This research considers the related questions on access to justice in India sub-continent: what exactly is wrong with the judiciary, what is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and why do people prefer it to the judiciary in settling their disputes? What advantages does it have over the judicial system of justice? What are the types of ADR and what can be done to improve on it so as to ensure good performance? Is there any way or indicator to measure the barriers in the access to Justice and how it can be implemented? In the Indian sub-continent are allegations of corruption, abuse of office and ineptitude of government officers have also affected to the judiciary. Supposedly, Justice Users are faced with a lot of barriers in their path to access justice and, because of this, they are discontented, isolated and willing to shift away from the Judiciary. The reasons for this discontent are not far-fetched. One, the judiciary seems to be too corrupt, slow, too expensive and inefficient. From the high court judge to the court Clerks are issues bothering corruption, making it difficult for the less privileged to seek or get redress. The politicians are also implicated as contributing to the systemic inefficiency. At the time of recruitment and promotions for example, politicians could influence procedures of selection and promotions and hoping that such favoured Judges return favour when their political gladiators have issues to settle in the courts. Such practice affects cost, quality of the procedures and the quality of outcomes. Faced with this dilemma, the people are demonstrably turning to the age-long alternative dispute resolution system ADR, and this paradigm shift is generating curiosity among the people, especially among researchers
