All of the following are recognised aims or objectives of Lok Adalats in India, except which one?

Introduction / Context:
This question explores your understanding of Lok Adalats, which are an important part of the alternative dispute resolution system in India. Lok Adalats aim to deliver speedy, low cost, and consensual justice, especially to weaker sections of society. However, they do not change who actually rules or exercises formal political power. By identifying which listed objective does not fit the true role of Lok Adalats, you demonstrate clarity about their purpose and constitutional position.

Given Data / Assumptions:

The question presents four statements as possible aims of Lok Adalats.
It asks you to select the option that is not an actual aim of Lok Adalats, that is, the exception.
The listed aims involve justice to weaker sections, mass disposal of cases, handing power to the common man, and minimising cost and delay.
We assume standard understanding of Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authorities Act and related schemes.

Concept / Approach:
Lok Adalats are people's courts that operate with the consent of the parties to settle disputes through compromise and conciliation. Their main objectives are to provide access to justice for weaker sections, reduce the backlog of cases by mass disposal, and ensure that justice is inexpensive and quick. They do not replace the elected government or formal judiciary in terms of the power to rule. The phrase “give the power to rule in the hands of the common man” talks about political power, which is not the mandate of Lok Adalats. Therefore, the correct approach is to identify this politically framed statement as the one that does not match the true aims of Lok Adalats.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall that Lok Adalats focus on settlement of disputes, not on transferring political power.Step 2: Recognise that securing justice to weaker sections and reducing backlog by mass disposal are explicitly mentioned objectives in many texts.Step 3: Note that minimising cost and delay is a core feature of Lok Adalat proceedings, which do not involve court fees and are flexible in procedure.Step 4: Identify the statement about giving the power to rule to the common man as unrelated to the judicial dispute resolution function and hence mark it as the exception.

Verification / Alternative check:
You can verify by looking at descriptions of Lok Adalats in standard polity and legal awareness books, which highlight speedy justice, consensual settlement, low cost procedures, and focus on disadvantaged groups as their main goals. None of these sources suggest that Lok Adalats are designed to change the structure of political power or governance. The phrase about giving the power to rule in the hands of the common man is more appropriate to democratic franchise and elections, not to Lok Adalats. Since the other three options map cleanly to the aims of alternative dispute resolution and social justice, the exception is clear.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Securing justice to the weaker sections is an essential aim because Lok Adalats make it easier for poor and marginalised people to settle disputes without high legal costs, so this is a correct objective and not the exception.
Mass disposal of cases is a widely recognised goal, since Lok Adalats often take up large numbers of similar cases such as motor accident claims or bank recovery matters for settlement in one sitting, so this aim is also correct.
Minimising cost and delay is at the heart of Lok Adalat design, with no court fee and speedy conciliation, so it is very much an intended aim and not the odd one out.

Common Pitfalls:
Some candidates misinterpret the phrase “people's court” and assume that it gives direct ruling power to the people, which leads them to wrongly accept the politically worded option. Others may confuse the broader democratic principle of rule by the people with the limited function of Lok Adalats in resolving disputes. Remember that Lok Adalats exist within the judicial framework and aim at fair, quick, and low cost justice, not at altering political authority. This distinction helps you avoid the trap option.

Final Answer:
The statement that Lok Adalats aim to give the power to rule in the hands of the common man is not a true objective of Lok Adalats and is therefore the correct exception.