Lok Adalat Compared with Mediation, Arbitration and the Permanent Lok Adalat

Three comparisons are regularly asked, and each turns on a different point. Against mediation, the question is institutional: who the neutral is, what the process costs and what the outcome becomes. Against arbitration, the question is whether the neutral may decide at all. Against the Permanent Lok Adalat, the question is the one that most often catches candidates out, because the two institutions share a name and one of them has an adjudicatory power the other does not.

The four forums on the points that separate them

1. Lok Adalat and Mediation

Both are consensual, and neither neutral can impose an outcome. The differences are of institution rather than of principle.

Basis	Lok Adalat	Mediation
Statute	Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987	Mediation Act, 2023
The neutral	A bench, usually a serving or retired judicial officer with a lawyer and a social worker	A single mediator, chosen by the parties or appointed by a mediation service provider
Setting	A sitting organised by a legal services authority, often with many cases listed on one day	A series of sessions fixed to suit the parties, over up to 120 days under Section 18
Technique	Persuasion by the bench, with limited time for each case	Managed negotiation, with private sessions and reality testing
Cost	None; the court fee already paid is refunded under Section 21	The mediator's fee, unless the mediation is court-annexed
The outcome	An award, deemed a decree by Section 21	A mediated settlement agreement under Section 19
Enforcement	As a decree, without any further step	As a judgment or decree under Section 27
Recourse	No appeal; only Articles 226 and 227 in a narrow case	A challenge under Section 28 within ninety days, on four grounds

The practical choice between them is one of case type. A matter that can be settled in a single sitting on a simple formula, such as a motor accident claim or a cheque dishonour case, suits a Lok Adalat, where the award costs nothing and is a decree at once. A matter that requires several sessions, private exploration and terms of some complexity, such as a family arrangement or a commercial dispute with a continuing relationship, suits mediation.

2. Lok Adalat and Arbitration

Basis	Lok Adalat	Arbitration
Source of jurisdiction	The statute and the reference; no agreement between the parties is needed once a court refers	An arbitration agreement in writing under Section 7 of the Act of 1996
Function of the neutral	To bring about a compromise; there is no adjudicatory function	To hear the parties and determine their rights
What happens if a party will not agree	There is no award; the record returns to the court	The tribunal decides in any event, and may proceed under Section 25 if a party does not participate
The outcome	An award recording the compromise, deemed a decree	An arbitral award on the merits, final and binding under Section 35
Recourse	None by way of appeal	Setting aside under Section 34, and an appeal under Section 37
Cost	None	The fees of the tribunal, the institution and counsel
Suitable for	Compoundable criminal matters and civil cases capable of a simple compromise	Commercial disputes where a binding determination is needed

⚠ The point of principle

A Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory function. State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660 holds that its function relates purely to conciliation, that an award can only be based on a compromise, and that an order recorded as an award where there was no compromise is not an award at all. An arbitral tribunal is the opposite: its entire function is to decide, and it does so whether the loser agrees or not. Every other difference between the two follows from this one.

3. Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat

Sections 22A to 22E, inserted in 2002, created the Permanent Lok Adalat for disputes relating to public utility services. It shares the name and the parent statute, and differs in almost everything else.

Basis	Lok Adalat	Permanent Lok Adalat
Constitution	Organised from time to time under Section 19 for a sitting or a day	A permanent body established under Section 22B, with a Chairman who is or has been a district judge and two members with experience in public utility services
Subject matter	Any civil case and any compoundable criminal matter	Only disputes relating to public utility services, and not an offence
Pecuniary limit	None	A limit fixed by notification, raised from time to time
When it may be approached	On a reference by a court, or on an application in a pre-litigation matter	On the application of a party before the dispute is brought before a court; thereafter no party may invoke the jurisdiction of a court in that dispute
Power to decide	None; only to record a compromise	Section 22C(8): where the parties fail to reach agreement, it shall decide the dispute on the merits
The award	Records what the parties agreed	May record agreement, or may embody a decision the parties never accepted
Finality	Final and binding; no appeal	Final and binding; no appeal

⚠ Why the adjudicatory power was given

Public utility services are supplied by large organisations to individual consumers, and the disputes are numerous, small and repetitive. A purely conciliatory forum would be defeated by a service provider that simply declined to settle. The Permanent Lok Adalat therefore attempts conciliation first and, if that fails, decides. The price is that a party may be bound by a decision it never accepted, without an appeal, which is why the jurisdiction is confined by subject matter and by value, and why the power does not extend to offences.

4. The Three Comparisons in One Line Each

Against mediation, the Lok Adalat is a public forum with a judicial officer on the bench, costs nothing, and produces a decree directly.
Against arbitration, the Lok Adalat cannot decide; it records agreement or returns the file.
Against the Permanent Lok Adalat, the ordinary Lok Adalat lacks the power to adjudicate that Section 22C(8) confers for public utility disputes.

5. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic or provision	Connection
Lok Adalat	The institution, its jurisdiction, procedure and award
Mediation	The process, its principles and its statutory framework
Arbitration and Mediation Compared	The adjudicatory and consensual processes generally
Sections 19 to 22E, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987	Organisation, reference, the award and the Permanent Lok Adalat
Sections 19, 27 and 28, Mediation Act, 2023	The mediated settlement, its enforcement and its challenge