Litigation in India can be endless, as we often hear cases which are lingered on till years and years. It is the judiciary which plays an important role other than legislative and executives. Currently judiciary is overburden and having backlogs of Cores of cases and day by day it is increasing. And looking in the present times we all want Justice which is speedy, affordable, and effective. As Right to speedy trial is a Right to life and personal liberty to every citizen of India as it is mentioned in the Constitution of India. Timely disposal of cases is essential as it a fundamental right stated by the law of land also making the justice accessible. And as it is rightly said that ‘Justice delayed is Justice Denied’. In 129^th law commission it was proposed to make it obligatory for courts to refer disputes after framing of the issues to the methods of ADR, judicial settlement or Lok adalats. Alternative Depute Resolution (ADR) is an alternative mechanism of traditional process of dispute resolution. It is refers to a set of techniques and methods which resolve disputes outside courts in a more effective way and conciliation is one of the methods of ADR.

Conciliation:

Conciliation is a process which settle disputes without litigants. In this process in which individual person or persons are appointed by the parties with mutual consent by an agreement to arise upon a settlement of their dispute. It is a process of persuading parties to reach a settlement. Essential elements of conciliation are- confidence and trust. Conciliation is considered as an effective tool of ADR as it is often used for domestic as well as international dispute settlement. Conciliation is considered as an effective mechanism of the alternative dispute resolution because there is no need of formal agreement between the parties. Like in the other methods of ADR formal agreement is necessary for carrying out the proceedings. Moreover conciliation is chosen by many parties because of the privacy been provided by the act[1] i.e. if the amicable settlement in conciliation could not be reached then the evidence leaded, the proposals made to the parties cannot be disclosed in any other proceedings.

Conciliation is basically a non – binding procedure in which an impartial third party is appointed who assists the parties in reaching a mutual agreement for the settlement of their dispute. For the process of conciliation it is important that the parties must be brought together face to face so they can resolve dispute with the help of the conciliator and agree to a settlement. One important principle that why conciliation can be a preferred choice of the parties because in the other proceedings a presiding authority gives the judgement which is binding to the parties on the other hand in conciliation parties themselves arrive at a settlement through mutual agreement, conciliator just helps them in reaching the settlement, and does not act as a dictator. 

Principles of Conciliation:

1.   Impartial and Independence in nature:

According to the Section 67(1)[2] of the arbitration and conciliation act, a conciliator should be impartial and shall assist the parties in an independent manner and help the parties to reach the amicable settlement of their disputes.

2.    Just and Fair:

It is stated by the Section 67(2)[3] of the act that a conciliator should be guided by the principles of justice, fairness, and objectivity and should give equal importance to other major factors like the rights of the parties, circumstances and reasons due to which the dispute arose, obligations of the parties and their business relations.

3.    Confidential

The conciliator can only disclose the necessary information to the other party in regard for the settlement of the dispute. Other than that any information provided by any party from the two should be kept confidential by the conciliator. The parties and the conciliator are bound to keep all the information related to the conciliation proceeding confidential. This clause is mentioned in the Section 70[4] of the act.

 Disclosure of the Information:

When a conciliator receives any fact regarding the dispute from one of the party, he should disclose the fact to the other party which might help the conciliator to know the appropriate explanation from the other regarding same. This provision is mentioned in the Section 70 of the act.

Co-operation with the conciliator:

According to the Section 71[5] of the act parties should co-operate with the conciliator and shall act in good faith. The parties should comply with the terms conciliator asks them to like submitting of evidences, documents and attending meetings.

Procedure of Conciliation:

1.   Commencement of Conciliation proceedings:

Conciliators can be appointed by the parties on a mutual agreement or can appoint one conciliator each and the third conciliator can be appointed by mutual agreement. While appointing conciliator it should be noted that the person has the required knowledge in the field in which the dispute has arisen. He can be an expert on the subject matter of the dispute. According to section 62[6] of the act, the conciliation proceedings are initiated by one party by sending a written invitation to conciliate. The invitation should contain the clear information about the dispute aroused. And the conciliation proceedings are started when the other party accepts the invitation. If the other party rejects the invitation then the proceedings does not take place. If the party who sends the invitation does not receive a reply by the other party within 30 days from the date he has sent the invitation or in the time mentioned in the invitation the he can elect to treat this as rejection and inform other party according in writing.

2.   Submission of Statement to Conciliator:

In the Section 65[7] of the Act, it is stated that after the appointment of the conciliator, the conciliator may ask both the parties to submit a written document stating the basic facts of the disputes and the issues of each party, should submit the statements to the conciliator. The conciliator may further ask each party ton submit necessary evidence in support and any other additional information. The copies of these should be sent to the other parties as well.

3.  Conduct of Conciliation Proceedings:

According to sections 67(3)[8] and 69(1)[9] of the act, the conciliator may invite parties to meet him together or separately and may communicate with the parties orally or in writing. There are no hard and fast rules for the conciliator to conduct the proceedings of conciliation in a particular manner, he/ she can conduct them in any manner he/she considers appropriate. But he should take important factors into consideration like the wishes of the parties, circumstances of the disputes, and the party’s request of speedy proceedings should be heard.

4.   Administrative Assistance:

Section 68[10] of the act talks about the administrative assistance in which the parties with the conciliator may approach an institution or a person for the administrative assistance.

Advantages of conciliation as a dispute mechanism:

·    Conciliation is cost effective as compared to the other methods like litigation and arbitration as the conciliator generally prevents cost multiplication of actual cost.

·   The conciliator acts according to the whims and fancies of the parties including the need for speedy proceedings. This makes conciliation an excellent method of dispute settlement. Moreover the conciliator concludes the proceedings in a short span of time rather than dragging them for years and years.  

·   Conciliation is considered as a flexible process as the time, venue etc. can be managed according to the ease of parties.

·   Parties can withdraw from conciliation process at any stage of the process.[11]

·        Conciliation promotes satisfaction and harmony between the parties as both the parties agree to the proposal and creates a win – win situation for both parties which help them to retain their relations in the future. Unlike in the process of litigation and arbitration there is win- lose situation and the parties do not continue their relations in the future.

·  Unlike litigation conciliation is a process which is confidential in nature as it can be done behind a closed door rather than in an open court. Confidentiality in conciliation proceeding is a statutory guarantee.[12]

·   The settlement agreement drawn up in conciliation proceedings has the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award.[13] The settlement agreement in conciliation is executable as a decree of the civil court.[14]

Why conciliation method is not popular in India?

India lacks a system of federal courts and state courts, the courts established by the State Government administer both the state and central laws. They administer cases related to Concurrent list (list III) and Union list (list I) in the VII schedule of the Constitution. This creates an obligation on the central government to meet the expenses of the state courts of up to 50 percent. Whenever a bill is passed in the parliament there is no ‘Judicial impact assessment’ attached to the bill, which states that how many civil and criminal cases will be increased if the bill is passed and becomes a law. However we all know that the government cannot establish all the needed courts in a reasonable span of time. Alternative reasons therefore must be found necessarily, which reduces the burden of the judiciaries. As it is said that necessity become the mother of inventions in many counties. In the western world the methods of ADR are widely used and appreciated. Let us take the example of Lok Adalats in our country. When 15 years ago the institution of lok adalats were established there was a lot of oppression from the bar and judiciary. Soon it was discovered that some special kind of cases are best suited for settlement through the Lok Adalats only. Ultimately, Lok Adalats have today have been accepted. Around the globe when the disputes arise for the money or property related matters, people adopt conciliation produces for the settlements. If such methods can be successful in other countries then it can be successful in India too. Moreover if there will be a reduction in the number of civil cases as they can be solved through the process like conciliation, Indian courts will be able to focus to the criminal matters as they need to go through the process of litigation.

Conclusion:

Litigation is not the only method of resolving disputes. We need to re-look and adopt various methods of dispute resolving. As conciliation can be a benefit for the parties who have a lack of time and financial resources.  Conciliation can be considered as a boon provided to the parties who can arrive at a settlement with their aspirations.