Health is a vital indicator of human development and human development is the basic ingredient of economic and social development. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease. The right to health for all people means that everyone should have access to the health services they need, when and where they need them, without suffering financial hardship. No one should get sick and die just because they are poor, or because they cannot access the health services they need. Good health is also clearly determined by other basic human rights including access to safe drinking water and sanitation, nutritious foods, adequate housing, education and safe working conditions. Everyone has the right to privacy and to be treated with respect and dignity. Nobody should be subjected to medical experimentation, forced medical examination, or given treatment without informed consent. The Indian Constitution has granted certain fundamental rights to its citizen under part III of it these rights play an important role with reference to the health and health care.

In CESC Ltd. v. Subash Chandra Bose, AIR 1992 SC 573 case, the Supreme Court relied on international instruments and concluded that right to health is a fundamental right. It went further and observed that health is not merely absence of sickness: “The term health implies more than an absence of sickness. Medical care and health facilities not only protect against sickness but also ensure stable manpower for economic development. Facilities of health and medical care generate devotion and dedication to give the workers’ best, physically as well as mentally, in productivity. It enables the worker to enjoy the fruit of his labour, to keep him physically fit and mentally alert for leading a successful economic, social and cultural life. The medical facilities are, therefore, part of social security and like gilt edged security, it would yield immediate return in the increased production or at any rate reduce absenteeism on grounds of sickness, etc. Health is thus a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

Constitutional Provisions:

There is no direct mention of the “Right of Health” in the Constitution. But Article 21 refers to right to life which includes living with a good Health. In a leading case, the Supreme Court held that the right to life implies the right to live healthy life. The Constitution of India not only provides for the health care of the people but also directs the state to take necessary measures to improve the condition of health of the people. Though the provisions enshrined under this part have no direct link with the healthcare, however from various judicial interpretations it has been established that the intention of the legislature were there to cover the health as a right of the citizens.

Fundamental Rights:

Article 14:

Article 14 speaks about equality before law where the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article 15:

Article 15 contains provisions for a particular application of the general principle of ‘equality of treatment’ embodied in Article 14. It prohibits discrimination against citizens on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Even nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children for their betterment of life.

Article 19(1)(g):

According to Article 19 (1) (g) all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or business subject to restrictions imposed in the interest of general public under clause (6) of Article 19. 

In Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1998 Cal 121 case, the Supreme Court held that Article 19 (1) (g) does not guarantee the freedom which takes away that community’s safety, health and peace.

Article 21:

According to Article 21 of the Constitution of India “no person shall be deprived of his/her life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution has been generously deciphered to mean something more than only human presence and incorporates the right to live with nobility and conventionality. The use of word ‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution has a lot more extensive importance which includes human nobility, the right to livelihood, right to health, right to pollution free air, and so forth.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 case, Bhagwati, J. observed: “This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and Particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42.” Since the Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable in a Court of law, it may not be possible to compel the State through judicial process to make provision by statutory enactment or executive fiat for ensuring these basic essentials which go on to ensure a life of human dignity.

In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37  case, while widening the scope of Article 21 and the government’s responsibility to provide medical aid to every person in the country, the Apex Court held that in a welfare state, the primary duty of the government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an obligation undertaken by the government in a welfare state. The government discharges this obligation by providing medical care to the persons seeking to avail of those facilities.

In Unnikrishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178 case, the Court held that the maintenance and improvement of public health is the duty of the State to fulfill its constitutional obligations cast on it under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In the State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, AIR 1997 SC1225 case, the Court held that-the right to life ensured under Article 21 incorporates inside its ambit the right to health and clinical consideration. 

in Consumer Education and Research Center v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922 case, the Supreme Court held that right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour of a worker while in service or postretirement is a fundamental right under Article 21. 

In Parmananda Katara Vs Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039 case, the apex court held that every doctor is bound to provide medical aid to the victims irrespective of the cause of injury; he cannot take any excuse of allowing law to take its course. Hence, if now a doctor refuses treatment, in case of emergency, he/she could be sued under the law. Once the doctor accepts the case and starts treatment, then the doctor-patient relationship is established. The Court further stated that preservation of health is of paramount importance. Once life is lost it cannot be restored. Hence, it is the duty of doctors to preserve life without any kind of discrimination.

Article 32:

Under Article 32 of the Constitution, any person whose fundamental rights are violated can approach the Supreme Court for restoration of his fundamental right. Similarly, under Article 226 of the Constitution, any person whose fundamental rights are violated can approach High Court of respective State for restoration of his fundamental right.

Directive Principles:

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution of India, require the state to, among other duties.

Article 38:

Article 38 provides that, “the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice– — social, economic and political, shall inform all the institution of the national life”. Thus, a constitutional liability is imposed on state that the State will secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people including public health because without public health welfare of people is practically meaningless.

Article 39:

Article 39 enjoins upon the State that (i) that the health and strength of workers and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength and (ii) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

In Lakshami Kant Pandey v. Union of India, 1987 AIR 232 case, Bhagawati, J. while delivering the opinion of the court observed that: “It is obvious that in civilized society the importance of child welfare cannot be overemphasized because the welfare of the entire community, its growth and development depends upon the health and well-being of its children. Children are a „supremely important national asset and the future well-being of the nation depends on how its children grow and develop.”

 In Sheela Barse v. Union of India, 1986 SCALE (2) 230 case, the Supreme Court held that “A child is a national asset and therefore, it is the duty of the State to look after the child with a view to ensuring full development of its Personality.”

Article 41:

Article 41 deals with right to work, education and public assistance in certain cases and thus imposed duty on the State to public assistance basically for those who are old, sick and disable. This Article specifically says that “the state shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provisions for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in case of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want”. Their implications in relation to health are obvious.

In Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Orissa, AIR 1997 Ori 37 case, the Court held that in a country like ours, it may not be possible to have sophisticated hospitals but definitely villagers within their limitations can aspire to have a Primary Health Centre. The government is required to assist people, get treatment and lead a healthy life. Thereby, there is an implication that the enforcing of the right to life is a duty of the state and that this duty covers the providing of right to primary health care.

Article 42:

Article 42 provides for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief and gives the power to the State for making provisions in this regard, which implies that this Article is intended to protect the health of infants and mothers by providing maternity benefit.

In U.P.S.E. Board v. Harishankar, AIR 1980 SC 65 case, the Supreme Court held that Article 42 provides the basis of the larger body of labour law in India. Further referring to Article 42 and 43, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Constitution expresses a deep concern for the welfare of the workers. The Court may not enforce the Directive Principles as such, but they must interpret law so as to further and not hinder the goal set out in the Directive Principles. 

In P Sivaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1863 case, the Supreme Court held that Article 42 of the Constitution makes it the obligation of the State to make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work. There are several Articles in Part IV of the Constitution which indicate that it is the State’s obligation to create a social atmosphere befitting human dignity for citizens to live in.

Article 43:

Article 43 lays down that alia that the State must endeavour to secure a decent standard of life to all workers.

Article 45:

Article 45 lays down that the State must endeavour to provide any childhood care and education to all children under the age of six years.

Article 47:

Article 47 imposes duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. It categorically provides that “the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”

In Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 994 case, the Court stated that “maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high as these are indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends, the building of the society of which the Constitution makers envisaged. Attending to public health, in our opinion, therefore is of high priority perhaps the one at the top”. The Supreme Court while interpreting Article 47 has rightly stated that public health is to be protected for the betterment of the society. Further it has been held that, in this welfare era raising the level of nutrition and improvement in standard of living of the people are primary duties of the State.

Article 48A:

Article 48A ensures that State shall endeavour to protect and impose the pollution free environment for good health.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Writ Petition (civil) 13029 of 1985 Case, the Court held that, “Art 39 (a), 47 and 48-A by themselves and collectively cast a duty on the State to secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the environment”

In Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 577 case, the Supreme Court held that environmental, ecological, air and water pollution, etc., should be regarded as amounting to violation of right to health guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Fundamental Duties:

Article 51A:

Article 51 A (g) under Part IV – A of the Constitution says that “it shall be the duties of every individual to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.”

Euthanasia:

Euthanasia is described as the deliberate and intentional killing of a person for the benefit of that person in order to relieve him from pain and suffering. The term ‘Euthanasia’ is derived from the Greek words which literally means “good death” (Eu= Good; Thanatos=Death). Euthanasia is defined as the act of bringing the death of a person (patient) for the purpose of relieving the patient’s intolerable and incurable suffering. Typically, the physician’s motive is merciful and intended to end suffering. In voluntary euthanasia, a consent from the patient is taken. In non-voluntary euthanasia, the consent of patient is unavailable due to some reason.

In active euthanasia, the death of patient is brought directly by giving him a lethal dose of poisonous drug. In passive euthanasia, the life supporting system to the patient is discontinued and ultimately patient dies. In Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, the Supreme Court opposed active euthanasia but has given nod to passive euthanasia.

Conclusion:

From the above discussion, it is evident that right to life also includes right to health and therefore the state and its instruments, are duty bound to provide health care facilities and services to all its citizens without any discrimination. The Constitution also stipulates certain duties for the citizens towards contributing to the promotion of health in the country.

For More Topics in Medical Jurisprudence Click Here

The post Right to Health in the Constitution appeared first on The Fact Factor.

Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR refers to an assortment of dispute resolution procedures that primarily serve as alternatives to litigation and are generally conducted with the assistance of a neutral and independent third party. In this article, we shall introduce ourselves with Arbitration. ADR processes are conducted with the assistance of an ADR neutral, who is an unbiased, independent, and impartial third party not connected with the dispute, and helps the disputant parties to resolve their disputes by the use of the well-established dispute resolution processes. Arbitration, Conciliation, Mediation, Negotiation, and Lok Adalats are different methods of ADR. In this article, we shall study arbitration and arbitration tribunal.

Arbitration:

Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute. In choosing arbitration, the parties opt for a private dispute resolution procedure instead of going to court. The decision given by the arbitral tribunal is called an award. In India, the procedure of arbitration is regulated by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Arbitration Tribunal:

Chapter III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lays down the arrangements for the Composition of an Arbitral Tribunal. 

Number of Arbitrators:

Section 10(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives provision for the number of arbitrators in the arbitration tribunal. The parties to the dispute are allowed to mutually choose the number of arbitrators that shall establish the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the dispute. It is, in any case, necessary that the number of arbitrators appointed shall be an odd number and not an even. This provision guarantees that there are no ties.

According to Section 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if the parties to the dispute are unable to choose the number of arbitrators, in that case, just a single arbitrator shall be appointed.

Nationality of Arbitrator:

Section 11(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a person of any nationality may be an arbitrator unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

Procedure to Appoint Arbitrator:

According to Section 11(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties are free to agree on the procedure of appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators.

According to Section 11(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if parties fail to appoint arbitrator as specified in Section 10 clause 2, then each party shall appoint one arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as the presiding arbitrator.

Rule 22 of the Rules of Arbitration gives that if the value of the claim made under arbitration is One Crore or less, a solitary arbitrator can resolve the dispute if the parties agree to it. In cases where the claim to the dispute surpasses one Crore, the arbitral tribunal shall be made out of three arbitrators with the agreement of the parties.

Challenge to the Appointment of Arbitrator:

Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the circumstances in which the appointment of an arbitrator can be challenged.

1. Circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality on account of any past or present relationship with or interest in any of the parties or in relation to the subject matter in dispute, whether financial, business, professional or other kinds, or
2. He has no time due to his present or future assignments which is likely to affect his ability to devote sufficient time to the arbitration and in particular their ability to complete the entire arbitration within a period of twelve months.
3. He does not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties.
4. The arbitrator falls in a category mentioned in the Seventh Schedule of the Act
5. The fifth schedule to the Act gives grounds that give justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the arbitrator.

The arbitrator has to inform parties about the circumstances mentioned above from time to time throughout the proceeding. A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made.

Requisite Qualifications of Arbitrator:

• The arbitrator must have requisite qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed in the arbitration agreement.
• The arbitrator should possess all the required capacity by law to assume the office of the arbitrator.
• H must be a person of the general reputation of fairness, integrity, and capable of applying objectivity in arriving at settlement in the dispute.
• The arbitrator should be free from any bias
• The arbitrator must be free from any connection with parties and the subject matter.

Reasons for Termination of Mandate of Arbitrator:

Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governs the situation of termination of the mandate of the arbitrator because of his failure to act. The grounds for termination of the mandate under Section 14 are as follows:

• The arbitrator becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his function.
• For some other reasons fails to act without undue delay
• The arbitrator withdraws from office.
• The parties agree to the termination of his authority as an arbitrator.

The arbitrator becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his function:

De Jure refers to an arbitrator’s legal incapacity to perform his functions under the law and relates to circumstances under which the arbitrator by law is barred from continuing in office. For example: if an arbitrator becomes bankrupt or convicted for a criminal offence, then he becomes de jure unable to adjudicate the case. De Facto refers to factual inability. It relates to a factual happening during the process of arbitration. For example: if the arbitrator falls seriously ill or has some physical incapacity, then he becomes de facto unable to perform his function.

For some other reasons fails to act without undue delay:

In situations where the arbitrator is taking too long to adjudicate the dispute, this provision shall apply. If the arbitrator takes too long to even conduct the first hearing, let alone adjudication of the case; the parties can resort to this provision to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator.

The arbitrator withdraws from office:

For the reasons suitable to the arbitrator, if he withdraws from office, then automatically his mandate is terminated. This can happen because of various reasons and the arbitrator is not bound to give a detailed explanation of the same.

The parties agree to the termination of his authority as an arbitrator

If one of the parties wants removal of the arbitrator, then they must approach the court for the same. However, if both the parties agree to remove the arbitrator, then they can do so pursuant to making an agreement under section 15(1)(b) and terminate the mandate of the arbitrator. A party singularly does not have the power to revoke the authority of the arbitrator. But both/all parties in the agreement can do the same and do not need to approach the court to enforce the termination.

Procedure of Termination of Mandate of Arbitrator:

An arbitrator’s mandate can be terminated:

• by the arbitrator (by recusing themselves from the arbitral tribunal);
• by the parties;
• by the arbitral tribunal;
• by a court order;
• on the death of the arbitrator; or
• because of the arbitrator’s physical incapacity to proceed with the mandate.

If the situation falls within any of the grounds mentioned under section 14, then the party willing to terminate the mandate must approach the Court. An application for removing the arbitrator may be made to the court in whose jurisdiction the contract was executed, or subject matter of the work was performed, or within whose jurisdiction the office of the arbitrator was situated. The power to remove an arbitrator by the court is discretionary in nature. Every application to the court under section 14 is not supposed to be ruled in the affirmative. There might be situations where the court does not feel the need to remove the arbitrator. If the conditions mentioned under section 14 are satisfied, then it is imperative for the court to remove the arbitrator.

However, if both the parties agree to remove the arbitrator, then they can do so pursuant to making an agreement under section 15(1)(b) and terminate the mandate of the arbitrator. A party singularly does not have the power to revoke the authority of the arbitrator. But both/all parties in the agreement can do the same and do not need to approach the court to enforce the termination.

Substitution of Arbitrator:

If termination of mandate of Arbitrator is done under Section 13 or 14 of the Act, he shall be substituted. The procedure of substitution is laid down in Section 15 of the Act. Section 15(2) of the 1996 act allows for arbitrators to be substituted if their mandate has been terminated.

Where the mandate of arbitrator terminates, a substitute shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where the arbitrator is replaced under subsection 2, any hearing previously held may be repeated at the discretion of arbitral tribunal.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an order of ruling of the arbitral tribunal made prior to the replacement of an arbitrator under section shall not be invalid solely because there is a change in the composition of arbitral tribunal.

Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal:

Chapter IV of the Act contains Sections 16 and 17 that deal with the jurisdiction of an arbitration tribunal. Section 16 of the Act deals with the Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction and conveys that the arbitral tribunal has the independence of choosing its own jurisdiction and freedom from the interference of courts regarding any matter related to arbitration.

Section 16– Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction:

The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement and for this purpose,

(a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract when it’s validity is challenged before the tribunal.

(b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not mean that the arbitration clause invalid.

If there is a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction, it cannot be raised after the submission of the statement of defence. Even an arbitrator may raise such a plea. However, if there is any delay and if such a delay is justified, the arbitral tribunal may admit a later plea according to sub section 4 of section 16 of the Act.

A plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings. The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to above and, where the arbitral tribunal takes a decision rejecting the plea, it shall continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. A party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with section 34 of the Act which deals with ‘Application for setting aside arbitral award’.

Power of Arbitration Tribunal to Order Interim Measures:

Section 17 of the Act deals with arbitral tribunal’ power to order interim measures.

A party may, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced apply to the arbitral tribunal for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings or as an interim measure of protection in any of the following matters;

(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;

(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;

(c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken, or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;

(d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;

(e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the arbitral tribunal to be just and convenient.

The arbitral tribunal shall have the same power for making orders, as the court has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.

Powers of Arbitral Tribunal:

• The arbitrator has a power to administer an oath to the parties. It is necessary for him to act as a quasi-judicial authority
• Power to take interim measures
• According to section 25, an arbitrator has an power to proceed to ex-parte
• Power to appoint an expert
• Power to make awards

Duties of Arbitral Tribunal:

• To fix a time and place for arbitration, which is convenient to the parties
• Duty to disclose
• Duty to efficiently resolve the dispute
• Duty to determine the rules for the procedure

Reasons to Terminate Mandate of Arbitral Panel:

1. The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party.
2. The arbitrator currently represents or advises one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.
3. The arbitrator currently represents the lawyer or law firm acting as counsel for one of the parties.
4. The arbitrator is a lawyer in the same law firm which is representing one of the parties.
5. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration.
6. The arbitrator’s law firm had a previous but terminated involvement in the case without the arbitrator being involved himself or herself.

Distinguishing Between Section 9 and 17 of the Act.

Click Here for More Articles on Civil Laws

Click Here For More Articles on Alternate Dispute Resolution

The post Arbitration Tribunal (Sections 10-17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act) appeared first on The Fact Factor.

There is a famous proverb “where there are two minds there will be three opinions”. Everybody has their own opinion and views, hence there may be a conflict of opinions. In today’s society, such conflicts are inevitable and a quick, easy, and strong mechanism for resolution of such conflicts at minimum cost is need of time. Such a mechanism reduces the burden on the judiciary. Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation, Negotiations, Lok Adalats are some methods which can be used in such situations. These methods are collectively known as the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) System.

Arbitration:

Arbitration is an ADR procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute. In choosing arbitration, the parties opt for a private dispute resolution procedure instead of going to court. The decision given by the arbitral tribunal is called an award. In India, the procedure of arbitration is regulated by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Advantages of Arbitration:

• Liberty to Choose Arbitrator: The parties to the dispute usually agree on the arbitrator, so the arbitrator will be someone that both sides have confidence will be impartial and fair.
• Expert Arbitrator: Unlike in a court trial, where the judge or jury may know very little about the subject matter of the dispute, the parties to the arbitration have the ability to select an arbitrator with expertise in a certain area, which may lead to a more equitable and informed decision.
• Flexibility: There are lesser formalities in arbitration than in the traditional judicial system.
• Speed: As the parties have been given the freedom to determine the procedure, time, and place for the settlement of the dispute, it saves a lot of time compared to traditional courts.
•  Less cost: Traditional Court system is strictly procedural, hence expensive. Arbitration saves a lot of money and cost.
• Privacy and Confidentiality: In arbitration, the process of dispute resolution is within four walls and only in presence of parties and experts.
• Finality: There is a very limited avenue for appeals.  In the case of arbitration because the grounds for challenging an arbitrator’s decision are severely limited by the Arbitration Act.
• Enforceability: The arbitral awards are enforceable which makes arbitration a binding process. Such awards are generally easier to enforce as compared to court verdicts.

Disadvantages of Arbitration:

• Inability to Appeal: There is a very limited avenue for appeals. As a general and practical rule, the arbitrator’s decision cannot be appealed.
• Lack of Formal Evidence: There is a lack of a formal evidence process. The parties have to rely on the skill and experience of the arbitrator to sort out the evidence, rather than a judge or jury.
• Mandatory Arbitration Contracts: Arbitration agreements are sometimes contained in ancillary agreements, or in small print in other agreements, and consumers and employees sometimes do not know in advance that they have agreed to mandatory binding pre-dispute arbitration by purchasing a product or taking a job.
• Possibility of Bias: Arbitrator is presumed to be neutral, impartial. It is also assumed that he has no personal interest in the subject matter before him. But considering human nature we can say that arbitrators may not be unbiased.
• No Interlocutory orders: The process does not provide for the grant of interlocutory measures against a party, making it easier for a party to take steps to avoid enforcement of an award, such as the relocation of assets offshore.
• Execution of Award: Arbitration awards are not directly enforceable; they are executable subject to judicial sanction. A party seeking to enforce an award must resort to judicial remedies.

Conciliation:

Conciliation is a process of persuading parties to reach settlement in existing and ongoing conflict with the help of third impartial party called conciliator with the to preserve the relationship they have with each other. There is no need of pre-agreement for starting the process of conciliation but acceptance to the process by both parties is necessary.

Advantages of Conciliation:

• It offers a more flexible alternative, for a wide variety of disputes, small as well as large;
• It obviates the parties from seeking recourse to the court system;
• No prior agreement is required.
• It reserves the freedom of the parties to withdraw from conciliation without prejudice to their legal position inter se at any stage of the proceedings;
• It is committed to maintenance of confidentiality throughout the proceedings and thereafter, of the dispute, the information exchanged, the offers and counter offers of solutions made and the settlement arrived at.
• It is cost-effective and produces quicker resolution of dispute.
• f) It facilitates the maintenance of continued relationship between the parties even after the settlement.
• There is no scope for corruption or bias.

Disadvantages of Conciliation:

• The process is not binding upon the parties to the dispute.
• There is no avenue for appeal.
• The parties may not achieve a settlement to their conflict.
• Parties may use it as a delay tactics

Mediation:

Mediation is a mode of dispute resolution, where an amicable decision arises with the help of a third party known as a ‘mediator,’ without recourse to the court of law.

Advantages of Mediation:

• Parties have complete control over the settlement.
• Less stress as compared to litigation and arbitration.
• The relationship between the parties isn’t overly damaged.
• Mediation proceedings are confidential.
• The process resolves the dispute quickly.

Disadvantages of Mediation:

• Since the decision is at the discretion of the parties, there is the possibility that a settlement between the parties may not arise.
• It lacks the support of any judicial authority in its conduct.
• The absence of formality- Mediation proceedings are lacking in any procedural formality since they are not based on any legal principle.
• The truth of an issue may not be revealed.
• There is lack of expertise in the issue of the dispute.

Negotiation:

Negotiation is a method of dispute resolution whereby a dispute between two individuals or groups is settled amicably by an impartial third person called as a negotiator, using different techniques. The negotiator, in this form of resolution, uses various communication methods to bring the parties of the dispute to a settlement.

Advantages of Negotiation:

• Flexibility: since negotiation is an informal process, it is relatively flexible.
• Quick resolutions as compared to litigation.
• It facilitates in maintaining a healthy relationship between the disputing parties.
• Takes place in a private environment

Disadvantages of Negotiation:

• The parties to the dispute may not come to a settlement.
• Lack of legal protection of the parties to the conflict.
• Imbalance of power between the parties is possible in negotiation.

Distinguishing Between Arbitration and Conciliation:

Distinguishing Between Mediation and Conciliation:

Conclusion:

ADR has distinct advantages and it offers a comparatively speedier and inexpensive mode of dispute resolution than conventional litigation. It offers a system with procedural flexibility, a broad range of remedial options, and a focus on individualized justice. The flexibility is available not only in terms of the procedure but also in terms of the solutions to the dispute. ADR, in contradistinction to a judicial adjudication, can provide creative solutions – novel ways of resolving disputes. ADR may not produce the result in each case but it will definitely be helpful in reducing the disputes. Therefore in a country like India, wherein, courts are overburdened with thousands of cases there is a strong case for enhanced use of ADR mechanism for resolution of some disputes.

Click Here for More Articles on Civil Laws

Click Here For More Articles on Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)

The post Comparative Study of Different Systems of ADR appeared first on The Fact Factor.