Dispute Redressal Mechanisms And

Institutions
clearias.com/dispute-redressal-mechanisms-institutions/

Caroline Abraham September 23, 2023

What is dispute redressal? What are the different dispute
redressal mechanisms and institutions in India? Read further to
know more.

A dispute mechanism is a formalized procedure for resolving

disagreements or grievances between two or more parties involved in
societal, commercial, or legal connections. To resolve disputes, dispute
processes are used.

These methods include negotiation, mediation, conflict resolution, and

conciliation.

The typical non-judicial nature of dispute resolution mechanisms means

that they do not take place in a court of law.

Table of Contents

Toggle
Dispute redressal- Indian scenario
A brief history
 Dispute redressal mechanisms
Administrative Tribunal
National Company Law Tribunal
Single Tribunal for Inter-State Water Disputes
Inter-State Water Dispute Act provisions (1956)
National Green Tribunal
Gram Nyayalaya
Lok Adalat
Arbitration And Conciliation
Arbitration
Mediation
Conciliation
Institutional mechanism for dispute redressal
Human Rights Commissions
National Women for Commission (NWC)
National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)
National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST)

Dispute redressal- Indian scenario

According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, no individual shall be
deprived of his or her liberty except by the method established by law.
The Supreme Court of India correctly determined that the Right to a
Speedy Trial is a component of the Right to Life or Personal Liberty.

This lenient interpretation of Article 21 is intended to make up for the

mental suffering, expenditure, and strain that someone facing criminal
charges must endure, which when combined with delays, may make it
more difficult for the accused to properly defend himself.

As a result, the Supreme Court has determined that the Right to a

Speedy Trial is an example of a fair, just, and reasonable process
protected by Article 21.

A brief history
People in India used mediation to resolve disputes before the
establishment of law courts. In the past, such mediation was known as
“Panchayath,” and it was typically led by someone who was respected
and held in greater regard by the villagers.

The Panchayath was presided over by a member of superior stature,

quality, and character known as the Village Headman, who was aided
by others from various castes in the area who shared his character or
cadre.

The Panchayath heard the conflict between individuals and families,

and the verdict was to be accepted by the disputants. The well-being of
the disputants and the preservation of their good relations were the key
factors taken into account in such Panchayaths.

Alternative modes of dispute resolution (ADR) emerged by creating

facilities for providing dispute settlement through arbitration,
conciliation, mediation, and negotiation in developing nations like India
that are undergoing significant economic reforms within the framework
of the rule of law.

This reduced the burden on the courts and provided means for
expeditious dispute resolution. To address the issues, the GOI has
established various dispute resolution mechanisms.

Gram Sabha, Nyaya Panchayat, Lok Adalat, Family Court, Counseling

Centers, Commission of Inquiry, Tribunal, Consumer Court, and Indian
Legislation on ADR are a few of the several procedures established in
India.

The system’s main goals are to increase access to justice, promote

mediation as opposed to winner-take-all disputes, boost efficiency, and
shorten courtroom delays.

However, a strong grievance procedure:

gives all parties a predictable, credible, and transparent

procedure, resulting in decisions that are regarded as just,
practical, and long-lasting.
develops trust as a crucial element of more extensive community
relations operations.
enables more thorough identification of new problems and
patterns, allowing for proactive involvement and corrective action.

In this article, we’ll talk about several Dispute Redressal Mechanisms

Dispute redressal mechanisms

Following are some of the dispute redressal mechanisms relevant in
the Indian context.

Administrative Tribunal
India is referred to as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic
Republic in the Preamble of its Constitution. These components, in the
opinion of our Constitution’s authors, were necessary to create an
equitable society and a government based on welfarism.

Therefore, the foundation of the welfare state phenomenon is the

administration of justice and the rule of law.

The government’s duties have multiplied phenomenally as a result of

the acceptance of the welfare ideology, giving the executive incredible
authority and boosting legislative productivity. More lawsuits have
resulted as a result, as have limitations on people’s freedom and
ongoing conflicts between them and the authorities.

Part XIV-A, which consists of Articles 323A and 323B, was

introduced into the Indian Constitution by the 42nd Amendment
Act of 1976. which ultimately resulted in the creation of
administrative tribunals.
Article 323A: Establishes administrative tribunals to resolve
disagreements and complaints over hiring practices, employment
terms for those hired to work in the public sector, and other
related issues.
Article 323B: Provides for the establishment of Tribunals for the
adjudication or prosecution of disputes, complaints, or offenses
relating to taxes, foreign exchange, labor disputes, land reforms,
urban property ceilings, elections to Parliament and State
Legislatures, etc.
Any law may be passed by Parliament by Article 323A, and State
Legislatures may also pass laws by Article 323B if they have the
necessary legislative authority.

National Company Law Tribunal

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was established by the
Central Government by section 408 of the 2013 Companies Act.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is a quasi-judicial

organization that handles equitable jurisdiction that was formerly
handled by the Central Government or the High Court. The Tribunal has
the authority to control how it conducts itself.

The following authorities’ corporate jurisdiction is consolidated with the

creation of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT):

Company Law Board

 Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.
The Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction
Jurisdiction and powers relating to winding up restructuring and
other such provisions are vested in the High Courts.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has established eleven benches,

including one principal bench, in the initial phase. The President, 16
judicial members, and 9 technical members will serve as the chairs of
these benches, which will be located in various places.

Single Tribunal for Inter-State Water Disputes

Water disputes between states are distinct from other interstate
conflicts. Article 262 of the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court
and other courts from having jurisdiction over interstate water issues.
Disputes are settled by the Interstate (River) Water Disputes Act of
1956. According to its terms, the conflicts must be decided by special,
temporary tribunals.

Inter-State Water Dispute Act provisions (1956)

The Inter-State Water Conflicts Act of 1956 governs disputes over

river water between states.
According to the 1956 Act’s present provisions, a tribunal can be
established if a state government submits a request to the federal
government and the federal government is persuaded of the
necessity of the tribunal’s establishment.
The key recommendations of “The Sarkaria Commission” were
added to this statute in 2002.
The modifications prescribed a one-year setup period for the
water disputes tribunal as well as a three-year decision-making
period.
With the first generation of tribunals established shortly after
independence to decide disputes involving the Krishna, Narmada,
and Godavari rivers, this system has achieved considerable
success.
But generally speaking, it has found it difficult to reconcile
opposing sides and present fair answers.

National Green Tribunal

The National Green Tribunal was established by the National Green
Tribunal Act of 2010 to effectively and promptly handle cases involving
environmental protection, and the conservation of forests and other
natural resources.

It also deals with the enforcement of any environmental legal

rights and the provision of relief and compensation for
environmental damages to people and property, as well as for
matters related to or incidental to those cases.
It is an expert body with the knowledge needed to handle
environmental disputes involving many disciplinary issues.

Major features

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not a requirement for the

NGT to follow; instead, it will act by natural justice principles.
The Indian Evidence Act, of 1872’s rules of evidence are not
binding on NGT either.
Conservation groups will find it easier to present facts and issues
before the NGT (as opposed to going before a court), including
pointing out technical problems with a project or suggesting
alternatives that could lessen environmental damage but have not
been examined.
The NGT will use the precautionary principle, the polluter pays
principle, and the principles of sustainable development when
passing orders, decisions, and awards. However, it should be
noted that the NGT has the authority to impose fees, including
lost benefits as a result of any temporary injunction if it
determines that a claim is untrue.

Gram Nyayalaya
Unquestionably, the idea of a contemporary, democratic, and
constitutional India revolves around equality and justice. By conducting
its job of administering justice, the State machinery carries out the
values of equality and fairness. Systemic issues with India’s judicial
system include corruption, holdups, pendency, rising prices, a lack of
adequate legal aid, and a shortage of judges and attorneys with the
necessary training.

To address these issues, the Law Ministry established Gram

Nyayalays in 2009 to give the underprivileged living in villages a
low-cost venue to resolve legal disputes. The Gram Nyayalayas
Act of 2008 created it.
 This Act perpetuates the phenomenon of two distinct groups of
Indians: the wealthy urban citizen who can afford and access the
courts, and the less connected rural citizen who has access to
forums that are primarily focused on resolving their claims without
the application of crucial procedural safeguards such as
attorneys, appeals, protections for procedural rights, and
evidentiary requirements.
Gram Nyayalayas are mobile village courts that were created in
India to provide quick and simple access to the legal system in
the country’s rural areas.
They are designed to bring affordable justice to rural residents at
their doorsteps.
The Act went into effect on October 2, 2009, Mahatma Gandhi’s
birthday. (The symbols Gram, Nyay, and Aalya represent the
village, justice, and house, respectively.)

Lok Adalat
Effective justice delivery is a perennial requirement of peace, order,
civilization, and national governance under any form of government.

It is the primary responsibility of the State to ensure that everyone

receives equal and impartial justice by regulating how citizens interact
with one another, preventing disorder and favoritism of one class of
people over others, and upholding all fundamental rights necessary for
the existence and advancement of the average person by establishing
an efficient justice system.

However, in practice, the promise of equality before the law does not
satisfy a poor man since he lacks access to justice. Other factors that
negatively impacted the administration of justice were delays,
corruption, expensive litigation, access issues, a dearth of courts,
judges, and government employees, a drawn-out procedure, and a lack
of legal aid and legal education for the poor.

Lok Adalat has been founded as a result of these flaws in the current
legal system.

Legislations related to Lok Adalat:

By the constitutional requirement in Article 39-A of the

Constitution of India, which incorporates several provisions for
dispute settlement through Lok Adalat, the National Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 provided Lok Adalats a statutory
character.
 To ensure that no citizen is denied the opportunity to secure
justice due to economic hardship or other disabilities, this Act
establishes legal services authorities to provide competent and
free legal services to the most vulnerable members of society.
It also establishes Lok Adalats to ensure that the functioning of
the legal system promotes justice on an equal opportunity basis.

Arbitration And Conciliation

Arbitration

In the arbitration procedure, a decision is made on the merits of the

case by a neutral third party or parties. In the Indian setting, the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1998 broadly defines the rules for the
arbitration process, and the parties are free to devise an arbitration
process that is appropriate and pertinent to their disputes in the areas
covered by the Statute.

Mediation

The mediation process seeks to make it easier for the conflicting parties
to come to a mutually agreeable settlement. The Mediator is a neutral
third party who oversees the mediation process. The ability of the
mediator to help the parties’ negotiations depends on their agreement.

Conciliation

A less formal variation of arbitration is conciliation. No prior agreement

is necessary for this method to work. Any party may request the
appointment of a conciliator from the opposite party. Two or three
conciliators are permitted but one is recommended. If there are
numerous conciliators, they must all work together. There can be no
conciliation if a party declines an offer to do so.

The conciliator may receive statements from the parties outlining

the overall nature of the dispute and the items in contention. A
copy of the statement is sent from one side to the other.
The conciliator has the right to ask for more information, request a
meeting with the parties, and initiate verbal or written
correspondence with them. The conciliator may even get
proposals from the parties for resolving the conflict.
 When the conciliator believes that a settlement has some of the
necessary components, he may draft the terms of the agreement
and send them to the parties for their approval. The settlement
agreement will be final and binding after both parties have signed
it.

Also read: Alternative dispute resolution

Institutional mechanism for dispute redressal

Human Rights Commissions

In 1994, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was
established as a result of the 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act. It
noted that “increasing concern about issues linked to human rights” had
been expressed both domestically and internationally.

It had been deemed necessary to review the current rules and

processes as well as the administrative structure to increase efficiency
and transparency in light of this as well as the shifting social realities
and new trends in crime and violence.

The Human Rights Protection Act of 1993 makes it possible for the
State Government to establish a State Human Rights Commission to
exercise the authority granted to it and carry out the duties specified in
the Act.

National Women for Commission (NWC)

The National Commission for Women was established as a statutory
body in January 1992 with the charge of reviewing the constitutional
and legal protections for women, suggesting corrective legislative
measures, assisting with grievance redress, and advising the
government on all policy issues affecting women.

The Commission has all the authority of a Civil Court hearing a case to
carry out these duties, as is the case with the NCSC/NCST.

The Union Government arranges for the Commission’s reports on the

operation of the protections for women to be presented to each House
of Parliament, along with an update on any actions taken in response to
the Commission’s recommendations and any explanations for any
rejections, if any.
When it comes to concerns involving a State Government, the report
and accompanying Action Taken Report are presented to the State
Legislature.

National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)

There used to be a Special Office for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes under Article 338 of the Constitution. The Office of
Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was given
this title. A multi-member Commission for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes was established in 1978 as a result of the 46th
Amendment.

By the Constitution (Eighty-ninth Amendment) Act of 2003, separate

commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were to be
established. As a result, the National Commission for Scheduled
Castes (NCSC) was established for the first time in 2004.

The Commission’s responsibility is to provide the President with annual

and special reports. These Reports include suggestions for actions that
the Union and State Governments should take to effectively implement
the safeguards and other welfare measures.

These Reports must be presented to both Houses of Parliament along

with a Memorandum outlining the course of action taken or being
considered by each Ministry or Department and any grounds for
rejection, if any. If the suggestions apply to state governments, a
comparable Memorandum containing the recommendations must be
presented to the appropriate state legislatures.

National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST)

The NCSC and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes both
had similar beginnings. It was established as a separate Commission in
2004 as a result of the Constitution (Eighty-ninth Amendment Act,
2003), which added Article 338A and amended Article 107.

Before that, as was already indicated, a single organization was in

charge of overseeing the constitutional protections offered to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) shares several

characteristics with the NCSC, including its composition, terms, powers,
and reporting mechanism. Scheduled Tribes receive the same
constitutional protections and legal protections as SCs.
Six units make up the NCST and they are responsible for
administration, coordination, socioeconomic and educational
development, service safeguards, and atrocities-related issues. The
NCST has six regional offices that give it a regional perspective.

Also read: Grievance redressal mechanism

Article written by: Caroline