Alternate Dispute Resolution is simply an alternate route for resolving disputes between parties, not necessarily seeking justice or penalty for any illegality or wrongdoings, but rather solutions to the problems in hand. But what is it really an ‘alternate’ to? Solutions? Not quite. From a practical standpoint, its main purpose is to serve as a mitigating factor to the primary cons relating to the current legal system, and specifically to the only option that disputing parties can see, that is ‘litigation’. So, ADR acts as an alternate to litigation.

Litigation has become key in providing or rather ensuring the constitutional right of protection of law to all its citizens.  But due to some reasons, access to justice through litigation by the vast majority of people is not as accessible in reality as it may seem. The reasons are inordinate delay, repetition, backlogging of cases, high cost, complex procedural rules, limited opportunity or incentives for consensual settlements reduce economic interest of the legal practitioners in the litigation etc. ADR caters to these problems of litigation and its accessibility. The term of ADR can refer to everything from facilitated settlement negotiations in which disputants are encouraged to negotiate directly with each other prior to some other legal process, to arbitration systems that look and feel very much like a courtroom process. Processes designed to manage community tension or facilitate community development issues can also be included within the rubric of ADR.

Historically these out of court settlements or negotiations were referred to as “Shalish” or “Mimangsha”. However, over the years this traditional concept became corrupted. In todays’ day and age ADR brings all the advantages of those traditional out of court settlements in a rather structured fashion, and at times under the supervision of court.