The first Lok Adalat camp was organized in Gujrat in 1982, as an informal and voluntary project developed under the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi. It is one of the components of Alternate Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) systems and delivers affordable and expeditious justice to the common people, furthering the aim of Article 39A of the Constitution of India, 1950. Validating its existence is the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which makes provisions for regulation, organization and functioning of Lok Adalats.

Under the said Act, the award (decision) made by the Lok Adalats is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and is final and binding on all parties and no appeal against such an award lies before any court of law. If the parties are not satisfied with the award of the Lok Adalat, though there is no provision for an appeal against such an award, but they are free to initiate litigation by approaching the court of the appropriate jurisdiction and file a suit by following the required procedure, in exercise of their right to litigate.

Lok Adalats are completely free of cost at the pre-litigation stage. If a pending court case is brought before it, the fees is refundable. Members of the Lok Adalats are statutory conciliators; they do not have a judicial role, but only persuasive one. Thereby, only a solution which is acceptable to the parties is imposed in an impartial manner.

There are permanent bodies established at all levels-State, District and Taluk level. National Lok Adalats are held at regular intervals throughout the entire day from the level of Supreme court to Taluk, and cases are disposed of in huge numbers. Mobile Lok Adalats are also organized which travel to different locations in order to deliver justice at doorsteps of villagers and remote areas.

In this manner, not only the traditional legal system gets rid of excess caseload, as the cases which are stalled get adjudicated upon, but also, the people are made aware of their legal rights and remedies.

Statutory provisions

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 bestowed legal recognition upon Lok Adalats, aligning with Article 39A of the Indian Constitution. This historic move provided a formal framework for Lok Adalats, empowering Legal Services Authorities (“LSAs”) to furnish free and proficient legal assistance to marginalized segments of society, thereby ensuring equitable access to justice.

Additionally, the Act authorized LSAs to periodically convene Lok Adalats, underscoring the principle of equal justice for all. Lok Adalats operate under the discretion of the courts. Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) was introduced to facilitate amicable settlements between parties, promoting feasible ADR mechanisms. Despite initial reservations about the necessity of Section 89, it was acknowledged that ADR mechanisms, including Lok Adalats, serve a crucial role in resolving disputes outside formal court settings.

Cases such as matrimonial/family disputes, criminal (compoundable offenses) cases, land acquisition cases, labour disputes, workmen’s compensation cases, bank recovery cases, etc. are being taken up in Lok Adalats.

Lok Adalats issue decisions based solely on the consent of the involved parties. Section 96(3) of the CPC underscores the non-appealability of decrees passed with parties’ consent. While Lok Adalat decisions are not binding if not accepted by all parties, the emphasis remains on fostering compromise and resolution. Cases failing to reach a consensus are referred back to the court for adjudication. Bridging this gap could significantly enhance Lok Adalats’ efficiency by ensuring a more streamlined process.

Ombudsman

Ombudsman is a public officer who is appointed to maintain a system of checks and balances against maladministration, corruption and overall governance. The precise meaning of the term ‘Ombudsman’ is grievance officer. Herein, citizens have a power to lodge a complaint before him against the concerned person/authority. He is also an officer of the Parliament.

The history of the ombudsman institution in India traces back to the early 1960s when the concept of a constitutional ombudsman was first proposed by the then Law Minister, Ashok Kumar Sen. However, significant progress was made in the early 21st century.

In 1968, the Lokpal Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha, but subsequent lapses due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha stalled its enactment. Over the years, multiple attempts were made to pass the bill, but they all failed until 2011. In 2002, the Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended the appointment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas, with a suggestion to keep the Prime Minister out of their ambit. This was further supported by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission in 2005.

The turning point came in 2011 when the “India Against Corruption” movement, spearheaded by Anna Hazare, intensified pressure on the government. This led to the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill in 2013, with the support of both Houses of Parliament. The bill received presidential assent on January 1, 2014, and came into force on January 16, 2014, marking a significant milestone in India’s fight against corruption and the establishment of the ombudsman institution. Lokpal is the Indian Ombudsman and Lokayuktas is the State Ombudsman.

Now is the time to introduce Ombudsman office for Lok Adalats as well. In order for the system to remain impartial and fair, an office for ombudsman, who must have powers similar to that in Lokpal and Lokayuktas with the addition to hold direct Lok Adalats, would also come into play. The absence of an ombudsman within Lok Adalats creates a void in terms of oversight and accountability. Without an independent authority to monitor their proceedings, there’s a risk of potential abuse or malpractice going unchecked. Ombudsmen play a crucial role in addressing conflicts of interest and ensuring impartiality. In their absence, there’s a heightened risk of bias or favouritism influencing the decisions made within Lok Adalats, potentially compromising the integrity of the dispute resolution process.

Conclusion

New trends in litigation such as intellectual property rights, cybercrime, environment, money laundering, competition, taxation, telecommunication and so on need expertise and special skills. However, this could be possible only after providing the proper training to the judges. Establishing permanent Lok Adalats or continuing Lok Adalats for statutory authorities, public authorities, government departments for undertaking disposal of cases as well as cases at pre-litigation stage is yet to be done. An establishment for an office of an ombudsman could be a huge step towards achieving transparency and efficiency in the Lok-Adalat system as it has garnered the faith of the public as the “people’s court”.