Introduction / Context:
Lok Adalats and mobile courts are alternative dispute resolution mechanisms aimed at faster, affordable justice. We must choose strong arguments for the policy question of encouraging them.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- They primarily take up compoundable and minor matters.
- They aim to reduce pendency and cost for litigants.
- Allegations of “usual partiality” must be backed by evidence to be persuasive.
Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments establish tangible benefits like speed and decongestion, aligned with access-to-justice goals. A generic negative claim without substantiation is weak.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Strong. Speedy resolution is a principal, documented benefit.II: Strong. Diverting minor disputes reduces the burden on higher courts.III: Weak. “Usually partial” is sweeping and unproven; proper safeguards and appeal/regular-court options exist.
Verification / Alternative check:
ADR mechanisms worldwide are used to expedite minor cases and settlements, easing court backlogs.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option including III treats an unsubstantiated generalization as strong; “Only I” ignores the decongestion benefit.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming ADR replaces regular courts for serious matters; in practice, scope is limited and consensual.
Final Answer:
Only I and II are strong
Discussion & Comments