Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as a Crucial Complement to Enforcement

Although ODR is not yet explicitly enshrined in Indian statute, it intersects with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Evidence Act.

Introduction

The proliferation of digital interactions has fundamentally reshaped how disputes originate and how remedies are sought.¹ Contracts, exchanges and disagreements increasingly arise from online platforms and cross-border transactions with little or no physical contact between parties. Traditional enforcement paradigms such as, court hearings, paper-based records and in-person proceedings are struggling to match this new reality. Against this backdrop, ODR has emerged not simply as an alternative to conventional adjudication, but as a vital complement to enforcement.

It is pertinent to mention that in 2016, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted Technical Rules that provide a baseline for addressing cross-border commercial disputes, underscoring the need for interoperable and technology-enabled dispute frameworks. ODR therefore, represents the intersection of justice and technology, offering structured, transparent and accessible mechanisms that reinforce and render more effective formal enforcement systems.

The changing landscape of dispute resolution and enforcement

Technology can be said to be double-edged for justice. On one hand, it facilitates impersonation, identity fraud and new forms of cross-border wrongdoing, yet it also enables more agile, transparent and inclusive forms of dispute resolution. ODR platforms create a controlled digital space for participation, verification, continuous monitoring and complete audit trails. These mechanisms improve procedural integrity and create verifiable, immutable records that support post-resolution enforcement.

It is noteworthy that ODR complements traditional instruments by enhancing accessibility and speed for litigants who would otherwise confront protracted court processes. Traceability and auditable records produced by digital systems strengthen the evidentiary foundation needed for enforcement. Furthermore, ODR outcomes can be transformed into enforceable decrees, arbitral awards or settlement agreements if they comply with the procedural norms established by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Understanding ODR: scope and benefits

ODR refers broadly to the use of information and communication technologies to resolve disputes outside conventional court processes. It encompasses electronic alternative dispute resolution (ADR) but increasingly includes artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and data analytics to prevent disputes, facilitate negotiation and expedite resolution.²

ODR’s principal benefits include cost reduction through the minimisation of travel and procedural overhead. Compressed timelines that can convert years-long litigation into resolutions within weeks or days, expanded accessibility enabling participation regardless of geographic or physical constraints and the potential to reduce bias by structuring decision-making around verifiable evidence rather than status. By decongesting courts, ODR also contributes positively to the broader health of the legal system. It was the COVID-19 Pandemic which illustrated ODR’s practical value, as digital mechanisms, maintained continuity of dispute resolution when physical hearings were infeasible.

Legal and judicial context: India’s transition toward ODR

Speaking of the adaptability of technology in court proceedings it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court in Amar Jain v. Union of India (2025)³ pronounced that digital access as an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21 is a transformative step toward digital inclusion in India. By interpreting Article 21 to encompass access to digital platforms, the Court has reaffirmed its commitment to adapting fundamental rights to contemporary challenges. Another shining example of how judiciary has actively embraced technological reforms in justice delivery is the judgment of Supreme Court in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India⁴ which affirmed live streaming of proceedings as an instrument of transparency and access. Another step towards embracing technology is reflected in Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. v. Kola Shipping Ltd.⁵ which upheld the validity of arbitration agreements formed by electronic communications, forging a doctrinal basis for digital dispute resolution.

Although ODR is not yet explicitly enshrined in Indian statute, it intersects with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Evidence Act. It is to be noted that the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog’s 2020 Report on ODR proposes a phased approach to institutionalise and mainstream ODR, emphasising legislative reform, capacity building and technological standards so as to integrate in judicial technology as well.

NITI Aayog’s phased roadmap and institutional alignment

Focusing on NITI Aayog’s recommended three-phase roadmap, it provides a practical and gradual path for adopting ODR across the country. In the first phase, the main goal is to build strong digital infrastructure and use the existing strengths of ADR centres, legal institutions and online platforms. This stage also includes creating user-friendly platforms, improving internet connectivity, spreading awareness among citizens, and introducing simple pilot projects to test the process.

In the second phase, the focus will shift to making ODR a regular and trusted part of the justice system. This requires suitable legal and procedural changes, recognition of ODR outcomes, financial and institutional support, capacity building, and training for judges, lawyers, mediators, arbitrators and other stakeholders. Awareness campaigns, digital literacy programmes and clear standards for privacy, ethics and data protection are also needed.

The final phase looks at ODR becoming a primary and widely accepted method of dispute resolution. At this stage, technology such as AI, blockchain and machine learning will be used not only to manage cases but also to analyse dispute patterns, prevent conflicts, predict outcomes, and help parties reach faster settlements. ODR may then operate as a parallel and equal justice pathway available to all, especially for simple, small-value and time-sensitive disputes.⁶

Interestingly, these recommendations align with ongoing national initiatives such as the e-Courts Mission Mode Project, Reserve Bank of India’s ODR framework for digital payments, and the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) Samadhaan Portal, all of which show a strong policy push toward building an inclusive, efficient and technology-driven justice system.

Authenticity, identity and evidence: pillars of enforceability

One of the major challenges in using ODR is the risk of identity fraud and doubts about the genuineness of the proceedings. The enforceability of ODR decisions depends on three key factors: confirming the identity of the parties, ensuring that the records are genuine, and keeping all evidence safe. Modern ODR platforms meet these needs through digital know your customer (KYC) and biometric verification to confirm who the participants are, and AI tools that detect impersonation by checking depth, movement and facial traits.

In addition, secure digital records supported by blockchain technology help maintain a clear and tamper-proof chain of custody. Blockchain works like a digital ledger where information is stored in connected “blocks” across a decentralised network. These blocks are protected with encryption, and once data is added, it cannot be changed without approval from the entire network. This feature, known as immutability, keeps records safe and trustworthy.

Audit trails further increase the reliability of ODR systems. They record every step of the process, verify the identity of all participants, and add permanent time-stamps. Together, blockchain records and audit trails create a strong and trustworthy set of evidence that courts and Arbitral Tribunals can depend on. When properly designed and used, these technological measures make ODR records admissible, verifiable and enforceable. These tools further aid in negating any doubts which usage of ODR might pose.⁷

Global developments and comparative models

ODR has grown alongside the rise of digital commerce. In its early years (1996-2010), most ODR systems were developed and operated by private platforms such as eBay, which created internal mechanisms for resolving online consumer disputes. Between 2010 and 2018, the field expanded further through multiple startups, pilot projects, and innovative digital tools, marking a transition from experimental systems to professionally designed platforms. Since 2018, ODR has entered a new phase marked by government participation, judicial endorsement and formal institutional adoption across the globe.

China is one of the most advanced examples of technology-driven dispute resolution, with internet courts set up in Hangzhou (2017), Beijing (2018) and Guangzhou (2018). These courts operate entirely online and handle cases related to e-commerce, online contracts, intellectual property, and digital financial transactions through e-filing, e-evidence submission, AI-enabled case management, and virtual hearings. They also rely on blockchain for securing digital evidence, AI tools to assist in preparing judgments and digital KYC to confirm identities, showing how technology can make justice faster while maintaining accuracy and trust.

In the European Union, ODR Regulation (2016) and European Consumer Centres Network established a structured system for resolving cross-border consumer disputes, supporting trust and ease of trade within the digital single market. Countries like Brazil, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong have also adopted various ODR models for consumer, commercial and small-value disputes. It is pertinent to make mention of the UNCITRAL Technical Rules on ODR were adopted in 2016 which provided international guidelines for standard procedures across borders.

Likewise, our country’s MSME Samadhaan Portal is also landmark example of digital enforcement in India. Established to address delayed payments to MSMEs under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the portal enables online filing, automated notifications, and public dashboards, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability. Integrating ODR features such as robust audit trails, digital KYC and blockchain-based evidence, validation would strengthen evidentiary credibility and foster faster decree execution. Samadhaan thus, exemplifies how digital governance and procedural justice can converge to create a technology-enabled enforcement framework.⁸

Taken together, these developments show that the world is steadily embracing technology to improve access to justice. Nations are moving from traditional court-based models to digitally supported systems that are faster, more inclusive and more cost-efficient. As digital transactions continue to grow, ODR is emerging not as an alternative, but as an essential component of modern justice delivery.

Challenges, gaps and the digital divide

ODR’s promise is accompanied by substantive challenges.⁹ For instance:

1. Cross-border enforceability remains fragmented because national recognition of digital awards varies from country to country.

2. The drive for speed should not compromise due process and the right to representation.

3. The digital divide risks excluding vulnerable groups who lack reliable internet access or digital literacy.

4. Legal ambiguity and the absence of express statutory recognition for ODR inhibit institutional adoption.

5. Data security and privacy vulnerabilities present additional risks to the integrity and public trust in digital mechanisms.¹⁰

6. For ODR to gain legitimacy, courts and arbitration institutions must be structurally integrated with ODR outcomes.

Policy recommendations for mainstreaming ODR in India

Howsoever, these challenges can be overcome by making some policy changes and functionality changes. A future-ready ODR platform must focus on fairness, transparency, and the ability to grow and adapt. It should include clear steps to reduce algorithm bias, explain how key digital decisions are made, handle large numbers of cases, and protect user data with secure and standard systems. It must also connect smoothly with courts and enforcement authorities so that decisions and settlements can be easily enforced.

Along with technology, strong professional standards and proper training for ODR practitioners are very important. Close cooperation between the government, justice institutions, and private legal-tech companies will help maintain quality and trust. Setting up a self-regulatory organisation (SRO) for ODR providers may also be useful, as it can monitor ethical practices and ensure responsibility across the sector. Some of the key suggestions to further widen the implementation of ODR in the country are:

1. Enact statutory clarifications that recognise ODR processes and outcomes and specify procedures for enforcement of digital awards and settlements.

2. Amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Civil Procedure Code to provide express pathways for conversion of ODR outcomes into enforceable decrees.

3. Mandate minimum technical standards for ODR platforms such as covering digital KYC, audit logs, encryption, and blockchain time-stamping while ensuring data protection and privacy compliance.

4. Establish an SRO to accredit ODR providers, certify practitioners, and issue best practice guidelines.

5. Invest in digital inclusion initiatives to ensure equitable access for underserved populations and provide legal aid that supports participation in ODR.

6. Promote algorithmic transparency and external audits of AI systems used in ODR to prevent bias and build public trust.

Conclusion

ODR marks a paradigmatic shift at the intersection of law and technology. By embedding verification, auditability and traceability into dispute resolution, it complements enforcement and enhances the legitimacy and enforceability of outcomes. For our country, a coordinated program of legislative reform, judicial openness, institutional investment and technological standards will be critical to ensure that ODR matures into a dependable component of the justice system. Ultimately, ODR should not be seen as a substitute for enforcement but as its essential complement, thereby ensuring that judicial pronouncements are not only made but meaningfully performed.