Revision summary
Lok Adalat is a Legal Services Authorities Act forum: conciliation, award as a decree, generally no appeal. It hears civil matters and compoundable criminal cases, not non-compoundable crime. Arbitration is contractual under the 1996 Act: civil-commercial disputes, Section 34 challenge, no criminal trial. Booz Allen and Vidya Drolia mark what cannot be sent to a private tribunal. Permanent Lok Adalats for public utilities are a statutory hybrid, still not private arbitration. The working distinction is public compromise at little cost versus paid private adjudication.
Model answer
Introduction
Lok Adalats and arbitration tribunals both sit outside the regular civil court queue. They are not twins. One is a statutory, conciliatory public forum under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The other is a consensual private court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. What they may hear, including crime, follows from that difference.
Body
Lok Adalat
A Lok Adalat is a Legal Services Authority sitting, not a hired private bench.
- Peg: Article 39A and the 1987 Act authorise Authorities to organise Lok Adalats of sitting or retired judges and other persons.
- Peg: The method is compromise; if parties agree, the award is a civil court decree, generally not appealable, though a fresh suit on limited grounds can remain.
- Peg: If they do not agree, the case goes back to the parent court; there is no forced private verdict.
- Peg: Permanent Lok Adalats for public-utility services can decide some matters on merits if conciliation fails — a statutory hybrid, still not private arbitration.
Arbitration tribunals
Arbitration exists only if the parties have a contract to arbitrate.
- Peg: Parties choose the seat, the rules and the arbitrators under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Peg: The dispute must be arbitrable; Booz Allen and Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading keep criminal guilt, matrimonial status, insolvency and some tenancy and trust disputes out because they affect the public or third parties.
- Peg: The award binds the parties; challenge is a Section 34 set-aside petition, not a full appeal on facts.
- Peg: Consumer and labour forums have their own statutes; they are not arbitral tribunals unless a statute says so.
Civil and criminal coverage
The criminal question is answered by compoundability, not by the word “tribunal”.
- Peg: Lok Adalats routinely take civil claims — money, partition, agreed matrimonial settlements, motor-accident compensation, bank recovery — and may take only compoundable criminal offences.
- Peg: Murder, rape and other non-compoundable felonies cannot be bargained away in a Lok Adalat.
- Peg: An arbitral tribunal does not try a criminal charge or convict; a parallel prosecution may go on, but the award cannot replace a criminal court.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD D[Dispute] --> L[Lok Adalat 1987] D --> A[Arbitration 1996] L --> C[Civil plus compoundable crime] A --> P[Civil commercial] L --> F[Award as decree] A --> S[Section 34 set-aside]
Conclusion
Lok Adalats settle civil and compoundable criminal matters by consent under the 1987 Act. Arbitration decides civil-commercial disputes by agreement under the 1996 Act. Neither is a criminal court for non-compoundable offences.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2020 · Q12). View answer →
-
Can a rape or murder case go to Lok Adalat?
No. Those offences are not compoundable. A Lok Adalat cannot quash that prosecution by compromise.
-
Is a Permanent Lok Adalat an arbitral tribunal?
No. It is a statutory public-utility body under the 1987 Act, with a limited power to decide if conciliation fails.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2020 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities. -
2019 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of 'checks and balance'? Explain. -
2018 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India. (15). -
2015 · Q5 · GS II · 12 marks
Resorting to ordinances has always raised concern on violation of the spirit of separation of power doctrine. While noting the rationales justifying the power to promulgate, analyse whether the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue have further facilitated to resorting to this power. Should the power to promulgate the ordinances be repealed?
More from this topic
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2020 · GS II · 15 marks
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.
Separation of Powers
Indian separation of powers is checks and balances with a justiciable Part III, not a sealed legislative monopoly. Guidelines that mimic a statute sit uneasily with Article 245 if they become permanent. Vishaka and D.K. Basu justified PIL guidelines as interim rights protection until Parliament or the executive acted. Volume of PILs tracks executive failure on police, environment and welfare as much as judicial overreach. Justification holds only if courts retreat when a competent law occupies the field and throw out frivolous petitions.
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2019 · GS II · 10 marks
Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of 'checks and balance'? Explain.
Separation of Powers
India does not follow a rigid American separation of powers. Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) treated the Cabinet as part of a parliamentary legislature. Articles 13, 32 and 226, charged judicial salaries, and a hard removal process are mutual checks. Kesavananda and Minerva Mills keep judicial review inside the basic structure. The design is checks and balances, not sealed branches.
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2018 · GS II · 15 marks
How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India. (15).
Separation of Powers
Tribunals divert original disputes from ordinary courts but cannot oust High Court judicial review. Articles 323A and 323B give Parliament (and in 323B, States where listed) power to create tribunals. L. Chandra Kumar (1997) held Articles 32, 226 and 227 to be basic structure; tribunals are courts of first instance. Sampath Kumar and the Madras Bar Association line require court-like independence. Competency exists; exclusion of constitutional courts does not.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.