“Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Growing Role In India’s Courts”

I. Introduction: The Strategic Imperative for ODR in the Indian Legal Landscape:

Let's face it, India’s judicial system is buckling under a mountain of pending cases, a problem so old it's nearly"  imperishable." These massive detainments unnaturally undermine the pledge of timely justice. An extremity this structural easily demands a serious shift — we can no longer calculate just on those traditional, position-bound ways of settling controversies.  We need something scalable, something driven by technology. Online Dispute Resolution, or ODR, looks like a key part of India’s strategy to finally bring its justice system into the modern era. ODR, at its core, refers to a suite of resolution techniques—including negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration—that are facilitated or conducted entirely through digital platforms.

^{The human crisis brought about by pandemic is where we truly felt and witnessed the necessity for ODR development and deployment. When the pandemic closings went into effect, every level of court hierarchy—even the Supreme Court—had to pivot almost overnight to videoconferencing, which, in an odd way, demonstrated that technology could be used in courtroom justice. The unusually severe challenge for government became the seed for a larger policy discourse between not judges alone, but top brass.}

What’s interesting is that this isn't just a judicial push. The NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India), India's leading public policy think tank, is championing the initiative. Their involvement, I think, suggests that ODR is being treated less like a solution for clearing court backlogs and more like essential national infrastructure—something absolutely vital for improving the Ease of Doing Business and overall governance efficiency.  Framing ODR around the economy, rather than just the courts, certainly elevates it from a niche judicial concept to a proper national economic strategy.

This analysis will examine the three foundational pillars supporting India's ODR ecosystem: the strategic Policy Mandates (NITI Aayog), the Statutory Compliance framework (The Information Technology Act, 2000; the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996), and the crucial Judicial Endorsement (Supreme Court Rulings and the e-Courts Project).

II. The Policy Blueprint: NITI Aayog’s Tripartite Strategy for ODR Scaling:

The strategic direction for ODR in India is set out in the influential report, 'Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India'. This comprehensive document emerged from the work of a dedicated committee constituted by the NITI Aayog during the 2020 pandemic, chaired by Supreme Court Hon’ble Justice (Retd) AK Sikri.  The policy plan’s explicit ambition is to establish a framework that is both sustainable and capable of scaling, aiming to make ODR the "option of first recourse for several categories of claims." 

The report tackles the various challenges of adopting ODR by proposing solutions across a three-level framework, ensuring a holistic approach that covers everything from infrastructure to regulation and actual usage.

A. Structural Level Reforms: Addressing Foundational Challenges:

Structural reforms aim at creating the environment that will allow both mass accessibility and professional functionality. They call for greater digital literacy, improved access to digital infrastructure (particularly in rural areas), and most importantly, a trained workforce. The plan recognizes that technology doesn't deliver justice by itself; the outcome depends on the quality of the "human element." They correctly emphasize the need for specialized training for professionals to act as ODR neutrals (mediators and arbitrators)—a huge and necessary prerequisite if this is ever going to scale effectively. 

This focus on foundational issues aligns perfectly with the Supreme Court’s Phase III e-Courts Project. For example, setting up eSewa Kendras seems like a smart, direct way to fight the digital divide, offering physical access points for citizens who don't have their own technology but still need to utilize digital judicial services. This coordination between policy prescription and judicial implementation is crucial for dismantling the fundamental hurdles to ODR adoption.

B. Behavioural Level Reforms: Institutionalizing Adoption:

The analytical significance of the NITI Aayog’s Behavioural recommendations is profound. Why? Because they specifically recommend that government departments and ministries start using ODR platforms for their internal and external disputes.  The government is, historically, the largest litigant in the entire system. By essentially utilizing the state as a "first customer," the policy achieves several things: it instantly provides a necessary high volume of cases, helps standardize those often-messy procedural protocols within the ODR ecosystem, and, most importantly, starts building institutional trust. Successful resolution of government disputes via ODR validates the entire process for the broader private sector and the public. Furthermore, state-led implementation offers crucial templates for developing reliable data security and procedural fairness standards, allowing systemic failures to be corrected before they impact private users.

C. Regulatory Level Reforms: Fostering Trust and Innovation:

The regulatory strategy leans toward a "soft-touch" approach for governing ODR platforms.  The basic idea is to set down guiding ethical and design principles, pushing ODR providers toward self-regulation. This, in theory, should encourage growth and innovation without crushing the nascent ecosystem with excessive rules. 

That said, this light-touch regulation has to be supported by a stronger legislative backbone to avoid legal chaos. We already see institutional ODR at work in sectors like investor disputes via portals such as smartodr.in.  These systems are important, but they have limitations—they can only handle disputes not already pending in a court or tribunal, or those that are non-arbitrable under Indian law. The regulatory goal, it appears, is to generalize these structures while ensuring minimum standards of fairness and security are met across the board.

III. Statutory Validation: The Legal Framework for Electronic Enforceability:

Let's be honest: the whole success of ODR—whether it's a mediated settlement or an arbitral award—hinges entirely on whether our laws can keep up. We need a modern statutory structure that actually gives legal recognition to electronic communications, digital contracts, and evidence. India's legislative reforms appear to have established this foundation by focusing on the legal legitimacy of the digital form.

A. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act): Validation and Authentication:

The IT Act provides the foundational legal scaffolding, giving legal recognition to electronic records. Section 5 of the IT Act is critical here, as it details the requirements for authenticating electronic records. It states that a subscriber may authenticate any electronic record using an electronic signature or electronic authentication technique which is considered reliable and specified in the Second Schedule.  This provision is essential for ODR, ensuring that digital arbitration agreements embedded in e-commerce contracts, or settlement agreements executed remotely, meet the strict legal standard of authenticity required for subsequent enforcement, effectively placing them on par with traditional physical documents and signatures.

B. Transformation of Evidence Law: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023:

^{One of the most important changes in law recently made by the Indian parliament is the introduction of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. The new law completely alters the current perspective of evidence by giving digital records an unequivocal boost in legal standing. Under Section 61 of the BSA, digital records are given a precondition of admissibility not only because of their electronic form but also they can be admitted into evidence if they are in compliance with Section 63. These records are treated like paper documents, hence giving them the same legal validity and enforceability as primary evidence.}

This shift should simplify the litigation pathway for disputes arising from ODR, as the evidence generated during the online process is immediately recognized as legitimate. However, and here’s the crucial caveat, the BSA also tightens the screws on evidence integrity. Section 63(4) demands a specific, and frankly, complex certification process—a bit like the old Indian Evidence Act Section 65B(4), but with added safeguards. Admitting electronic evidence now requires a two-part certificate: one filled by the party providing the evidence (Part A), and another by an expert who verifies the system integrity (Part B). 

This two-step certification is a critical quality control measure, directly addressing the inherent risks of digital manipulation. The takeaway for ODR platforms is clear: they can't just be simple communication tools. They must be sophisticated data custodians capable of generating these legally compliant audit trails and certificates, which definitely raises the technological and legal compliance barrier for service providers.

C. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act): Validity of ODR Awards:

When it comes to the legal enforceability of ODR awards, particularly in arbitration, we look to the A&C Act. Section 7 secures the principle of separability: an arbitration agreement is not invalidated simply because the main contract it sits within (say, an e-commerce transaction) fails or is challenged.  This is huge for high-volume ODR, ensuring that arbitration clauses embedded in standard electronic contracts remain enforceable even if a consumer later challenges the underlying transaction.

Furthermore, the legal risk associated with challenging ODR arbitral awards appears to have shifted from questioning the mode of hearing to questioning enforcement technicality. While India’s Supreme Court has already validated virtual hearings (as detailed below), international precedent helps solidify the issue. Take the Austrian Supreme Court’s ruling in Case No. 18 ONc 3/20s (July 23, 2020).  They upheld an arbitral tribunal’s right to hold an evidentiary hearing by videoconference, even over one party's objection, concluding that it did not constitute a serious due process violation. This international nod strongly suggests that Indian arbitral awards stemming from fully remote ODR proceedings are quite resistant to traditional procedural challenges based on grounds like "due process." Future challenges, then, are much more likely to focus narrowly on whether the underlying digital evidence itself met the strict technical checks required by BSA Section 63(4).

This interwoven legal framework is summarized below:

Legislation	Relevant Section(s)	Functionality / Impact on ODR
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)	Section 5 (Electronic Signatures)	Extends up-to-date laws and reliable methods for authentication of electronic records and documents in ODR while maintaining the enforceability of the original contract.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)	Sections 61, 63, 63(4)	Recognizes electronic/digital records as documentary documents (Primary Evidence) and introduces a stringent two-step certification procedure for judicial acceptance.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act)	Section 7 (Arbitration Agreement)	Confirms the enforceability and separability of arbitration agreements formed using electronic means, and shields the ODR system from challenges to the underlying contract.

IV. Judicial Acceptance and Operationalizing Digital Justice:

The theoretical legal validity provided by the statutes has been quickly operationalized and standardized by proactive judicial measures, largely driven by the Supreme Court of India.

A. The Supreme Court’s Mandate for Virtual Proceedings:

The most significant enabling factor for institutional ODR came from the top: the overarching order from the Supreme Court on April 6, 2020 (In Re: Guidelines for court functioning through video conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic). This decision formally granted permanent legal sanctity to court hearings held via Video Conferencing (VC). Before this, the legality of purely virtual proceedings was a huge grey area, risking procedural challenges to any rulings. The SC settled the matter decisively, providing the non-controversial legal footing that all ODR initiatives involving judicial oversight desperately needed.

Since then, adoption has been immense—subordinate courts have heard over 2.73 crore cases, and High Courts over 95 lakh cases via VC up to mid-2025. To standardize this procedural shift, the SC quickly formed a committee to draft comprehensive VC rules, which all 25 High Courts and their corresponding District Courts have since adopted. This systemic adoption ensures uniformity and prevents procedural irregularities from undermining digitally concluded disputes.

B. The e-Courts Project Phase III: Infrastructure and Inclusion:

The e-Courts Project Phase III is the judiciary's complementary piece of technological infrastructure, highly aligned with ODR principles. It supports the necessary environment for scaled digital dispute resolution:

• Cost Reduction: Virtual participation in proceedings dramatically reduces associated costs, slashing expenses such as travel for witnesses, judges, and lawyers—a core promise of ODR. 

• Efficiency: Expanding eFiling naturally reduces the time and effort required to submit documents. We are also seeing judicial confidence grow, with virtual courts now expanding beyond simple adjudication (like traffic violation cases) to handle complex civil matters remotely. 

• Process Automation (NSTEP): The push for automated delivery of court summons through NSTEP (National Serving and Tracking of Electronic Processes) is huge. The time wasted on manually serving notices has historically been a primary cause of trial delay. By automating this procedural step, the e-Courts project removes a fundamental bottleneck, ensuring that the speed ODR promises is delivered throughout the entire procedural lifecycle. 

The operational validation of remote hearings by the SC, combined with the comprehensive digital infrastructure provided by the e-Courts project, ensures that ODR settlements or arbitral awards arising from remote processes are treated equivalently to traditional court decrees for enforcement purposes.

V. Trust, Access, and Data Governance in Regulation and Practice:

Although the policy and legal infrastructures are largely developed, the effective and fair expansion of ODR depends upon addressing pragmatic matters of information management, trust, and accessibility.

A. Data Privacy and Security: The Trust Deficit Challenge:

Promoting broad adoption of ODR means addressing a “trust deficit” – particularly because these systems store highly sensitive information, including financial data, personal details, and proprietary information. A great deal of sensitive information is processed by ODR systems so there must be protection against breaches and misuse. The appropriate response, therefore, is that of a comprehensive one including enhanced privacy regulations and privacy enforcing instruments such as a privacy-by-design approach and by performing Data Protection Impact Assessments.

These guidelines should help ensure that security, accountability, and transparency are integrated into the digital dispute mechanism from the outset, mitigating potential legal voids. This is in line, if somewhat awkwardly, with the NITI Aayog’s emphasis on a soft-touch regulatory stance. I think the real regulatory challenge is going to be to strike the right balance in terms of having mandatory rigorous data protection standards but still giving the ODR service market enough freedom to experiment and grow.

B. Bridging the Digital Divide: Equity in Digital Justice:

There’s an undeniable structural risk here: ODR could easily marginalize citizens who lack reliable internet, adequate computing devices, or the necessary digital skills. If digital justice primarily serves the digitally educated, urban elite, it risks failing the constitutional test of providing equitable justice for all.

The mitigation strategy is explicitly tied to the structural recommendations of the NITI Aayog and the implementation of the e-Courts Project. The critical function of eSewa Kendras—providing assisted access to digital judicial services for technologically disadvantaged citizens—is absolutely vital. These physical access points ensure that citizens who cannot engage with ODR independently still have a pathway to digital justice, actively bridging the gap and serving as the operational linchpin for ethical ODR scalability.

C. Consistency and standardization in regulation:

The NITI Aayog’s promotion of a ‘soft-touch’ regulation has to contend with a hard question: how do you assure quality in a system when the ODR ecosystem is diverse, and largely privately run? If data handling, procedural fairness, and neutral qualifications vary dramatically from platform to platform, we could see diverging results that soon erode public trust.

To address this, it seems that a national mandatory minimum standard is in order, which would emphasize security and procedural fairness. That standard would provide a floor and there would be competition and innovation above that floor. In addition, India may well refer to international best practices such as Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes. Although the model under the EU is distinguishable from consumer-trader disputes, it can provide useful advice on introducing centralized platforms that are easily accessible to users and on ensuring speedy resolution, in most cases within 90 days. Using such global best practices may also benefit India as it ensures that its homegrown ODR framework is not only robust but also globally competitive.

VI. Conclusion: ODR as the Future Default Mechanism:

Online Dispute Resolution is not now a niche element in India’s legal architecture but a key pillar of its judicial future. The convergence of policy, legislation reform, and judicial activity has cemented an unstoppable trajectory towards digital justice. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has offered much needed clarity to the issue of evidence by recognizing electronic records as primary evidence. Meanwhile, the SC’s blanket order dated 6.4.2020 conferred procedural sanctity by declaring virtual hearings as the method of conducting the hearings, and NITIAayog’s policy laid down the strategic contours and institutional push, particularly in the form of insisting government adoption.

The legal infrastructure is now substantially in place, particularly for high-volume, low-complexity disputes. The primary remaining challenge involves ensuring equitable access through infrastructure support (like eSewa Kendras) and maintaining public trust through rigorous, standardized data governance, mandating privacy-by-design frameworks for all platforms. Moving forward, the successful integration of ODR will require two key actions: scaling the training and certification ecosystem for ODR neutrals (addressing the structural necessity identified by NITI Aayog), and the continued legislative integration of these digital methods by formally recognizing the Supreme Court’s VC rules through amendments to procedural codes. ODR is set to transform from a mere alternative option to the default resolution mechanism for a broad swathe of India’s civil and commercial disputes.

VII. Reflective Questions:

Q1: What is NITI Aayog’s ODR Policy Plan’s three levels of reform?

A1: The NITI Aayog report on ‘Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India’, proposes measures in three fronts: Structural (upscale digital literacy and infrastructure), Behavioural (mandate government use of ODR), Regulatory (soft-touch consultation with guiding ethical principles).  

Q2: What is the most important modification with respect to digital evidence in ODR introduced through Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023?

A2: In a significant shift, the BSA treats digital records as primary evidence. But admissibility they need a particular two-part process of certification under Section 63(4) - from the submitting party and by an expert - which is that of an attestation of integrity.  

Q3: Is there a Supreme Court order which explicitly gave a legal basis to virtual hearings that gave birth to ODR?

A3: By the subsequent order (Supreme Court of India order dated,06.04.2020), the entire proceedings of the court were carried forward with Video Conferencing (VC) on the basis of the first order(“In Re: Guidelines for court functioning through video conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic”), through out the country and permanently.

Disclaimer: The content shared in this blog is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. It provides only a basic understanding of the subject and should not be considered as professional legal advice. For specific guidance or in-depth legal assistance, readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified legal professional.