through a highly professionalised, technocratic model of legal process could not be sustained, But we would not agree that such a model alone could be compatible with the ideal of a modern, secular and rational legal system. Modernisation does not necessarily mean westernisation, nor does it mean professionalisation. Our system has to be modern in the sense that it must be informed by constitutional values such as liberty, equality and justice; it must be secular in the sense that religion and caste should .not be grounds of discrimination; and it should be rational in the sense that rights, liabilities, power or privileges should be determined by this worldly considerations and according to fair and just procedures. In our zeal to adopt the indigenous model of a nvaya panchayat, we ought not to overlook the fact that a modern village has no longer the infrastructure for such a model of dispute settlement. Any opposition to de-professionalisation that stems from vested interests must be overruled, but can we adopt a tradition which goes against the constitu- tiqnal values? Should we recognise caste panchayats? The non-state legal system (NSLS) will have to function subject to the constitutional values such as liberty, justice and equality. It may supplement the State Legal Sys tem (SLS) but it cannot supplant it. Baxi also concedes that where conflict is of values the SLS will have to prevail. The SLS must incorporate the useful asbects of the NSLS such as informality of procedures, quickness and some substantive provisions such as compensation to the victim, of an offence in addition to or in lieu of punishment of the offender.
