Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{203287,
        author = {shreeja saxena},
        title = {COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF ENFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS IN INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2026},
        volume = {12},
        number = {12},
        pages = {10272-10285},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=203287},
        abstract = {The problem of pendency of cases in the judicial system around the world has created a consistent interest in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as a tool of effective and accessible justice delivery systems. India and the United States of America are among the countries that have established a highly developed and elaborate legislative and institutional structure to promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. However, the manner of enforcement and supervision of the alternative dispute resolution mechanism varies significantly between the two countries.
This paper seeks to establish the comparative analysis of the alternative dispute resolution mechanism in India and the United States of America by examining the historic background of the alternative dispute resolution mechanism and the legislative and institutional structure of arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and the Lok Adalat mechanism, which is a unique mechanism of alternative dispute resolution.
However, despite the highly developed structure of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in India and the United States of America, lacunae exist in the enforcement of the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in the two countries. In India, the problem of judicial over-intervention and public policy exceptions, the lack of infrastructure of institutional arbitration in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, and the delay in the implementation of the Mediation Act of 2023 are some of the lacunae in the alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
In the United States of America, the Federal Arbitration Act of the United States of America has been widely praised and accepted as a highly effective piece of legislation in the promotion of arbitration as a tool of alternative dispute resolution mechanism. However, the Act has also received considerable criticism on the grounds of the expansive scope of the Act’s pre-emptive scope of the Federal Act on State law consumer protection provisions and the failure of the Act to deal with the problem of oppression in the context of class action waivers.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to critically analyse and compare the role of the enforcement mechanism of the alternative dispute resolution mechanism in India and the United States of America by examining the relevant regulations and reform-oriented recommendations of the alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the two countries.},
        keywords = {Alternative Dispute Resolution, India, United States, Arbitration, judicial intervention, Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitration and Conciliation Act},
        month = {May},
        }