General Studies 2024 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Distinguish

Q2

Explain and distinguish between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals. Whether they entertain civil as well as criminal cases ? (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

लोक अदालत तथा मध्यस्थता अधिकरण की व्याख्या कीजिए तथा उनमें अंतर स्पष्ट कीजिए। क्या वे दीवानी तथा आपराधिक दोनों प्रकृति के मामलों पर विचार करते हैं ? (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में लिखिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 General Studies questions

Directive word: Distinguish

This question asks you to distinguish. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'distinguish' requires clear differentiation between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals on multiple parameters. Structure as: brief intro defining both → systematic comparison (nature, jurisdiction, legal basis, procedure) → specific answer on civil/criminal jurisdiction → conclusion on complementary roles in ADR ecosystem.

Key points expected

Lok Adalats established under Section 19 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; Arbitration Tribunals governed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended in 2015/2019)
Lok Adalats: statutory conciliation with compromise-based settlement; Arbitration: private adjudication with binding award resembling court decree
Jurisdiction distinction: Lok Adalats entertain civil, compoundable criminal and matrimonial disputes; Arbitration strictly limited to civil/commercial disputes via arbitration agreement
Procedural differences: Lok Adalats informal, no court fee, parties can appear personally; Arbitration more formal, party-appointed arbitrators, limited judicial intervention
Award nature: Lok Adalat award = civil court decree (Section 21); Arbitral award enforceable under Section 36 with limited grounds for challenge (Section 34)
Criminal jurisdiction: Lok Adalats can handle compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC; Arbitration Tribunals have NO criminal jurisdiction whatsoever

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Answer explicitly 'distinguishes' (not merely describes) using comparative framework; directly addresses both parts—civil jurisdiction (both) and criminal jurisdiction (only Lok Adalats) with clarity	Describes both institutions separately with some comparison implied; answers jurisdiction question but without precise legal basis	Treats both as synonymous ADR mechanisms; misses criminal jurisdiction distinction or gives wrong information about Arbitration handling criminal cases
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately cites governing statutes (LSAA 1987, ACA 1996), specific sections (19, 21, 320 CrPC, 34, 36); correctly identifies Lok Adalat's limited criminal jurisdiction for compoundable offences only	Mentions correct statutes without section numbers; broadly correct on civil/criminal distinction but vague on 'compoundable' nuance	Wrong statutes (e.g., mentioning Lok Adalat under CrPC); fundamental error stating Arbitration can handle criminal cases; conflates conciliation with arbitration
Structure & flow	20%	2	Clear tabular or point-wise comparison covering 4-5 parameters; separate dedicated paragraph answering jurisdiction question; logical progression from definition → distinction → jurisdiction → conclusion	Paragraph format with some comparison; jurisdiction answer embedded in text; readable but requires effort to extract distinctions	Disorganized narrative jumping between institutions; no clear comparison framework; omits jurisdiction question entirely or addresses it ambiguously
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Cites specific examples: NALSA data on Lok Adalat settlements (e.g., 11 lakh+ cases settled in 2022-23 National Lok Adalat); mentions Supreme Court's Afcons Infrastructure case on Lok Adalat award finality; or recent Arbitration Council of India developments	General reference to 'large number of cases settled' or 'growing arbitration in India' without specific data; no case law	No examples, data or case law; or irrelevant examples (international arbitration when question asks domestic distinction)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Synthesizes that both reduce court burden but serve different litigant needs—Lok Adalats for poor/rural access to justice, Arbitration for commercial certainty; notes recent integration (Section 89 CPC referral) or challenges (enforcement delays in arbitration)	Standard conclusion on 'both important for ADR'; no analytical distinction on their complementary roles	No conclusion; or conclusion contradicts body (e.g., claiming both handle criminal cases); purely descriptive ending

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →