Introduction:

Dispute resolution is the procedure of resolving disputes between transacting parties. Sometimes it is used interchangeably with conflict resolution, however, conflicts are generally deeper rooted. It is an indispensable procedure for a socially peaceful life. It is a resolution process that tries to resolve and check conflicts to maintain cooperation. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a term to explain different modes of resolving disputes. Since it is impracticable for many individuals to file lawsuits, ADR is often opted by them as the same provides an amicable manner of solving the dispute. This redressal method is being increasingly appreciated in the legal field and in corporate sectors. Alternative Dispute Resolution can be applied in almost all contentious matters which fit into the category of disputes which can be solved by mediation or negotiation. In the coming paragraph, we shall be discussing the Alternative Dispute Resolution system in countries like India, The United States, and Canada.

India

ADR for civil cases is common of four types, namely Arbitration, Conciliation, Mediation, Judicial Settlement, and Lok Adalat. In the case of India, our parliament has amended the Civil Procedure Code by inserting Section 89 a well as Order 10 Rule 1A to 1C. This section provides for the resettlement of disputes outside the court. These provisions and orders are based upon the suggestion of the Law Commission of India and the Malimath Committee. Section 89 of CPC reads,

“(1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of the settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for – (a) arbitration; (b) conciliation; (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or (d) mediation. (2) where a dispute has been referred – (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for – 59 – arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act; (b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat; (c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act; (d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.” To conclude, the section transpires that the ADR procedures comprise one adjudicatory Process namely, arbitration and four non-adjudicatory process namely, Conciliation, Mediation, Judicial settlement, and Lok Adalat. However, it has to be read with the aforementioned Rule 1-A to 1C of order 10, which reads, “Order 10 Rule 1A. Direction of the Court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution.–After recording the admissions and denials, the Court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt either mode of the settlement outside the Court as specified in subsection (1) of section 89. On the option of the parties, the Court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted by the parties.” “Order 10 Rule 1-B. Appearance before the conciliatory forum or authority. -Where a suit is referred under rule 1A, the parties shall appear before such forum or authority for conciliation of the suit.” “Order 10 Rule 1-C. Appearance before the Court consequent to the failure of efforts of conciliation.–Where a suit is referred under rule 1A and the presiding officer of conciliation forum or authority is satisfied that it would not be proper in the interest of justice to proceed with the matter further, then, it shall refer the matter again to the Court and direct the parties to appear before the Court on the date fixed by it.”

The wide range of procedures defined under the Alternative Dispute Resolution provides a method usually involving a third party, a skilled helper in a dispute, or conflict to reach a decision. Alternative Dispute Resolution has helped in alleviating the burden on the Indian Judiciary. Our Judicial System is deeply flawed consequently there is a backlog of pending cases in our courts. Hence, a unique system of ADR offers in catering to the needs of Indian society.

The United States of America

In the case of the United States, the American Society witnessed a growth of interest in Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution at the beginning of the late 1960s. This was followed by the establishment of a Community Relation Service of the Justice Department to assist courts in settling intractable community disputes. The National Centre for Dispute Settlement and the Institute of Mediation and Conflict Resolution was established by the Ford Foundation to study the dispute settlement mechanisms. However, it may be noted that the United States Arbitration Act, also known as the Federal Arbitration Act, enacted in the year 1925 brought forth the modern era of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Alternative Dispute Resolution provides a clear and understandable manner of solving disputes even in the International Arena. A Hallmark of the success of the American ADR movement is the huge endorsement from non-profit professional organizations such as the American Bar Association, the American Arbitration Association, and the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution. Thus, this method got institutionalized in the U.S, as the same provided the society with definite benefits.

Canada

Canada witnessed the cultural shift in their experience with the application of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Around, the 1980s and 1990s a need was recognized for an alternative to the more adversarial approach to dispute resolution that was recognized typical in traditional court proceedings. This growth continued over the coming decades and now it has been widely recognized as an effective approach to dispute resolution. In Hryniak v. Mauldin, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “meaningful access to justice is now the greatest challenge to the rule of law in Canada today… [The] balance between procedure and access struck by our justice system must reflect modern reality and recognize that new models of adjudication can be fair and just.” In Canada, there are Administrative Tribunals both at the Federal and Provincial levels running parallel to the provincial or territorial and federal court systems. They comprise an important course in the Government’s system for resolving disputes. These Tribunals are specialized bodies that hear disputes related to government rules and regulations, like employment insurance, disability benefits, and refugee claims. An adjudicator presides over the hearing of the dispute.

Conclusions

To conclude, Alternative Dispute Resolution offers an effective, economical, adversarial mode of dispute resolution outside. The three countries we briefly discussed in the article, namely India, the United States & Canada have somewhat similar kinds of dispute resolution systems with only a few differences.