Difference Between Mediation and Lok Adalat in India

Mediation and Lok Adalat are important alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in India. Both encourage amicable settlement, reduce the burden on courts and provide a faster alternative to prolonged litigation. 

However, they differ in their legal basis, procedure, institutional character, role of neutral persons and legal effect of the outcome. Understanding the difference between mediation and Lok Adalat helps in identifying the mechanism most suitable for a particular dispute.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

Meaning of Mediation

Mediation is a structured process in which disputing parties attempt to resolve their differences with the assistance of an independent and neutral third person known as a mediator. The mediator facilitates communication and negotiation between the parties but does not decide the dispute or impose a settlement.

The primary purpose of mediation is to help the parties understand the issues, identify their underlying interests and develop a mutually acceptable solution. The parties remain in control of the proceedings as well as the final outcome. A settlement is concluded only when all concerned parties voluntarily accept its terms.

The Mediation Act, 2023 provides a statutory framework for the promotion and regulation of mediation in India. It recognises different forms of mediation, including pre-litigation mediation, court-referred mediation, institutional mediation, community mediation and online mediation. It also contains provisions relating to mediators, confidentiality, mediated settlement agreements and their enforcement.

Meaning of Lok Adalat

Lok Adalat literally means “People’s Court”. It is a statutory alternative dispute resolution forum established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Lok Adalats are organised by legal services authorities and committees for the amicable settlement of disputes pending before courts as well as certain disputes at the pre-litigation stage.

A Lok Adalat ordinarily consists of judicial officers and other persons having legal, social or professional experience. The members of the Lok Adalat assist the parties in reaching a compromise or settlement.

Difference Between Mediation and Lok Adalat

Mediation and Lok Adalat share the objective of resolving disputes without prolonged adjudication. Both depend substantially on cooperation, negotiation and settlement. However, the two mechanisms are not identical.

Legal Framework

Mediation in India is governed by the Mediation Act, 2023, applicable procedural rules, court-annexed mediation schemes and other laws containing mediation provisions. The legal framework seeks to encourage institutional mediation, recognise online mediation and facilitate the enforcement of mediated settlement agreements.

Lok Adalat is governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Sections 19 to 22 of the Act deal with the organisation, jurisdiction, procedure, powers and awards of Lok Adalats. Permanent Lok Adalats are separately dealt with under Sections 22A to 22E.

Thus, mediation is regulated as an independent dispute resolution process, while Lok Adalat operates through the statutory legal services institutions created under the 1987 Act.

Nature of the Mechanism

Mediation is a negotiation-based dispute resolution process facilitated by a neutral mediator. It may be private, institutional, court-referred, community-based or conducted online.

Lok Adalat is a statutory settlement forum. It is organised by legal services authorities or committees and functions through benches constituted for resolving suitable disputes by compromise.

Mediation is therefore primarily a process, while Lok Adalat is a formally constituted statutory forum.

Nature of the Neutral Authority

In mediation, the neutral person is called a mediator. The mediator may be selected by the parties or appointed through a mediation institution, court or mediation service provider.

In Lok Adalat, the matter is taken up by a bench consisting of judicial officers and other members with appropriate experience. The composition and functioning of the bench are connected with the legal services authority organising the Lok Adalat.

Role of the Mediator and Lok Adalat Bench

A mediator facilitates communication and negotiation. The mediator helps the parties identify disputes, clarify concerns and explore possible settlement terms. The mediator does not pass a judgment, decree or award.

A Lok Adalat bench also encourages settlement and cannot ordinarily impose a compromise. However, after the parties arrive at a settlement, the bench formally records it and passes an award.

Therefore, the mediator remains a facilitator throughout the process, while the Lok Adalat bench performs the additional statutory function of issuing an award based on the agreed settlement.

Control of the Parties

Mediation gives the parties substantial control over the process and outcome. They may decide whether to settle, select acceptable terms and, in appropriate cases, participate in determining procedural arrangements.

In Lok Adalat, the parties also retain control over whether to accept a settlement. A regular Lok Adalat cannot compel the parties to compromise. However, the process takes place before a constituted bench and within the administrative framework of the legal services authority.

Procedure Followed

Mediation follows a flexible procedure. The mediator may conduct opening sessions, joint discussions and private meetings with individual parties. Documents may be exchanged informally, and the process may be conducted physically or online.

Lok Adalat proceedings are also informal, but they are usually conducted during organised sittings. The bench considers the nature of the dispute, interacts with the parties and attempts to facilitate compromise.

Strict rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the law of evidence do not govern either process in the same manner as a regular trial. However, mediation offers greater procedural flexibility and privacy.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality is a fundamental feature of mediation. Information disclosed during discussions, private sessions and settlement negotiations is ordinarily protected. The mediator is also expected to preserve confidentiality.

Lok Adalat proceedings are settlement-oriented and informal, but confidentiality is not their defining feature in the same detailed manner. Once a settlement is reached, its terms are incorporated into the Lok Adalat award.

Mediation may therefore be more suitable where commercial information, family matters, reputation or personal concerns require a high degree of privacy.

Types of Disputes

Mediation may be used for commercial, contractual, matrimonial, family, property, employment, consumer and other disputes capable of settlement. Certain matters involving public rights, serious criminal allegations or disputes excluded by law may not be appropriate for mediation.

Lok Adalats commonly deal with motor accident claims, bank recovery cases, matrimonial disputes, labour matters, compoundable criminal offences, cheque dishonour cases, civil disputes and pre-litigation matters.

Neither mechanism can be used to settle a non-compoundable criminal offence merely on the basis of an agreement between the parties.

Stage at Which the Process Is Used

Mediation may take place before litigation, during court proceedings or under a contractual dispute resolution clause. It may also be initiated voluntarily by the parties.

A Lok Adalat may take up a case pending before a court or a dispute at the pre-litigation stage. A pending case may be referred when the parties agree, one party applies and the court considers settlement possible, or the court finds the matter appropriate for Lok Adalat.

Cost and Court Fees

The cost of mediation depends on the form of mediation. Private and institutional mediation may involve mediator fees, administrative charges and venue expenses. Court-annexed mediation may be available at a lower cost or without significant charges.

No court fee is payable for a matter brought before a Lok Adalat. When a pending case is settled through Lok Adalat, the court fee already paid may be refunded in accordance with law.

Lok Adalat is therefore particularly important for providing affordable access to justice.

Nature of the Outcome

Successful mediation results in a mediated settlement agreement. The agreement records the obligations, rights and settlement terms accepted by the parties.

Successful Lok Adalat proceedings result in a Lok Adalat award. The award incorporates the compromise and receives statutory recognition as a decree of a civil court.

The difference lies in the form of the outcome: mediation produces an agreement, while Lok Adalat produces a statutory award based on an agreement.

Enforceability

A mediated settlement agreement may be enforced under the applicable mediation framework, subject to legal requirements. The Mediation Act, 2023 provides for the enforcement of qualifying mediated settlement agreements in the manner prescribed by law.

A Lok Adalat award is deemed to be a decree of a civil court. It can therefore be enforced through the procedure applicable to the execution of decrees.

Lok Adalat provides immediate statutory status to the recorded compromise, while enforceability in mediation depends on the legal framework under which the settlement is concluded.

Appeal and Challenge

The legal remedies against a mediated settlement agreement depend on the applicable law. A settlement covered by the Mediation Act, 2023 may be challenged only on limited statutory grounds.

No appeal ordinarily lies against a Lok Adalat award because the award is based on the consent of the parties. Courts have nevertheless recognised that appropriate constitutional remedies may remain available in exceptional situations involving matters such as absence of consent, fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

Effect of Failure to Reach a Settlement

When mediation fails, the parties may pursue litigation, arbitration or any other remedy available under law. The mediator cannot decide the dispute merely because negotiations have failed.

When settlement fails before a regular Lok Adalat, it also cannot decide the dispute on merits. A pending matter is returned to the referring court for continuation in accordance with law.

This position must be distinguished from a Permanent Lok Adalat dealing with public utility services.

Ordinary Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat

An ordinary Lok Adalat has no power to decide a dispute on merits when compromise fails. Its authority is limited to facilitating and recording a voluntary settlement.

A Permanent Lok Adalat is constituted for disputes concerning public utility services at the pre-litigation stage. It first attempts conciliation between the parties. If conciliation fails and the dispute is otherwise within its jurisdiction, it may decide the dispute on merits.

This adjudicatory power makes a Permanent Lok Adalat different from an ordinary Lok Adalat and from mediation. A mediator cannot adjudicate a dispute under any circumstance merely because the parties have failed to settle.

How to Decide Between Mediation and Lok Adalat

The choice between mediation and Lok Adalat depends on the nature of the dispute, the stage of proceedings, the need for confidentiality and the form of settlement required. 

Both mechanisms encourage compromise, but mediation offers greater privacy and flexibility, while Lok Adalat provides a formal statutory award. The relationship between the parties and the complexity of the dispute should also be considered before selecting either mechanism.

When to Choose Mediation

Mediation may be preferred when:

• The dispute involves family members, business partners, employers, employees or other parties who wish to preserve their relationship.
• Confidentiality is important because the dispute concerns personal, financial or commercially sensitive information.
• The parties require a flexible settlement containing practical or creative terms.
• Detailed negotiations and separate private meetings may help resolve the dispute.
• The parties wish to choose the mediator, venue, schedule and manner of proceedings.

When to Choose Lok Adalat

Lok Adalat may be preferred when:

• The matter is already pending before a court and can be resolved through a straightforward compromise.
• The dispute involves motor accident claims, bank recovery, cheque dishonour, matrimonial matters or compoundable offences.
• A low-cost process without court fees is required.
• The parties want the settlement recorded as a formal award having the status of a civil court decree.
• Speedy disposal through a legal services authority is considered more suitable.

Conclusion

Mediation and Lok Adalat are settlement-oriented mechanisms, but they operate differently. Mediation is a confidential and flexible process in which a mediator assists parties in negotiating a voluntary settlement. Lok Adalat is a statutory forum that records compromise through an award treated as a civil court decree.

Mediation is generally suitable where privacy, detailed negotiations and continuing relationships are important. Lok Adalat is particularly useful where parties require an affordable, speedy and formally enforceable settlement. The nature of the dispute, stage of proceedings, required confidentiality and intended legal effect of the outcome determine which mechanism is more appropriate.