What are the major changes brought in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 through the recent Ordinance promulgated by the President? How far will it improve India’s dispute resolution mechanism? Discuss.

Potential to change judicial landscapes:

1. Decrease pendency of cases: As per National Judicial grid, there are approximately 3 crore cases pending in various courts in India. ADR can help to take some of these cases.

2. Timely disposal and faster justice: E.g → Lok Adalats try to resolve cases faster within 2-3 months. This gives timely justice to victims.

3. Promote Ease of Doing Business: Resolution of cases is one of [the] enforcement of contracts is one of the reasons for low EDB rank in India, even the [performance] lower than expected. India's New Delhi International Arbitration Centre bill has not yet passed.

4. Increases confidence of people on Judiciary: with timely resolution of cases, status of judiciary increases.

5. Allow higher judiciary to focus on Constitutional Problems.

6. Affordable justice: No fee charged by Lok Adalats. Poor can access justice because litigation in higher courts is very costly. But the use of ADR cannot be universalised. It has certain limitations which hinders their use in large scale:

7. Not suitable for every case: For cases like sexual violence, abuses, murder etc, [only] courts [can] decide the case.

8. Decrease and question the Constitutional court's judicial powers: ADR is not constitutional in nature, where courts have constitutional mandate to uphold justice.

9. Right to privacy: Protection of interest of privacy of accused and victim is the foremost concern.

10. People's acceptability is low: