropped, with 54,05,867 and 58,79,691 cases settled respectively.
  • In 2019, four NLAs were organised, and they disposed of 52,93,273 cases.
• Limitations of e-Lok Adalats: First national e-Lok Adalat disposed 10,42,816 cases, much less than the average of settled cases in 2017, 2018, and 2019.
• Questions over the quality of justice delivery: the State of Punjab vs Jalour Singh (2008) held that a Lok Adalat is purely conciliatory and it has no adjudicatory or judicial function.
  • The court found that it endeavours for speedy disposal of cases, undermining the idea of justice. – Justice hurried is justice denied!
• Money power domination: In a majority of cases, litigants are pitted against entities with deep pockets, such as insurance companies, banks, electricity boards etc.
• Unjust compromise cost: In most cases, litigants have to accept discounted future values of their claims instead of their just entitlements or small compensations, just to bring a long-pending legal process to an end. For Eg. the Bhopal gas tragedy was coercively settled for a paltry sum.
• Clout of patriarchy: Poor women under the so-called ‘harmony ideology’ of state dictated by family courts will have to compromise matrimonial disputes under a romanticised view of marriage.

Conclusion: A just outcome of a legal process is far more important than expeditious disposal.