1.1.        
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

“Justice
delayed is justice denied” may seem like a worn-out adage, but its truth
remains undeniable as long as the judiciary grapples with mounting case
backlogs, leaving the public waiting in limbo. The longer the delay, the more
justice slips through the cracks, making it an elusive promise rather than a
guaranteed right.

As society
progresses and new strands of social and economic issues claim existence new
rights, duties, and liabilities also take shape which give birth to more complex
legal relationships and, consequently, a higher likelihood of disputes.
Additionally, as laws become more detailed and inclusive, there may be more
room for interpretation and disagreement, which further contributes to the
potential for conflicts and disputes.

Tne of the
most significant concerns in the Indian judicial domain is the persistent backlog
of cases. The New York Times has cited   in a recent article that as per the National
Judicial Data Grid over 50 million legal cases are pending across India which
has doubled over the past two decades.[1] It
was also speculated in the article that it might take more than 300 years if
the disposal of cases take place at the current rate.[2] With
millions of cases pending in courts across the country, the judicial process
often becomes slow, inefficient, and inaccessible, particularly for
marginalized communities. This backlog not only delays justice but also
undermines the public’s trust in the legal system.

The Law
Commission of India has consistently pointed out that the cause of judicial
delays is not a lack of clear procedural laws, but rather the flawed
implementation or even outright disregard of these procedures [3][9].
The 14^th Report of the Law Commission of India emphasized that
delays in the judicial system do not arise due to deficiencies in legislative
procedures but rather result from the failure to adhere to many critical
provisions, especially those intended to expedite proceedings. Given the vast
number of pending cases,[4]
[10] managing and administratively overseeing judicial institutions through
manual processes has become exceptionally challenging. The Supreme Court has
stressed the need to address this issue, emphasizing that an independent and
efficient judicial system is a fundamental element of the Constitution. It is
the constitutional duty to reduce case backlogs and enhance case disposal rates
[5][11].

As per the National
Judicial Data Grid, in2024, the total number of pending cases of all types and
at all levels have reached an alarming ceiling of 5.1 million or 5.1 crores, including
over 180,000 court cases pending for more than 30 years in district and high
courts.[6] Not
only that, the report also shows that 4.5 crore out of 5.1 crore cases, which
accounts for more than 87% cases are pending in district courts presently.

According
to a 2018 Niti Aayog strategy paper, at the then-prevailing rate of disposal of
cases in the courts, it would take more than 324 years to clear the
backlog.[10]

While the
humongous burden on the Indian judiciary is becoming more noxious day by day,
the public’s trust in the efficient delivery of justice is also fraying at the
edges. The Indian Constitution envisages access to justice for all; however,
the present state of affairs paints a grim reality. The marginalized and
vulnerable strata of society often find themselves on a lower footing, unable
to effectively navigate the intricate and overburdened judicial system. The
backlog of cases, coupled with slow judicial processes, further exacerbates
their plight, leading to delayed or denied justice.

On such a
scenario the option of some alternate modes of resolution seem not only plausible
but also necessary. Alternate Dispute Resolution (shortly called as ADR) mechanisms
is often marketed as an effective means to address disputes outside the traditional
court system have become a prominent option in the legal dispute resolution arena.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR for short) as the name suggest, is an
alternative to formal litigation that involves traditional judicial system. Lok
Adalats are one such mode of dispute resolution that aims for settling disputes
efficiently. In the recent years Lok Adalats have emerged as a popular means of
settling dispute or one can say bringing comprise between the parties to the
dispute.

STATEMENT
OF PROBLEM

“Justice
hurried is justice buried” is another powerful phrase that captures the dangers
of rushing legal proceedings. While justice delayed is often denied, justice
hastily dispensed risks becoming distorted, incomplete, or unfair. In the race
to clear backlogs, the essence of thorough examination and due process can be
lost, undermining the very foundations of justice. When justice is rushed, it
can bury the truth, leaving victims without real recourse and perpetuating a
system where expediency trumps fairness.

The Indian
judicial system is plagued by an overwhelming case backlog, slow processing
times, and an unequal distribution of legal resources, leading to delayed
justice and diminishing public trust. While the judiciary struggles to cope
with this immense burden, marginalized and vulnerable sections of society are
disproportionately affected by the lack of timely and affordable access to
justice. In this context, Lok Adalats—alternative dispute resolution forums
designed to provide quick and cost-effective justice—have emerged as a
potential solution to alleviate some of these challenges. However, despite
their growing popularity, the effectiveness and optimality of Lok Adalats in
reducing court congestion and ensuring equitable access to justice remain underexplored.

While Lok
Adalats have been lauded for their ability to settle disputes amicably and
offer a faster alternative to traditional court proceedings, questions persist
regarding their reach, efficiency, and impact on the overall judicial
ecosystem. For instance, how effectively do they address the needs of
vulnerable populations who might face barriers to participation, such as
illiteracy, lack of legal awareness, or geographical isolation? Are the
settlements reached in Lok Adalats truly equitable, or do they reflect power
imbalances between parties? Furthermore, what challenges do Lok Adalats face in
terms of resources, capacity, and institutional support, and how can these be
addressed to optimize their potential?

This study
aims to critically assess the role of Lok Adalats in easing the burden on
India’s judicial system, evaluating their effectiveness in providing timely
justice and ensuring access for all, particularly for the marginalized groups
who often face the greatest barriers to accessing traditional legal mechanisms.
By analyzing the strengths, limitations, and challenges of Lok Adalats, this
research seeks to determine whether they can truly be an optimal alternative or
a complementary tool in India’s broader judicial reform efforts.