Lok Adalat

The Lok Adalat, or people's court, is a forum in which a dispute is resolved by compromise between the parties, recorded as an award which is deemed to be a decree of a civil court. It rests on the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and behind that on Article 39A of the Constitution, which directs the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity and to provide free legal aid. Its distinctive features are that no court fee is charged and the fee already paid is refunded, that it has no power to adjudicate, and that its award is final with no appeal against it.

1. Meaning and Constitutional Basis

The institution draws on the indigenous practice of settlement by a village assembly, but its modern form dates from the legal aid movement of the 1970s and 1980s and the camps organised under it. Article 39A, inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, requires the State to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and read with Articles 14 and 21 it supplies the constitutional foundation. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which came into force on 9 November 1995, gave the Lok Adalat statutory status and created the machinery to organise it.

The four tiers of legal services authorities, the forms a Lok Adalat takes, and pre-litigation reference

2. Organisation: Section 19

Section 19 provides that every State Authority, District Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Legal Services Committee or Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. A Lok Adalat organised by a District Authority or a Taluk Committee consists of such number of serving or retired judicial officers and other persons of the area as may be specified; the officers and persons who may be included, and their experience and qualifications, are prescribed by rules made by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, and by the Central Government for Lok Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Committee.

In practice a bench consists of a sitting or retired judicial officer as chairman, with a member of the Bar and a social worker. The judicial member gives the bench its authority to record a compromise; the others assist in persuading the parties.

3. Jurisdiction

Section 19(5) fixes the jurisdiction. A Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties in respect of any case pending before the court for which the Lok Adalat is organised, and in respect of any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, such court. The proviso is important: the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.

• Pending cases of every civil kind, and criminal cases in respect of compoundable offences.
• Pre-litigation matters, which are matters within the jurisdiction of a court but not yet brought before it.
• Not non-compoundable offences, which cannot be compromised at all, and not matters which the law reserves for adjudication.

4. Reference: Section 20

1. Where the parties agree. A court before which a case is pending refers it where the parties agree, or where one of them makes an application for reference and the court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of settlement.
2. Where the court is satisfied. The court may refer of its own motion where it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by a Lok Adalat, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
3. Pre-litigation reference. In a matter not yet before a court, the Authority or Committee may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party, refer the matter to the Lok Adalat.
4. The mandate. Section 20(3) requires the Lok Adalat to proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties, and Section 20(4) requires it to be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.
5. Where no settlement results. In a pending case the record is returned to the court, which proceeds from the stage reached before the reference; in a pre-litigation matter the parties are advised to seek their remedy in a court.

The two outcomes of a reference, and the consequence of each

5. Procedure and Powers

A Lok Adalat is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the law of evidence, and the proceedings are informal: the bench hears the parties, often without lawyers addressing formally, explores what each will accept, and records the terms if agreement is reached. Section 22 nevertheless gives it the powers of a civil court under the Code in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, the discovery and production of documents, the reception of evidence on affidavit and the requisitioning of public records. Every Lok Adalat has the requisite powers to specify its own procedure, its proceedings are deemed judicial proceedings for the purposes of the penal law relating to false evidence, and it is deemed a civil court for the purposes of the provisions of the criminal procedure law relating to offences affecting the administration of justice.

6. The Award: Section 21

• Deemed a decree. The award needs no further proceeding to make it executable; it is executed as a decree under Order XXI of the Code.
• Final and binding. It binds all the parties to the dispute, and it operates as res judicata between them.
• No appeal. Section 21(2) excludes an appeal to any court. The reason is that the award records what the parties themselves agreed, and a party cannot appeal against its own compromise.
• Court fee refunded. Where a pending case referred under Section 20(1) is settled, the court fee paid is refunded under the Court Fees Act, 1870, which is a substantial incentive and is unique to this forum.

7. Challenge to an Award

8. The Forms a Lok Adalat Takes

9. The Permanent Lok Adalat

Sections 22A to 22E, inserted in 2002, create a different institution under a similar name. A Permanent Lok Adalat is established for disputes relating to public utility services, which include transport, postal, telegraph and telephone services, the supply of power, light and water, public conservancy and sanitation, services in a hospital or dispensary, and insurance, with education and housing added by the amendment. A party may apply to it before the dispute is brought before a court; once such an application is made, no party may invoke the jurisdiction of a court in the same dispute. The Permanent Lok Adalat first attempts conciliation, and if the parties fail to reach agreement it may decide the dispute on the merits, provided the dispute does not relate to an offence. Its award, whether on agreement or on the merits, is final and binding and is deemed a decree. The pecuniary limit on its jurisdiction is fixed by notification and has been raised from time to time.

10. Lok Adalat Compared

Against mediation, the differences are institutional: the bench includes a judicial officer, the process costs nothing and the award is itself a decree, whereas a mediator is a private neutral and the settlement must be enforced under Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023. Against arbitration, the difference is that the Lok Adalat cannot decide anything: it records an agreement, while a tribunal determines rights and makes an award binding whether or not the loser accepts it. Against the Permanent Lok Adalat, the difference is the adjudicatory power described above. These comparisons are treated in detail in the separate topic.

11. Assessment

The Lok Adalat disposes of a very large volume of cases, particularly motor accident claims, cheque dishonour matters, bank recovery suits and matrimonial disputes, and it does so at no cost to the parties and with a refund of the court fee. Two criticisms are regularly made. The pressure to settle on the day, in a crowded hall and before a bench with a target, can produce agreements that a party accepts because it is tired rather than because the terms are fair, and the absence of any appeal makes that difficult to correct. And because the award is final, a weaker party with a strong case may settle for less than it would have recovered. The answer offered is that the process is voluntary as to outcome, that the bench is required to be guided by justice, equity and fair play, and that the supervisory jurisdiction remains for the case of a compromise that was never really made.

12. Related Topics and Provisions