Answer:

Justice delivery system plays a fundamental role in promoting public interest and preservation of order in the society. An effective system for resolution of disputes is essential for dispensing justice. However, the formal justice delivery system suffers from various limitations. Consider for instance, the following:

♤ To get justice through courts one has to often go through difficult and expensive procedures involved in litigation. Moreover, there exist serious concerns regarding costs, delays and congestion in the courts.

♤ Dispute resolution through legal proceedings in the courts has become excessively procedural and adversarial in nature, thereby resulting in undue delays, high costs and unfairness in litigation. Huge pendency of cases has created serious implications for the trust and credibility, which the society is supposed to have in the judicial system.

♤ Besides this, the adversarial nature of litigation in formal courts is found to be unconducive to social and business relationships, which need to be preserved. Thus this system neither generates a climate of consensus, compromise and co- operation nor does it end in harmony. This state of affair often causes dissatisfaction among disputants and creates a need for a more flexible means of dispute resolution.

It is in light of these limitations that the need for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms arise. Under ADR disputes are settled with the assistance of a neutral third person, who is generally of parties’ own choice. Moreover, this person is usually familiar with the nature of dispute.

Further, the proceedings are informal, without any procedural technicalities. The process is not only expeditious, inexpensive and confidential, but it also aims at substantial justice. The goal here is to provide more effective dispute resolution. Thus, the availability of ADR creates more choices within the justice system. This is how the shortcomings faced in the formal justice delivery system can be overcome through the ADR methods.

However, despite the advantages that ADR enjoys over the formal justice system, it is not a substitute to litigation. There exists a different set of limitations in the ADR too. For instance:

♤ ADR processes cannot be used in those situations where the dispute is regarding systematic injustice, discrimination, and violation of human rights or serious frauds.

♤ ADR processes do not set precedent, since they function in private. They seek to resolve individual disputes. Moreover, resolution may be different in two similar cases, depending on the surrounding conditions.

♤ In cases that involve an extreme power imbalance between the parties, ADR processes cannot work well. A more powerful party may coerce the weaker party to accept the unfair consensus.

♤ In multi-party disputes, ADR processes cannot work effectively, if some of the parties do not participate.

♤ ADR settlements do not have any educational or deterrent effect on the public, since they are settled privately. Only courts can award punitive damages.

♤ Many people are not aware of the existence of ADR methods. Unless they are aware they cannot use these methods.

So, the efficacy of ADR depends on the trade-off between its benefits and limitations. It needs to be stressed once again that though ADR mechanisms are effective, they cannot be a substitute for litigation and a formal justice system.