Textbook: Alternative Dispute Resolution in India (ADR) | Legal Studies for Class 12 - Humanities/Arts PDF Download

 Page 1


33
Alternative Dispute  
Resolution in India (ADR)
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Analyze	and	compar e	the	adversarial	and	inquisitorial	systems	of	justice	dispensation
•	 Explain	the	meaning	and	scope	of	ADR
•	 Evaluate	the	benefits	of	ADR
•	 Identify	 and	 e xplain	 the	 various	 types	 of	 ADR-	 Arbitration,	 Mediation,	 Conciliation,	 Lok	 Adalat	
and	T ribunals
• 	 Evaluate	 and	 e xplain	 the	 role	 of	 various	 Ombudsman -	 CVC,	 Lokpal	 and	 Lokayukta,	 Banking	
Ombudsman	and	Insurance	Ombudsman
I. Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems
Ever y	 legal	 system	 in	 this	 world	 can	 be	 broadly	 classified	 into	 two	 models:	 Adversarial	 and	 Inquisitorial.	
Both	 the	 systems	 aim	 at	 dispensing	 justice,	 but	 they	 differ	 in	 their	 techniques	 of	 adjudication	 and	
justice	deliver y	mechanisms.	Ther efor e,	this	classification	becomes	impor tant.
L et	us	understand	the	meaning	of	each	of	the	systems	and	the	main	differ ences	between	them.
In an adversarial system
• 	 The	 par ties	 in	 a	 legal	 proceeding	 develop	 their	 own	 theor y	 of	 the	 case	 and	 gather	 evidence	 to	
suppor t	their	claims.
• 	 The	 par ties	 ar e	 assisted	 by	 their	 lawyers	 who	 take	 a	 proactive	 role	 in	 delivering	 justice	 to	 the	
litigants.	
• 	 The	 lawyers	 gather	 evidence	 and	 even	 par ticipate	 in	 cross-e xamination	 and	 scrutiny	 of	 evidence	
pr esented	by	the	other	disputing	par ty .	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 rather	 passive	 as	 the	 judge	 decides	 the	 claims	 based	
solely	on	the	evidence	and	arguments	pr esented	by	the	par ties	and	their	lawyers.
In an inquisitorial system
• 	 The	judge/	decision	maker	takes	a	centr e-stage	in	dispensing	justice.	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 active	 as	 he/	 she	 deter mines	 the	 facts	 and	 issues	 in	
dispute.	
UNIT
2
Page 2


33
Alternative Dispute  
Resolution in India (ADR)
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Analyze	and	compar e	the	adversarial	and	inquisitorial	systems	of	justice	dispensation
•	 Explain	the	meaning	and	scope	of	ADR
•	 Evaluate	the	benefits	of	ADR
•	 Identify	 and	 e xplain	 the	 various	 types	 of	 ADR-	 Arbitration,	 Mediation,	 Conciliation,	 Lok	 Adalat	
and	T ribunals
• 	 Evaluate	 and	 e xplain	 the	 role	 of	 various	 Ombudsman -	 CVC,	 Lokpal	 and	 Lokayukta,	 Banking	
Ombudsman	and	Insurance	Ombudsman
I. Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems
Ever y	 legal	 system	 in	 this	 world	 can	 be	 broadly	 classified	 into	 two	 models:	 Adversarial	 and	 Inquisitorial.	
Both	 the	 systems	 aim	 at	 dispensing	 justice,	 but	 they	 differ	 in	 their	 techniques	 of	 adjudication	 and	
justice	deliver y	mechanisms.	Ther efor e,	this	classification	becomes	impor tant.
L et	us	understand	the	meaning	of	each	of	the	systems	and	the	main	differ ences	between	them.
In an adversarial system
• 	 The	 par ties	 in	 a	 legal	 proceeding	 develop	 their	 own	 theor y	 of	 the	 case	 and	 gather	 evidence	 to	
suppor t	their	claims.
• 	 The	 par ties	 ar e	 assisted	 by	 their	 lawyers	 who	 take	 a	 proactive	 role	 in	 delivering	 justice	 to	 the	
litigants.	
• 	 The	 lawyers	 gather	 evidence	 and	 even	 par ticipate	 in	 cross-e xamination	 and	 scrutiny	 of	 evidence	
pr esented	by	the	other	disputing	par ty .	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 rather	 passive	 as	 the	 judge	 decides	 the	 claims	 based	
solely	on	the	evidence	and	arguments	pr esented	by	the	par ties	and	their	lawyers.
In an inquisitorial system
• 	 The	judge/	decision	maker	takes	a	centr e-stage	in	dispensing	justice.	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 active	 as	 he/	 she	 deter mines	 the	 facts	 and	 issues	 in	
dispute.	
UNIT
2
34
• 	 The	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 also	 decides	 the	 mann er	 in	 which	 the	 evidence	 must	 be	 pr esented	
befor e	 the	 cour t.	 F or	 e xample,	 the	 judge	 may	 decide 	 for	 pr esentation	 of	 a	 specific	 for m	 of	
evidence,	 i.e.	 oral	 (witness	 statement)	 or	 documentar y	 (cor r espondence	 between	 the	 par ties	
through	letters/emails)	or	a	combination	of	both.	
• 	 The	 judge	 then	 evalu ates	 the	 evidence	 pr esented 	 befor e	 him/her	 and	 decides	 upon	 the	 legal	
claims.	 Ther efor e,	 this	 model	 of	 adjudication	 is	 also	 known	 as	 the	 inter ventionist/investigative	
model.
• 	 F ur ther mor e,	 in	 such	 a	 system,	 less	 r eliance	 is	 place d	 on	 cross-e xamination	 and	 other	 techniques	
often	used	by	lawyers	to	evaluate	evidence	of	their	opposing	counsel.
The	 adversarial	 system	 is	 generally	 adopted	 in	 common	 law	 countries.	 Major	 common	 law	 jurisdictions	
include	 the	 UK,	 U.S,	 Australia	 and	 India.	 On	 the	 other	 hand,	 continental	 Europe	 which	 follows	 the	
civil	 law	 system	 (i.e.,	 those	 deriving	 from	 Roman	 law	 or	 the	 Napoleonic	 Code)	 has	 adopted	 the	
inquisitorial	system.
Having	 under stood	 the	 basic	 framework	 of	 functionin g	 of	 the	 two	 models	 of	 legal	 systems,	 let	 us	
analyse	their	advantages	and	disadvantages.
II. Advantages and Disadvantages of Adversarial and 
Inquisitorial System
The main advantages of an adversarial system include:
i.	 The	 use	 of	 cross-e xamination	 can	 be	 an	 effective	 way	 to	 test	 the	 cr edibility	 of	 witnesses	 pr esented;
ii.	 The	 par ties	 may	 be	 mor e	 willing	 to	 accept	 the	 r esults	 when	 they	 ar e	 given	 effective	 control	 over	
the	process.
The disadvantages of an adversarial system are the following:
i.	 The	 cost	 of	 the	 justice	 system	 falls	 upon	 the	 par ties.	 This	 cr eates	 an	 in -built	 discrimination	
amongst	 the	 litigants.	 P ar ties	 with	 better	 r esour ces	 ar e	 able	 to	 access	 justice	 by	 hiring	 competent	
lawyers	 and	 pr esenting	 sophisticated	 evidence	 which	 may	 not	 be	 immediately	 available	 for	
par ties	 that	 lack	 these	 r esour ces.	 Accessibility	 and	 affordability	 to	 justice	 ar e	 impor tant	 challenges	
for	the	adversarial	system	of	dispute	r esolution.
ii.	 The	 role	 of	 lawyers	 and	 the	 procedural	 for malities,	 e.	 g.	 cross	 e xamination	 may	 prolong	 the	 trial	
and	lead	to	delays	in	several	matters.
iii.	 Judges	 play	 a	 less	 active	 role;	 a	 judge	 is	 not	 duty	 bound	 to	 ascer tain	 the	 truth	 but	 only	 to	
evaluate	the	matter	based	on	the	evidence	pr esented	befor e	him/her .
P eter	 Murphy	 in	 his	 book,	 P ractical	 Guide	 to	 Evidence	 r ecounts	 an	 instructive	 e xample.	 A	
frustrated	 judge	 in	 an	 English	 (adversarial)	 cour t	 finally 	 asked	 a	 bar rister	 after	 witnesses	 had	
produced	 conflicting	 accoun ts,	 ‘ Am	 I	 never	 to	 hear	 the	 truth?	 ’No ,	 my	 lord,	 mer ely	 the	 evi -
dence‘,	r eplied	counsel.
Page 3


33
Alternative Dispute  
Resolution in India (ADR)
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Analyze	and	compar e	the	adversarial	and	inquisitorial	systems	of	justice	dispensation
•	 Explain	the	meaning	and	scope	of	ADR
•	 Evaluate	the	benefits	of	ADR
•	 Identify	 and	 e xplain	 the	 various	 types	 of	 ADR-	 Arbitration,	 Mediation,	 Conciliation,	 Lok	 Adalat	
and	T ribunals
• 	 Evaluate	 and	 e xplain	 the	 role	 of	 various	 Ombudsman -	 CVC,	 Lokpal	 and	 Lokayukta,	 Banking	
Ombudsman	and	Insurance	Ombudsman
I. Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems
Ever y	 legal	 system	 in	 this	 world	 can	 be	 broadly	 classified	 into	 two	 models:	 Adversarial	 and	 Inquisitorial.	
Both	 the	 systems	 aim	 at	 dispensing	 justice,	 but	 they	 differ	 in	 their	 techniques	 of	 adjudication	 and	
justice	deliver y	mechanisms.	Ther efor e,	this	classification	becomes	impor tant.
L et	us	understand	the	meaning	of	each	of	the	systems	and	the	main	differ ences	between	them.
In an adversarial system
• 	 The	 par ties	 in	 a	 legal	 proceeding	 develop	 their	 own	 theor y	 of	 the	 case	 and	 gather	 evidence	 to	
suppor t	their	claims.
• 	 The	 par ties	 ar e	 assisted	 by	 their	 lawyers	 who	 take	 a	 proactive	 role	 in	 delivering	 justice	 to	 the	
litigants.	
• 	 The	 lawyers	 gather	 evidence	 and	 even	 par ticipate	 in	 cross-e xamination	 and	 scrutiny	 of	 evidence	
pr esented	by	the	other	disputing	par ty .	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 rather	 passive	 as	 the	 judge	 decides	 the	 claims	 based	
solely	on	the	evidence	and	arguments	pr esented	by	the	par ties	and	their	lawyers.
In an inquisitorial system
• 	 The	judge/	decision	maker	takes	a	centr e-stage	in	dispensing	justice.	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 active	 as	 he/	 she	 deter mines	 the	 facts	 and	 issues	 in	
dispute.	
UNIT
2
34
• 	 The	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 also	 decides	 the	 mann er	 in	 which	 the	 evidence	 must	 be	 pr esented	
befor e	 the	 cour t.	 F or	 e xample,	 the	 judge	 may	 decide 	 for	 pr esentation	 of	 a	 specific	 for m	 of	
evidence,	 i.e.	 oral	 (witness	 statement)	 or	 documentar y	 (cor r espondence	 between	 the	 par ties	
through	letters/emails)	or	a	combination	of	both.	
• 	 The	 judge	 then	 evalu ates	 the	 evidence	 pr esented 	 befor e	 him/her	 and	 decides	 upon	 the	 legal	
claims.	 Ther efor e,	 this	 model	 of	 adjudication	 is	 also	 known	 as	 the	 inter ventionist/investigative	
model.
• 	 F ur ther mor e,	 in	 such	 a	 system,	 less	 r eliance	 is	 place d	 on	 cross-e xamination	 and	 other	 techniques	
often	used	by	lawyers	to	evaluate	evidence	of	their	opposing	counsel.
The	 adversarial	 system	 is	 generally	 adopted	 in	 common	 law	 countries.	 Major	 common	 law	 jurisdictions	
include	 the	 UK,	 U.S,	 Australia	 and	 India.	 On	 the	 other	 hand,	 continental	 Europe	 which	 follows	 the	
civil	 law	 system	 (i.e.,	 those	 deriving	 from	 Roman	 law	 or	 the	 Napoleonic	 Code)	 has	 adopted	 the	
inquisitorial	system.
Having	 under stood	 the	 basic	 framework	 of	 functionin g	 of	 the	 two	 models	 of	 legal	 systems,	 let	 us	
analyse	their	advantages	and	disadvantages.
II. Advantages and Disadvantages of Adversarial and 
Inquisitorial System
The main advantages of an adversarial system include:
i.	 The	 use	 of	 cross-e xamination	 can	 be	 an	 effective	 way	 to	 test	 the	 cr edibility	 of	 witnesses	 pr esented;
ii.	 The	 par ties	 may	 be	 mor e	 willing	 to	 accept	 the	 r esults	 when	 they	 ar e	 given	 effective	 control	 over	
the	process.
The disadvantages of an adversarial system are the following:
i.	 The	 cost	 of	 the	 justice	 system	 falls	 upon	 the	 par ties.	 This	 cr eates	 an	 in -built	 discrimination	
amongst	 the	 litigants.	 P ar ties	 with	 better	 r esour ces	 ar e	 able	 to	 access	 justice	 by	 hiring	 competent	
lawyers	 and	 pr esenting	 sophisticated	 evidence	 which	 may	 not	 be	 immediately	 available	 for	
par ties	 that	 lack	 these	 r esour ces.	 Accessibility	 and	 affordability	 to	 justice	 ar e	 impor tant	 challenges	
for	the	adversarial	system	of	dispute	r esolution.
ii.	 The	 role	 of	 lawyers	 and	 the	 procedural	 for malities,	 e.	 g.	 cross	 e xamination	 may	 prolong	 the	 trial	
and	lead	to	delays	in	several	matters.
iii.	 Judges	 play	 a	 less	 active	 role;	 a	 judge	 is	 not	 duty	 bound	 to	 ascer tain	 the	 truth	 but	 only	 to	
evaluate	the	matter	based	on	the	evidence	pr esented	befor e	him/her .
P eter	 Murphy	 in	 his	 book,	 P ractical	 Guide	 to	 Evidence	 r ecounts	 an	 instructive	 e xample.	 A	
frustrated	 judge	 in	 an	 English	 (adversarial)	 cour t	 finally 	 asked	 a	 bar rister	 after	 witnesses	 had	
produced	 conflicting	 accoun ts,	 ‘ Am	 I	 never	 to	 hear	 the	 truth?	 ’No ,	 my	 lord,	 mer ely	 the	 evi -
dence‘,	r eplied	counsel.
35
The main advantages of an inquisitorial system include:
i.	 The	 system	 offers	 procedural	 efficiency	 as	 the	 active	 role	 of	 judges	 pr events	 delays	 and	 prolonged	
trials.
ii.	 The	 system	 pr eser ves	 equality	 between	 the	 par ties	 as	 even	 the	 stronger	 par ty	 with	 mor e	
r esour ces	and	e xper t	lawyers	may	not	be	able	to	influence	the	judges.
The disadvantages of this model include:
i.	 In	 an	 inquisitorial	 system,	 since	 the	 judge	 steps	 into	 the	 shoes	 of	 an	 investigator	 he/	 she	 can	 no	
longer	r emain	neutral	to	evaluate	the	case	with	an	open	mind.
ii.	 Ther e	 may	 be	 a	 lack	 of	 an	 incentive	 structur e	 for	 judges	 to	 involve	 themselves	 in	 proper	 fact	
finding.
Activity
Evaluate	 the	 featur es	 of	 the	 Indian	 legal	 system-	 Is	 it	 adversarial	 or	 inquisitorial?	 T ake	 four	 case	
studies	 and	 see	 if	 the	 model	 would/should	 change	 with	 the	 change	 in	 natur e	 of	 the	 case	 such	 as	 civil,	
criminal.	public	inter est	litigation	etc.
III. Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution
Meaning and Scope:
Alter native	 Dispute	 Resolution	 (ADR)	 is	 an	 attempt	 to	 devise	 a	 machiner y	 which	 should	 be	 capable	 of	
providing	 an	 alter native	 to	 the	 conventional	 methods	 of	 r esolving	 disputes	 in	 the	 cour t	 system.	 ADR	
r efers	to	the	use	of	non -adversarial	techniques	of	adjudication	of	legal	disputes.
The	 histor y	 of	 ADR	 in	 India	 pr e-dates	 the	 moder n	 adver sarial	 model	 of	 Indian	 judiciar y .	 The	 moder n	
Indian	 judiciar y	 was	 introdu ced	 with	 the	 advent	 of	 the	 British	 colonial	 era,	 as	 the	 English	 cour ts	 and	
the	 English	 legal	 system	 influenced	 the	 practice	 of	 Indian	 cour ts,	 advocates	 and	 judges.	 Cour ts	 in	
India	 wer e	 established	 to	 have	 in	 place	 a	 unifor m	 lega l	 system	 on	 the	 lines	 of	 the	 English	 Cour ts.	
However ,	 even	 befor e	 the	 advent	 of	 such	 for malistic	 models	 of	 cour ts	 and	 judiciar y ,	 the	 Indian	 legal	
system	was	characterised	by	several	native	ADR	techniques.
The	V edic	age	in	India,	witnessed	the	flourishing	of	specialised	tribunals	such	as	
• 	 Kula	(for	disputes	of	family ,	community ,	tribe,	castes,	races)
• 	 	Shr eni	(for	inter nal	disputes	in	business,	corporation	of	ar tisans)	and	
• 	 Puga	(for	association	of	traders/commer ce	branches).	
In	 these	 institutions,	 inter est-based	 negotiations	 domi nated	 with	 a	 neutral	 third	 par ty	 seeking	 to	
identify	the	underlying	needs	and	concer ns	of	the	par ties	in	dispute.	Similarly ,	
‘P eople’s	cour ts’	or	’P anchayat’	continued	to	be	at	the	centr e	of	dispute	r esolution	in	villages.
Page 4


33
Alternative Dispute  
Resolution in India (ADR)
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Analyze	and	compar e	the	adversarial	and	inquisitorial	systems	of	justice	dispensation
•	 Explain	the	meaning	and	scope	of	ADR
•	 Evaluate	the	benefits	of	ADR
•	 Identify	 and	 e xplain	 the	 various	 types	 of	 ADR-	 Arbitration,	 Mediation,	 Conciliation,	 Lok	 Adalat	
and	T ribunals
• 	 Evaluate	 and	 e xplain	 the	 role	 of	 various	 Ombudsman -	 CVC,	 Lokpal	 and	 Lokayukta,	 Banking	
Ombudsman	and	Insurance	Ombudsman
I. Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems
Ever y	 legal	 system	 in	 this	 world	 can	 be	 broadly	 classified	 into	 two	 models:	 Adversarial	 and	 Inquisitorial.	
Both	 the	 systems	 aim	 at	 dispensing	 justice,	 but	 they	 differ	 in	 their	 techniques	 of	 adjudication	 and	
justice	deliver y	mechanisms.	Ther efor e,	this	classification	becomes	impor tant.
L et	us	understand	the	meaning	of	each	of	the	systems	and	the	main	differ ences	between	them.
In an adversarial system
• 	 The	 par ties	 in	 a	 legal	 proceeding	 develop	 their	 own	 theor y	 of	 the	 case	 and	 gather	 evidence	 to	
suppor t	their	claims.
• 	 The	 par ties	 ar e	 assisted	 by	 their	 lawyers	 who	 take	 a	 proactive	 role	 in	 delivering	 justice	 to	 the	
litigants.	
• 	 The	 lawyers	 gather	 evidence	 and	 even	 par ticipate	 in	 cross-e xamination	 and	 scrutiny	 of	 evidence	
pr esented	by	the	other	disputing	par ty .	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 rather	 passive	 as	 the	 judge	 decides	 the	 claims	 based	
solely	on	the	evidence	and	arguments	pr esented	by	the	par ties	and	their	lawyers.
In an inquisitorial system
• 	 The	judge/	decision	maker	takes	a	centr e-stage	in	dispensing	justice.	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 active	 as	 he/	 she	 deter mines	 the	 facts	 and	 issues	 in	
dispute.	
UNIT
2
34
• 	 The	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 also	 decides	 the	 mann er	 in	 which	 the	 evidence	 must	 be	 pr esented	
befor e	 the	 cour t.	 F or	 e xample,	 the	 judge	 may	 decide 	 for	 pr esentation	 of	 a	 specific	 for m	 of	
evidence,	 i.e.	 oral	 (witness	 statement)	 or	 documentar y	 (cor r espondence	 between	 the	 par ties	
through	letters/emails)	or	a	combination	of	both.	
• 	 The	 judge	 then	 evalu ates	 the	 evidence	 pr esented 	 befor e	 him/her	 and	 decides	 upon	 the	 legal	
claims.	 Ther efor e,	 this	 model	 of	 adjudication	 is	 also	 known	 as	 the	 inter ventionist/investigative	
model.
• 	 F ur ther mor e,	 in	 such	 a	 system,	 less	 r eliance	 is	 place d	 on	 cross-e xamination	 and	 other	 techniques	
often	used	by	lawyers	to	evaluate	evidence	of	their	opposing	counsel.
The	 adversarial	 system	 is	 generally	 adopted	 in	 common	 law	 countries.	 Major	 common	 law	 jurisdictions	
include	 the	 UK,	 U.S,	 Australia	 and	 India.	 On	 the	 other	 hand,	 continental	 Europe	 which	 follows	 the	
civil	 law	 system	 (i.e.,	 those	 deriving	 from	 Roman	 law	 or	 the	 Napoleonic	 Code)	 has	 adopted	 the	
inquisitorial	system.
Having	 under stood	 the	 basic	 framework	 of	 functionin g	 of	 the	 two	 models	 of	 legal	 systems,	 let	 us	
analyse	their	advantages	and	disadvantages.
II. Advantages and Disadvantages of Adversarial and 
Inquisitorial System
The main advantages of an adversarial system include:
i.	 The	 use	 of	 cross-e xamination	 can	 be	 an	 effective	 way	 to	 test	 the	 cr edibility	 of	 witnesses	 pr esented;
ii.	 The	 par ties	 may	 be	 mor e	 willing	 to	 accept	 the	 r esults	 when	 they	 ar e	 given	 effective	 control	 over	
the	process.
The disadvantages of an adversarial system are the following:
i.	 The	 cost	 of	 the	 justice	 system	 falls	 upon	 the	 par ties.	 This	 cr eates	 an	 in -built	 discrimination	
amongst	 the	 litigants.	 P ar ties	 with	 better	 r esour ces	 ar e	 able	 to	 access	 justice	 by	 hiring	 competent	
lawyers	 and	 pr esenting	 sophisticated	 evidence	 which	 may	 not	 be	 immediately	 available	 for	
par ties	 that	 lack	 these	 r esour ces.	 Accessibility	 and	 affordability	 to	 justice	 ar e	 impor tant	 challenges	
for	the	adversarial	system	of	dispute	r esolution.
ii.	 The	 role	 of	 lawyers	 and	 the	 procedural	 for malities,	 e.	 g.	 cross	 e xamination	 may	 prolong	 the	 trial	
and	lead	to	delays	in	several	matters.
iii.	 Judges	 play	 a	 less	 active	 role;	 a	 judge	 is	 not	 duty	 bound	 to	 ascer tain	 the	 truth	 but	 only	 to	
evaluate	the	matter	based	on	the	evidence	pr esented	befor e	him/her .
P eter	 Murphy	 in	 his	 book,	 P ractical	 Guide	 to	 Evidence	 r ecounts	 an	 instructive	 e xample.	 A	
frustrated	 judge	 in	 an	 English	 (adversarial)	 cour t	 finally 	 asked	 a	 bar rister	 after	 witnesses	 had	
produced	 conflicting	 accoun ts,	 ‘ Am	 I	 never	 to	 hear	 the	 truth?	 ’No ,	 my	 lord,	 mer ely	 the	 evi -
dence‘,	r eplied	counsel.
35
The main advantages of an inquisitorial system include:
i.	 The	 system	 offers	 procedural	 efficiency	 as	 the	 active	 role	 of	 judges	 pr events	 delays	 and	 prolonged	
trials.
ii.	 The	 system	 pr eser ves	 equality	 between	 the	 par ties	 as	 even	 the	 stronger	 par ty	 with	 mor e	
r esour ces	and	e xper t	lawyers	may	not	be	able	to	influence	the	judges.
The disadvantages of this model include:
i.	 In	 an	 inquisitorial	 system,	 since	 the	 judge	 steps	 into	 the	 shoes	 of	 an	 investigator	 he/	 she	 can	 no	
longer	r emain	neutral	to	evaluate	the	case	with	an	open	mind.
ii.	 Ther e	 may	 be	 a	 lack	 of	 an	 incentive	 structur e	 for	 judges	 to	 involve	 themselves	 in	 proper	 fact	
finding.
Activity
Evaluate	 the	 featur es	 of	 the	 Indian	 legal	 system-	 Is	 it	 adversarial	 or	 inquisitorial?	 T ake	 four	 case	
studies	 and	 see	 if	 the	 model	 would/should	 change	 with	 the	 change	 in	 natur e	 of	 the	 case	 such	 as	 civil,	
criminal.	public	inter est	litigation	etc.
III. Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution
Meaning and Scope:
Alter native	 Dispute	 Resolution	 (ADR)	 is	 an	 attempt	 to	 devise	 a	 machiner y	 which	 should	 be	 capable	 of	
providing	 an	 alter native	 to	 the	 conventional	 methods	 of	 r esolving	 disputes	 in	 the	 cour t	 system.	 ADR	
r efers	to	the	use	of	non -adversarial	techniques	of	adjudication	of	legal	disputes.
The	 histor y	 of	 ADR	 in	 India	 pr e-dates	 the	 moder n	 adver sarial	 model	 of	 Indian	 judiciar y .	 The	 moder n	
Indian	 judiciar y	 was	 introdu ced	 with	 the	 advent	 of	 the	 British	 colonial	 era,	 as	 the	 English	 cour ts	 and	
the	 English	 legal	 system	 influenced	 the	 practice	 of	 Indian	 cour ts,	 advocates	 and	 judges.	 Cour ts	 in	
India	 wer e	 established	 to	 have	 in	 place	 a	 unifor m	 lega l	 system	 on	 the	 lines	 of	 the	 English	 Cour ts.	
However ,	 even	 befor e	 the	 advent	 of	 such	 for malistic	 models	 of	 cour ts	 and	 judiciar y ,	 the	 Indian	 legal	
system	was	characterised	by	several	native	ADR	techniques.
The	V edic	age	in	India,	witnessed	the	flourishing	of	specialised	tribunals	such	as	
• 	 Kula	(for	disputes	of	family ,	community ,	tribe,	castes,	races)
• 	 	Shr eni	(for	inter nal	disputes	in	business,	corporation	of	ar tisans)	and	
• 	 Puga	(for	association	of	traders/commer ce	branches).	
In	 these	 institutions,	 inter est-based	 negotiations	 domi nated	 with	 a	 neutral	 third	 par ty	 seeking	 to	
identify	the	underlying	needs	and	concer ns	of	the	par ties	in	dispute.	Similarly ,	
‘P eople’s	cour ts’	or	’P anchayat’	continued	to	be	at	the	centr e	of	dispute	r esolution	in	villages.
36
Did you know?
The	 ancient	 position	 of	 ADR	 outside	 India	 was	 akin	 to	 the	 submission	 of	 disputes	 to	 the	 decision	 of	
private	 persons	 -	 r ecognised	 under	 the	 Roman	 L aw	 by	 the	 name	 of	 Compromysm	 (compromise).	
Arbitration	 was	 a	 mode	 of	 settling	 controversies	 much	 favour ed	 in	 the	 civil	 law	 of	 the	 continent.	
The	 Gr eeks	 attached	 par ticular	 impor tance	 to	 arbitration.	 The	 attitude	 of	 English	 law	 towards	
arbitration	 fluctuated	 from	 stiff	 opposition	 to	 moderate	 welcome.	 The	 Common	 L aw	 Cour ts	 looked	
jealously	at	agr eements	to	submit	disputes	to	e xtra-judicial	deter mination.
Source: 	Russell	on	Arbitration,	22ndEdn,	2003,	p.	362,	para	8-O02
Alter native	 Dispute	 Resoluti on	 (ADR)	 which	 at	 one	 point	 of	 time	 was	 consider ed	 a	 voluntar y	 action	
on	 the	 par t	 of	 the	 par ties	 has	 now	 obtained	 statutor y	 r ecognition	 with	 the	 enactment	 of	 Arbitration	
and	 Conciliation	 Act,	 1996	 and	 The	 L egal	 Ser vices	 Authority	 Act,	 1987.	 The	 incorporation	 of	 ADR	
mechanisms	 under	 Section	 89	 of	 Code	 of	 Civil	 P rocedur e,1908	 is	 one	 mor e	 radical	 step	 taken	 by	
legislatur e	for	promoting	ADR	in	India.
Section 89 CPC - Settlement of disputes outside the Court
(1)	 Wher e	 it	 appears	 to	 the	 Cour t	 that	 ther e	 e xist	 elem ents	 of	 a	 settlement	 which	 may	 be	 acceptable	
to	 the	 par ties,	 the	 Cour t	 shall	 for mulate	 the	 ter ms	 of	 settlement	 and	 give	 them	 to	 the	 par ties	 for	
their	 obser vations	 and	 after	 r eceiving	 the	 obser vations	 of	 the	 par ties,	 the	 Cour t	 may	 r efor mulate	
the	ter ms	of	a	possible	settlement	and	r efer	the	same	for:	--
	 (a)		 arbitration;
	 (b)		 conciliation;
	 (c)		 judicial	settlement	including	settlement	through	Lok	Adalat:	or
	 (d)		 mediation.
The	 purpose	 of	 this	 section	 is	 to	 enable	 the	 Cour ts	 to	 legally	 r efer	 the	 matters	 to	 ADR	 to	 dispose	 of	 the	
cases	e xpediently	and	to	r educe	the	backlog.
In	 the	 moder n	 era,	 several	 new	 and	 sophisticated	 for ms	 of	 ADR	 techniques	 have	 developed.	 The	
differ ent	for ms	of	ADR	models/techniques	ar e	discussed	in	the	subsequent	par ts	of	the	chapter .
IV. Problems faced by Courts
The	law	cour ts	ar e	confronted	with	following	problems,	such	as:
1.	 The	 lack	 of	 number	 of	 cour ts	 and	 judges	 which	 cr eates	 an	 inadequacy	 within	 the	 justice	 deliver y	
system;
2.	 The	 incr easing	 litigatio n	 in	 India	 due	 to	 incr easing	 population,	 comple xity	 of	 laws	 and	 obsolete	
continuation	of	some	pr e-e xisting	legal	statutes;
3.	 The	 incr easing	 cost	 of	 litigation	 in	 prosecuting	 or	 defending	 a	 case,	 incr easing	 cour t	 fees,	
lawyer ’s	fees	and	incidental	e xpenses;
4.	 Delay	in	disposal	of	cases	r esulting	in	huge	pendency	in	all	the	cour ts.
Page 5


33
Alternative Dispute  
Resolution in India (ADR)
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Analyze	and	compar e	the	adversarial	and	inquisitorial	systems	of	justice	dispensation
•	 Explain	the	meaning	and	scope	of	ADR
•	 Evaluate	the	benefits	of	ADR
•	 Identify	 and	 e xplain	 the	 various	 types	 of	 ADR-	 Arbitration,	 Mediation,	 Conciliation,	 Lok	 Adalat	
and	T ribunals
• 	 Evaluate	 and	 e xplain	 the	 role	 of	 various	 Ombudsman -	 CVC,	 Lokpal	 and	 Lokayukta,	 Banking	
Ombudsman	and	Insurance	Ombudsman
I. Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems
Ever y	 legal	 system	 in	 this	 world	 can	 be	 broadly	 classified	 into	 two	 models:	 Adversarial	 and	 Inquisitorial.	
Both	 the	 systems	 aim	 at	 dispensing	 justice,	 but	 they	 differ	 in	 their	 techniques	 of	 adjudication	 and	
justice	deliver y	mechanisms.	Ther efor e,	this	classification	becomes	impor tant.
L et	us	understand	the	meaning	of	each	of	the	systems	and	the	main	differ ences	between	them.
In an adversarial system
• 	 The	 par ties	 in	 a	 legal	 proceeding	 develop	 their	 own	 theor y	 of	 the	 case	 and	 gather	 evidence	 to	
suppor t	their	claims.
• 	 The	 par ties	 ar e	 assisted	 by	 their	 lawyers	 who	 take	 a	 proactive	 role	 in	 delivering	 justice	 to	 the	
litigants.	
• 	 The	 lawyers	 gather	 evidence	 and	 even	 par ticipate	 in	 cross-e xamination	 and	 scrutiny	 of	 evidence	
pr esented	by	the	other	disputing	par ty .	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 rather	 passive	 as	 the	 judge	 decides	 the	 claims	 based	
solely	on	the	evidence	and	arguments	pr esented	by	the	par ties	and	their	lawyers.
In an inquisitorial system
• 	 The	judge/	decision	maker	takes	a	centr e-stage	in	dispensing	justice.	
• 	 The	 role	 of	 the	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 is	 active	 as	 he/	 she	 deter mines	 the	 facts	 and	 issues	 in	
dispute.	
UNIT
2
34
• 	 The	 judge/	 decision	 maker	 also	 decides	 the	 mann er	 in	 which	 the	 evidence	 must	 be	 pr esented	
befor e	 the	 cour t.	 F or	 e xample,	 the	 judge	 may	 decide 	 for	 pr esentation	 of	 a	 specific	 for m	 of	
evidence,	 i.e.	 oral	 (witness	 statement)	 or	 documentar y	 (cor r espondence	 between	 the	 par ties	
through	letters/emails)	or	a	combination	of	both.	
• 	 The	 judge	 then	 evalu ates	 the	 evidence	 pr esented 	 befor e	 him/her	 and	 decides	 upon	 the	 legal	
claims.	 Ther efor e,	 this	 model	 of	 adjudication	 is	 also	 known	 as	 the	 inter ventionist/investigative	
model.
• 	 F ur ther mor e,	 in	 such	 a	 system,	 less	 r eliance	 is	 place d	 on	 cross-e xamination	 and	 other	 techniques	
often	used	by	lawyers	to	evaluate	evidence	of	their	opposing	counsel.
The	 adversarial	 system	 is	 generally	 adopted	 in	 common	 law	 countries.	 Major	 common	 law	 jurisdictions	
include	 the	 UK,	 U.S,	 Australia	 and	 India.	 On	 the	 other	 hand,	 continental	 Europe	 which	 follows	 the	
civil	 law	 system	 (i.e.,	 those	 deriving	 from	 Roman	 law	 or	 the	 Napoleonic	 Code)	 has	 adopted	 the	
inquisitorial	system.
Having	 under stood	 the	 basic	 framework	 of	 functionin g	 of	 the	 two	 models	 of	 legal	 systems,	 let	 us	
analyse	their	advantages	and	disadvantages.
II. Advantages and Disadvantages of Adversarial and 
Inquisitorial System
The main advantages of an adversarial system include:
i.	 The	 use	 of	 cross-e xamination	 can	 be	 an	 effective	 way	 to	 test	 the	 cr edibility	 of	 witnesses	 pr esented;
ii.	 The	 par ties	 may	 be	 mor e	 willing	 to	 accept	 the	 r esults	 when	 they	 ar e	 given	 effective	 control	 over	
the	process.
The disadvantages of an adversarial system are the following:
i.	 The	 cost	 of	 the	 justice	 system	 falls	 upon	 the	 par ties.	 This	 cr eates	 an	 in -built	 discrimination	
amongst	 the	 litigants.	 P ar ties	 with	 better	 r esour ces	 ar e	 able	 to	 access	 justice	 by	 hiring	 competent	
lawyers	 and	 pr esenting	 sophisticated	 evidence	 which	 may	 not	 be	 immediately	 available	 for	
par ties	 that	 lack	 these	 r esour ces.	 Accessibility	 and	 affordability	 to	 justice	 ar e	 impor tant	 challenges	
for	the	adversarial	system	of	dispute	r esolution.
ii.	 The	 role	 of	 lawyers	 and	 the	 procedural	 for malities,	 e.	 g.	 cross	 e xamination	 may	 prolong	 the	 trial	
and	lead	to	delays	in	several	matters.
iii.	 Judges	 play	 a	 less	 active	 role;	 a	 judge	 is	 not	 duty	 bound	 to	 ascer tain	 the	 truth	 but	 only	 to	
evaluate	the	matter	based	on	the	evidence	pr esented	befor e	him/her .
P eter	 Murphy	 in	 his	 book,	 P ractical	 Guide	 to	 Evidence	 r ecounts	 an	 instructive	 e xample.	 A	
frustrated	 judge	 in	 an	 English	 (adversarial)	 cour t	 finally 	 asked	 a	 bar rister	 after	 witnesses	 had	
produced	 conflicting	 accoun ts,	 ‘ Am	 I	 never	 to	 hear	 the	 truth?	 ’No ,	 my	 lord,	 mer ely	 the	 evi -
dence‘,	r eplied	counsel.
35
The main advantages of an inquisitorial system include:
i.	 The	 system	 offers	 procedural	 efficiency	 as	 the	 active	 role	 of	 judges	 pr events	 delays	 and	 prolonged	
trials.
ii.	 The	 system	 pr eser ves	 equality	 between	 the	 par ties	 as	 even	 the	 stronger	 par ty	 with	 mor e	
r esour ces	and	e xper t	lawyers	may	not	be	able	to	influence	the	judges.
The disadvantages of this model include:
i.	 In	 an	 inquisitorial	 system,	 since	 the	 judge	 steps	 into	 the	 shoes	 of	 an	 investigator	 he/	 she	 can	 no	
longer	r emain	neutral	to	evaluate	the	case	with	an	open	mind.
ii.	 Ther e	 may	 be	 a	 lack	 of	 an	 incentive	 structur e	 for	 judges	 to	 involve	 themselves	 in	 proper	 fact	
finding.
Activity
Evaluate	 the	 featur es	 of	 the	 Indian	 legal	 system-	 Is	 it	 adversarial	 or	 inquisitorial?	 T ake	 four	 case	
studies	 and	 see	 if	 the	 model	 would/should	 change	 with	 the	 change	 in	 natur e	 of	 the	 case	 such	 as	 civil,	
criminal.	public	inter est	litigation	etc.
III. Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution
Meaning and Scope:
Alter native	 Dispute	 Resolution	 (ADR)	 is	 an	 attempt	 to	 devise	 a	 machiner y	 which	 should	 be	 capable	 of	
providing	 an	 alter native	 to	 the	 conventional	 methods	 of	 r esolving	 disputes	 in	 the	 cour t	 system.	 ADR	
r efers	to	the	use	of	non -adversarial	techniques	of	adjudication	of	legal	disputes.
The	 histor y	 of	 ADR	 in	 India	 pr e-dates	 the	 moder n	 adver sarial	 model	 of	 Indian	 judiciar y .	 The	 moder n	
Indian	 judiciar y	 was	 introdu ced	 with	 the	 advent	 of	 the	 British	 colonial	 era,	 as	 the	 English	 cour ts	 and	
the	 English	 legal	 system	 influenced	 the	 practice	 of	 Indian	 cour ts,	 advocates	 and	 judges.	 Cour ts	 in	
India	 wer e	 established	 to	 have	 in	 place	 a	 unifor m	 lega l	 system	 on	 the	 lines	 of	 the	 English	 Cour ts.	
However ,	 even	 befor e	 the	 advent	 of	 such	 for malistic	 models	 of	 cour ts	 and	 judiciar y ,	 the	 Indian	 legal	
system	was	characterised	by	several	native	ADR	techniques.
The	V edic	age	in	India,	witnessed	the	flourishing	of	specialised	tribunals	such	as	
• 	 Kula	(for	disputes	of	family ,	community ,	tribe,	castes,	races)
• 	 	Shr eni	(for	inter nal	disputes	in	business,	corporation	of	ar tisans)	and	
• 	 Puga	(for	association	of	traders/commer ce	branches).	
In	 these	 institutions,	 inter est-based	 negotiations	 domi nated	 with	 a	 neutral	 third	 par ty	 seeking	 to	
identify	the	underlying	needs	and	concer ns	of	the	par ties	in	dispute.	Similarly ,	
‘P eople’s	cour ts’	or	’P anchayat’	continued	to	be	at	the	centr e	of	dispute	r esolution	in	villages.
36
Did you know?
The	 ancient	 position	 of	 ADR	 outside	 India	 was	 akin	 to	 the	 submission	 of	 disputes	 to	 the	 decision	 of	
private	 persons	 -	 r ecognised	 under	 the	 Roman	 L aw	 by	 the	 name	 of	 Compromysm	 (compromise).	
Arbitration	 was	 a	 mode	 of	 settling	 controversies	 much	 favour ed	 in	 the	 civil	 law	 of	 the	 continent.	
The	 Gr eeks	 attached	 par ticular	 impor tance	 to	 arbitration.	 The	 attitude	 of	 English	 law	 towards	
arbitration	 fluctuated	 from	 stiff	 opposition	 to	 moderate	 welcome.	 The	 Common	 L aw	 Cour ts	 looked	
jealously	at	agr eements	to	submit	disputes	to	e xtra-judicial	deter mination.
Source: 	Russell	on	Arbitration,	22ndEdn,	2003,	p.	362,	para	8-O02
Alter native	 Dispute	 Resoluti on	 (ADR)	 which	 at	 one	 point	 of	 time	 was	 consider ed	 a	 voluntar y	 action	
on	 the	 par t	 of	 the	 par ties	 has	 now	 obtained	 statutor y	 r ecognition	 with	 the	 enactment	 of	 Arbitration	
and	 Conciliation	 Act,	 1996	 and	 The	 L egal	 Ser vices	 Authority	 Act,	 1987.	 The	 incorporation	 of	 ADR	
mechanisms	 under	 Section	 89	 of	 Code	 of	 Civil	 P rocedur e,1908	 is	 one	 mor e	 radical	 step	 taken	 by	
legislatur e	for	promoting	ADR	in	India.
Section 89 CPC - Settlement of disputes outside the Court
(1)	 Wher e	 it	 appears	 to	 the	 Cour t	 that	 ther e	 e xist	 elem ents	 of	 a	 settlement	 which	 may	 be	 acceptable	
to	 the	 par ties,	 the	 Cour t	 shall	 for mulate	 the	 ter ms	 of	 settlement	 and	 give	 them	 to	 the	 par ties	 for	
their	 obser vations	 and	 after	 r eceiving	 the	 obser vations	 of	 the	 par ties,	 the	 Cour t	 may	 r efor mulate	
the	ter ms	of	a	possible	settlement	and	r efer	the	same	for:	--
	 (a)		 arbitration;
	 (b)		 conciliation;
	 (c)		 judicial	settlement	including	settlement	through	Lok	Adalat:	or
	 (d)		 mediation.
The	 purpose	 of	 this	 section	 is	 to	 enable	 the	 Cour ts	 to	 legally	 r efer	 the	 matters	 to	 ADR	 to	 dispose	 of	 the	
cases	e xpediently	and	to	r educe	the	backlog.
In	 the	 moder n	 era,	 several	 new	 and	 sophisticated	 for ms	 of	 ADR	 techniques	 have	 developed.	 The	
differ ent	for ms	of	ADR	models/techniques	ar e	discussed	in	the	subsequent	par ts	of	the	chapter .
IV. Problems faced by Courts
The	law	cour ts	ar e	confronted	with	following	problems,	such	as:
1.	 The	 lack	 of	 number	 of	 cour ts	 and	 judges	 which	 cr eates	 an	 inadequacy	 within	 the	 justice	 deliver y	
system;
2.	 The	 incr easing	 litigatio n	 in	 India	 due	 to	 incr easing	 population,	 comple xity	 of	 laws	 and	 obsolete	
continuation	of	some	pr e-e xisting	legal	statutes;
3.	 The	 incr easing	 cost	 of	 litigation	 in	 prosecuting	 or	 defending	 a	 case,	 incr easing	 cour t	 fees,	
lawyer ’s	fees	and	incidental	e xpenses;
4.	 Delay	in	disposal	of	cases	r esulting	in	huge	pendency	in	all	the	cour ts.
37
V. Benefits of ADR
The	 ADR	 techniques	 ar e	 a	 speedier ,	 infor mal	 and	 cheaper	 mode	 of	 dispensing	 justice	 when	 compar ed	
to	the	conventional	judicial	procedur e.	F ollowing	ar e	the	benefits	of	ADR:
•	 It	 is	 less	 time	 consuming	 as	 people	 r esolve	 their	 disputes	 e xpeditiously	 in	 a	 shor t	 period	 as	
compar ed	to	cour ts.
•	 It	is	less	costly	than	litigation.
•	 It	is	fr ee	from	technicalities	of	cour ts	as	infor mal	ways	ar e	applied	in	r esolving	disputes.
•	 It	 can	 be	 used	 at	 any	 time,	 even	 when	 a	 case	 is	 pending	 befor e	 a	 cour t	 of	 law ,	 though	 r ecourse	
to	ADR	as	soon	as	the	dispute	arises	may	confer	maximum	advantages	on	the	par ties.
•	 It	 provid es	 a	 mor e	 convenient	 forum	 to	 the	 par ties	 who	 can	 choose	 the	 time,	 place	 and	 procedur e	
for	conducting	the	pr efer r ed	dispute	r edr essal	process.	
•	 If	 the	 dispute	 is	 technical	 in	 natur e,	 par ties	 have	 an	 oppor tunity	 to	 select	 the	 e xper t	 who	
possesses	the	r elevant	legal	and	technical	e xper tise.	
•	 It	 is	 inter esting	 to	 note	 that	 ADR	 provides	 the	 fle xibility	 to	 even	 r efer	 disputes	 to	 non -lawyers.	
F or	 e xample,	 several	 disputes	 of	 technical	 character	 e.g.	 disputes	 per taining	 to	 the	 r egulation	 of	
the	 construction	 industr y	 ar e	 usually	 r efer r ed	 to	 enginee rs	 rather	 than	 lawyers.	 ADR	 is	 based	 on	
mor e	 dir ect	 par ticipation	 by	 the	 disputants	 rather	 than	 being	 run	 by	 lawyers	 and	 Judges.	 This	
type	 of	 involv ement	 is	 believed	 to	 incr ease	 people’s	 satisfaction	 with	 the	 outcome	 as	 well	 as	
their	compliance	with	the	settlement	r eached.
In	 the	 light	 of	 the	 appar ent	 need	 and	 benefits	 provided	 by	 ADR,	 it	 has	 emerged	 as	 a	 successful	
alter native	 to	 cour t	 trials.	 F ur ther ,	 the	 rise	 of	 the	 ADR	 movement	 in	 India	 indicates	 that	 it	 is	 contributing	
tr emendously	towards	r eviving	the	litigant’s	faith	in	justice	deliver y	mechanisms.
VI. Types of ADR
A.  ARBITRATION
A.1 Introduction
 The	 law	 r elating	 to	 arbitration	 is	 contained	 in	 the	 Arbitration	 and	 Conciliation	 Act,	 1996.	 It	
came	 into	 for ce	 on	 the	 25th	 day	 of	 Januar y ,	 1996.	 But	 it	 goes	 much	 beyond	 the	 scope	 of	
its	 pr edecessor ,	 the	 Arbitration	 Act	 of	 1940.	 It	 provides	 for	 domestic	 arbitration,	 inter national	
commer cial	 arbitration	 and	 also	 enfor cement	 of	 for eign	 arbitral	 awards.	 It	 also	 contains	 the	 new	
featur e	 on	 conciliation.Recently ,	 the	 Arbitration	 and	 Conciliation	 Amendment	 Act,	 2015	 has	
come	into	for ce	to	meet	the	r equir ements	of	alter native	r esolutions.
	 The	 Arbitration	 and	 Conciliation	 Act	 of	 1996	 is	 the	 r elevant	 legislation	 that	 gover ns	 the	
process	 of	 arbitration	 in	 India.	 The	 statute	 provides	 for	 an	 elaborate	 codified	 r ecognition	 of	
the	 concept	 of	 arbitration,	 which	 has	 largely	 been	 influenced	 by	 significant	 movements	 of	
judicial	 r efor ms	 and	 conflict	 management	 across	 the	 world.	 In	 this	 r egard,	 a	 special	 r efer ence	
must	 be	 made	 to	 an	 inter national	 convention	 entitled,	 United	 Nations	 Commission	 on	
Inter national	 T rade	 L aw	 (UNCITRAL)	 Model	 L aw	 on	 Inter national	 Commer cial	 Arbitration,	
1985.	 After	 the	 bir th	 of	 this	 inter national	 tr eaty ,	 the	 United	 Nations	 General	 Assembly ,