- Inclusion of provisions on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms to reduce the workload of courts and expedite the resolution of disputes.

Issues

1. The central question was whether the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 were in accordance with the Constitution of India. The challenge was whether these amendments violated any constitutional provisions or principles, such as the right to a fair trial or the right to approach courts without unreasonable restrictions.

2. It was further raised as a key issue that operational procedures for the effective implementation of Section 89 of the CPC should be formulated clearly that is related to ADR mechanisms and other provisions made through these amendments. In fact, it dealt with ensuring that the reforms could be implemented in the real world and the procedural change should not cause confusion and become unfair practices.

Judgment

- The admissibility of affidavits as evidence was confirmed but the court held that it should not be automatically treated as substantive evidence in trial proceedings. Affidavits should be verified, and its admissibility must also comply with the procedural rules governing evidence in court. The Court clarified that affidavits could be used as evidence but only subject to established legal standards and verification.

- The Court emphasized the necessity of laying down procedural safeguards against miscarriage of justice. It recognized that although procedural reforms were necessary, it was as important that such reforms do not adversely affect the trials' fairness or the parties' rights in litigation.

- The Court, further, directed the institution of a committee led by Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, which is to work out and make recommendations regarding the appropriate operating modalities for the implementation of the amendments, specially in relation to Section 89 of the CPC to promote alternative dispute resolution mechanism, mediation, and arbitration.