Yogesh Sethi
1. What personal experiences or courtroom incidents inspired you to write Justice on Sale?
Author: As mentioned in the book’s disclaimer, the experiences and incidents described in Justice on Sale are factual and closely reflect what happens in our courts every single day. As a practising lawyer, I have personally witnessed these realities unfold before me.
Most clients or litigants, during the course of prolonged litigation, often receive suggestions ,sometimes from judges and sometimes from lawyers—to compromise. This is usually justified on the grounds that litigation is a time-consuming process, and settlement is a more practical way forward.
While, by God’s grace, I have never been personally involved in any litigation, I have seen these practices from very close quarters in the courtroom. Many times, compromises are not encouraged in the true spirit of justice but merely as a way to increase the rate of disposals.
The real problem lies in the way judges are assessed. The appraisal system focuses more on the number of cases disposed of rather than on the quality or merit of judgments delivered. This naturally leads to a system that values quantity over quality—where efficiency is measured by numbers, not by justice.
2. Your book opens with a powerful quote by Chinua Achebe on integrity. How does that line connect with your central argument?
Author: The quote by Chinua Achebe on integrity sets the tone for the entire book. It reflects the idea that integrity is often tested not in moments of comfort, but in moments of compromise.
In Chapter 2 of the book, titled Distinct Mindset, I’ve discussed how the approach towards justice differs between India and other countries. In many parts of the world, when you approach a lawyer for pre-litigation counselling, you’re made to understand that if you go to court, you will get what you deserve—whether it’s punishment or reward. The system assures you of fairness.
However, in India, the mindset is very different. During pre-litigation discussions here, people are often advised that if you compromise, you save yourself from harassment; but if you go to court, the outcome is uncertain, and the process itself becomes the punishment.
So, the question arises—why should a person who is right, who is fighting for his legitimate rights, be forced to compromise instead of being granted what he truly deserves? When you encourage such a person to settle, you are, in a way, testing his integrity—his ability to stand firm on what is right despite the pressure to give in.
3. You argue that ADR in India has become a “broken promise.” When did you first realize the extent of this institutional failure?
Author: When I was in school and first read about arbitration, it seemed so fascinating. The idea that disputes could be settled outside the courtroom, and those settlements would carry the same authority as a court judgment, felt like a progressive and efficient concept.
But when I entered the legal profession, I realized how different the reality was. Arbitration, which was meant to be quick and accessible, had become something far beyond the reach of the common man. If you look at the procedure, the arbitrator’s fees, and how the proceedings actually work, you’ll see that it’s just as lengthy and complicated as a civil case.
Even after an arbitral award is passed, most cases end up back in court under Section 34 to set aside the award, followed by appeals under Section 37. In fact, nearly 99% of arbitration awards are challenged in court which completely defeats the purpose of having an alternative system in the first place.
The same goes for institutions like Lok Adalats, Lokayuktas, and Ombudsmen, where there are no proper guidelines and similar types of cases are being heard across multiple forums, creating confusion and inconsistency.
It was truly disheartening to see that what was once imagined as a people’s mechanism for easy and speedy justice has now turned into just another slow and complicated system.
4. In your research, what was the most shocking discovery about the way Lok Adalat statistics are reported?
Author: The most shocking discovery was that, in most cases, matters are not actually decided in Lok Adalats, they are decided before the Lok Adalat and merely listed there for the sake of statistics. That’s a major difference that often goes unnoticed.
What’s even more concerning is that even basic services and administrative matters are sometimes included in the data, inflating the number of “disposed” or “decided” cases. This gives a completely misleading picture of the system’s actual efficiency.
Another major flaw is that there’s no mechanism within the ADR or Lok Adalat framework to assess the satisfaction level of the parties who entered into a compromise. We have no data to show whether the person who settled the matter is genuinely satisfied or not.
Instead, the entire idea of “success” is determined from the top , based on whether the lower court judges have achieved a certain target or benchmark for case disposals through compromise. In other words, the focus is on numbers, not on justice or satisfaction.
5. The book is both legal critique and moral reflection. Was it difficult balancing emotion and evidence while writing?
Author: Yes, of course. It was quite challenging to balance emotion and evidence, especially since I am part of the system I’m critiquing. I witness these issues every day, so writing about them honestly meant being careful to present the facts clearly while also reflecting on the moral and human side of the story. so writing about them honestly meant being careful to present the facts clearly while also reflecting on the moral and human side of the story.
6. You’ve questioned the post-retirement appointments of judges. Have you faced professional backlash for expressing these views so openly?
Author: The book has just been published, and I’m looking forward to seeing the responses it receives.
7.The chapters “Fake Figures” and “The Number Game” expose systemic manipulation. How do we restore authenticity in such institutions?
Author: Restoring authenticity requires shifting the focus from quantity to quality. There needs to be a system to verify whether the cases reported as “decided” in Lok Adalats were genuinely resolved through compromise, or if they were just listed to boost the numbers.
One way to do this is by implementing a post-Lok Adalat feedback mechanism or a scrutiny system, where the satisfaction of the parties involved is assessed. This would ensure that the reported outcomes truly reflect justice, rather than just statistics.
8. What reforms, in your view, could genuinely revive the credibility of India’s ADR system?
Author: What is done cannot be undone, What is lost cannot be regained. But in my views, India’s ADR system can be fixed with proper restructuring. Right now, there are too many forums handling similar cases, which causes confusion and delays.
I suggest bringing together all civil cases, whether commercial, consumer, or family matters — under one system with more qualified judges. Judges should be evaluated based on the merit of their judgments, not the number of cases they dispose of.
Post-retirement appointments should be reconsidered, though the age of judges can be increased to retain experienced members. The focus should be on having more number of skilled judges to ensure justice is delivered efficiently and fairly.
9. Many might call your book a bold confrontation with the judiciary. What message do you want your fellow advocates and judges to take from it?
Author: My message is clear: never compromise. Integrity is tested not when things are easy, but when there’s pressure to take shortcuts or settle for less. Advocates and judges must uphold the quality of their work and the principles of justice, no matter the challenges. Even within a flawed system, it’s essential to remain committed to fairness, honesty, and the true spirit of the law.
10. If you could rewrite one law or policy related to ADR today, what would it be – and why?
Author: As I have mentioned in my book, if I could rewrite one law or policy related to ADR, it would be the framework governing the system. The current system focuses too much on quantity rather than quality. I would restructure it so that outcomes are measured based on the merit and fairness of resolutions, not just the number of cases disposed of. This would ensure that ADR truly delivers justice, rather than merely generating statistics.
Author: Yogesh Sethi
Book: Justice On Sale
Publisher: Evincepub Publishing
