Justice delayed is justice denied. This profound statement resonates deeply within the Indian legal system, notorious for its backlogs of cases. According to the statistics of National Judicial Data Grid more than 62,35,444 cases are overall pending in just the High courts of India,[1] some stretching over decades. The regular courts, despite their structured hierarchy and adherence to the procedural law, often fail to provide timely relief.

In contrast, Lok Adalats, or people's court, stand as a beacon of hope for millions seeking speedy just
 However, the question remains- how effective are Lok Adalats in comparison to regular courts? Do they provide real justice or quick settlements? To understand this its important to analyse both systems in terms of their efficiency, procedural framework, and impact on the litigants involved.

Understanding the concept: Lok Adalats and Regular courts
Lok Adalats, an alternative dispute resolution, mechanism, operates under the Legal Service Authorities Act,1987.[2] They focus on resolving disputes amicably through conciliation and mediation, prioritizing compromise over adversarial litigation. These courts are primarily organised by the National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) and various State Legal Service Authorities (SLSAs). Their key advantage includes the absence of court fees, informality, and the finality of decisions, as no appeal is allowed against a Lok Adalat's award.

Regular courts, on the other hand, function under a rigid procedural framework governed by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Criminal Procedural Court, 1973. They emphasize due process, substantive justice and the right to appeal, ensuring that judicial scrutiny is thorough. However, this comes at the cost of prolonged litigation and procedural complexities. The hierarchical structure of the district courts further extends the litigation process and often delaying justice for years.

Speedy Justice: The Core Issue
One of the most significant differences between Lok Adalats and regular courts is the speed at which they resolve disputes. Lok Adalats often settle cases in a single day, while regular courts may take years to conclude even a preliminary hearing. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of speedy justice in cases such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)[3], where it recognized the right to a speedy trial as an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Although regular courts have introduced alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration, they still remain heavily burdened. In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005)[4], the court acknowledged the judiciary's struggle with procedural delays and the necessity of ADR methods. Despite these efforts, millions of cases remain unresolved, leading to widespread dissatisfaction among litigants.

Efficiency of Lok Adalats in Delivering Speedy Justice
The efficiency of Lok Adalats is evident in their success in reducing case pendency. According to NALSA's report, Over one crore cases were settled during the third National Lok Adalat conducted by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) on Saturday (September 14, 2024), taking a step towards reducing the burgeoning pendency in courts.[5] This demonstrates their effectiveness in clearing pending disputes, especially in cases related to motor accident claims, family disputes, and petty offenses.

The Supreme Court, in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2008)[6], reaffirmed that awards passed in Lok Adalats are final and binding, ensuring immediate implementation. This finality provides litigants with quick relief, avoiding the prolonged stress associated with lengthy court proceedings. However, while Lok Adalats expedite dispute resolution, their reliance on compromise sometimes leads to weaker parties feeling pressured into settlements. This concern has been highlighted in instances where dominant litigants have used Lok Adalat proceedings to coerce settlements, raising questions about fairness in certain cases.

On the other hand Regular courts, despite their commitment to due process and legal scrutiny, suffer from numerous challenges that affect the delivery of speedy justice.

These include:

• Overburdened Judiciary: India has a low judge-to-population ratio, with only 21 judges per million people. This directly contributes to the case backlog.
• Complex Procedural Laws: The Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes impose lengthy procedural requirements, including multiple adjournments and appeals.
• Lawyer's Tactics: Frequent adjournments and strategic delays by lawyers further slow down court proceedings.
• Lack of Infrastructure: Many courts, especially in rural areas, lack the infrastructure required for efficient functioning, with minimal digitalization and outdated record-keeping systems.
• Law Commission Recommendations: The Law Commission of India, in its 246th report^[7], recommended fast-track courts and increased use of ADR mechanisms to ease the burden on regular courts.
• Case Study: Lok Adalat vs. Regular Court in Motor Accident Claims
  • A compelling comparison can be seen in motor accident claim cases. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988^[8], Lok Adalats have played a crucial role in expediting compensation claims.
  • For instance, in Jagdish v. Mohan (2018)^[9], a motor accident claim pending in a district court for over six years was settled in a Lok Adalat within a day. The victim received immediate compensation, bypassing the bureaucratic hurdles of regular court litigation.
  • In contrast, cases like Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009)^[10] highlight the slow pace of adjudication in regular courts, where final compensation was awarded only after years of litigation. The comparison underscores the effectiveness of Lok Adalats in specific types of cases where quick resolution is critical.
• Finality of Decisions: A Double-Edged Sword?
  • The binding nature of Lok Adalat's decisions ensures efficiency but also raises concerns. Since there is no appeal provision, a litigant dissatisfied with the outcome has no recourse. The Supreme Court emphasizes the need for fairness in Lok Adalat proceedings to prevent coercion and unjust settlements.
  • On the other hand, regular courts allow multiple levels of appeal, ensuring thorough judicial review. While this upholds legal scrutiny, it also significantly prolongs case resolution. The challenge, therefore, is to balance efficiency with fairness.

Conclusion: Finding the Right Balance
Both Lok Adalats and regular courts play crucial roles in India's justice delivery system. While Lok Adalats provide a quick and cost-effective remedy for many litigants, they are not a substitute for regular courts but rather a complementary mechanism. The ideal approach would be to integrate Lok Adalats more deeply into the judicial framework while simultaneously reforming procedural laws to expedite court proceedings.

Strengthening fast-track courts, increasing judicial appointments, and promoting mediation and arbitration are necessary steps to ensure both speed and substantive justice. The Indian judiciary's move towards digitalization and ADR mechanisms is promising, but the ultimate success will depend on how well the system balances efficiency with the fundamental principles of justice.

End Notes:

1. National Judicial Data Grid, Pending Cases in High Courts – NJDG, https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/hcstat_pending (last visited Feb. 9, 2025).
2. Legal Services Authorities Act, No. 39 of 1987 (India).
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1979) 1 SCC 81 (India).
4. Salem Advocate Bar Ass'n v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 (India).
5. NALSAs Third National Lok Adalat Settles Over One Crore Cases, The Hindu, Feb. 9, 2024, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/nalsas-third-national-lok-adalat-settles-over-one-crore-cases/article68643053.ece.
6. State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660 (India).
7. Law Comm'n of India, Report No. 246, Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (2014), https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report246.pdf.
8. The Motor Vehicles Act, No. 59 of 1988, India Code (1988).
9. Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 (India).
10. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transp. Corp., (2009) 6 SCC 121 (India).