Keywords: Lok Adalat, award, Legal Services Authorities Act
ABSTRACT
The Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 was enacted in response to a formal and lengthy process of justice delivery system and case pendency, with the purpose of providing free and competent legal services to the disadvantaged parts of society. Its mission is to ensure that no citizen is denied access to justice due to financial or other constraints. Lok Adalat is a radical step in the administration of justice. Lok-Adalat has represented a human-sensitive forum that provides amicable, quick, and affordable justice by using an informal procedures and avoiding formalities. The purpose of this article is to explain the nature of awards of the Lok-Adalats in India. The current work details the award of a Lok-Adalat and it’s relation with Judicial Review.
INTRODUCTION (NATURE OF AWARD)
Lok Adalats do not have adjudicatory or judicial powers. The Lok Adalats are ambulatory in nature and can assist the court in resolving disputes. Their functions are only related to conciliation. The Lok Adalat’s ‘award’ does not imply any independent conclusion or opinion reached via any decision-making process. The award is simply an administrative act of combining the conditions of settlement or compromise agreed upon by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat in the form of an executable order under the Lok Adalat’s signature and seal.
The Lok Adalat shall continue and dispose of the matter, as well as reach a compromise or settlement, in accordance with legal principles, equity, and natural justice. Ultimately, the Lok Adalat passes an award, and every such award is deemed to be a decree of Civil Court or as the case may be. The Lok Adalat is thus awarded in a non-adversarial manner. Every Lok Adalat award is regarded to be a Civil Court judgement, and it is final and binding on all parties to the dispute. It is also not appealable.
In PT Thomas v. Thomas Job, it was decided that the Lok Adalat award is the Court’s decision, even if it was reached through the simper technique of conciliation rather than the process of arguments in Court. It is final, permanent, and comparable to the executable degree, and it marks the conclusion of the parties’ dispute.
The Lok Adalat award is likewise made with the cooperation of the parties and is considered a Civil Court degree. As a result, there will be no appeal from the Lok Adalat award. Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is noteworthy in this regard. It states that ‘no appeal shall lie from a decree made by the court with the parties’ cooperation. Similarly, Section 21 (2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 states that “any decision rendered by a Lok Adalat will be final and binding on all parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.” This aids in avoiding unneeded delays caused by appeals and review procedures.
However, if the Lok Adalat does not make an award on the basis of compromise or settlement between the parties, the matter is returned to the Court that referred it, or the parties are instructed to seek relief in a Court, as the case may be. The distinction between Lok Adalat and normal Court procedures may be seen here. Each case has a winner and a loser, and whether a case is won or lost in a court of law does not affect the mentality of the litigants. They remain enemies and continue to battle in appeal after appeal. However, Lok Adalat can assist parties modify their ways. It allows a matter or disagreement to be resolved in a single venue and stage. This fosters societal unity and honesty.
AWARD OF LOK ADALAT SHALL BE FINAL
The Lok Adalat will pass the award with the parties’ permission, therefore there is no need to reexamine or review the subject again and again, since the Lok Adalat’s award will be final. Even though Section 96(3) of the Civil Procedure Code states that “no appeal shall lie from a decree made by the Court with the cooperation of the parties.” The Lok Adalat award is an order made by the Lok Adalat with the cooperation of the parties, and it is believed to be a decision of the Civil Court; hence, an appeal from the Lok Adalat award is barred by Section 96(3) CPC According to Section 21, the Lok Adalat award is regarded to be a Civil Court judgement and is final and binding on all parties to the dispute. It is also final against the court, and the court that referred the matter to Lok-Adalat cannot become functus officio in deciding the case after the Lok Adalat verdict. As a result, under the terms of the Act, an award made by a statutory court operated by any of the agencies cannot be challenged using the usual remedies provided under the law, including Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. While adding the rational of the finality in the nature for the award of the Lok-Adalat Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when submitting an appeal, the provisions of the Act shall prevail, and an appeal would not lie within the terms of Section 96 CPC. Lok Adalat is run by an independent enactment, and once the award is made by Lok Adalat, the right of appeal is governed by the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, unless it has been specifically barred under Section 21(2), in which case no appeal can be filed against the award under Section 96 CPC. The Court went on to say, “It may further be noted that the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for an appeal under Section 96(3) against a consent decree. The Civil Procedure Code further states that once a consent decree is issued by a Civil Court, it has finality connected to it. Such finality cannot be destroyed, particularly under the Legal Services Authorities Act, as it would amount to defeating the entire purpose and goal of the Act, and so we hold that the appeal filed is not maintainable. The Supreme Court confirmed the same observation in the P. T. Thomas case, as mentioned above.
The Lok-Adalat judgment’s finality provision is founded on two grounds. First, as agreed, and then against, pursuant to the estoppels concept. The Lok-decision Adalat’s is declared final based on agreed consent and so based on the estoppel principle. A judgement by consent or default has the same impact on the parties as a decision in which the court exercises its mind on a contentious case. A decision rendered by consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the parties as a judgement rendered by the Court in a contentious matter.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court said, “The award is enforceable as a decree and it is final.” The goal in all fours is to narrow down the disagreements and reach a final settlement so that the parties are not forced into additional litigation or conflict. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not the result of a merits contest, it is as equal and on par with a compromise decree and will have the same binding effect and conclusive effect. Just as the compromise decree cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the award of the Lok Adalat, being akin to the same, cannot be challenged by any regular remedies available under law, including invoking Article 22. Judicial review cannot be sought in such cases, particularly on the grounds asserted in this writ petition.
Similarly, the estopel principle operates in the compromised and agreed-upon order of Lok-adalat. Concerning the estoppels plea, the Judicial Committee stated in ‘Kinch v. Walvott’: To begin with, their Lordships make it clear that the fact that the order in the libel case that is purported to raise the estoppel allegation was a consent order is of no benefit to the appellant. For this purpose, an order issued by consent that is not dismissed by mutual agreement and remains unreduced is as effective as an order made by the Court that is not made by consent and is not discharged on appeal.
AWARD OF LOK ADALAT AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
One of the goals of Lok Adalat is to settle ongoing court issues by talks, conciliation, and the use of convincing common sense and a humanitarian attitude to the disputants’ concerns. This can assist in resolving conflicts quickly and reducing the strain on the courts. According to the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987, Lok Adalat determines the subject by consent or compromise, and there is no need to rethink or review the matter repeatedly.
However, the right of judicial review is not barred in such a circumstance and is inherent in the Indian Constitution unless specifically denied by the provisions of the act itself. It is claimed here that there is always the option of filing a writ petition to dispute the award if there is any substantial irregularity. While negotiating consent or a compromise, there is always the danger of fraud, deceit, coercion, and so on. In Lok Adalat procedures, such an occurrence cannot be ruled out.
As a result, in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhav v. State of Gujarat, it was held that if a Lok Adalat exceeds its powers, commits an error of law, violates the principles of natural justice, or abuses its powers, the award passed by it cannot be tolerated and will justify court intervention under Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution. In terms of appeal and judicial review in the case of Permanent Lok Adalat, the situation is different since there is no mechanism for appeal but it is also not expressly precluded by the provisions of the Act. However, in this case, the Permanent Lok Adalat takes on the function of an adjudicator rather than an arbitrator whose award may be challenged. The Parliament has delegated decision-making authority to the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Unless specifically denied by a provision of the Constitution, the authority of judicial review is inherent in the Constitution. The High Court’s ability to seek judicial review under Article 226 against a Lok Adalat order is limited to circumstances when the order is completely arbitrary and unjustified. Hence, the parties can always seek judicial review through writ petitions. This is a fundamental component (part of the basic structure) of the Indian Constitution and cannot be ruled out. It would be unjust and unjustified to deny it. The judiciary’s attitude is to promote justice. Because allowing appeals from Lok Adalat awards would undermine the whole goal of providing simple and quick justice. However, by reserving the authority of judicial review, the court may check any arbitrariness in Lok Adalat operation.
The court, however, stated unequivocally that there is not as much room for reconsideration of the Lok-award. Adalat’s Particularly, no remedy is available under section 96 (3) of the C.P.C., 1908, and because the Legal Services Authorities Statute, 1987 is special legislation, the remedy must be sought under that act rather than procedural law. Such an award can only be contested and reviewed in certain circumstances. The Lok-Adalat’s decision is available to contest and subject to judicial review for:
- Deception and misrepresentation
- Absence of free consent, absence of parities or any parties, or improper consent
- By force or pressing the parties to submit the case to Lok- Adalat by Court
- No dispute existed between the parties for resolving or settling
- Endangered the minor’s interests
- Completely arbitrary and unreasonable
- If the award is found to be made without the parties entering into settlement willingly, out of their own free choice.
- Ex-parte or ex-facie judgments devoid of compromise and resolution.
- The production of a Succession Certificate does not constitute consent.
- If the parties are not heard in the case.
- Errors in procedure
- Concerning a non-compoundable offence
- Lacks jurisdiction and violates the ideals of justice, equality, and fair play.
- If the court exceeds its authority in referring the issue to Lok- Adalat
CONCLUSION
Lok Adalat is not a Bench Court or a legislative body with the authority to adjudicate or arbitrate. In the first case, it is intended to serve as a mediator. Lok-Adalat has represented a human-sensitive forum that delivers amicable, rapid, and economical justice by minimising formality and employing informal methods. The Lok Adalat award is final and permanent, equal to an executable decree, and marks the end of the parties’ case. It is binding on all parties involved. However, the parties’ consent must be unambiguous, agreed upon, and free of fraud and deception.
Although the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act are intended to make Lok Adalat awards reached through compromise or settlement between parties to a dispute final, and remedies of appeal, review, and revision against Lok Adalat awards are not available under law, because Lok Adalat is a tribunal of special nature, the remedy to recall the order/award passed by Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake of fact cannot be held to be barred under law. Similarly, awards made by Lok Adalats organised or established under the Act cannot be held immune from judicial review because the High Court, under has ample superintendence over decisions of all courts or tribunals throughout the territories over which it exercises jurisdiction; thus, orders passed or awards made by Lok Adalats organised or established under the Act within the territorial limits of the High Court are subject to judicial review. The Lok-Adalat award cannot be appealed on the grounds specified in other laws.
