Abstract
The “Alternative Dispute Resolution” process has influenced our perception of the function and role of courts in society. Better dispute resolution procedures have been prioritized by the Alternative Dispute Resolution. A key component of guaranteeing the upholding of fundamental rights is access to justice. The complex procedures involved in court proceedings result in a backlog of cases and high costs. This is why there are cases pending before the courts. In addition to being costly for the average person, the legal system takes many years to administer justice. The adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as Lok Adalat, arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, was considered and subsequently put into practice in order to address the criticized delay in the delivery of justice. Access to justice is required by equal opportunity. Regardless of the pervasive disparities, receiving the same treatment is insufficient. The way the law operates must ensure that everyone has access to justice regardless of their financial situation. It refers to any kind of barrier that prevents people from realizing their legal rights in a way that is both workable and practical. ADR is the method of resolving disputes between disputing parties that avoids going to court: consensus-building. In most cases, it is a substitute for formal court proceedings and litigation. It is a procedure whereby the parties can resolve disagreements on their own, with or without outside assistance. This essay offers a critical analysis of the ways in which the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures has protected the rights of the impoverished and marginalized to access justice. It focuses on the alternate channels that society uses to obtain justice.