Salem Advocate Bar Association v Union of India

• Salem Advocate Bar Association and other bar associations challenged the CPC Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002
• Key challenge: S.89 CPC (mandatory ADR referral) was argued to be unconstitutional as it compelled parties to undergo ADR against their will
• Additional challenges to adjournment limits, time-bound written statements, and other procedural reforms
• The question was whether the State could mandate ADR referral in civil disputes

1. Whether S.89 CPC (settlement of disputes outside court through ADR) is constitutionally valid.
2. How should S.89 be implemented in practice?
3. Whether ADR referral violates the right to access courts under Art. 14/21.

• S.89 is constitutionally valid: It does not deny access to courts; it provides an additional avenue. Parties return to court if ADR fails.
• Not mechanical application: Courts must apply S.89 only where elements of settlement exist and the case is suitable.
• Rules needed: Directed constitution of a committee to frame model rules for S.89 implementation (Civil Procedure Mediation Rules).
• Mediation centres: Catalysed establishment of court-annexed mediation centres across India.
• Training: Directed judicial officers to be trained in ADR referral.

S.89 CPC is constitutionally valid as it enhances access to justice by providing alternative resolution paths without denying court access. Courts must actively promote ADR in suitable cases. Implementation requires proper rules, trained mediators, and institutional infrastructure.