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
-
"The growth of cabinet system has practkally resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy." Elucidate.
Next question in the 2024 paper (Q3). 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 paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees, with particular reference to "one nation - one election" principle.
Indian Constitution
Tarkunde, Goswami, Law Commission 170/255 and the Election Commission have long asked for ceilings on party spend, faster petitions, and inner-party democracy. Candidate spend is capped; party spend is not, which is why money still dominates the poll. ADR disclosure and Lily Thomas reduced opacity and the conviction cushion; they did not end criminalisation. ONOE, as framed by the Kovind committee, promises one Model Code freeze, lower cost and less policy freeze. Federal cost: truncated Assemblies, President’s Rule risk, and nationalisation of State polls. Simultaneity is not a substitute for audited party finance and a statutory Code. Reform that works is a package, not a single polling date.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
"The growth of cabinet system has practkally resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy." Elucidate.
Parliament and State Legislatures
Articles 74–75 keep the Cabinet responsible to the Lok Sabha; that is the legal core of parliamentary government. Whips and the Tenth Schedule, ordinances and money-bill classification have moved real initiation to the Cabinet. This is practical marginalisation of the floor, not a legal repeal of Parliament. PAC, standing committees, Rajya Sabha and the floor test still bite. Keisham Meghachandra pressed Speakers to decide disqualification on a clock. A narrower anti-defection law would restore some of the supremacy the quote says is lost. The examiner’s misspelling does not change the demand: show practice squeezing text, not text dying.
Q4 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
"The duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General is not merely to ensure the legality of expenditure but also its propriety." Comment.
Governance and Policy
Articles 148–151 and the 1971 Act make the CAG the Union and State auditor. Legality is sanction, appropriation and rule-compliance. Propriety and performance audit test waste and value for money even when vouchers are valid. PAC is the parliamentary partner; major performance reports mixed both functions. Indian audit is overwhelmingly after the spend, so the report must sting. The CAG cannot convict or make policy; it can still refuse to be a mere notary.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.