Article 21 of the Constitution of India declares in a mandatory tone that no person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Life and liberty, the words employed in shaping Article 21, by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution, are not to be read narrowly in the sense drearily dictated by dictionaries; they are organic terms to be construed meaningfully. Embarking upon the interpretation thereof, feeling the heart-throb of the Preamble, deriving strength from the Directive Principles of State Policy and alive to their constitutional obligation, the Courts have allowed Article 21 to stretch its arms as wide as it legitimately can. The mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law[1] has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself have persuaded the Constitutional courts of the country in holding the right to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21. Speedy trial, again, would encompass within its sweep all its stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial in short everything commencing with an accusation and expiring with the final verdict. The constitutional philosophy propounded as right to speedy trial has though grown in age by almost two and a half decades, the goal sought to be achieved is yet a far-off peak. Myriad fact-situations bearing testimony to denial of such fundamental right to the accused persons, on account of failure on the part of prosecuting agencies and executive to act, and their turning an almost blind eye at securing expeditious and speedy trial so as to satisfy the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution have persuaded the Supreme Court in devising solutions which go to the extent of almost enacting by judicial verdict bars of limitation beyond which the trial shall not proceed and the arm of law shall lose its hold[2]. The validity or justness of those decisions is not the matter to be decided but the seriousness of delay in the conclusion of criminal and civil matters must be appreciated at the earliest. This seriousness was appreciated and accepted by the Constitutional Courts long before and the same has got a recognition from the “legislature” as well in the form of introduction of “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (ADR) Mechanism. There is a growing awareness among the masses as well regarding ADR and people are increasingly using the same for getting their disputes settled outside the court. The traditional means and modes of dispute settlement have seen a renaissance in the form of ADR mechanisms (ADRM) and its growth in the future is guaranteed.

Kindly see  http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/06/culture-of-adr-in-india.html for complete article.