OCTOBER 1, 2019

ARBITRATION & ALTERNATE

DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ASSIGNMENT
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ADR PRACTICES BETWEEN INDIA
AND BANGLADESH.

NASIF MUSTAHID
BA.LLB(H)
SEMESTER - IX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my Arbitration and Alternate Dispute
Resolution faculty, Dr. Debashree Mukherjee, who gave me the golden opportunity to work
on the topic: “Comparative Study of ADR practices between India & Bangladesh”. I came to
know about so many new things and I am really thankful for it.
Secondly, I would like to thank my friends who have helped me a lot in finalizing this project
within the limited time frame.

1|Page
Abstract: In recent years in India & Bangladesh there has been renewed emphasis on the
Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes as a means to avoid the use of contested hearings in
the formal litigation and to ensure the most fundamental right of access to justice for all in an
easy way. These Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) modalities are considered as less likely
to fuel the parental conflicts, more likely to induce the parties to resolve their conflicts in an
amicable manner preserving the future relationship between the parties and reducing cost,
delay and loss of energy to a significant extent. Following the considerable advantages of ADR
almost every country of the world has introduced ADR system in its justice delivery system
which has paved the way to the promotion of access to justice indiscriminately for all. This
paper is an attempt to provide a comprehensive idea about obstacles in the way of access to
justice in our legal system and by analyzing the different mechanisms of ADR and court and
non-court based practices of those modalities under different legislations of India &
Bangladesh, to show the fairness, efficiency and effectiveness of ADR towards the promotion
of access to justice and to provide some recommendations for the complete success of ADR
towards the effective, non-discriminative, speedy and easy access to justice for all either rich
or poor, literate or illiterate, male or female and elite or lower class.

What is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the procedure for settling disputes without litigation,
such as arbitration, mediation, or negotiation. ADR procedures are usually less costly and more
expeditious. They are increasingly being utilized in disputes that would otherwise result in
litigation, including high-profile labour disputes, divorce actions, and personal injury claims.

One of the primary reasons parties may prefer ADR proceedings is that, unlike adversarial
litigation, ADR procedures are often collaborative and allow the parties to understand each
other's positions. ADR also allows the parties to come up with more creative solutions that a
court may not be legally allowed to impose.

Historical Development of ADR in India and Bangladesh

In India the origin of ADR could be traced to the origin of political institutions on the one hand
and trade and commerce on the other hand. It is observed from the historical document, that
ADR in the name of dispute resolution institutions prevalent during the ancient period. It was
reported that resolution of disputes between members of a particular clan or occupation or
between members of a. particular locality, by kulas (assembly of the members of a clan, srenis
(guide of a particular occupation and pugas (neighbourhood assemblies). In rural India
panchayat (assembly of elders and respected inhabitants of a village) decided almost all
disputes between the inhabitants of the village, which disputes between the members of a clan
continued to be decided by the elders of the clan. One of the main characteristic of the
traditional institutions is that they were recognized system of administration of justice and not
merely “alternatives” to the formal justice system establish had by the sovereign the feudal
lords kazis, the adalat system introduced by of the then ruling group and the existing court
system. The two systems continued to operate parallel to each other. It is pertinent to say that

2|Page
the procedure and the nature of preceding these institutions were very much similar to the ADR.
This was also applicable to this country as because it was the part of the India.
The formal system of administration of justice introduced during the British rule replaced the
old system of dispensing justice through feudal set-up. But the traditional institutions continue
to play their role of dispute resolution though not known by their old name. As because we still
have disputes between members of a clan. After math, arbitration and conciliation as the
methods of ADR, received statutory recognition in the code of civil procedure code, 1908
(section 89, arbitration and order XXXII A rule 3, conciliation). Having passed the Arbitration
Act, 1940, arbitration provision was repeated from the C.P.C. But it is pertinent to say that the
application of the provisions this Act was not satisfied and the courts would not follow these
provisions mandatory.
During the Pakistan period, arbitration as one of the important method of ADR, received
statutory recognition in the Muslim family ordinance, 1961. Under this ordinance, arbitration,
as a method of ADR is mandatory to resolve the dispute as to dissolution of marriage. Union
Parishad would have to follow arbitration process to resolve this dispute. Having followed the
above mentioned ordinance the Family Court Ordinance was promulgated in 1985 and as a
result some family courts have been established in different places of Bangladesh. These courts
are following ADR procedure in dispensing family cases restitution of conjugal rights dower,
guardianship maintenance etc. So far the success rate of mediation judges of these courts is
more than 70 percent. Innovation, as a method of conflict resolution is rare and ideal, but
compromise is nowadays known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR isn’t new
to India. It has been a practice inherent in our culture through the Laws of ‘Manu’ and the
Muslim Laws. Our ‘Panchayat’ system (where elders of the village decide the conflicts
between the inhabitants of the village) is based on the concept of peaceful settlement of
conflicts. ADR is basically a conflict resolution process, which is an out – of – court settlement.
In this the two parties in dispute willingly come together with the aims of arriving at a mutually
agreeable settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a neutral third party mutually
chosen. A successful completion of proceedings results in a mutually agreed settlement.
Besides the above mentioned measures adopted as the process of the ADR, Government of
Bangladesh has promulgated the following acts for the effective application of ADR procedure
for dispensing the disputes outside the court:

(a) The Arbitration Act 2001 (Act no I of 2001)

(b) Insertion section89A, 89B and 89C in the CPC as the mechanism of ADR to dispose the
pending civil cases which have laying without any decision for long period of time.
(c) Artho Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
(d) Bangladesh Labour Law, 2006
(e) Family Court Ordinance, 1985
(f) Act for Dispute Resolution of municipal area.

3|Page
Objectives of ADR
In the recent past the alternative dispute resolution system (ADR) has been developed in the
USA and the rate of success of ADR is significantly high, as the parties have been able to come
forward to sit together to talk together and finally resolving their disputes. The prime aim of
alternative dispute resolution system in civil justice delivery system in Bangladesh is closing
the hostility between the disputing parties and restoration of harmony. In this system a high
degree of public participation and co-ordination is badly needed. A general sense of satisfaction
develops which helps in enforcement of the decision, when people’s participation is ensured as
to tending evidence, asking questions and making opinions. Thus the reconciliation can be
eased, which is the fundamental objective of ADR system.
The system of dispensing justice in India has come under great stress for several reasons mainly
because of the huge pendency of cases in courts. In India, the number of cases filed in the
courts has shown a tremendous increase in recent years resulting in pendency and delays
underlining the need for alternative dispute resolution methods. It is in this context that a
Resolution was adopted by the Chief Ministers and the Chief Justices of States in a conference
held in New Delhi on 4th December 1993 under the chairmanship of the then Prime Minister
and presided over by the Chief Justice of India.
It said: "The Chief Ministers and Chief Justices were of the opinion that Courts were not in a
position to bear the entire burden of justice system and that a number of disputes lent
themselves to resolution by alternative modes such as arbitration, mediation and negotiation.
They emphasized the desirability of disputants taking advantage of alternative dispute
resolution which provided procedural flexibility, saved valuable time and money and avoided
the stress of a conventional trial".
In a developing country like India with major economic reforms under way within the
framework of the rule of law, strategies for swifter resolution of disputes for lessening the
burden on the courts and to provide means for expeditious resolution of disputes, there is no
better option but to strive to develop alternative modes of dispute resolution (ADR) by
establishing facilities for providing settlement of disputes through arbitration, conciliation,
mediation and negotiation.

Different Forms of ADR in Bangladesh and their Application in Civil Justice

System
Negotiation, mediation and arbitration are the most common features of ADR techniques in
Bangladesh. Let us discuss the three important ways of dispute resolution.
Mediation is voluntary process where a natural mediator attempts to help the disputing parties
to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both sides and that will bring the dispute to an early
conclusion without having to go to Court1.

1
Hazel Genn, Mediation in Action: Resolving

4|Page
Arbitration means a process of adjudication of a dispute or controversy on fact or law or both
outside the ordinary civil courts, by one or more persons to whom the parties who are at issue
refer the matter for decision.2
Negotiation is a non-binding procedure in which discussions between the parties are initiated
without the intervention of any third party with the object of arriving at a negotiated settlement
of the dispute3.
Med-Arb is a procedure which combines, sequentially, conciliation/mediation and where the
dispute is not settled through conciliation/mediation within a period of time agreed in advance
by the parties, arbitration4.

Modes and Practices of ADR in India

ADR can be broadly classified into two categories: court-annexed options (Mediation,
Conciliation) and community based dispute resolution mechanism (Lok-Adalat).

The following are the modes of ADR practiced in India:

1. Arbitration: t is a method of resolution of disputes outside the court, wherein the

parties refer the dispute to one or more persons appointed as an arbitrator(s) who
reviews the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding on both parties. Usually,
the arbitration clauses are mentioned in commercial agreements wherein the parties
agree to resort to an arbitration process in case of disputes that may arise in future
regarding the contract terms and conditions.
2. Mediation: A non-binding procedure in which an impartial third party known as a
mediator tries to facilitate the resolution process but he cannot impose the resolution,
and the parties are free to decide according to their convenience and terms.
3. Conciliation: In this case, parties submit to the advice of a conciliator, who talks to the
each of them separately and tries to resolve their disputes. Conciliation is a non-binding
procedure in which the conciliator assists the parties to a dispute to arrive at a mutually
satisfactory and agreed settlement of the dispute.
4. Negotiation: A non-binding procedure in which discussions between the parties are
initiated without the intervention of any third party, with the object of arriving at a
negotiated settlement of the dispute.
5. Lok Adalats: Lok Adalat was a historic necessity in a country like India where
illiteracy dominated other aspects of governance. It was introduced in 1982 and the first
Lok Adalat was initiated in Gujarat. The evolution of this movement was a part of the
strategy to relieve heavy burden on courts with pending cases. It was the
conglomeration of concepts of social justice, speedy justice, conciliated result and
negotiating efforts.

They cater the need of weaker sections of society. It is a suitable alternative mechanism
to resolve disputes in place of litigation. Lok Adalats have assumed statutory
recognition under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. These are being regularly

2
SK Golam Mahbub, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Commercial Disputes: The UK and Bangladesh
Perspective 2005, at p. 21.
3
P. C Rao, Alternative to Litigation in India, 1997, p.26
4
ibid

5|Page
 organized primarily by the State Legal Aid and the Advice Boards with the help of
District Legal Aid and Advice Committees.

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was brought into force on 19 November 1995. The
object of the Act was to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the
society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen. The
concept of legal services which includes Lok Adalat is a revolutionary evolution of resolution
of disputes.

Though settlements were affected by conducting Lok Nyayalayas prior to this Act, the same
has not been given any statutory recognition. But under the new Act, a settlement arrived at in
the Lok Adalats has been given the force of a decree which can be executed through Court as
if it is passed by it. Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act deal with Lok Adalat. Section 20
provides for different situations where cases can be referred for consideration of Lok Adalat.
Hon’ble Delhi High court has given a landmark decision highlighting the significance of Lok
Adalat movement in the case of Abdul Hasan and National Legal Services Authority v. Delhi
Vidyut Board and Others5. The court passed the order giving directions for setting up of
permanent Lok Adalats.

Laws pertaining to ADR in Bangladesh

a) Code of Civil Procedure,1908

For the first time in our legal system the provision with regard to ADR has been introduced by
amending the Code of Civil Procedure. In chapter V of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, the provisions
of ADR have also been incorporated. Surely, this concept is a de novo in our civil justice
delivery system. Now ADR has come within the domain of civil procedure code.

By the recently enacted sections 89A/89B of CPC, the ADR system (mediation and arbitration)
has been introduced, the two terms ‘mediation’ and ‘arbitration’. Section 89A lays down that
except in a suit under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 (Act. no 4 of 1990)

after filing of written statement, if all the contesting parties are in attendance in the court in
person or by their respective pleaders, the court many by adjourning the hearing, mediate in
order to settle the dispute or disputes in the suit or refer the dispute or disputes in the suit to the
engaged pleaders of the parties, or the party or parties, where no pleader or pleaders have been
engaged, or to a mediator form the panel as may be prepared by the District Judge under sub
section 10, for undertaking efforts for settlement through mediation. Similarly, the term
‘settlement conference’ has been used to denote mediation process in the part V of Artha Rin
Adalat. The provisions have been made in this regard that the court can mediate the suit matter
after filing the written statement by the defendant or defendants, by adjourning the subsequent
procedures of the suit

5
AIR 1999 Del 88.

6|Page
The government by amending the Code of Civil Procedure expands the avenue for shalishi. By
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2003 two new sections were incorporated
(section 89A, 89B) in the code. It empowers the court to solve the matter through mediation or
conciliation before the beginning of the trial except case under Artha Rin Adalat Ain. However,
there remain some limitations too, it will not exempt the disputant parties from the appearance
before the court. This law is only relating to the pending cases,

The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 has been enacted to introduce Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) system for early and consensual disposal of civil suits. Section 89A
and 89B have been inserted to allow parties to settle their disputes in suits, through mediation
or arbitration. In the mediation procedure, the court may take initiative to settle the dispute in
the suit by itself or by making reference to independent mediators. Under section 89B parties
will be allowed to withdraw pending suits and have those settled through arbitration. The
provisions have been made effective from 1st July 2003.

ADR system is gaining popularity. This procedure will help to reduce the huge backlogs of
civil cases in courts. Public confidence in the judiciary will thereby increase. Access to justice
will be expanded. The provisions will also help develop a new culture of consensual settlement
of disputes doing away with the existing adversarial procedure. It will help protect and preserve
cohesion and fraternity in society. Of the mediator here the advocate or any other person may
be hired for mediation.

b) Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003

In our legal system, money lent by financial institutions/banks to individuals, private limited
companies, public limited companies, corporations, partnership firms, societies, co-operatives,
proprietorship firms etc. when due for default, is realised through money suits, suits for
foreclosure, mortgage by instituting the same to competent civil courts. The civil courts were
burdened with other businesses and such suits of banks consumed time for disposing of. The
delay caused made the bank sector suffer for non-realisation of dues in time and the bankers
gathered bitter experience in realising the same. To remove this difficulty, the government
enacted a special piece of legislation named “The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990” which had gone
under some changes by way of amendments since its inception. The law brought changes to a
great extent in the administration of justice delivery system for regulating those suits but it
failed to fulfil the expectation of the legislators/bankers to recover the dues expeditiously from
the defaulters. The thinkers on the subject gave second thoughts to frame a new law and
ultimately the legislature passed “The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003” (hereinafter Adalat) by
repealing the earlier one.

The law came into force on 1st May 2003 except sections 46/47 which came into operation on
1st May 2004. Within a short span of time, the law has gone under an amendment by the Artha
Rin Adalat (Amendment) Ain, 2004 which reflects weak draft of the law.

I have been working as a Judge of the Adalat for more than two years. I have taken no pain to
apply the laws during my business hours but at the same time I have seen that some provisions
of the laws are acting as barriers in discharging my responsibilities. I shall make an endeavour
to focus on those and other allied subjects in this writing.

There is no such legal provision in the Environment Court Act, 2000 like the present one.
Therefore, section 4 (4) and section 4 (10) should be omitted, and the provisions if so omitted,

7|Page
there would be no practical difficulty to appoint the Joint District Judges to the Adalat like the
Environmental Courts.

Section 19 has provided provisions for setting aside the ex parte decree but it does not make
any provision for notifying the plaintiff bank like Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908. As a result, the plaintiff remains ignorant about restoration of the suit. This
anomaly should be removed by inserting appropriate provision. Section 20 of the law has given
finality to the order, judgment and decree of the Adalat. In spite of that the
defaulter(s)/borrower(s) is/are challenging the same in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court
Division under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and
obtaining stay orders from the High Court Division.

In a recent discussion on “Money Loan Court Act 2003” organized by the Association of
Bankers, Bangladesh (ABB), the Governor of Bangladesh Bank asked the banks to take special
measures to recover bad loans as the defaulters filed 1,768 writ petitions in the High Court for
such loans amounting to Tk 6445 core. He told that the banks cannot recover the loans due to
stay orders from the court, and asked the monitoring cells of banks to take up these issues
seriously and hire efficient lawyers to move the cases of loan default. The Daily Star dated
June 2, 2006). It is observed from regular business of court that the banks have been refraining
from taking any step against the stay orders in writ petitions. It is seen that the banks let them
(the defaulters) do the same with consent. This attitude of the bank should be changed and
effective steps should be taken to face the legal battle with the defaulters.

Apart from the aforementioned barriers, the law has been playing a very vital role in realising
the loan from the defaulter(s). Its achievement in loan recovery has been so immense that the
scenario of defaulting loan has improved significantly with number of pending Artha Rin Suits
reducing with expectancy rate. The loan defaulting culture would further be reduced if the
barriers can be removed as soon as possible.

c) Family Courts Ordinance, 1985

Generally, disputes relating to property, family matter i.e. distribution of property, dissolution
of marriage, maintenance, guardianship could be dealt by shalish. The Family Courts
Ordinance, 1985 speaks for the settlement of dispute through conciliation inside the Court
before the formal proceeding of the trial started. The court may initiate a pre-trial hearing to
settle the disputes relating to dissolution of marriage, maintenance, and dower, restitution of
conjugal rights as well as guardianship and custody of children. Besides, the Muslim Family
Laws Ordinance 1961 empowers the Union Parishad to form an Arbitration Council for
reconciliation between the parties wishing to dissolve their marital tie through Talaq and to
deal with the polygamy.

Arbitration Act 2001

Bangladesh has enacted the Arbitration Act 2001 (the Act). It came into force on 10 April 2001,
repealing the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937 and the Arbitration Act 1940,
legacies of the British Raj in India. The new Act was again amended in 2004 in certain respects.
Such legislative steps were urgent in the face of increasing foreign investment in Bangladesh
in various sectors, especially in natural gas and power, and the ever-growing export trade with
the rest of the world. The Act consolidates the law relating to both domestic and international
commercial arbitration. It thus creates a single and unified legal regime for arbitration in

8|Page
Bangladesh. Although the new Act is principally based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, it is a
patchwork quilt as some unique provisions are derived from the Indian Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996 and some from the English Arbitration Act 1996.

In Bangladesh, the present law of arbitration is contained mainly in the Arbitration Act, 1940,
there being separate Acts dealing with the enforcement of foreign awards. There are also stray
provisions as to arbitration, scattered in special Acts. Three types of arbitration are
contemplated by the Arbitration Act of 1940, namely (i) Arbitration in the course of a suit, (ii)
Arbitration with the intervention of the court, and (iii) Arbitration otherwise than in the course
of a suit and without the intervention of the court in practice, the last category attracts the
maximum number of cases.

Under the Act of 1940, an arbitration agreement must be in writing, though it need not be
registered.This also amounts to an “arbitration agreement” for the purposes of the Arbitration
Act, 1940. Once an arbitration agreement is entered into for submitting future differences to
arbitration, it is not, necessary to obtain the fresh consent of all the parties for a reference to
arbitration at the time when the dispute actually arises.

PROBLEMS OF ADR IN BANGLADESH

A dispute resolution outside of courts is not new in Bangladesh; non-judicial and indigenous
methods have been used by the societies for a very long time. But the main problem is that
there is no uniform ADR law in Bangladesh. There are a lot of legislations which contain
provisions relevant to the ADR process in Bangladesh and there are some well-known ADR
mechanisms in Bangladesh, such as, mediation, negotiation, conciliation, arbitration and so
on6. 40 Different legislations have prescribed different ADR mechanisms and different
procedures to settle the dispute. This is a problem for the person who acts as a neutral mediator
or conciliator because all procedures are different in different cases. Sometimes, the people
who are involved in an ADR process are not properly trained and they do not have an adequate
knowledge on how to manage and convince the disputants to settle the dispute. Sometimes, the
decision of an ADR is biased and politically motivated. For this reason, the vulnerable party is
not getting proper justice.

PROBLEMS OF ADR IN INDIA

Everything is the mixture of black & white, and nothing is perfect, so the Alternate Dispute
Resolution Mechanism is not an exception to this general rule. Parties cannot be compelled to
go in for ADR unless they sign an agreement or mutually agree to resolve their disputes by
ADR. “Arbitrators were frequently and strongly attacked as partial and immature in resolving
the disputes. Probably many persons involved in the legal world are blissfully ignorant of the
Alternative methodology in dispensing the even justice process through Arbitral process. So
the arbitral justice system has co-extensively remained with the legal system but without much
expected success7.”

6
M. Mamun, A Thesis on the Practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Family Courts of Bangladesh
(Dhaka: University of Dhaka, 2008), pp. 14-41
7
JUSTICE B.K. SOMASHEKARA, Arbitral Process of Justice, Publisher IIA&M Val 3 April 2009 Page 6

9|Page
 Nearly one and half decades after the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter “the Act”), there are whispers in the air that the Act has lost its basic structure and
identity and is no longer what its legislators intended it to be8. Success of ADR depends upon
the good faith of the parties and their attorneys; however, unrepresented and/or uninformed
party are at disadvantage of succeeding in an ADR.ADR does not any precedent value. Usually
in ADR proceedings, precedents are not given much importance. The outcomes of ADR can
vary, depending on arbitrator / mediator and other factors. Poor mediator / arbitrator
(qualifications, style and attitude) can result in unsuccessful resolution, and can defeat the
purpose of ADR.

CONCLUSION

Indian courts suffer from a serious backlog of cases, which is mainly due to less number of
judges and insufficient infrastructure which is unable to handle the caseload. India being a
developing country, going through major economic reforms within the framework of the rule
of law, for expeditious resolution of disputes and lessening the burden on the courts, alternative
mechanisms for resolution (ADR) are the only alternative through arbitration, conciliation,
mediation and negotiation. By virtue of Code of Civil Procedure amendment in the year 2002,
Section 89 has been included, which gives importance to mediation, conciliation and
arbitration. This section makes it obligatory on the part of the Court to refer the matter for
settlement either before the Lok Adalat or other methods enumerated in that section
Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism (ADR) is not a replacement of litigation, rather it
would be used to make our traditional court systems work more efficiently and effectively. We
have to formulate effective Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms to ease the present
burden of judicial functioning. The backlog of cases is increasing day by day; however,
judiciary alone is not responsible for the same. It must be noted that the backlog is a product
of “inadequate judge population ratio” and the lack of basic infrastructure. The government has
to play a pro-active role in this direction. The researcher is of the view that in order to make
Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms more effective and taking it out of very narrow
and limited area of application and widening the area of its operation. Further the lawyers have
to play a very active and positive role and they should never forget that dispute is a problem,
which needs to be solved and not contest, which needs to be won.

8
TRISHA MITRA, Arbitration in India: Looking Ahead http://arbitrationindia.org/ pdf/tia_3_9.p, Accessed on
Sept 27, 2019.

10 | P a g e
 Recommendations
The key to success of A.D.R. in India & Bangladesh lies in the manner of its introduction.
A.D.R. is no longer an unheard of concept of dispute resolution among judges, litigants and
lawyers of both these nations. The Family Courts all over Bangladesh are actively engaged in
A.D.R. The pilot family courts are only exclusively engaged in mediation, but other Assistant
Judges, who received training in mediation, are also mediating apart from trying cases. The
mediation output of all the Assistant Judges, taken together, is something to be proud of. The
Ministry of Law only needs to collect maintain and update all relevant statistics in this regard.
To make ADR more effective, extensive, and pro-active, coordination is needed among
different agencies. Other initiatives are given below:

1) Creating awareness about ADR

2) Spreading the success story of ADR

3) Encouraging NGOs to become involved in ADR

4) Involving the Bar Associations in ADR

5) Providing training for mediators

6) Matching Government and NGO efforts.

7) A. D. R. will have a-smooth transition if it is introduced on a pilot court basis. The

performances, results, reactions among pilot court judges, practicing lawyers and the litigants
should be carefully monitored and recorded and suitable adjustments in the A. D. R. project
should be made at each stage of extension after an exhaustive study of the experiences gained.

11 | P a g e