Bench Beyond Retirement: The Role of Former Judges In The Advancement Of ADR And Legal Awareness- A Comparative Perspective

Former Judge Rajasthan High Court, Senior Advocate (Supreme Court)

The increasing burden on judicial systems has compelled jurisdictions worldwide to adopt Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms as effective supplements to traditional litigation. In India, retired judges have emerged as central figures in ADR processes, particularly in arbitration and mediation. While their involvement not only lends credibility and expertise, but also strengthens public confidence in mainly Arbitration and Mediation process, this paper examines the role of retired judges within India’s ADR framework and undertakes a comparative analysis with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. It argues that the role of retired judges in this redressal system is indispensable, brings immense legal acumen, and leads to achieve the efficiency and flexibility that ADR strives for. The paper concludes by advocating for appointing retired judges in ADR system to achieve India’s ambition of being a global Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation hub.

Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Retired Judges, Arbitration and Mediation, Comparative Legal Analysis, Institutionalization of ADR

1. Introduction

The administration of justice in modern states is increasingly confronted with the challenge of mounting case backlogs and procedural delays. 1 In India, this problem has assumed alarming proportions, with millions of cases pending across various levels of the

1 See generally Marc Galanter, Justice in Many Rooms: Courts, Private Ordering, and Indigenous Law , 19 J. Legal Pluralism 1 (1981). judiciary. 2 Against this backdrop, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms have emerged as viable tools to ensure timely and cost-effective dispute resolution. Arbitration, mediation, and conciliation are now widely recognized not merely as alternatives but as integral components of the justice delivery system.

A notable feature of India’s ADR landscape is the significant involvement of retired judges, particularly from the higher judiciary, who frequently assume roles as arbitrators and mediators. Their participation is often justified on grounds of experience, impartiality, and public confidence. However, this phenomenon raises critical questions about whether ADR in India is evolving as an independent system or merely replicating traditional adjudicatory processes in a different forum. A comparative examination of global practices reveals that in India the retired judges play an important role in ADR by their decades of judicial experience, ensuring robust understanding of substantive and procedural law.

As of 2026, India faces a judicial pendency exceeding 5.5 crore cases across all levels of courts, with nearly 85 percent concentrated in district courts. 3 Data from the National Judicial Data Grid indicates that district courts alone account for over 4.6 crore pending cases, while the High Courts and the Supreme Court contribute several lakhs more. 4 This situation represents not merely administrative backlog but a significant challenge to access to justice. In contrast, the rise of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms presents a promising counter-narrative. Recent data suggests that over 14.84 crore cases have been resolved through ADR processes, particularly through Lok Adalat’s and pre-litigation settlements, demonstrating the capacity of ADR to function as an effective mass justice tool. 5 However, despite this quantitative success, concerns persist regarding the qualitative dimensions of ADR, including issues of consistency, professional rigor, and institutional credibility. 6 It is within this gap that the role of retired judges assumes critical importance. Their experience and authority position them uniquely to strengthen mediation and arbitration processes, ensure procedural discipline, and enhance public confidence. 7 The 2015 amendment to the arbitration and Conciliation act sought to promote the appointment of retired Judges to resolve the complex disputes like Infrastructure Contracts or Financial Sector Arbitrations. At the same time, comparative global practices indicate that in India due

2 National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), Case Pendency Statistics , available at: https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in (last visited Apr. 10, 2026).

3 National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), Pendency of Cases in India , available at: https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in (last visited Apr. 10, 2026).

4 Id.

5 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Lok Adalat Statistics and ADR Disposal Data , available at: https://nalsa.gov.in (last visited Apr. 10, 2026).

6 See generally Ministry of Law and Justice, Report on ADR Mechanisms in India (2023); also see ADR Association Journal, Challenges in Mediation and Arbitration in India .

7 See Report of the High-Level Committee to Review the Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India (Ministry of Law and Justice). to the involvement of the experienced retired judges in this system made it more structured, institutionalized, and balanced. 8

2. Conceptual Framework: ADR and the Role of Retired Judges

ADR refers to a spectrum of dispute resolution mechanisms that operate outside the conventional courtroom setting. 9 Arbitration involves a binding decision rendered by a neutral third party, while mediation and conciliation emphasize negotiated settlements facilitated by a neutral intermediary. The fundamental objectives of ADR include flexibility, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and preservation of relationships between disputing parties. 10

Within this framework, retired judges occupy a unique position. Their prior experience in adjudication equips them with a deep understanding of legal principles, evidentiary standards, and procedural fairness. 11 This often instils confidence among parties, particularly in high-stakes disputes. Furthermore, retired judges are perceived as neutral actors, free from institutional pressures that may affect serving judges.

However, the transition from a judicial role to an ADR role is not always seamless. The judicial process is inherently formal, rule-bound, and adversarial, whereas ADR mechanisms prioritize informality, party autonomy, and collaborative problem-solving. The myth that the retired judges will carry judicial habits into ADR proceedings and it result into the risk that the process may lose its distinctive advantages also proved wrong. Justice R.V. Raveendran , a retired Supreme Court judge, served successfully in several high-stake arbitrations, including the Vodafone tax dispute . Similarly, in the Reliance-ONGC arbitration (2020) , appointment of former Chief Justices enhanced trust among international stakeholders. Likewise, in the Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd vs. DMRC case (2021) , the arbitrators’ judicial experience helped frame a comprehensive, enforceable award . Thus, making their contribution is valuable and aligned with the underlying philosophy of ADR.

3. Contribution of Retired Judges in ADR

The Indian ADR ecosystem is marked by a pronounced reliance on retired judges, particularly in the domain of arbitration. In a majority of high-value commercial disputes, especially those involving government entities, retired judges are preferred as arbitrators,

8 See comparative practices discussed in: International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Dispute Resolution Statistics ; also see LCIA and SIAC Annual Reports.

9 Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed., 2019) (defining Alternative Dispute Resolution).

10 S. B. Sinha, Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mechanisms and Practices (EBC Publishing, 2017). 11 Report of the High-Level Committee to Review the Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India (Ministry of Law and Justice). with empirical observations suggesting that they constitute a substantial proportion of such appointments. 12 This preference is rooted in multiple factors, including the perceived authority and neutrality of former judges, the institutional trust reposed in them by public bodies, and the relative absence of a well-developed pool of specialized ADR professionals in India. Their prior judicial experience lends a degree of legitimacy and confidence to the process, particularly in complex disputes where parties seek assurance of procedural fairness and sound legal reasoning.

Some may call the involvement of retired judges in this mechanism as dominance, but the reality is entirely different and can be seen through the above stated instances. One of the most significant criticisms is the tendency to replicate court-like procedures within arbitration proceedings. Though, retired judges, accustomed to formal adjudication, often conduct proceedings in a manner akin to traditional litigation, characterized by extensive pleadings, strict adherence to procedural norms, and prolonged hearing but at the same time they’re gradually shifting towards flexible procedural formalism which is one of the objective of ADR, to provide a faster, flexible, and less adversarial alternative to the court system. 13 Not only this, The Training Module by NDIAC (2024) has been proven significant to improve commercial and technical proficiency of retired judges transitioning into better arbitrators .

The issue of delay further compounds these concerns. Retired judges, now frequently handling multiple arbitral appointments simultaneously and trying their best to speedy disposal of matters. Consequently, arbitration proceedings are getting faster and accurate, giving momentum to the efficiency advantage that ADR is intended to offer. 14 In addition, the fees charged by retired judges are often minimal and appropriate.

Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that the involvement of retired judges contributes positively to the credibility and reliability of ADR processes. Their deep understanding of legal principles, procedural safeguards, and evidentiary standards enables them to effectively handle complex disputes, particularly those involving intricate questions of law. This reinforces party confidence and ensures that outcomes are perceived as fair and well-reasoned.

The involvement and appointment of retired judges in the ADR system is not an obstacle for the evolution of a diverse and interdisciplinary ADR ecosystem in India. Unlike international practices, where arbitrators are often drawn from a wide range of professional

12 Arbitration India, The Argumentative Indian in Arbitration , available at: https://www.arbitrationindia.com/argumentative_indian.html (last visited Apr. 10, 2026). 13 Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2nd ed., 2014). 14 Studi, Arbitration in India: Challenges and Issues , available at: https://www.studyiq.com (last visited Apr. 10, 2026). backgrounds including finance, engineering, and commerce, the Indian ADR landscape remains also open to legal professionals. This diversity and involvement of legal luminaries other than Judges making the resolution mechanism more flexible especially where there require specialized technical knowledge. 15 Thus, retired judges continue to play an indispensable role, their overwhelming presence cannot risk transforming ADR into a parallel extension of the traditional judicial system but to a distinct and an efficient alternative.

4. Comparative Analysis with Respect to the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore

A comparative analysis of other jurisdictions and the role of retired judges in ADR: 4.1 United States

In the United States, ADR is highly institutionalized, with organizations such as JAMS and the American Arbitration Association playing a central role. The retired judges constitute an important segment of ADR neutrals. The system is characterized by a diverse pool of professionals, including practicing lawyers, academics, and subject-matter experts. 16

Retired judges account for approximately thirty to forty percent of ADR practitioners, ensuring a balance between legal expertise and specialized knowledge. 17

4.2 United Kingdom

The United Kingdom adopts a similarly balanced approach. Institutions such as the London Court of International Arbitration maintain panels that include a wide range of professionals. Retired judges participate in ADR, but their role is significant and carefully integrated within a broader professional framework. This preserves its flexibility. 18

4.3 Singapore

Singapore, widely regarded as a global leader in ADR, offers perhaps the most refined model. Through institutions such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and the Singapore International Mediation Centre, Singapore has developed a robust and efficient ADR ecosystem. The selection of arbitrators is based primarily on merit, expertise, and

15 White & Case, International Arbitration Survey 2025 .

16 Thomas J. Stipanowich, The Arbitration Penumbra: Arbitration Law and the Rapidly Changing Landscape of Dispute Resolution , 8 Nev. L.J. 427 (2008).

17 JAMS, Neutral Roster and Composition Data ; see also White & Case, International Arbitration Survey 2025 . 18 See White & Case, International Arbitration Survey 2025 ; also see LCIA, Annual Report and Casework Statistics . judicial experience. 19 Retired judges are involved, with that of diversified panel. The success of Singapore’s model lies in its emphasis on institutional efficiency, professional training, and strict adherence to timelines. 20

4.4 The Comparison of Institutional ADR Usage, Capacity, and Composition of Neutrals A comparative overview reveals significant differences:

The comparative data indicates that while India is making ADR system more flexible and diversified, other jurisdictions have also adopted balanced and institutionalized approach. This diversification enhances efficiency, reduces delays, and ensures that disputes are resolved by individuals with the most relevant expertise.

Institutional data indicates that arbitration in India continues to reflect a structural preference for retired judges as well as for practising lawyers, suggesting a dual-track system between ad-hoc and institutional arbitration. 21

In contrast, leading arbitral institutions such as the LCIA and SIAC demonstrate significant diversity in arbitrator appointments, with professionals drawn from multiple jurisdictions and disciplines comprising of a good number of retired judges. 22

19 Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), About SIAC and Case Statistics , available at: https://www.siac.org.sg (last visited Apr. 10, 2026); Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC), About SIMC , available at: https://www.simc.com.sg (last visited Apr. 10, 2026).

20 Ministry of Law, Singapore, ADR Framework and Institutional Development ; see also SIAC, Annual Report and Statistics .

21 Press Information Bureau, Government of India, statements on arbitration panel composition (noting ~70% arbitrators are practising lawyers).

5. Conclusion

The involvement of retired judges in ADR represents both a strength and a limitation within the Indian legal system. On the one hand, their experience, authority, and perceived neutrality contribute significantly to the credibility of ADR processes.

The comparative analysis with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore demonstrates that successful ADR systems needs a balanced integration of retired judges and diverse professionals within an institutional framework.

Further, the enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023 signals legislative recognition that ADR must move from voluntary adoption to structured integration within the justice system. But legislation alone cannot ensure success; implementation requires credible human resources, and retired judges are among the most valuable in this regard.

At the same time, we must acknowledge a critical limitation. Retired judges cannot be seen as an extension of the judiciary in perpetuity. Their engagement must be governed by clear institutional frameworks, transparent empanelment, defined tenure, ethical guidelines, and performance standards. Without such structure, the very credibility they bring may be diluted.

To conclude, the role of retired judges must be sharply defined across three axes,

first, as neutral facilitators in mediation and arbitration to reduce pendency; second, as mentors and trainers to build ADR capacity; and third, as agents of legal awareness at the grassroots level.

If we align these roles with data, jurisprudence, and global best practices, the impact will be measurable.

We will not merely reduce case backlog; we will prevent unnecessary litigation. We will not merely deliver justice; we will make it understandable and accessible.

The Bench, therefore, does not end at retirement. It transforms, from a seat of adjudication to an instrument of resolution, education, and systemic reform.

22 LCIA Casework Report 2022; SIAC Annual Statistics 2025; Queen Mary University International Arbitration Survey (global diversity trends).