Lok Adalats: Speed should never override justice

S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate, Bengaluru.

Recently, I wrote an article titled "The Growing Challenge of Challenging Lok Adalat Awards: Defeating the Spirit of Consensual Justice." The article examines the emerging problem of the increasing number of proceedings challenging Lok Adalat awards. Many unscrupulous litigants, after entering into solemn settlements, subsequently turn around and challenge those settlements on highly motivated or frivolous grounds, thereby defeating the very purpose of consensual dispute resolution. You can access the article at:

https://www.dakshalegal.com/news/actionView/af2452575a81edbbfbf95660

There is a flip-side to this coin. Lok Adalats were established with a noble objective—to provide litigants with a simple, inexpensive, speedy and amicable mechanism for resolving disputes. They have undoubtedly become one of the greatest success stories of the Indian legal system. Every year, lakhs of cases are settled through Lok Adalats, reducing pendency and saving litigants enormous amounts of time, money and emotional strain. A genuine settlement reached voluntarily by informed parties is always preferable to prolonged litigation.

However, like every institution, the success of Lok Adalats depends upon the manner in which they function. The pursuit of higher settlement figures should never overshadow the fundamental principle that justice must be voluntary, informed and fair.

In recent years, there has been a growing perception among members of the Bar that, in some places, undue emphasis is being placed on achieving the maximum number of settlements during Lok Adalats. Settlement statistics have increasingly become a measure of institutional success. While administrative efficiency is important, it should never become the driving force behind judicial decision-making.

The consequence of this approach can be serious. Cases are sometimes referred by the subordinate Judges to Lok Adalats despite the absence of any real possibility of settlement. Parties who genuinely wish to contest their legal rights may feel compelled to compromise merely because repeated persuasion comes from the Bench. Many litigants, particularly those who are poor, illiterate, elderly or legally inexperienced, often believe that a suggestion made by the Judge is virtually a direction. Out of fear, respect for the Court, or ignorance of their legal rights, they may agree to settlements that they neither fully understand nor genuinely accept.

The greatest victims of such hurried settlements are often women. In property disputes, matrimonial proceedings, maintenance cases, partition suits and family settlements, many women enter courtrooms with little legal knowledge and limited bargaining power. They may already be under considerable social or familial pressure. If, in addition, there is institutional pressure to settle the dispute immediately, the possibility of an unfair compromise becomes real. A settlement obtained through subtle pressure is no settlement at all.

It must always be remembered that a Lok Adalat functions only on the basis of consent. Consent must be genuine, voluntary, informed and unconditional. A compromise cannot be treated as valid merely because signatures have been obtained on a settlement document. The Court must satisfy itself that every party understands the nature of the settlement, appreciates its legal consequences and has agreed without coercion, intimidation or undue influence.

Subordinate Judges therefore carry a significant responsibility. They must identify cases that are genuinely capable of settlement rather than mechanically referring matters to Lok Adalats. Equally important, they must avoid creating an impression that settlement is expected or preferred by the Court. Judicial persuasion is permissible; judicial pressure is not.

There is also a need to reconsider how the success of Lok Adalats is assessed. Success cannot be measured merely by the number of cases disposed of or the monetary value of settlements. A smaller number of fair, voluntary and durable settlements is far more valuable than hundreds of compromises that later become the subject of fresh litigation. A settlement that leaves one party feeling cheated only postpones the dispute; it does not resolve it.

Advocates equally owe a duty to protect the interests of their clients. Before advising acceptance of any settlement, they must ensure that the client fully understands the legal implications of the compromise. This responsibility is particularly important when representing vulnerable litigants who may hesitate to express disagreement before the Court.

The objective of the legal system is not merely to dispose of cases but to deliver justice. Disposal statistics are important for administration, but they cannot become substitutes for fairness. A litigant who walks out of a Lok Adalat with a sense of having been compelled to surrender valuable rights is unlikely to retain faith in the justice delivery system.

Lok Adalats must continue to remain forums of reconciliation and consensus, not forums where settlements are achieved through haste or institutional pressure. Their greatest strength lies in voluntary participation and mutual satisfaction. That strength must be preserved at all costs.

CONCLUSION. The message is therefore simple. Judges should certainly encourage settlements wherever appropriate. But they should never insist upon them merely to improve statistical performance. Justice is not measured by the number of files closed in a day; it is measured by the fairness of the outcome and the confidence that litigants carry home after leaving the courtroom.