About the Author
Adv.Alexy Joy is a Editor of ljrfvoice.com. member of munsiff magistrate exam training program.Completed LLB from Govt Law College Thrissur. Currently pursuing LLM from CUSAT
What are the powers and functions of Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat?
Introduction
Lok Adalat is a type of alternative dispute resolution mechanism in India. It is a forum where disputes pending or at the pre-litigation stage in courts are settled outside the court through conciliation and compromise. The term “Lok Adalat” literally translates to “People’s Court”. Lok Adalat’s main objective is to provide a speedy, inexpensive, and informal means of resolving disputes, particularly in civil cases, through negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and compromise.
The Lok Adalat is presided over by a retired judge, a sitting judicial officer, or other individuals who are considered suitable and are having necessary legal experience. The Lok Adalat’s decisions are binding and final, and they have the same status as a decree of a civil court.
The Lok Adalat is an effective means of resolving disputes as it is less time-consuming and less formal than the traditional court system. Additionally, it is cost-effective for the parties involved as they do not have to pay the usual court fees. Moreover, Lok Adalats can resolve disputes on a range of issues including civil, criminal, and matrimonial disputes.
Lok Adalats can be organized at the district, state, and national levels. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) is responsible for promoting and organizing Lok Adalat at the national level and The State Legal Service Authority (SALSA) is responsible for the same at the district level. The Lok Adalat is a statutory body established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to provide free legal services to the poor and marginalized sections of society and it is a form of “ADR” (Alternative Dispute Resolution). The Lok Adalat system is based on the principles of justice, equity, and fair play.
NALSA along with other Legal Services Institutions conducts Lok Adalats. The term ‘Lok Adalat’ means ‘People’s Court’ and is based on Gandhian principles. As per the Supreme Court, it is an old form of adjudicating system prevalent in ancient India and its validity has not been taken away even in the modern days too. It is one of the components of the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system and delivers informal, cheap, and expeditious justice to the common people. The Act makes the provisions relating to the organization and functioning of the Lok Adalats. The basic features of a permanent Lok Adalat are identical to a Lok Adalat. There are, however, certain modifications made. The key difference is that a typical Lok Adalat can only be summoned occasionally and not on a daily basis, a permanent Lok Adalat is an established system that is operational throughout just like any other court or tribunal. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which had established Lok Adalats, did not, at first, establish permanent Lok Adalats. It was the Amendment Act of 2002 that enabled the establishment of the first permanent Lok Adalat.
Powers of Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok
Adalat
Section 22 of the Legal Service Authorities Act 1987 provides the powers of Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat
1) The Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—
(a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of any document;
(c) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any court or office; and
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every 2 Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it.
(3) All proceedings before a 1 Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193, 219, and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every 1 Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of section195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal
Roles and Functions
1. Conciliation: Lok Adalat encourages parties to resolve their disputes through conciliation, which involves a neutral third party(i.e., the conciliator) facilitating the discussion between the parties to help them reach an agreement.
2. Compromise: If the parties reach a compromise, the Lok Adalat can make it into a decree of the court, which is enforceable.
3. Mediation: Lok Adalat can also use mediation as a means to resolve disputes. The mediator is a neutral third party who helps the parties in reaching an agreement.
4. Jurisdiction: Lok Adalat has jurisdiction over any matter that is pending before a court or is likely to be brought before it, including civil, criminal, matrimonial, and compoundable offenses. However, it cannot be used for cases that involve heinous offenses or cases where a settlement is not possible.
5. Binding Nature: The decisions made by Lok Adalat are binding on the parties to the dispute, and no appeal lies against its decision.
6. Speedy Justice: Lok Adalat provides speedy justice as the dispute is resolved through conciliation and compromise, which eliminates the need for lengthy court proceedings.
In summary, Lok Adalat’s roles and functions include conciliation, compromise, mediation, jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, and providing speedy justice through alternative dispute resolution methods.
Case Laws
In Punjab National Bank v. Lakshmichand Rai1 the High Court held that “The provisions of the Act shall prevail in the matter of filing an appeal and an appeal would not lie under the provisions of Section 96 C.P.C. Lok Adalat is conducted under an independent enactment and once the award is made by Lok Adalat the right of appeal shall be governed by the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act when it has been specifically barred under Provisions of Section 21(2), no appeal can be filed against the award under Section 96 C.P.C.” The Court further stated that “It may incidentally be further seen that even the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for an appeal under Section 96 against a consent decree. The Code of Civil Procedure also intends that once a consent decree is passed by the Civil Court finality is attached to it. Such finality cannot be permitted to be destroyed, particularly under the Legal Services Authorities Act, as it would amount to defeating the very aim and object of the Act with which it has been enacted, hence, we hold that the appeal filed is not maintainable.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that, in the Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam v. Presiding Officer2, The Permanent, Lok Adalat, the award is enforceable as a decree and it is final. The endeavor is only to see that the disputes are narrowed down and make the final settlement so that the parties are not again driven to further litigation or any dispute. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits just as a regular suit by a Court on a regular suit by Court on a regular trial, however, it is equal and on par with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and conclusive just as the decree passed on the compromises cannot be challenged in a regular appeal.
In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat3, it was held that; The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be, (i) whether the decision-making authority exceeded its powers?; (ii) committed an error of law; (iii) committed a breach of the rules of natural justice; (iv) reached a decision that no reasonable Tribunal would have reached; or (v) abused its powers. In the case on hand, the Lok Adalat exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, and abused its powers. Even if this Court were to strictly confine itself to the question of legality, the impugned order cannot still be tolerated as it suffers from all the foibles that justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Karnataka State Bar Council was opposed to the section in the Act which said if one party approached the permanent Lok Adalat, the other party had no option but to participate in the litigation. This was opposed to the canons of justice, the lawyers said. “The right of judicial review or appeal is fundamental in all legal matters and making the decision of the permanent Lok Adalats final, without the right of appeal, will vest unrestricted power in the hands of a tribunal in which two non-officials can dominate… it will impair the administration of justice,” they said.
In Election Commission of India v. Union of India and Ors4., the Apex Court while dealing with the powers of the Court under the Constitution to interfere with an order passed by the Election Commission, laid down: “There are no unreviewable discretions under the constitutional dispensation. The overall constitutional function to ensure that constitutional authorities function within the sphere of their respective constitutional authority is that of the Courts”. The enunciation by the Apex Court making even an order by a constitutional authority reviewable should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that a discretion exercised by a statutory authority would be well within the reviewable discretion of this Court.
N.L.Rajag, President of Consumer Courts, Bar Association also pointed out that Permanent Lok Adalats do perform and can perform invaluable service as conciliators or mediators.
But then to tell parties that even if they do not agree to settle the matter the Lok Adalat would go ahead and pass a decree which will then be binding on them, is horrendously arbitrary and unreasonable.
But one tends to forget the forum of judicial review is always open for the parties through the writ petitions. This is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ruled out. Denial of it would be unfair and unwarranted.
(Munsiff magistrate main exam 2022 paper)
