Back
Justice P.S. Narasimha Says Offers More Enduring Resolutions Than Judicial Decisions
In a recent interview that has captured the attention of the legal fraternity, Justice P.S. Narasimha made a compelling case for the transformative power of over conventional . Speaking about the ’s flagship initiative, Samadhan Samaroh , Justice Narasimha asserted that are "far more enduring" and "far more satisfying" than decisions imposed by judges. The interview, aired on Akashvani’s News On AIR , provided a rare insight into the Court’s evolving approach to dispute resolution, as it seeks to tackle the twin challenges of mounting pendency and procedural complexity.
Samadhan Samaroh , a term coined by the Chief Justice of India, is a nationwide -driven exercise that began on and will culminate in a scheduled from . The initiative aims to facilitate of cases pending before the , offering litigants a pathway out of the . Justice Narasimha’s remarks underscore a fundamental shift in judicial thinking—from viewing as a mere adjunct to litigation, to recognizing it as a superior mode of dispute resolution in its own right.
The Enduring Value of Consent
Central to Justice Narasimha’s thesis is the distinction between and . In a court hearing, he explained, “an independent body like that of a judge irrespective of the likes and dislikes of a party will finally decide.” By contrast, in , “the persons who are litigating before the court are given the power to decide the dispute.” This restoration of agency to the parties is, according to him, the greatest advantage of . “The advantage of a is that the resolution is arrived at through a of those who are involved in it. That is the greatest advantage of resolution as against decision-making by a court of law. It is far more enduring. It is far more satisfying.”
This emphasis on voluntariness and party autonomy resonates with recent legislative developments, particularly the , which provides a robust legal framework for . Justice Narasimha clarified that Samadhan Samaroh does not operate outside existing law; rather, it works “in tandem” with the , and the . The former provides the legal regime under which Lok Adalats function, while the latter governs the process itself. The result is a hybrid mechanism that combines institutional outreach with statutory enforceability.
A Structured Evolution
Justice Narasimha traced the evolution of the ’s efforts, noting that while Lok Adalats have long been held, a more structured approach began in . Initially, litigants were reached through the at the Taluka level, with settlements transmitted back to the Court for acceptance. This year, the process was broadened to involve Advocates-on-Record and institutional counsel. Justice Narasimha illustrated this with an example: “A person filed a case against an insurance company. The individual claiming insurance was before the Court. We also had the advocate representing the insurance company and we also had officers belonging to the insurance company coming here. So all three were there.” Simultaneously, NALSA continued grassroots outreach, eventually integrating both strands into a settlement placed before the Court.
This dual-track approach—simultaneously engaging institutional litigants and grassroots stakeholders—reflects a conscious effort to build a comprehensive settlement ecosystem. Justice Narasimha stressed the need for permanence: “There is a necessity to institutionalize it. It cannot be once in two years or once in three years… we need to have it as a permanent setup.” The message is clear: is not a temporary fix for docket congestion, but a lasting component of the justice delivery system.
Removing Financial Barriers
A notable feature of Samadhan Samaroh is the elimination of financial disincentives. Justice Narasimha confirmed that litigants incur no costs for participating. “So far as the litigants are concerned, as of now, there is no cost at all.” Moreover, court fees and stamp duty paid at the time of filing are refunded to parties who settle through the process. He described this as “kind of a very positive incentive to settle it, rather than to litigate.” This pragmatic approach addresses a common criticism of ADR mechanisms—that they often add another layer of cost and delay.
On enforceability, Justice Narasimha was unequivocal: carry “the and that agreement will be in the nature of a which can really be enforced.” A party unwilling to abide by the settlement “will be bound by in a court of law.” This clarity is crucial for encouraging participation, as parties need assurance that a mediated outcome is not merely a gentleman’s agreement but a .
Challenges and the Path Forward
Despite the optimism, Justice Narasimha did not shy away from highlighting challenges. The most pressing is the shortage of dedicated, professionally trained mediators. He noted that the current pool is “about 80% a resource of lawyers themselves.” Lawyers seeking to become mediators “will have to shed a great amount of techniques that they would have learned as lawyers and relearn the techniques of mediators,” a process he described as time-consuming. This calls for a cultural shift within the legal profession—from adversarial advocacy to facilitative dialogue.
Another challenge is the need for domain expertise. Justice Narasimha expressed confidence that “there is no area which cannot be resolved through , even very highly technically contested topics, like insolvency, can be mediated very easily and effectively.” However, this requires mediators with specialized knowledge, which is currently in short supply.
The initiative has also benefited from sustained consultation with Chief Justices, Advocates General, district judges, and government officials. Justice Narasimha noted that “a large number of tax-related resolutions have also come forward this time because of the positive input from the .” Such inter-institutional cooperation is vital for scaling up .
A Stepping Stone, Not a One-Time Exercise
When asked how the success of Samadhan Samaroh should be assessed, Justice Narasimha shifted the focus from case numbers to . “I will judge it from the perspective of how well we have formulated our for in times to come.” He described the initiative as “a stepping stone” that “must be very closely associated with the working of the court.” The ultimate goal, he warned, is not merely to reduce pendency but to embed into the DNA of the judicial system. “If we don't convert this into an , then we would have lost it.”
Implications for Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, the message is twofold. First, is no longer an optional add-on but a mainstream pathway that lawyers must master. The ’s active promotion of Samadhan Samaroh signals that clients increasingly expect advice on settlement options. Second, the financial incentives—including refund of court fees—make an attractive proposition for litigants. Lawyers who fail to counsel their clients about risk being seen as out of step with the evolving justice landscape.
The initiative also raises questions about the role of the judiciary. By actively fostering settlements, judges are stepping beyond their traditional adjudicatory role into that of facilitators. Justice Narasimha’s remarks suggest this is a deliberate and welcome evolution. The voluntary character of , he emphasized, gives parties ownership of the outcome, making it more durable than any court order.
Conclusion
Justice P.S. Narasimha’s interview offers a vision of a justice system that is not only efficient but also humane—one that prioritizes resolution over victory, and consent over compulsion. Samadhan Samaroh may be a relatively small step, but its implications are profound. If institutionalized as planned, could become the default mode of dispute resolution, with reserved for cases that truly demand it. The legal community would do well to heed the call.
