Designing the future of dispute resolution the ODR Policy plan for india

Choose Report Type

Publication Date

Mon, 10/18/2021 - 18:15

Report Upload

Download (2.77 MB)

vertical

Data Management & Analysis

PDF Text

DESIGNING THE FUTURE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Designed b y
THE ODR POLICY PLAN FOR INDIA
DESIGNING THE FUTURE
OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
300937/2021/DMEO
163 Designing the Future
of Dispute Resolution
THE ODR POLICY PLAN FOR INDIA
October 2021
The NITI Aayog Expert
Committee on ODR
300937/2021/DMEO
165 300937/2021/DMEO
166 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India iii FOREWORD
The COVID-19 pandemic has been extremely unfortunate, and has necessitated
change. An inevitable change that justice delivery systems all over the world
have embraced is integration of technology. Due to this, justice is now no longer
associated with a place i.e. courts, but rather as a service, that can be provided at
parties’ convenience. In India, the judiciary has led the way in adopting technology
solutions to keep the system accessible even while safety measures altered
routines. The judiciary’s leadership and trailblazing effort in these difficult times
has legitimized the use of technology to enable dispute resolution and thereby
access to justice.
A culmination of factors–increased appetite for change, the need to decongest our
courts, the demands for affordable and effective dispute resolution mechanisms,
and lastly, the availability of technology, have prepared India for a potential
game-changing transformation in the justice delivery framework– Online Dispute
Resolution (ODR).
ODR is often simplistically understood to mean e-ADR or ADR that is enabled
through technology. However, its potential benefits extend far beyond its genesis
parent system, namely ADR. ODR can help in not just dispute resolution but also
in dispute containment, dispute avoidance and promotion of general legal health
of the country. ODR has already been integrated in several jurisdictions such
as US, Canada, Brazil, and the UAE wherein the government, the judiciary and
private institutions are working together to exploit the benefits of ODR towards
enabling greater access to justice.
The reason for ODR’s success can be attributed to its cost effective and
convenient nature, which also broadens the possibilities of remote resolution. It
relies on asynchronous communication, eliminates the requirement for the physical
presence of parties and removes unconscious bias. Given its vast potential and
the constraints placed on our court system owing to the COVID-19 crisis, the
time to mainstream it in India, is now.
To usher in this transformational change, NITI Aayog constituted this high-
level Committee under my Chairpersonship. This report of the Committee
comprehensively examines the current status of ODR globally and in India,
Justice (Retd.) AK Sikri
Chairman of the Committee for the Committee to Formulate
an Action Plan for Online Dispute Resolution, NITI AayogFOREWORD
300937/2021/DMEO
167 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India iv
identifies the current and potential challenges and maps the way forward to
broad base ODR in the Indian context.
ODR can help reduce the burden on the court and efficiently resolve these
categories of cases. It can be integrated to support the judiciary through
technology integration in court-annexed ADR centres and introduced within
Government departments for its internal disputes, as well as through e-Lok
Adalats.
ODR cannot be rolled out and scaled up in India without a supportive ecosystem.
There is a need for greater access to technology, both in terms of the physical
access to infrastructure as well as increase in levels of digital literacy. Coordinated
and systematic efforts have to be initiated by all stakeholders.
This Report is the outcome of a collaborative and inclusive exercise, and it should
serve as the starting point for a long-term plan of making India the global leader
in implementing ODR on a large scale. With consensus visible, I have every reason
to be confident that this will indeed be the case.
This Report introduces the concept of ODR, briefly traces its evolution and
also discusses its benefits. It provides a detailed discussion with a repository of
international use cases for ODR that provide a solid foundation for precedents
and leading practices. It discusses the present status of ODR in India, discussing
contributions of the entire stakeholder ecosystem in advancing the various facets
of ODR.
The Report then discusses structural, behavioural and operational challenges that
ODR in India currently faces. This discussion on challenges is organically followed
by the critical section on recommendations where augmenting accessibility,
building capacity, creating trust, designing regulatory frameworks, and finally the
phased implementation are discussed for ODR in detail.
I would like to thank the members of this Committee, Shri AK Sharma (Secretary,
Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises until January 2021), Shri B. B.
Swain (Secretary, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, January 2021
onwards), Shri Anoop K. Mendiratta (Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs), Shri
Barun Mitra (Secretary, Department of Justice), Shri Rajesh Verma (Secretary,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs), Ms. Leena Nandan (Secretary, Department of
Consumer Affairs), and Late Dr. Guruprasad Mohapatra (Secretary, Department
for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade). They have each been extremely
supportive and progressive in their approach to ODR and its potential.
The integration of ODR in India has been advanced by the endorsement and
learned observations of my colleagues from the judiciary. The support of Justice
DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice
(Retd ) BN Srikrishna has helped making this Report actionable, rooted in the
needs of today’s legal paradigm in India while keeping at the forefront the larger
value of justice for all. I take this opportunity also to thank the Ld. Attorney
General Shri KK Venugopal for his support to this report and to ODR.
There has been a significant amount of support provided by the entire stakeholder
ecosystem. I would like in particular to thank each and every one of them, including FOREWORD
300937/2021/DMEO
168 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India v
the board members of the International Council for Online Dispute Resolution. I
would like to mention the members individually who worked with us through the
process- Ms. Chittu Nagarajan Mr. Colin Rule, Mr. Ethan Katsh, Ms. Janet Martinez,
and Ms. Leah Wing.
A complete and exhaustive list of the contributors to this consultative process is
attached under Annexure B of this Report. I would like in particular to acknowledge
the efforts of Ms. Aditi Singh, Ms. Akshetha Ashok, Mr. Badri Narayanan, Mr. Deep
Kalra, Mr. Harish Narasappa, Mr. Jyoti Sagar, Ms. Laila Ollapally Mr. Nandan Kamath,
Mr. Pablo Cortes, Mr. Pramod Rao, Mr. Pramod Varma, Mr. Rahul Matthan, Mr.
Sachin Malhan, Ms. Shilpa Kumar, Ms. Tara Ollapally and Mr. Vikas Mahendra. Each
contribution has been significant in its own place hence I have taken the liberty
of enlisting them alphabetically.
The ODR movement from the Government’s side has been led untiringly by Shri
Amitabh Kant, CEO, NITI Aayog, whose unending support including towards the
Report and enabling the process has been invaluable. I would like to also share
my appreciation to Dr. Rajiv Kumar, Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog.
The technical expertise and organizational effort of the Convener of the Committee
Shri Desh Gaurav Sekhri (OSD and Head- Access to Justice, NITI Aayog) to help
create a comprehensive report amidst stringent timelines merits special mention.
I deeply appreciate the efforts of NITI Aayog in guiding and convening the entire
process and ensuring the finalization of the Report. I appreciate the dedicated and
diligent support provided by Shri Satwik Mishra (Monitoring and Evaluation Lead,
Access to Justice, NITI Aayog). I would like to acknowledge the Communications
team, consisting of Ms. Indrani Dasgupta (Consultant-Editor, NITI Aayog), and
Ms. Rajeshwari Sahay (Young Professional-Communications, NITI Aayog). The
Report also benefited from the timely inputs of Dr.Yogesh Suri (Senior Adviser,
NITI Aayog), and the support provided by Shri Kulwant Rana (Deputy Secretary,
NITI Aayog)
I would also like to acknowledge the noteworthy contribution of the Administrative
Secretariat of the Committee, who worked closely with me and NITI Aayog
in drafting the Report and supporting the entire consultation process. The
Administrative Secretariat included the following members from the JALDI
(Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India) initiative at Vidhi Centre for Legal
Policy–Ms. Deepika Kinhal (Team Lead, JALDI), Ms. Vaidehi Misra (Senior Resident
Fellow, JALDI), and Shri Aditya Ranjan (Research Fellow, JALDI).
The Report of the Committee was initiated as a part of the longer term agenda
of formulating an action plan for ODR in the context of ease of access to justice,
ease of living, ease of doing business, and helping justice delivery be efficient,
affordable and effective. I am hopeful that this will be an important first step for
an active and world-leading role that India can play in a technology-augmented
dispute resolution option.
Arjan Kumar SikriFOREWORD
300937/2021/DMEO
169 300937/2021/DMEO
170 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India vii
Foreword iii
Glossary xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Understanding ODR and its Benefits 1
ODR in India 2
Getting India ODR Ready 2
Suitably Regulating ODR 3
I. INTRODUCTION 5
A. Background 5
The judiciary is leading the way 5
Ushering in a brighter future 6
B. Understanding ODR 7
C. Origins of ODR 9
1. First Phase: eBay’s experiment leads the way 9
2. Second Phase: Growth of ODR start-ups 9
3. Third Phase: Adoption by the Government and judiciary 10
D. Benefits of ODR 13
1. Cost effective 13
2. Convenient and quick 13
3. Allows for customisable processes 13
4. Encourages dispute resolution 14
5. Limits implicit bias caused by human judgment 14
II. BACKGROUND TO THE COMMITTEE 16
A. Composition of the Committee 17
B. Terms of Reference 17
C. Process Followed 18CONTENTS CONTENTS
300937/2021/DMEO
171 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India viii
III. INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN ODR 19
A. Government-run ODR Platforms 20
B. Court-annexed ODR Platforms 25
C. Private ODR Platforms 34
D. Brief Analysis of the Trends 39
1. Structure and models of ODR 39
2. Role of private sector 41
3. Good Practices in ODR mechanisms 41
IV. PRESENT STATUS IN INDIA 44
A. Executive Preparedness 46
1. Adoption of ODR by Government Departments and Ministries 46
2. Underutilised potential of ADR in reducing Government litigation 48
B. Legislative Preparedness 49
1. Key Legislations 49
2. Parliamentary Standing Committee report on Virtual Courts 52
3. United Nations Convention on International Settlement
Agreements Resulting from Mediation, 2018 52
C. Judicial Preparedness and Acceptance 52
1. ICT Integration in the Judiciary 53
2. Support through judicial precedents 54
3. Explicit Recognition of ODR’s Potential 56
D. Ecosystem’s Eagerness 57
1. Growth of start-ups providing ODR platforms and services 58
2. Dispute Resolution Centres adopting ODR 58
3. Businesses adopting ODR 58
V. CHALLENGES FACED IN ADOPTION OF ODR 60
A. Structural Challenges 60
1. Digital infrastructure 60
2. Digital literacy 61
3. Divide in access to technology 61
B. Behavioural Challenges 61
1. Lack of awareness regarding ODR 61
2. Lack of trust in ODR services 62
3. Legal culture 62
4. Role of the government and the PSUs 62CONTENTS
300937/2021/DMEO
172 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India ix
C. Operational Challenges 62
1. Privacy and confidentiality concerns 62
2. Availability of Neutrals 63
3. Archaic Legal Processes 63
4. Enforcement of the outcome of ODR process 63
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 65
A. Increase Access to Digital Infrastructure 65
1. Increase physical access to infrastructure 66
2. Increase digital literacy 66
3. Reduce digital divide through targeted policies 67
4. Encourage innovation of accessible technology solutions 67
B. Increase Capacity 68
1. Introduce training at all levels 68
2. Strengthen paralegal services within communities 71
3. Encourage growth in the private sector 73
4. Increase the capacity of court-annexed ADR centres 74
5. Adopt ODR for specific Government sectors 76
C. Build Trust in ODR 78
1. Adopt ODR for Government litigation 79
2. Introduce an awareness campaign for ODR 79
3. Introduce targeted incentives for stakeholders 79
D. Suitably Regulate ODR 81
1. Strengthen existing legislative framework 82
2. Guidance through principles 86
E. Implement ODR in a Phased Manner 99
Phase 1: Set up infrastructure and utilise existing capacity and
capabilities 99
Phase II: Mainstream ODR 101
Phase III: ODR as a primary mode of dispute resolution 103
CONCLUSION 106
ANNEXURE–A 108
ANNEXURE–B 114
REFERENCES 118CONTENTS
300937/2021/DMEO
173 300937/2021/DMEO
174 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India xi
Account
Aggregators
(AAs)
AAs are intermediaries that provide data to a Financial Information User
(FIU) (such as personal finance management or wealth management
companies) from a Financial Information Provider (FIP) (such as a
bank, GST platform or insurance provider). In order to protect the
security and privacy of individuals, the AAs are not privy to the data
that is being transferred. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) provides
approval to recognise these institutions.
ADR
Alternative Dispute Resolution is a method of settling disputes without
litigation. While it is usually understood to mean arbitration, negotiation
and mediation, it can include other mechanisms such as, but not limited
to, resolution through an ombudsman, complaint boards, facilitated
settlements. Further, a hybrid model of different forms of ADR
mechanisms such as mediation-arbitration (med-arb), med-arb-med,
arb-med-arb also qualify as ADR.
Court
annexed
ODR
A form of ODR that is conducted under the supervision of courts with
the use of ICT. The use of court annexed mediation centres using ICT,
is an example of court annexed ODR. In the present context, court
annexed ODR often refers to court annexed e-ADR.
e-ADR
The term refers to the use of technology in alternative dispute
resolution processes. e-ADR forms a subset of ODR.
eCourts
Mission Mode
Project 
A pan-India project, monitored and funded by the Department of
Justice, for the implementation of ICT in the Indian judiciary.
ICT
Information and communications technology is an all-encompassing
term that refers to the use of technologies such as computers and other
electronic equipment to collect, store, use and send data electronically.
Neutrals
The term includes all dispute resolution professionals involved in
conducting ODR proceedings such as arbitrators, mediators, conciliators.
With future growth in technological innovation this term would also
include algorithms that perform adjudicatory or facilitative roles.GLOSSARY GLOSSARY
300937/2021/DMEO
175 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India xii
ODR
The term ODR is ever evolving and will continue to remodel itself
based on new technological innovations. That said, Online Dispute
Resolution in simple terms is the use of technology to resolve disputes
outside of the public court system. However, rudimentary integration
of technology in the dispute resolution processes does not qualify
as ODR. ODR is also more than just e-ADR for it can include the
resolution of disputes through AI/ML tools and has no determined set
of procedures. A detailed section [Chapter I, Section B: Understanding
ODR] has been dedicated in this Report towards understanding the
different aspects of the phrase ODR.
ODR centres
The term refers to all the institutions that offer dispute resolution
services through aggregated use of ICT tools or through technology
platforms developed in-house or by any external developer
ODR
Platforms
The term refers to the technology layer in any ODR process, irrespective
of whether the platform is attached to any ODR centre. ODR Platforms
could be integrated by ODR centres or be a part of internal dispute
resolution frameworks in businesses or governments. It therefore has
a wide import attached to it.
ODR service
providers
The term collectively refers to ODR Platforms and ODR centres.
Virtual
Courts
The term refers to dispute resolution within the court system through
the use of ICT tools. Resolution of disputes through court annexed
ODR centres is not included under virtual courts as they are intended
to resolve disputes out of the public court system. GLOSSARY
300937/2021/DMEO
176 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Traditionally, dispute resolution has always been associated with a place i.e. courts.
The advent of ADR has helped alter this conception, to an extent. However,
communication during these dispute resolution processes – both verbal and
non-verbal continues to require the physical presence of parties. Owing to the
circumstances induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, these traditional notions of
dispute resolution have come to be challenged. In these trying times, technology
has emerged as a harbinger of change and neutralizer of circumstances. At the
helm of this technology revolution, is Online Dispute Resolution – ODR.
UNDERSTANDING ODR AND ITS BENEFITS
In its most basic sense, ODR is the use of technology to ‘resolve’ disputes. It is
not just any form of technology integration (such as electronically scheduling a
session), but its active use to help resolve the dispute (such as video conferencing
for hearings or electronic document sharing for filing). Though derived from
ADR, ODR’s benefit extends beyond just e-ADR or ADR that is enabled through
technology. ODR can use technology tools that are powered by AI/ML in the
form of automated dispute resolution, script-based solution and curated platforms
that cater to specific categories of disputes.
ODR’s benefits are also manifold. It is cost effective, convenient, efficient, allows
for customizable processes to be developed and can limit unconscious bias that
results from human interactions. In terms of layers of justice, ODR can help in
dispute avoidance, dispute containment and dispute resolution. Its widespread
use can improve the legal health of the society, ensure increased enforcement
of contracts and thereby improve the Ease of Doing Business Ranking for India.
Over time, the benefits of ODR and Digital Courts (technology in the public court
system) together can transform the legal paradigm as a whole. A comprehensive
detailing of the definition of ODR, its origins, its benefits can be found in Chapter I.
Its immediate benefits can be harnessed during this current COVID-19 crises,
which is likely to lead to an upsurge in the number of cases before the judiciary.
For instance, consumer, tenancy and labour disputes are likely to see a rise in
300937/2021/DMEO
177 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 2
numbers. ODR can help reduce the burden on the courts by leveraging the
capacity of the private sector, which has already seen some innovation and
capacity building in the last few years. In the long term, ODR can be the preferred
mode of solution for, though not limited to, all low-value high-volume disputes
such as those involving e-commerce transactions.
ODR IN INDIA
In the context of India, fortunately, the current ecosystem and preparedness
has been very promising. For instance, the judiciary has been unequivocal in its
support for ODR both in terms of judges vocally recognizing its potential and
in terms of the judicial decisions that have set the foundation for future ODR
integration (such as the recognition of online arbitration or electronic records as
evidence). The Executive, in the form of Government Departments and Ministries
have also been leading the way. For instance, the RBI released an ODR policy
for digital payments, the MSME sector saw the introduction of the SAMADHAAN
portal and the Department of Legal Affairs is in the process of collating the details
of ODR service providers across the country.
Another aspect that makes India ODR ready is its legislative preparedness.
Though in a piecemeal fashion, there are numerous support legislations which
provide legislative backing for the ADR aspect of ODR (such as the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) as well as
the technology aspect of ODR (such as the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and the
Information and Technology Act, 2000). Further, India has also brought into force
the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting
from Mediation, 2018 this year. A detailed explanation of India’s ODR readiness
can be found in Chapter IV of this report.
While the future is indeed promising, there are still a lot of challenges that have
to be overcome along the way. The challenges that have been identified in
Chapter V include – structural challenges (such as lack of digital literacy and
digital infrastructure), behavioural challenges (such as lack of awareness, lack
of trust in ODR and reluctance on part of the Government to use ODR) and
operational challenges (such as difficulty in enforcing ODR outcomes, archaic
legal processes and shortage of competent Neutrals). Chapter VI of the report
identifies some initiatives that can help resolve these seemingly big issues with
innovative solutions. The following section provides these details.
GETTING INDIA ODR READY
If ODR is indeed to be mainstreamed and broad-based in India, sufficient capacity
and infrastructure will have to be developed in the country. For instance, one of
the pre-requisites for ODR in India is greater access to technology. This access is
both in terms of the physical access to infrastructure as well as increase in levels
of digital literacy. It is also recommended that targeted initiatives be introduced to
increase access among people that are often placed on the margins. Fortunately,
some initiatives taken by the Government are already working towards making
this a reality.
300937/2021/DMEO
178 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 3
Apart from infrastructure, even the current capacity of the ecosystem has to be
maximized and then progressively increased for the future. For instance, through
collaborative and systematic efforts from various stakeholders, the number of
trained and qualified ODR professionals can be increased. To expand capacity
while ensuring quality, the kinds of institutions that can provide training can be
widened and uniform training standards can be mandated. Such training should
include practical experience and simulations training on ethics and best practices.
Increase in human resource capacity should not be understood to mean just
an increase in the number of Neutrals. There are various other actors who can
range from paralegal volunteers (who can assist litigants to use ODR), to the
Court Registry officials (who can encourage potential litigants to use ODR and
implement the procedure laid down for enforcement of ODR settlements/awards)
and judicial officers (who can refer cases to ODR). It is important to impart curated
training for each of the above actors at a large scale. Finally, it is important that
the private sector be encouraged to innovate and grow in the years to come
so that both the dispute resolution ecosystem and the Government can benefit
in the long run. To this end, targeted initiatives such as setting up of legal tech
hubs and tax incentives can be introduced.
However, to give a boost to ODR in India, the Government and the judiciary
must lead by example. For instance, adopting ODR for Government litigation
will increase the trust that people place in ODR processes. ODR can also be
integrated within some Government Departments such as the Department of
Consumer Affairs or help resolve disputes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016. The judiciary and the Governments, on the other hand, can collaborate
to integrate ODR into the workings of the court annexed centres. These centres
can especially benefit from the use of AI/ML which can help resolve disputes
that have limited question of law and fact.
SUITABLY REGULATING ODR
Since ODR is still in its nascent stages of development in India, it is important
that the governance framework encourages the growth of innovation both within
the Government and in the private sector. To enable this, a balance has to be
struck between protecting the rights and interests of its users while ensuring that
over-regulation does not stifle innovation.
The Committee has adopted a two-pronged approach to governance. First, is
to strengthen the existing legislative framework for ADR and introduce ODR
related amendments. For instance, there is an immediate need to promulgate a
law to regulate mediation and govern data protection. To this end, the Mediation
and Conciliation Planning Committee of the Supreme Court has suggested
an umbrella legislation for mediation. Similarly, a legislation to regulate data
protection will be key in building trust in ODR processes. Even legislations that
can see ODR integration such as the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Consumer
Protection Act, 2020 will have to be amended to specifically recognise ODR.
Finally, legislative backing will have to come in the form of digitizing key legal
300937/2021/DMEO
179 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 4
processes such as notarization and payment of stamp duties. The report also
recommends the introduction and integration of technology into mandatory pre-
litigation mediation for a few categories of cases, which can be rolled out in a
phased manner.
Second, is to introduce a light-touch approach to regulation wherein guidelines
or principles that, though voluntary, should be adopted in letter and spirit by
stakeholders that provide ODR services. The report recommends three sets of
principles – Design Principles for ODR Platforms (which can be hosted within
businesses or exist independently) and separate sets of Ethical Principles for
ODR centres and third-party Neutrals. To ensure compliance of these principles,
it is recommended that a self-regulatory organization (SRO) be constituted of
members from the ecosystem. This can follow the model of ‘Sahamati’ which is
a collective of the account aggregator ecosystem or a more structured model
like the National Payment Corporation of India (NPCI). These recommendations
that have been identified do not have to be introduced in one go. Instead, they
can be implemented in a phased manner as identified in the final section of the
report. Similarly, the models of self-regulations can also be altered over time to
enable the Government to adopt a more proactive approach. The question of
how and whether such initiatives will be required will be determined by how the
ecosystem responds to the current guidance framework in the coming years.
300937/2021/DMEO
180 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 5
A. BACKGROUND
The future of justice should be conceptualized beyond the confines of brick and
mortar. As has been said, courts should be a service not a place.
1
It can be a
service that is accessible, formidable, intelligible, pervasive, robust and designed
with an outcome-oriented framework. However, the burden of delivering this
service does not have to fall on the shoulders of the court alone. The advent of
ADR has helped push towards this recalibration, to an extent. Today, the next
generation’s revolution of the dispute resolution ecosystem, world over, comes
through the vehicle of technology.
Traditionally, communication – both verbal and non-verbal in dispute resolution
has existed without technology and required the physical presence of parties in
a pre-identified, designated physical space.
2
However, the developments in ICT
and increased access to the internet has brought into question this assumption–
that effective communication and thereby dispute resolution, necessarily requires
physical congregation.
In light of the COVID-19 induced pandemic, this assumption, now more than ever,
has come under scrutiny. The pandemic has necessitated adjustments that are
adaptive and innovative, including those in the dispute resolution ecosystem.
Across the globe, both private dispute resolution centres
3
and judiciaries
4
have
welcomed technology and released guidelines to facilitate video-conferencing
led remote participation in hearings. Therefore, the future that William Gibson
referred to in his famous quote–“the future has already arrived; it is just not evenly
distributed as yet”
5
, seems to have indeed arrived. It now befalls upon institutions
to determine how equitable distribution can be achieved, even in the realm of
dispute resolution.
The judiciary is leading the way
In India, the judiciary has been leading the way. There have been several pivotal
initiatives through the eCourts Mission Mode Project whose impact will percolate
both vertically and laterally.
6
However, to make dispute resolution far more
effective, there is a need for an efficient framework that resolves disputes before
they approach the courts. This Committee is concerned with creating one such
framework, which builds on past efforts and takes a leap towards truly achieving
the ideal enshrined in our Constitution -‘access to justice’ for all.
7
INTRODUCTIONI
300937/2021/DMEO
181 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 6
In the context of the pandemic, the judiciary has led the way by responding
positively to the technological needs of the system. It has conducted a large
volume of virtual hearings
8
and as a result, the judiciary has in many ways
redefined the very idea of a traditional judiciary synonymous with crowded
court complexes, overflowing paper files and courtroom hearings.
9
However,
the successful use of technology has not been limited to just the courts but
extended to other institutions. The Lok Adalat has been transformed into online
versions- e-Lok Adalats.
10
It is this kind of integration of technology, which holds
the potential to make the resolution of disputes more affordable and convenient.
Moving forward, there could be a spate of new technologies, beyond what seems
currently possible, that could be deployed towards the goal of improving access
to justice. This report deals with one such relatively new way of resolving disputes
facilitated by technology understood by an all-encompassing terminology- Online
Dispute Resolution (ODR).
Ushering in a brighter future
In light of the pandemic, building trust, confidence and efficiency is crucial for
reviving the economy. There is hence a need to explore new systems to prevent,
manage and resolve disputes in an expedient and collaborative manner. To meet
this goal, technology will play a crucial role. It is in this context that this Report is
looking at the potential of ODR. However, the success of ODR as a solution will
depend to a large extent on multi-pronged, diverse stakeholder involvement. The
commitment to collaboratively build this framework should therefore be unerring.
To this end, the Government has been playing its part with a few Departments
and Ministries already adopting ADR mechanisms to resolve disputes.
11
The private
sector has also seen innovation with the evolution of legal tech start-ups who
are advancing the cause of out of court settlement fairly and with finality for
various disputes. This development in India is building a milestone for dispute
resolution, which will be revered by posterity as a disruptive shift in modalities
advancing the quality of life for the common person as well as quality of business
environment for industries.
However, there is still immense potential to exploit technology towards meeting
the above objective. The advancement of information technology in the form of
artificial intelligence (AI), big data, machine learning (ML) and blockchain can be
increasingly embedded in legal processes.
12
Further, India is on the path towards
ubiquitous connectivity, e-learning tools for legal guidance for the common man,
opportunity for enhanced choice and agency exercised by the litigants from legal
service providers, AI/ML led document automation, analysis and drafting and
finally workflow and case management automation.
13
One such example where the
true potential of technology can be exploited and harnessed can be in the realm
of blockchain driven arbitration processes for smart contracts.
14
Smart contracts
drafted in computer code can use technology to automate enforceability through
transfer of rights and obligations. Therefore, blockchain arbitration could administer
resolution on the basis of such smart contracts.INTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
182 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 7
B. UNDERSTANDING ODR
The concept of ODR is still evolving. At a preliminary level, ODR refers to the
usage of ICT tools to enable parties to resolve their disputes. This includes using
simple to complicated communication technologies such as audio-visual tools
ranging from telephones to smart phones to LED screens, spread sheets, e-mail
and messaging applications, with the crux of it being to enable dispute resolution
without physical congregation of the parties.
From instances seen around the world, in its first phase, ODR shares its fundamentals
with ADR mechanisms such as negotiation, mediation and arbitration.
15
To this
extent, most of the early ODR efforts have mirrored ADR processes through
aggregated use of simple ICT tools.
16
ODR however is not to be understood to mean just e-ADR. At a more advanced
stage, ODR can work as the fourth party through the use of algorithmic assistance
tools that help parties find resolutions. Such technology can take the form of
intelligent decision support systems, smart negotiation tools, automated resolution,
and machine learning. Eventually, ODR can also offer multi-door dispute resolution
through tailored processes for specific parties and their dispute.
17
With the help of
technology tools, these tailored processes can be designed to achieve an ideal
dispute resolution for all the disputants. A few of these advanced ODR systems,
already underway in some jurisdictions, are described in Chapter III of the report.
Even the manner in which ODR can impact the dispute resolution ecosystem is
expansive. It can function as more than merely a method to ‘resolve disputes’.
Instead, ODR can provide a comprehensive system for access to justice, as
articulated by Professor Richard Susskind. It can do so by encompassing the
following stages in the life cycle of a dispute:
18
1. Legal Health Promotion: ODR can play an important role in promoting
legal health by making people aware about the law, their rights and
duties, and the remedies available with them. For instance, in the
European Union, it is mandatory for merchants to inform the consumers
of the option to avail ODR. Similarly, tools can be developed where
parties can feed in questions and get answers on the rights and
protections. Thus overall, ODR can help in moving towards a more
‘rule of law’ based society.
2. Dispute Avoidance: Data driven development of ODR tools can provide
citizens information to make informed choices based on the strength
and weaknesses of the position of law. For example, the study of
thousands of credit disputes can help parties identify, even before a
dispute has arisen, the stages at which the disputes are likely to occur,
thereby providing them an opportunity to pre-emptively address any
likely challenges. Additionally, ODR can also help parties identify the
likely outcome of the case if the rights are agitated in that situation. INTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
183 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 8
Thus, ODR can help people recognise and avoid legal obstacles and
thereby, disputes.
3. Dispute Containment: At a primary level, ODR can enable informal and
pragmatic containment of dispute before it enters court systems.
19
ADR
processes such as mediation and arbitration already provide an avenue
where disputes can be resolved before they reach the courts. In this
light, ODR, in effect, can add a digital layer to ADR and make it more
efficient. For instance, mandatory pre-litigation ODR cases involving
e-commerce claims, small cause claims and cheque-bouncing issues
can be resolved before they reach the courts system. This is extremely
critical for Indian judiciary, which has a burgeoning case-load.
Even though ODR has evolved over the years as explained in the next section on
its origins, a few undisputable features of ODR which have also lent themselves
to circumscribing this Committee’s mandate are listed below:
1. A mandatory component of ODR is the use of ICT tools. To this end, a
certain threshold in terms of integration of ICT needs to be met for a
dispute resolution process to be categorised under ODR. For instance,
mere scheduling of hearing dates through email or exchange of documents
online would not classify as ODR. If substantial communication (verbal
and non-verbal) between parties or the parties and the neutrals occur
through an aggregated use of ICT tools or over an ODR Platform, it
would fall within the ambit of ODR.
20
2. ODR is distinct from virtual courts. The use of ICT tools within the
judiciary is covered under the term ‘virtual courts’ or ‘online courts’.
21
On
the other hand, ODR is the use of ICT tools outside the court system.
That said, cases could be referred to ODR during the various stages of a
life cycle of a case. ODR can be used prior to a case being filed into court
(e.g. pre-litigation mediation) or referred to ODR after a case is filed in
court (e.g. reference under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, INTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
184 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 9
1908), or even after a case is resolved in a court and considered closed
(e.g. for modifying divorce orders post-separation).
3. ODR is not a completely new mode of dispute resolution. For many
variants of ODR, such as e-arbitration and e-mediation, the prescribed
processes used during resolution, are informed by the traditional
processes, which ODR is intending to elevate with technology. Thus,
pre-existing formal ways of dispute resolution outside the court system
can be considered to be ODR if they satisfy the requirements mentioned
under point one above. That said, there are indeed other variants of
ODR, which are new and continue to evolve, especially in the realm of
AI/ML driven ODR.
C. ORIGINS OF ODR
Before describing the challenges with the status quo, it is important to understand
the origins of ODR, identify the pattern and pace of its development, and the
challenges that have already been overcome.
The origins of ODR can be traced to the evolution of the internet in the
1990s, which increased online transactions, and thereby disputes related to such
transactions. Broadly, ODR’s development across the world can be divided into
three phases, with each phase benefiting from the subsequent innovations in ICT.
1. First Phase: eBay’s experiment leads the way
The first initiatives on ODR projects were launched in 1996 in the University
of Massachusetts and the University of Maryland.
22
In the late 1990s, with the
expansion of the internet and the evolution of e-commerce, a robust system was
required to address the disputes originating from commercial activities over the
internet.
23
ODR offered a solution to this problem.
Around the same time, ODR was pioneered in a few early e-commerce entities.
In 1999, eBay started a pilot project to provide online mediation facilities for
disputes arising between buyers and sellers on its platform.
24
The pilot project
handled two hundred disputes in a two-week period, by far the largest number
of disputes ever handled online. It prompted eBay to include dispute resolution
as an option for buyers and sellers in the event a transaction was unsuccessful.
Initially, eBay’s dispute resolution process was contracted out to an internet start-
up, SquareTrade, and several years later was taken over by eBay.
25
The number
of disputes handled by eBay grew steadily over the next decade and by 2010
eBay was handling over 60 million disputes per year through its ODR Platform.
26
2. Second Phase: Growth of ODR start-ups
The success of this model, and the rapid growth of the internet kick-started
the evolution of ODR, leading to the boom of ODR Platforms.
27
There were up
to 21 new ODR programs that were launched in the year 1999 from only 9 in
the previous year.
28
By 2004, the number had reached 115.
29
Even the Internet INTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
185 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 10
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) instituted a Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy,
30
which thought started off as an offline process,
but eventually became increasingly online. However, most of these start-ups failed.
Only a few successful platforms such as Cybersettle, Smartsettle and the Mediation
Room were able to make a sizeable impact in the dispute resolution ecosystem.
31
The technology innovation that this phase saw was also not a replication of those
initiated by eBay. The most prominent innovation for eBay for example, was their
online mediation model. Cybersettle, on the other hand followed a functionality
acquired through creating a network of specialised internet applications that
enabled various forms of communication. The system enabled negotiations to
be conducted using the Internet platform through a blind-bidding process. The
goal of the process was to let parties arrive at a settlement without disclosing
to the other party the maximum amount that they would be willing to settle at.
32

Thus, during this phase both innovation grew and expanded while those that did
not provide novel solutions disappeared.
3. Third Phase: Adoption by the Government and judiciary
The success of a few of these private ODR Platforms drew the interest of
governments towards this emerging addition to the dispute resolution ecosystem.
One of the first steps towards this adoption was taken in 2004 when the City
of New York adopted an ODR system developed by Cybersettle to clear their
backlog and expedite the settlement of personal injury claims.
33
This resulted
in reduction of settlement time by 85 per cent and an impressive 66 per cent
settlement rate within 30 days of submission of the dispute.
34
Subsequently, governments across jurisdictions have adopted ODR programs for
efficient dispute redressal. The wider expansion of the internet and innovations in
ICT has fuelled these initiatives. The development of Consumidor.gov in Brazil
35

and the European Online Dispute Resolution Platform in the European Union
36

are some of the examples of initiatives being taken to resolve consumer disputes.
Recognising the efficiency of ODR, some governments also undertook initiatives
to integrate ODR into their judicial structure. Some of the most notable examples
of court annexed ODR include Rechtwijzer 2.0 in Netherlands,
37
Civil Resolution
Tribunal in British Columbia,
38
Canada, Money Claim Online in United Kingdom,
39

and the New Mexico Courts Online Dispute Resolution Centre in the USA.
40
The successful integration and co-option of ODR across the world, has ultimately
led to the development of a few models of ODR all of which have been running
in parallel across the globe. They are:
1. In-house private ODR Platforms run by individual businesses;
2. Private ODR Platforms or service providers catering to different
categories of disputes and multiple modes of resolution;
3. Government run or state-sponsored ODR programs and platforms and
4. Court-annexed ODR systemsINTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
186 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 11
Detailed explanations of the methods followed to resolve disputes and the
frameworks used to regulate them are provided in Chapter III of this report. A
timeline that identifies some of these stages of growth in the international context
is provided in the following chart.
In the context of India, on the other hand, the development of ODR has been
unique in the sense that the progression that spanned across two decades has
occurred in quick succession, that too mostly in the latter half of this decade.
While multiple attempts have been made over the last two decades,
41
it is only
now that the potential of ODR has come to be recognised and is undisputed.
The timeline that details out the progression in India is present in Chapter IV of
the report.
A timeline that identifies these stages of growth in the international context is
provided below.INTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
187 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 12

1996 
ODR projects 
launched  in 
University of 
Massachusetts and 
University of 
Michigan
1999 -2000
A number  of ODR 
start-up (including 
Cybersettle and 
Smartsettle) 
launched during 
internet bubble.   
2013
European Union 
enacts regulation to 
establish an ODR 
platform at the 
Union level to o ffer 
single point dispute  
resolution services.
2007
Government of 
Netherlands 
launched 
Rechwijzer to 
provide ODR 
services for family 
disputes
2010
UNCITRAL 
establishes a 
Working Group to  
create standards 
for OD R
2016
UNCITRAL 
finalised and 
adopted the 
Technical Notes 
for ODR.   
2020
Hong  Kong 
launched ODR  
scheme to address 
disputes arising 
due to COVID-19 
pandemic.
1989
Invention of 
World Wide 
Web
1999
eBay’s Pilot 
Project to provide 
online mediation 
facility f or 
disputes arising on 
their platf orm
2004
As of July 2004, 
at least 115 ODR 
services 
launched 
worldwide
2009 
European 
Committee for 
Standardisation 
releases report on 
Standardisation of 
ODR
2012
British Columbia 
enacts law to 
establish Civil 
Resolution Tribunal  
to provide ODR 
services for small 
claim disputes
2015 
Committee of 
Human Rights and 
Legal Affairs of 
the Council of  
Europe published 
a report on 
adoption of ODR
2018 
Asia  Pacific 
Economic  
Cooperation(APEC) 
adopted ODR 
framework to 
address business  
disputes 
In the context of India, however, the development of ODR has been unique in the sense that the progression that spanned across two decades have occurred
in quick succession
, that too only in the latter half of this decade. While multiple attempts have been made over
the last two decades,
39
it is only now that the
potential of ODR has come to be recognised
and is nearly undisputed. A representation
of how ODR has evolved in India can be seen in Chapter IV (page 46).INTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
188 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 13
D. BENEFITS OF ODR
The integration of ICT into dispute resolution processes provides immense
potential to overcome challenges typically associated with Courts and those that
have come to plague the ADR systems as well. Some of the key benefits of ODR,
already felt in a few jurisdictions are indicated below:
1. Cost effective
The economic burden of dispute resolution often turns the process itself into a
punishment and thereby hinders access to justice.
42
In this light, ODR offers a cost-
effective mode of dispute resolution for the disputants as well as the Neutrals
43
.
By its very nature, ODR does not require parties to travel long distances or rent
a facility to conduct the dispute resolution. Further, ODR has the potential to
reduce legal costs, by way of reduced time for resolution and by doing away
with the need for legal advice in select categories of cases.
44
Apart from these tangible costs, there are other indirect costs, often faced by
enterprises, on account of lengthy litigation proceedings. For instance, enterprises
see loss of productive time, loss in wellbeing of the individuals, loss in investor
confidence, reduced investments and consequently slower economic growth.
While all these impacts cannot be completely remedied by ODR, it can help in
mitigating them and therefore prove to be cost effective
2. Convenient and quick
The pendency of cases in Courts across India has been one of the major challenges
for the justice system. As per the India Justice Report, 2019, in 21 States and Union
Territories, cases in District Courts remain pending for 5 years on average or
more.
45
Excessive adjournments, vacancy in judicial and administrative staff, and
complex processes involving multiple participants are some of the major reasons
for such pendency.
46
ODR can address such delays by providing a faster and more convenient process
for resolution of disputes. In itself, ADR employs simpler procedures and a fixed
timeline for processes leading to efficient dispute resolution. To add to such
benefits, ODR eliminates the need for travel and synchronisation of schedules.
This reliance on asynchronous communication, allows parties to submit their
arguments intermittently, or follow a ‘documents-only’ process. Not requiring the
physical presence of parties also reduces the need for travel thereby especially
benefitting parties involved in cross border disputes. Similarly, use of ODR within
businesses such as e-commerce entities also provides consumers a one-stop
avenue to resolve their disputes thereby making dispute resolution quicker and
more convenient.
3. Allows for customisable processes
Over the past few years, ADR has seen a lot of variants emerge, that go beyond
the traditional ADR processes such as arbitration and mediation. Some of the
hybrid variants include med-arb, med-arb-med, arb-med-arb. ODR’s integration INTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
189 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 14
with such non-traditional ODR processes and use of artificial intelligence can lead
to limitless possibilities in terms of the types of models that can be developed.
Thus, ODR can allow for multi-door dispute resolution through curated and
customised process for certain classes of cases.
47
This in turn, can make the
dispute resolution process more cost effective and convenient for the user.
4. Encourages dispute resolution
ODR can contribute significantly to improve access to a variety of dispute
resolution processes by addressing major concerns such as lack of access to
physical courts or ADR centres, cost of dispute resolution as well as the barriers
due to disabilities.
48
Since ODR tools such as online negotiation and mediation are
premised on mutually arriving at an agreement, they make the dispute resolution
process less adversarial and complicated for the parties. Resolving disputes in the
comfort of the user’s own homes can make the dispute resolution process feel
more accessible. This improvement in the overall experience can encourage more
parties to opt to resolve their disputes through such formal means as opposed
to not agitating their rights at all.
49
5. Limits implicit bias caused by human judgment
With the increased awareness regarding racial, caste and gender justice, there have
been some concerns regarding the impact of biases, prejudice, and stereotype
on decision-making processes and outcomes. Studies have identified that implicit
bias and anxiety to communicate with members of different communities can
influence the outcome of mediation.
50
ODR processes can lessen the unconscious
bias of the Neutral while resolving disputes. ODR Platforms, especially those
based on texts and emails, detach audio-visual cues relating to the gender, social
status, ethnicity, race, etc. and help in resolving disputes based on the claims and
information submitted by the disputing parties, rather than who these parties are.
51
That said, while ODR could indeed limit biases arising from human interactions,
ODR stands the risk of introducing new biases through the use of artificial
intelligence. Such risks are further detailed in Chapter V of the Report.
Cost Effective
Allows for customisable
processes
Encourages dispute
resolution
Convenient
and quick
Limits implicit bias caused
by human judgmentINTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
190 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 15
Long-term benefits
While the above benefits can be directly linked to ODR by its very nature, there
are other indirect long-term benefits that can arise by using ODR. For instance,
by virtue of being cost effective, convenient and quick, ODR provides parties an
opportunity to exercise their rights and explore avenues, that they might have
otherwise not pursued given the lengthy and expensive nature of litigation, and
to some extent ADR. As a result, it can be one of the mechanisms to increase
access to justice.
52
By introducing mechanisms that can ensure greater procedural
fairness, some of which have been identified further in the Report, ODR can
attempt to level the bargaining powers of parties.
53
That said, given the pre-
requisite requirements of technological infrastructure and digital literary, it will be
long journey for ODR to be able to provide access to justice for all.
ODR can also help improve the legal health of the society where individuals
and businesses are aware of their rights and have the means to enforce them.
An example of ODR enabling such legal healthy promotion can be seen in the
European Union where all merchants in EU countries are mandated to inform
consumers about the availability of ODR. As a consequence, contracts can come
to be stringently enforced improving the business environment in the country.
Tangible benefits of such improvements could be felt in the form of improved
‘Ease of Doing Business’ aspects for India especially on the ‘enforcement of
contracts’ parameter, thereby bringing in greater investment to the country.
54
In the larger scheme, through the continued used of ODR and virtual courts, the
legal paradigm as a whole can be transformed.
55
For instance, dispute resolution
and therefore by extension justice delivery can be democratised through use of
everyday technology tools like the mobile phone and video conferencing. Similarly,
the way we understand legal processes like filing and hearings can be completely
altered through the recognition of digital documents and virtual hearings.
In light of these promising benefits, it is now upon the Committee to identify
ways in which the existing framework within India can be modified and the
potential of the present ecosystem harnessed by coming up with an action plan
for ODR. To this end, the following chapters of the report delve into the role of
the Committee (Chapter II), the ODR models adopted across the globe (Chapter
III), present status in India (Chapter IV), the challenges faced in adoption of ODR
(Chapter V) and finally the recommendations which can help mainstream ODR
in India (Chapter VI).INTRODUCTiON
300937/2021/DMEO
191 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 16
The potential for ODR was on the verge of being recognised globally when the
COVID-19 pandemic hit across nations. The resulting lock-down, which brought
most judiciaries to a grinding halt, has resulted in adding to the ODR momentum.
The current crisis has helped put to rest any lingering doubts that may have
been, that the future of dispute resolution, both in India and globally, rests in
harnessing the true potential of technology to resolve disputes.
India can be at the forefront of this global ODR movement. This is possible only
through a strong, strategic partnership between all the relevant stakeholders
working towards mainstreaming ODR in India. A first step in this direction was
taken by the NITI Aayog on 6
th
June 2020, which, in collaboration with civil society
and other organisations, conducted a virtual consultation titled, ‘Catalyzing Online
Dispute Resolution in India’. The objective was to bring together key stakeholders
to discuss the manner in which ODR can be introduced in India.
56
The event
included senior judges of the Supreme Court, secretaries from key Government
Ministries, industrialists, legal experts, and general counsels of leading enterprises.
During the event, the CEO of NITI Aayog, Mr. Amitabh Kant recognised the need
for progressive and disruptive changes in justice delivery and their potential
to increase access to justice in an unprecedented way.
57
The session also saw
recognition from members of the judiciary, the details of which can be found in
the judicial acceptance section of Chapter IV. There was also common consensus
amongst all the stakeholders that the key to ODR development in India was
through collaboration between the various stakeholders from the Government
to the industry.
58
In furtherance of this goal to broad base ODR in India, the NITI Aayog held another
session on the 8
th
of August on ‘Unlocking Online Dispute Resolution to Enhance
the Ease of Doing Business’.
59
The session saw representation from top businesses
in India, heads of law firms and leading general counsels. During the session,
Mr. Kant observed that the COVID-19 induced crisis is likely to see a deluge of
disputes in courts, most notably in lending credit, property, commerce and retail
that will require expedient resolution. It is for this reason that new innovation
models such as ODR need explicit support.
60
The session also highlighted the
BACKGROUND TO THE
COMMITTEEII
300937/2021/DMEO
192 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 17
need to have transparency to generate trust in the system and push innovation
to have a diverse set of ODR application across sectors.
To consolidate the ideas gained during these consultations and to create an
effective implementation framework for ODR in India, a Committee was constituted
by the NITI Aayog under the Chairpersonship of Hon’ble Justice (retd.) A K Sikri.
A. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
To ensure that the Committee develops a comprehensive action plan, NITI Aayog
sought representation from various Departments and Ministries of the Government
of India, which can contribute towards mainstreaming ODR and in-turn benefit
from it. The Departments and Ministries represented in the Committee are:
1. The Department of Consumer Affairs,
2. The Department of Justice,
3. The Department of Legal Affairs,
4. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade,
5. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs and
6. The Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises
The Committee also consists of CEO, NITI Aayog as a Member, and OSD (Law),
NITI Aayog as the Convener. An Administrative Secretariat was established to
provide research and drafting assistance and co-ordinate the consultations across
all stakeholders.
B. TERMS OF REFERENCE
The overarching goal of the committee is to develop an action plan that can
aid in mainstreaming ODR in India. The following are the specific objectives with
which the committee has been set up:
1. Identifying and amending existing laws/regulations/rules to enable ODR;
2. Identifying and facilitating strategies to adopt ODR as a means of
dispute resolution in relevant sectors;
3. Analysing global best practices in ODR, specifically for dispute avoidance,
containment and resolution to recommend suitable models for justice
delivery;
4. Collaborating with the judiciary, industry, and the ecosystem as a whole
for ODR; and
5. Any other matter referred to the Committee by the Chairperson in the
interests of access to justice.
300937/2021/DMEO
193 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 18
C. PROCESS FOLLOWED
The Committee has conducted wide consultations to make the action plan for
ODR inclusive and comprehensive. The Committee conducted consultations and
solicited comments at two phases of the drafting process – before the release
of the first draft and after the release of the first draft. Before the release of the
first draft it:
a. Conducted 15 sets of consultations with key stakeholders. These
consultations were held for stakeholder groups and through one-on-one
consultations with domain experts. A total of 68 people were consulted.
b. Views were also solicited in the form of written submissions to
questionnaires that were curated based on the stakeholder. A total of
65 written responses were received.
The Committee published the report for public comments on October 28
th
for
a period of 14 days, concluding on November 11
th
, 2020 at 12 pm. 53 responses
were received. Further, the Committee also conducted round tables with domain
experts and members of the judiciary to obtain further comments on the draft
report.
This report provides a reflection of the inputs received from stakeholder
consultations, public comments and round table conferences. These consultations
have significantly contributed to the work that has been put out in this report.
A snapshot of the inclusive approach followed by the Committee is provided
below.
Inclusive approach followed by the Committee
Targeted
consultation
with diverse
stakeholder
Soliciting
public
comments
Consultation
on with the
judiciary
Release of
the draft
report
Targetted
action
plan for
Committee
Members
Release of
the Report
300937/2021/DMEO
194 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 19
The last two decades have witnessed an exponential development in ODR. ODR
Platforms and institutions have emerged across the globe to provide efficient
redressal to a variety of disputes. These ODR Platforms have not only been
effective in resolving disputes arising from online transactions, but also, traditional
disputes such as labour disputes, tenancy disputes, etc. This section studies the
prominent ODR initiatives around the world to analyse the services provided by
them and its effectiveness. These ODR Platforms can be divided under three
categories:
1. Government-run ODR Platforms: This category includes the ODR
Platforms that are established by Government Departments to ensure
efficient dispute resolution in the sectors regulated by them. These
platforms have been successful in providing fast and cost-effective
dispute resolution, especially for consumer and labour disputes.
2. Court-annexed ODR Platforms: ODR holds potential to supplement
the efforts of the judiciary and reduce the case burden on the courts.
This can be achieved by integrating technology in court annexed ADR
initiatives and building ODR capacity. Building ODR capacity in court-
annexed centres creates a symbiotic partnership between ODR and the
judiciary- where ODR receives legitimacy because of the partnership
with the judiciary and the judiciary benefits in the form of reduced case-
load since the disputes are resolved outside the formal court system.
3. Private ODR Platforms: This category includes ODR service providers
in the private domain, as well as platforms established by private
enterprises such as e-commerce entities to resolve the disputes arising
during the course of their business.
The table below provides details of some of the ODR initiatives across the world.
These case studies provide an understanding of the ways in which the ODR
ecosystem is developing around the world. The table offers insights into the
variety of partnerships and regulation models that currently exist, from which
India can perhaps learn and adapt. Since there are many such cases globally, the
following case studies are not intended to be exhaustive. Instead, they identify
some of the key initiatives that have provided an impetus to the ODR movement
across the globe.
INTERNATIONAL
EXPERIENCE IN ODRIII
300937/2021/DMEO
195 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 20
A. GOVERNMENT-RUN ODR PLATFORMS
S. No.
ODR Service
Nature of Disputes
Mechanism for dispute resolution
Partnership and Regulation
1.
Brazil
: Consumidor.
gov
61

Consumer disputes
:
Consumer can use the ODR Platform to resolve disputes against companies registered with the Consumidor.gov.
62
The process for dispute resolution through Consumidor.gov is provided below:1.
The consumer can file their complaint against the company registered on the ODR Platform.
2.
The company is given 10 days to analyse and respond to the complaint.
3.
After the response from the company, the consumer is required to comment and classify the company’s response, stating whether their complaint has been resolved or not resolved, within 20 days.
63

Consumidor.gov platform is integrated with State and Municipal consumer rights protection bodies, ‘Procons’ (an institution linked to the Secretariat of Justice and Defense of Citizenship, State of  São Paulo), Courts of Justice, Office of Public Prosecutor, Public Defenders, Regulatory Agencies and the Ministry of National Consumer Secretariat. The guidelines for the platform provide data protection framework and prohibits activities such as defamation, harassment, etc.
64

Further, ODR services under the platform are provided for free.
65
300937/2021/DMEO
196 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 21
2.
European Union
:
The European Online Dispute Resolution Platform by the European Commission.
Consumer disputes
1.
All online traders are mandated to provide a link to the ODR Platform on their website.
2.
Once a consumer files a complaint on the ODR Platform the trader receives a notification.
3.
The complainant may resolve the dispute directly on the platform or submit the complaint to an ODR service provider listed on the ODR Platform.
4.
Disputes can be resolved directly on the ODR Platform - if the trader is willing to talk, then direct messages can be exchanged on the dashboard along with photographs to resolve the dispute.
5.
Resolution of dispute through ODR service provider - The ODR service provider, listed on the platform offers efficient dispute resolution. Both parties are provided 30 days to agree on an ODR service provider to handle their case.
6.
If the parties cannot decide upon the ODR service provider, the consumer is advised by the ODR Platform to adopt other modes for dispute resolution.
66
The European Union has partnered with more than 750 ODR service providers across Europe to provide ODR services to the consumers.
67

The ODR service providers are recognised and accredited by the sector-specific regulators of the member countries of EU. The ODR service providers are also required to undergo yearly audits and publish annual reports.
68

300937/2021/DMEO
197 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 22
3.
Hong Kong
:
COVID-19 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Scheme
The scheme aims to resolve disputes that are, arising due to the COVID-19 pandemicwhere the amount claimed is HKD 500,000 (approximately INR 47 lakhs) or less, and where at least one of the parties is a Hong Kong resident.
69
The scheme offers a multi-tiered dispute resolution process: 1.
initially parties try to negotiate the dispute,
2.
if negotiation is unsuccessful, then mediation is attempted,
3.
in case the mediation process is unsuccessful, parties proceed to arbitration for resolving their disputes.
Parties are free to appoint their own mediator and arbitrator for the process.
70
eBRAM, an independent not-for-profit organisation established in 2018 under Hong Kong law, has been appointed as the service provider for this ODR scheme.
71

The proceedings under the scheme are regulated by the rules framed by eBRAM.
72

4.
Mexico
: Concilianet
73

by the Federal Consumer Prosecutor’s Office (PROFECO).
Consumer disputes
:
Consumers can file complaints against manufacturers and service providers that have entered into a collaboration with the office of the Attorney General to resolve their disputes through Concilianet.
74
The process for dispute resolution through Concilianet is provided below:1.
The consumer is required to register an account with Concilianet with proper identification documents.
2.
The consumer can submit their complaint along with relevant documents on the ODR Platform.
3.
PROFECO analyses the complaint and determines its competence to resolve the dispute. After such analysis, it sends a reply to the complainant within 10 days.
4.
Post such analysis, online conciliation hearing is arranged with the consumer, manufacturer, and a conciliator.
5.
After the conciliation, the consumer can provide feedback on their level of satisfaction with the service received.
75

Concilianet provides a free ODR Platform for consumer dispute resolution. If a consumer files a complaint regarding a product or a service, the manufacturer or the service provider are mandated to appear for conciliation, failing which a fine may be imposed.
76

300937/2021/DMEO
198 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 23
5.
South Korea
:
E-Commerce Mediation Committee (ECMC)
E-commerce and E-transactions disputes
.
The ECMC offers dispute resolution through different modes of communication, including face-to-face, online, written, and phone call. 1.
for face-to-face coordination, disputes are resolved with a mediator, the disputing parties, and an investigator present in one meeting place. It is considered more appropriate for complex disputes.
2.
for online coordination, a party can access the online coordination centre (chatting.ecmc.or.kr) to resolve a dispute.
3.
written coordination is another means available to disputing parties who are unable to engage in a face-to-face dispute resolution process. This process is considered more appropriate for cases involving specific details and evidences.
4.
phone call coordination involves phone calls between a mediator, the disputing parties, and an investigator for resolution of a dispute.
77
The mediation proceedings under ECMC are regulated by the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Commerce.
78
The
Act includes provisions for the appointment of mediators and conducting mediation proceedings.
300937/2021/DMEO
199 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 24
6.
United Kingdom
:
UK Financial Ombudsman
79
Disputes between financial businesses and customers
.
80
The mechanism for dispute resolution
81
is
provided below. 1.
The consumer is required to give the business an opportunity to resolve the claim themselves. The business should address the issue within 8-weeks.
82
If the business fails to resolve the
issue, the consumer can file a complaint before UK Financial Ombudsman.
2.
Initial assessment
– Every complaint is assigned
a case handler who reviews the complaint and shares their initial thoughts with both the sides.
3.
Review by ombudsman
– If the parties
disagree with the initial assessment, they can ask ombudsman to conduct a formal review of the complaint. The ombudsman reviews all facts and evidences and decides the case.
4.
Binding nature of the decision
- The consumer
has the option to withdraw from the process at any stage or decline the outcome of the process. However, if the consumer accepts the outcome, then it is legally binding on the businesses.
The Financial Ombudsman is regulated as per the rules published by Financial Conduct Authority. The rules provide the procedure for handling the disputes, fee for the ombudsman services and jurisdiction of the ombudsman office.
83
7.
United States
:
Technology Assisted Group Solutions (TAGS) by Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)
Labour Disputes
FMCS has employed TAGS to help mediators resolve labour-management disputes efficiently. It uses technology tools for efficient group problem-solving, decision-making, improving the facilitation of meetings and conducting online surveys.
84

TAGS uses a combination of technology tools including eRoom, mimio, FacilitatePro and NetMeeting to enable online meeting, caucuses and provide efficient internet based dispute resolution.
85
300937/2021/DMEO
200 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 25
B. COURT-ANNEXED ODR PLATFORMS
S.
No.
Who is the
service
provider?
Nature of Disputes

(eg: MSME, small value,
e-commerce)
Mechanism for dispute resolution
Regulation of the ODR
Platform
Additional
information
1.
Canada:
British
Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT)
86
1.
Motor vehicle injury disputes up to Canadian $50,000 (or INR 30 lakhs approximately),
2.
Small claim disputes up to Canadian $5,000 (or INR 3 lakhs approximately),
3.
Strata property (condominium) disputes of any amount, and
4.
Societies and cooperative associations disputes of any amount.
87
The entire process of dispute resolution is conducted online.1.
Negotiation
–Once an application is
accepted, parties may use the CRT platform to negotiate and resolve some or all of the issues.
2.
Facilitation–
In this process a Neutral is
appointed to clarify the claims of the parties and facilitate mediation to reach a settlement.
3.
Tribunal Decision Process
–If the parties
are unsuccessful in resolving disputes, an independent CRT member adjudicates the dispute.
88
The decisions of taken by the CRT members are binding and can be enforced like a court order.
89
1.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal or CRT has been established under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.
90
2.
Agreements arrived at through negotiation and facilitation can be turned into a ‘consent resolution order’. Consent Resolution Order is enforceable through courts like a court order.
91
300937/2021/DMEO
201 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 26
2.
China:
Beijing
Internet Court

Civil and administrative disputes stemming from e-commerce and internet.
92
The Beijing Internet Court provides comprehensive online mediation service. The parties select the mediation organisation, the mediator and initiate mediation online. If the mediation is successful, the judge confirms the result of the process and withdraws the suit after an agreement is drafted.
93

Beijing Internet Court’s Court Hearing Rules has standardised dispute resolution process in the Internet Court.
94

In the first year, the Beijing Internet Court conducted online mediation for 29,728 cases. The court successfully mediated 23.9 percent of the disputes.
95
3.
China
: Hangzhou
Internet Courts
Civil and administrative disputes stemming from e-commerce and internet.
96

The Court offers online pre-litigation mediation service. The mediation process allows
asynchronous exchange of questions
and arguments
and mediation.
97
The
platform also allows parties to upload video testimonies and evidence for efficient mediation process.
98
Further, the Internet Court has built electronic evidence platform connected with ecommerce websites, financial institutions, notary institutions, etc. The platform uses
blockchain technology
to store and
authenticate evidence filed by the disputing parties.
99

Hangzhou Internet Court has promulgated a series of 15 rules to govern online dispute resolution process.
100

300937/2021/DMEO
202 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 27
4.
China:
Zhejiang
Province’s Online Dispute Diversification Resolution Platform (ODDRP)
101
E-commerce (sales, copyright, trademark, and small claims of internet financing), divorce and maintenance, road accident liabilities, contractual disputes.
102
The platform offers a tiered model of dispute resolution:
103
1.
Legal Consultation
provides intelligent
online consultation through relevant laws and cases. Such consultations are then followed by manual consultations.
2.
Online evaluation
evaluates litigation
risk by relying on data on judgments.
3.
Online Mediation
offers professional
mediation service by combining both online and offline channels.
4.
Online Arbitration
is provided by 11
arbitration institutions in the province. The full process from application to conclusion of arbitration is conducted online.
5.
Online Litigation
provides litigation
services like filing, evidence, hearing and sentencing through High People’s Court of Zhejiang Province Legal Service Official Website.
As on January 2019, the success rate of mediation proceedings on the platform was 90.66 percent and the platform has successfully mediated 355,973 cases.
104
300937/2021/DMEO
203 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 28
5.
Singapore:

Singapore State Courts e-negotiation and e-mediation platforms
105
Disputes before the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT), Community Disputes Claims Tribunal (CDCT) and Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT)
106
1.
E-negotiation:
Each party can make
multiple offers (three in case of small value claims and five rounds in case of employment claims) in the negotiation process. If no settlement is reached through such offers, the parties are directed to attend the consultation on the provided date and time.
107
2.
E-mediation:
Parties may resolve their
dispute online  with the help of a court mediator. If both parties agree, then the respective tribunal schedules an online mediation session with parties and a court mediator.
108
1.
The Practice Directions issued by the State Courts have a dedicated section on using ADR avenues for dispute redressal. No amendments have been made to these sections to include ODR. However, there is a presumption of ADR for all cases i.e. the court encourages parties to consider the appropriate Court of Dispute Resolution (CDR) or ADR processes as a ‘first stop’ for civil disputes.
109
2.
The settlement agreement require consent of the respective tribunal where the case was first filed.
6.
UAE: Dubai International Finance Centre Courts (DIFC)
110
Commercial disputes, filings, wills etc.
1.
The DIFC Courts are manned by judges who are appointed by the Government.
2.
The courts function as courts of first instance and appeal.
3.
The DIFC Courts also work as supervisory courts.
4.
Hearings are being held through teleconferencing and filing is done through ‘e-Registry’. The will service centre facilitates the drafting of wills online.     
Arbitration is conducted based on DIFC Arbitration law based on the UNCITRAL model.
The first half of 2020 the courts saw a 96% year on year increase in the number of cases filed.
111
300937/2021/DMEO
204 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 29
5.
Singapore:

Singapore State Courts e-negotiation and e-mediation platforms
105
Disputes before the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT), Community Disputes Claims Tribunal (CDCT) and Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT)
106
1.
E-negotiation:
Each party can make
multiple offers (three in case of small value claims and five rounds in case of employment claims) in the negotiation process. If no settlement is reached through such offers, the parties are directed to attend the consultation on the provided date and time.
107
2.
E-mediation:
Parties may resolve their
dispute online  with the help of a court mediator. If both parties agree, then the respective tribunal schedules an online mediation session with parties and a court mediator.
108
1.
The Practice Directions issued by the State Courts have a dedicated section on using ADR avenues for dispute redressal. No amendments have been made to these sections to include ODR. However, there is a presumption of ADR for all cases i.e. the court encourages parties to consider the appropriate Court of Dispute Resolution (CDR) or ADR processes as a ‘first stop’ for civil disputes.
109
2.
The settlement agreement require consent of the respective tribunal where the case was first filed.
6.
UAE: Dubai International Finance Centre Courts (DIFC)
110
Commercial disputes, filings, wills etc.
1.
The DIFC Courts are manned by judges who are appointed by the Government.
2.
The courts function as courts of first instance and appeal.
3.
The DIFC Courts also work as supervisory courts.
4.
Hearings are being held through teleconferencing and filing is done through ‘e-Registry’. The will service centre facilitates the drafting of wills online.     
Arbitration is conducted based on DIFC Arbitration law based on the UNCITRAL model.
The first half of 2020 the courts saw a 96% year on year increase in the number of cases filed.
111
7.
United Kingdom:

Money Claim Online
112

Money claims below £100,000 (or INR 90 lakhs approximately) and above £10,000 (or INR 9 lakhs approximately)
The following procedure followed by Money Claim Online to resolve disputes:
113
1.
The claimant is required to register with the platform and issue claim against the defendant/s through Money Claim Online.
2.
Defendant/s is/are provided 14 days from the date of service to file a response to the claim.
3.
If the defendant/s admits the claim, the claimant can proceed to request judgment online.
4.
If the defendant/s has defended the claim, the case is referred to mediation after the consent of the parties. Alternatively, the dispute is filed before a court for its resolution.
5.
After a settlement is reached between parties, they can file request for online or manual judgment.
The procedure for Money Claim Online is governed through Practice Direction 7E.
114
300937/2021/DMEO
205 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 30
8.
United Kingdom:

Online Civil Money Claim
Money claims below £ 10,000 (or INR 9 lakhs approximately)
The platform uses following procedure to resolve disputes:1.
Claimants can submit their claims online or through sending paper copy by post.
2.
After a claim is made, the defendant is provided an opportunity to submit their response electronically.
3.
Post the initial claim and defence, the platform provides disputing parties opportunity to proceed electronically and offer services such as mediation for resolution of disputes.
The procedure for the platform is regulated by Practice Direction 51R.
115
Civil Money Claim Online is a pilot run from 7 August 2017 to 30 November 2021 to provide online dispute resolution service for money claim disputes.
9.
United States:

Michigan Courts MI-Resolve
116
Civil Disputes
The processes for resolution of disputes through MI Resolve platform includes the following steps:
117
1.
Parties are required to register with their contact details to resolve the dispute on the MI-Resolve platform.
2.
If the parties have not filed the case in the court, they are provided seven days to negotiate and reach a settlement.
3.
If the dispute is pending in court, mediator is assigned immediately.
4.
If resolution cannot be reached through negotiation, a mediator is appointed.
5.
The ODR Platform provides services like direct access to legal information, document sharing facility, asynchronous communication, and video conferencing for efficient resolution of disputes.
Mediators are trained through programs approved by the Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Office.
118

About 80% of the people who use mediation to resolve a dispute reach an agreement they are comfortable with.
119
300937/2021/DMEO
206 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 31
8.
United Kingdom:

Online Civil Money Claim
Money claims below £ 10,000 (or INR 9 lakhs approximately)
The platform uses following procedure to resolve disputes:1.
Claimants can submit their claims online or through sending paper copy by post.
2.
After a claim is made, the defendant is provided an opportunity to submit their response electronically.
3.
Post the initial claim and defence, the platform provides disputing parties opportunity to proceed electronically and offer services such as mediation for resolution of disputes.
The procedure for the platform is regulated by Practice Direction 51R.
115
Civil Money Claim Online is a pilot run from 7 August 2017 to 30 November 2021 to provide online dispute resolution service for money claim disputes.
9.
United States:

Michigan Courts MI-Resolve
116
Civil Disputes
The processes for resolution of disputes through MI Resolve platform includes the following steps:
117
1.
Parties are required to register with their contact details to resolve the dispute on the MI-Resolve platform.
2.
If the parties have not filed the case in the court, they are provided seven days to negotiate and reach a settlement.
3.
If the dispute is pending in court, mediator is assigned immediately.
4.
If resolution cannot be reached through negotiation, a mediator is appointed.
5.
The ODR Platform provides services like direct access to legal information, document sharing facility, asynchronous communication, and video conferencing for efficient resolution of disputes.
Mediators are trained through programs approved by the Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Office.
118

About 80% of the people who use mediation to resolve a dispute reach an agreement they are comfortable with.
119
10.
United States:

New Mexico Courts Online Dispute Resolution Center
120
Debt & money due cases
1.
Parties are provided with a platform to negotiate and arrive to a settlement.
2.
Either party can request the help of a mediator for dispute resolution during the first 14 days of the process.
3.
Parties are given 30 days to reach a settlement. In case parties fail to settle the dispute within 30 days, the case is registered for trial.
121
4.
If parties reach an agreement, a stipulated agreement is automatically prepared for the parties to sign. Parallelly, the ODR Platform prepares a Stipulation of Dismissal to withdraw the case and automatically submits it to the court. The agreement reached between parties is legally binding and automatically enforceable.
122
11.
United States:

Ohio’s Franklin County Municipal Court (FCMC)
Small value claims (up to $6,000 or approximately INR 4.7 lakh)
1.
The court offers a platform for conversation and negotiation between parties to reach a settlement. Parties can document their agreement when a settlement is reached through this negotiation process. If there is no agreement, either party can terminate the negotiation and pursue other legal options.
123
The FCMC’s ODR initiative has shown that an increase in mediation reduces the number of default judgments or negative case
300937/2021/DMEO
207 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 32
2.
Settlement reached through the ODR Platform is not automatically enforceable. The parties can enforce the settlement through court by converting it into a written agreement and submitting it to the court. It can also be used as a guide that will prevent future disagreements or lawsuits. This agreement can also be amended in the future with the help of a mediator.
124
dispositions (i.e. cases that still require further judicial intervention).
125
12.
United States:

Utah State Courts
Small value claims (less than $11,000 or INR 8 lakhs approximately)
The Court offers mandatory ODR service for small claims disputes unless a party to the dispute demonstrates that they will not be able to use the ODR system. The ODR is conducted in 4 stages1.
Communication:
Parties are encouraged
to use the chat function to arrive at a possible solution to the dispute. If parties reach a settlement, the facilitator assists them to generate a settlement agreement to be signed and filed. In case the settlement agreement is not signed and filed in 35 days, the case proceeds to the next stage.
2.
Facilitation and trial preparation:
At
this stage, the ODR facilitator assists parties in creating the Trial Preparation Document outlining the claims and defences, as well as facts and evidences of the case.
Over the course of one year, about 2,000 cases were resolved. The number of hearings per case for those that do end up in court is down by 44% and court staff time per case is down by 45%.
126
300937/2021/DMEO
208 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 33
3.
Adjudication
: A judge is assigned to
adjudicate the case. The trial must be scheduled within 7-21 days when conducted in person. If conducted online, the trial should begin as soon as the parties submit the Trial Preparation Document.
4.
Post judgment
: After the court issues
an order, parties can access the Post Judgement Section of the ODR Platform for information regarding appeal, enforcement, etc.
127
If the parties reach a settlement, the facilitator or either of the parties fills an automatically generated settlement agreement. The facilitator submits it to the court where it is entered in the record. The parties can decide whether the settlement should be entered as a judgment of the court.
128
The parties also retain a complete de novo right of appeal to the District Court.
129
300937/2021/DMEO
209 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 34
C. PRIVATE ODR PLATFORMS
S.
No.
Name of the platform and organisation introducing the platform
Industry and types of
disputes
Mechanism for dispute resolution
No. of disputes
resolved
1.
Australia:

Australian Disputes Centre
130
The platform is a non-profit that caters to commercial entities, Government and individuals. It is not dedicated to a specific sector.
The centre offers efficient dispute resolution through mediation, arbitration, expert determination, and conciliation. It also provides access to custom designed virtual courtrooms for better dispute resolution experience.Arbitration: One can register and send an e-notification online to the other party. After the other party serves a notice of response, the parties try to resolve the dispute amongst themselves. If the same fails, then a Neutral is appointed by the parties based on a list provided by ADC. The final award is binding on the parties. 
2.
Canada:
Platform
to Assist in the Resolution of Litigation Electronically (PARLe)
131
Consumer disputes
1.
The platform encourages the consumer to settle their dispute with the merchant on their own through negotiation. If no settlement is reached within 20 days from the start of negotiation, then a mediator is automatically appointed to intervene in the dispute resolution process. The consumer and trader can request for a mediator soon after submission of proposal and counter-proposal as well.
2.
Consumers are provided with resource tools such as case law summaries and explainers on statutes to help them through the process of dispute resolution.
Dispute settlement rate of 70% and user satisfaction rate of 90%.
132
300937/2021/DMEO
210 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 35
3.
China:
Alibaba
Internal Online Dispute Settlement Mechanism
Consumer Disputes
Alibaba Group (including Taobao and Tmall that enables consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer transactions respectively) have adopted a 4-way process to resolve a consumer dispute online. Buyer can opt for any of these processes to attain efficient dispute settlement.The process adopted by Taobao platform is provided below. Tmall has also adopted a similar process.
133
1.
Negotiation between parties
: The consumer can choose
to directly negotiate disputes with the seller.
2.
Taobao Consumer Service Intervening
: The Consumer
Service acts as a neutral third party in the disputes. The parties share the evidence, chat and transaction details with the consumer service. The decision of the consumer service is non-binding, but Taobao may take actions against the seller and enforce the decision by private implementation methods.
3.
Public Review Service
: Taobao has created a public
review system and Taobao Judgment Centre. The public review team is constituted of 31 volunteers who decides on the disputes. Parties should get at least 16 votes to win the dispute.
4.
Report to Taobao
: Taobao has established a Report
platform to allow parties to report irregularities and violations on the platform. Such practice plays a regulatory role to prevent unfair competition and rights of the parties.
300937/2021/DMEO
211 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 36
4.

Europe:

YOUSTICE
134

Consumer disputesThe service has been expanded to include travel, gambling, and car-rental disputes.
The ODR Platform follows a two-level dispute resolution mechanism: i.
Direct negotiations between traders and consumers
ii.
Submission to resolve: In case of failure of step (i), parties approach an ADR Platform that assigns the case to a neutral third party.
The platform has partnered with Nubelo, an online directory, and offers services to over 300,000 service providers.
135
5.
UAE: Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry
136
Primarily includes disputes around non-payment and defects in goods
1.
To initiate the dispute resolution process, one of the parties must be a member of Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2.
Applicants can submit their mediation requests and relevant documents followed by payment
3.
They also have the option to track new and previous applications electronically
4.
The platform offers a smart mediation application, through which users can submit applications, upload documents and pay the prescribed fee. It also enables the user to keep track of their application.
6.
United Kingdom: Resolver
Consumer Disputes
The platform offers free dispute resolution service to the consumers. After filing the complaint on the platform, the consumers can add evidence, reply to a communication, track the progress, and download all the documents on their devices. The platform also helps consumers to escalate complain with an ombudsman and regulator to achieve efficient dispute resolution.
137

Resolver provided their services to about 1.8 million consumers between April 2018 and March 2019.
138
300937/2021/DMEO
212 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 37
7.
United States:

Cybersettle
Monetary Claims
The platform uses blind bidding to resolve monetary disputes between the parties. The online blind bidding service offered by the platform requires the disputants to submit the highest and lowest settlement figures acceptable to them. Based on this information, the platform provides optimal resolution for both parties.
139
In 2014, Cybersettle has facilitated settlement of $1.9 billion in claim-based transactions.
140
8.
United States:

eBay
E-commerce, consumer disputes
The platform developed by eBay follows five steps for efficient dispute redressal:1.
The parties are required to file the dispute at the Resolution Centre (
RC
).
2.
RC confirms whether

—
The dispute falls within eBay’s coverage for a money-back guarantee

—
The buyer selected ‘pay now’

—
Asserted the complaint within 30 days of estimated or actual date of delivery
3.
RC gathers the proposed resolution and encourages both parties to resolve the dispute via the messaging facility on eBay.
4.
RC re-evaluates in case of failure to resolve within 3 days of step (3).
5.
Resolution Services team contacts the seller and informs the buyer if they are eligible for a refund. Refunds are enforced through chargebacks.
In 2010, the platform resolved approximately 60 million cases a year.
141
300937/2021/DMEO
213 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 38
9.
United States
:
PayPal
E-commerce, consumer disputes
Follows a two-tiered dispute resolution system.
142
i.
Dispute: The buyer or the seller can institute the dispute. The time period offered for resolution of the dispute is 20 days. Until the dispute is resolved, PayPal puts a hold on the transaction funds.
ii.
Claim: In case the dispute has not been resolved within 20 days, either of the parties can escalate the dispute to a claim. PayPal will then intervene, investigate the case, and offer a solution. A limited appeals process follows where the seller is the only party allowed to appeal under three circumstances: (1) item is returned to seller, but not in the same condition as the buyer first received it; (2) no item was returned at all; or (3) wrong item was returned.
10.
United States:

Smartsettle
Family disputes, insurance disputes, real estate disputes, small claims disputes and disputes regarding domain names.
Smartsettle provide asynchronous communication facility to resolve disputes through negotiation.
143
It involves three steps:
1.
Modelling the problem,
2.
Identifying preferences and trade-offs, and
3.
Providing optimal solution through algorithm.
144
300937/2021/DMEO
214 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 39
Though not falling under the above three categories, an international institution
that is worthy of a mention is the National Centre for Technology and Dispute
Resolution (NCTDR), University of Massachusetts- Amherst. Since its inception,
the NCTDR has been leading the ODR movement with constant efforts to develop
the processes and systems that forms the basis of ODR. In 2017, fellows of NCTDR
created the International Council for Online Dispute Resolution (ICODR) to promote
ODR and promulgate standards and best practices for ODR.
145
ICODR has since
published ethical standards for design, structure, practices, and implementation
of ODR,
146
ODR training standards,
147
video mediation guidelines,
148
and video
arbitration guidelines
149
to guide the development of ODR worldwide. Even though
these open standards are not binding, they encourage ODR Platforms and ODR
service providers to constantly strive to achieve a set of aspirational standards
and best practices for efficient functioning. In the long term, this approach aims
to stimulate continuous innovations. The Committee has engaged with ICODR
extensively to gain insight into prevailing leading practices in ODR from across
the world.
D. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE TRENDS
The above case studies highlight some important trends emerging across the
globe which serve as good reference points for India. The three major themes
for these trends include:
1. Structure and model of ODR
2. Role of private sector in ODR
3. Good practices in ODR
1. Structure and models of ODR
The three categories of models that have been identified in this chapter
are classified based on the institutions that are adopting them, such as the
Government (state sponsored ODR Platforms) or the Courts (court annexed ODR
Platforms). However, there are also other trends in how ODR has been structured
or modelled. For instance, disputes can be resolved through an amalgamation of
online and offline tools i.e. hybrid models or ODR Platforms can be developed
just to cater to specific classes of cases e.g. platforms for consumer disputes.
Some of such structures that have emerged have been identified below.
(a) Tiered dispute resolution models
To maximise the benefits of ODR and enable effective resolution of disputes,
institutions across the globe have adopted multi-tiered online dispute resolution
models. These tiered models provide disputing parties with an alternative ODR
solution when the prior ODR process fails to achieve a settlement. However,
the components of these tiered models vary across the ODR institutions. For
example, the COVID-19 related scheme in Hong Kong offers a three-tiered model
for dispute resolution where the disputing parties can negotiate, mediate and
300937/2021/DMEO
215 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 40
then arbitrate to effectively resolve the dispute. Alternatively, the Online Dispute
Diversification Resolution Platform (ODDRP) at Zhejiang, China provides a five-
tier comprehensive model for dispute resolution, where the platform offers
online consultation, online evaluation, mediation both online and offline, online
arbitration and online litigation. These models filter the disputes through multiple
ODR processes and offer an end-to-end solution to resolve the disputes. The
types of disputes which are being resolved are most likely to govern which tiered
model will be adopted.
(b) Hybrid models of dispute resolution
The goal of ODR tools is not to completely supplant but to supplement existing
models of dispute resolution. Working on this principle, a hybrid dispute resolution
model strengthens the traditional offline dispute resolution mechanisms along
with developing ODR solutions for increased efficiency and access. The parallel
introduction of ICT in the traditional dispute resolution processes increase its
efficiency while gradually building public trust on the inclusion of technology
tools in the dispute resolution process.
For example, the Online Dispute Diversification Resolution Platform (ODDRP)
at Zhejiang has integrated many ICT tools such as artificial intelligence, cloud
computing, and other information technologies into its ODR mechanism. It has also
in parallel introduced ICT innovations to optimise traditional offline resources and
new online resources to improve docking mechanism in litigation and alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms. This allows for synergetic functioning of ODR
Platforms with existing offline systems. With the help of such synergetic systems,
the platform allows parties to both mediate online and mediate in person for the
convenience of the parties.
(c) Primacy of Consumer Disputes Redressal in ODR
Consumer disputes have been identified as one of the most suitable categories
of disputes where ODR can be adopted. To this end, dedicated Government-run
ODR Platforms have been developed by the Governments of Brazil, Mexico, the
European Commission etc. to provide efficient consumer dispute redressal.  
In the private sector, companies like PayPal and eBay have been the pioneers in
instituting in-house mechanisms and technology solutions for resolving customer
disputes. Further, a large segment of private ODR Platforms are primarily, if not
exclusively, dedicated to resolving consumer disputes.
(d) ODR is not limited to e-ADR
The ODR initiatives taken by the governments and the judiciary are currently
limited to transitioning offline ADR processes onto an ODR Platform. However,
in the private sector, instances such as Smartsettle and Cybersettle have moved
onto innovative mechanisms such as blind-bidding, or algorithmic resolutions,
which indicate that ODR has as much potential for growth and expansion through
technological innovations in this field.
300937/2021/DMEO
216 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 41
2. Role of private sector
(a) Rise in private players in ODR
Private enterprises, especially those working in e-commerce and other internet-
based sectors, are increasingly resorting to ODR to save on time and money
in resolving disputes that are arising during the course of their business. While
some of these private enterprises, such as eBay and PayPal, have incorporated
ODR mechanisms within their own structure, others have partnered with private
ODR Platforms for these services. As a logical consequence to this demand,
several private ODR service providers have been established across the world.
For example, Resolver.co.uk provides free dispute resolution services to the
consumers by directing the complaints to the businesses for its resolution. In case
the complaint is not resolved, the platform helps the complainant to escalate it
to the sector specific regulators and ombudsmen for its resolution. The platform
also informs the businesses about the problems faced by the consumer to build
a healthy and safe marketplace.
150
(b) Collaboration with private actors can be beneficial 
Given the initial requirement for technical expertise, many Government run
and court-annexed ODR Platforms have partnered with private ODR service
providers and have incorporated off-the-shelf technology solutions to establish
a comprehensive ODR framework. 
Some of the notable examples of this include:
i. The e-Mediation platforms in China were built in collaboration with Sina
Corporation, a Chinese technology company,
ii. Franklin County Municipal Court in Columbus, Ohio (US) has launched
an ODR service based on Matterhorn ODR platform to provide efficient
dispute redressal.
151
iii. New Mexico Courts Online Resolution Centre (US) is powered by Modria
to resolve its ODR disputes,
152
and
iv. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services (US) uses technology
solutions developed by eRoom, mimio, FacilitatePro and NetMeeting
153

to support their ODR Platform.
3. Good Practices in ODR mechanisms
(a) Education and evaluation are key stages of ODR
While ODR is often seen to be an online version of ADR, it has a lot more
to offer. The first stage of the Utah Small Claims Court ODR process is called
‘Education and Evaluation’. The stage is intended to inform users about their
claims and potential defences. The Singapore Mediation Centre provides for
neutral evaluation of the case as a mechanism separate from, and in addition
to, arbitration and mediation. Similarly, Australian Disputes Resolution Centre
300937/2021/DMEO
217 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 42
conducts expert determination where parties present their arguments and
evidences to a practitioner who possesses specialist qualifications or experience
in the subject matter. These evaluations create better awareness among the
disputing parties about their legal position and expedite the dispute resolution
process. Educating both the plaintiff and the defendants regarding the methods
of dispute resolution, providing detailed Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), chat
and negotiation features, and document preparation can help individuals navigate
the dispute resolution process better.
(b) Technological solutions need to be geared towards cyber security
Confidentiality of proceedings is one of the primary concerns for companies while
using independent ODR Platforms for dispute resolution. It is probably for this
reason that many private companies use in-house mechanisms for maintaining
control over their security and confidentiality. Cyber security and safety of the
documents submitted to the platform and during virtual proceedings are some
of basic requirements that independent platforms must ensure to generate trust
in the ODR processes.
(c) Important to have clarity on the enforcement of final agreements
Determining methods of enforceability of ODR agreements has time and again
been cited as a key challenge that an ODR framework will have to resolve.
However, there is no one size fits all model for enforcement. Three key models
have emerged:
i. Not automatically enforceable: Successful resolutions under Ohio’s Online
Dispute Resolution Franklin County Municipal Court are not automatically
enforceable. These resolutions are enforceable only when the disputing
parties document the ODR agreement in writing and submit it to the
court for enforceability. Alternatively, parties can also use the agreement
as a guiding framework to prevent future disagreements or lawsuits.
154
ii. Enforceable on consent of the court: In the Singapore State Courts
ODR program, agreements require the consent of the court in the form
of consent orders. If the Tribunals do not approve an application for
a consent order, parties are required to attend the consultation at the
Tribunals.
iii. Automatically enforceable: In the New Mexico Courts (US), if parties
reach an agreement, a stipulated agreement is automatically prepared
and signed online by both parties. This agreement is automatically
submitted to the court and becomes legally binding and enforceable.
155
As seen above, there are different models of collaboration between the judiciary
and ODR Platforms; varying levels of regulations and standards; and evolving
best practices across the globe. This thorough evaluation of trends highlights the
need for a customised ODR framework for India, which while learning from the
300937/2021/DMEO
218 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 43
experiences across the world, provides for unique opportunities and limitations
in India.
(d) Guiding developments in ODR
At present we are witnessing rapid growth of ODR around the world. The
adoption of ODR requires sustained efforts to promote and improve the ODR
processes. To this end, there is a need for rapid development and scholarship in
both theoretical and practical aspects of ODR.
Recently, recognising the growth of ODR and its effectiveness in addressing cross-
border disputes, supranational organisations such as United Nations and European
Union have taken initiatives to regulate and promote ODR processes. In 2016,
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law released Technical Notes
on Online Dispute Resolution. This non-binding document provides standards
to contribute towards strengthening ODR to address the disputes arising out
of cross-border commercial transactions.
156
Further, establishment of European
ODR Platform and promulgation of the regulation on online dispute resolution for
consumer disputes has guided the development of cross-border ODR processes.
157
300937/2021/DMEO
219 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 44
PRESENT STATUS IN
INDIAIV
As highlighted in the section above, the ODR ecosystem has witnessed exponential
growth across the world in the last two decades.
158
India, though in its nascent
stages of ODR development, has shown early promise in ODR integration at all
three levels–the judiciary, Government and the private sector. Some of the early
developments have been of great value during the COVID-19 induced lockdown
where the functioning of brick and mortar courts and dispute resolution bodies
came to be severely restricted.
159
For instance, in April 2020, the Supreme Court
was able to list 357 matters for hearing, which amounts to only 2.48 per cent of
the number of cases listed before the Supreme Court in April 2019 (14381 cases).
160

Therefore, while the courts and to some extent, ADR centres, have been quick
to adopt ICT tools, a lot more needs to be done to ensure that the systems do
not come to a grinding halt.
The following section analyses the present status of ODR in India and where we
are now with respect to integration of technology into our dispute resolution
system. It analyses the preparedness of the Government in incorporating ODR,
the legislative position vis-a-vis ODR, acceptance of ODR by the judiciary and
the innovations in the private sector. The following timeline provides an overview
of some of the key initiatives that have paved the way for ODR growth in India.
300937/2021/DMEO
220 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 45

2011
Chennai hosted 10"
Annual International
Forum on Online
Dispute
Resolution.
2017
Ministry of Law and
Justice issued a
statement to urge
government
agencies to resolve
disputes through
online arbitration.

February
2019
E-ADR Challenge
was launched to
identify and
support ODR
start-ups.

February
2020
Government of India
launched Vivaad se
Vishwas Scheme for
efficient resolution of
tax disputes through
ODR

July 2020
NITI Aayog established
a Committee under the
chairmanship of
Justice (Retd.) A.K.
Sikri to broad-base the
use of ODR in India.

September
2020
Department Related
Parliamentary
Standing Committee
on Personnel, Public
Grievances, Law and
Justice, in their report
called for introduction
of technology in
arbitration and
conciliation processes.

2006
National Internet
Exchange of India
adopted .IN Domain
Name Dispute
Resolution Policy
(INDRP) which
provided for Online
Dispute Resolution.
2016
The Online Consumer
Mediation Centre
(OCMC) was
established at the
National Law School
of India University,
Bengaluru under the
aegis of Ministry of
Consumer Affairs,
Government of India.
2018
Ministry of MSME
launched
SAMADHAAN
portal to address
delay of payment
disputes involving
Micro and Small
Enterprises
May 2019
Report of the High
Level Committee on
Deepening of Digital
Payments established
by the Reserved Bank
of India recommended
an ODR system for
resolution of digital
payment disputes.
July 2020
Chhattisgarh conduct-
ed first virtual Lok
Adalat and provided
conciliation services
through video
conferencing.
July 2020
Vidhi Centre for Legal
Policy published a
report on mainstream-
ing ODR in India.
300937/2021/DMEO
221 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 46
A. EXECUTIVE PREPAREDNESS
1. Adoption of ODR by Government Departments and Ministries
In the recent past, Ministries and Departments within the Government have
acknowledged the potential of ODR and launched programmes that help resolve
disputes in the sectors regulated by them. Some of the initiatives that are paving
the way for ODR integration with the Government are identified below.
(a) National Internet Exchange of India’s (NIXI) Domain Dispute
Settlement Mechanism
National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) have adopted a .In Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP), which sets out the terms and conditions for
resolving a dispute arising out of the registration and use of the .in Internet Domain
Name.
161
Under its procedure, complaints can be filed online and disputes are
decided by an arbitrator/s on the basis of written submissions.
162
The procedure
does not require any in-person hearings to resolve the dispute.
(b) Initiatives by the Department of Consumer Affairs:
The Department of Consumer Affairs, in 2005, launched the National Consumer
Helpline (NCH) to disburse information on issues pertaining to consumers
and promote consumer welfare. In August 2016, the Department of Consumer
Affairs extended this service with the launch of Integrated Consumer Grievance
Redressal Mechanism (INGRAM) initiative to offer a platform for consumers to
get their complaints and grievances addressed directly by the companies who
have voluntarily partnered with NCH.
163
To this end, the Department has also
launched a “Consumer App” to solicit complaints from the consumers and provide
prompt redressal.
164
The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 further
strengthen this by encouraging e-Commerce entities to partner with the NCH
initiative on a ‘best efforts’ basis.
165
The Department has been a pioneer in acknowledging the importance of ODR
for efficient dispute redressal. In 2016, Online Conciliation and Mediation Centre
(OCMC) was established at the National Law School of India University under the
aegis of Ministry of Consumer Affairs with an aim to propel online mediation as
a first choice for resolving consumer disputes.
166
Further, after the enactment of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Department
has taken important steps towards the integration of ICT in the Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commissions such as the development of e-daakhil portal to facilitate
e-filing. Such initiatives can assist in mainstreaming ODR into the consumer
protection ecosystem.
(c) Initiative by Department of Justice:
In 2017, the Department of Justice initiated the discourse on the use of ODR to
address disputes involving Government bodies by releasing a list of ODR Platforms
and urging Government Departments to resolve their disputes online.
167
300937/2021/DMEO
222 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 47
(d) SAMADHAAN Portal
In October 2017, the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises launched
the SAMADHAAN portal , with facilities for e-filing and online settlement of
Micro and Small Enterprises’ (MSE) dues against Public Sector Enterprises, Union
Ministries, Departments and State Governments,
168
which accounts for nearly 94
per cent of the dues payable to MSEs.
169
The platform can also be used by MSEs
to file payment due applications against private enterprises, proprietorship and
others in State specific MSE Facilitation Councils. Since its launch, SAMADHAAN
portal has assisted disposal of 3982 payment due complaints worth Rs. 721.59
Crores.
170
(e) Draft National e-Commerce Policy
In February 2019, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade
(DPIIT) released the Draft National e-Commerce Policy. The policy suggests
the use of an electronic grievance redressal system including dissemination of
compensation electronically for disputes arising from e-commerce.
171
The draft
policy states, “It is only rational that a transaction completed online should have
an online system of grievances redressal which will, in turn, boost consumer
confidence”.
172
(f) RBI’s ODR Policy on Digital Payments
In 2019, the Nandan Nilekani led High Level Committee on Deepening Digital
Payments, established by the RBI recommended the setting up of a two-tiered
ODR system to handle complaints arising out of digital payments.
173
 The Nilekani
Committee recommended that the first tier of such an ODR system should be
based on an automated system driven by machine learning and the second tier
should be based on human intervention. It also recommended providing disputing
parties with an option to appeal against the outcome of ODR process to an
ombudsman body.
As a consequence, on 6 August 2020, through a Statement on Developmental
and Regulatory Policies the RBI introduced ODR for resolving customer disputes
and grievances pertaining to digital payments, using a system driven and rule-
based mechanism with zero or minimal manual intervention.
1 74
Subsequently,
Payment System Operators (PSOs) have been advised to put in place ODR
processes for resolving disputes involving failed transactions.
175
Over time, the
RBI aims to extend the ambit of ODR to cover other kinds of disputes and
grievances as well.
176
The above examples illustrate that even though ODR might be in its nascent
stages of development in India, some Government Departments have started
leading the way in ODR integration. The e-assessment of the Income Tax
Department
177
and the e-challan
178
system introduced by the Ministry of Road
Transport & Highways are some key examples of how technology has been used
for easier containment and resolution of disputes. Moving forward, such sustained
300937/2021/DMEO
223 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 48
efforts by the Government will be required to assist growth of ODR in India. As
explained below, one such area that can see an immediate benefit from ODR is
‘Government litigation’.
2. Underutilised potential of ADR in reducing Government
litigation
Government litigation contributes to about 46 per cent of all litigation in
the country.
179
Litigation by public enterprises and Government Departments
contributes not only to the court’s burden, but also imposes significant costs on
the public exchequer.
In 2017-18, the expenditure incurred by the Central Government in contesting
cases in the Supreme Court alone was Rs. 47.99 Crore.
180
According to the
Legal Information Management and Briefing System (LIMBS) portal, as on
23 September 2020, the Government has 5,80,132 cases pending in different
courts across the country. Given the numbers, it is worth considering any small
impact that ODR may have on Government litigation.
Apart from the initiative by the Department of Justice highlighted above, there
have been a few other attempts in the past to tackle Government litigation. In
1991, the Government had set up a High Powered Committee with an objective
to prevent litigation by offering in-house conciliation services.
181
However, the
Committee was decommissioned in 2011 for failing in its objective to prevent
litigation and causing delays in filing cases.
182
The Government had also established
the ‘Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators’ in the Department of Public Enterprises
to expedite the settlement of commercial disputes between Public Sector
Enterprises and Government Departments. However, this process has faced delay
in settlements due to non-submission of documents by the parties.
183
Subsequently,
the Government has wound up and replaced it with the Administrative Mechanism
for resolution of CPSEs Disputes (AMRCD).
184
It is therefore an endeavour of this Committee to identify ways in which
Government Departments and Public Sector Enterprises can derive benefit
from ODR. Mainstreaming ODR as the preferred mode of dispute resolution for
the Government will help unclog the courts for citizens’ grievances while also
unlocking large number of Government projects stuck due to litigation.
185
However,
unlike the litigation management policies at the state and the national levels,
ODR initiatives need to be customised as per the needs of individual sectors and
Departments for them to achieve the intended impact.
As a starting point, the individual members of this Committee are exploring ways
and means through which litigation pertinent to their Departments can be avoided
and resolved through ODR. Parallelly, other Departments at the central and state
level need to strategize integration of ODR to resolve inter-departmental and
intra-departmental disputes. A few successful initiatives at that stage can have
two benefits – one, it will pave the way for ODR to be used in all disputes where
300937/2021/DMEO
224 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 49
Government is one of the parties; and two, Government’s adoption of ODR will
boost confidence in ODR processes and outcomes, thereby encouraging private
parties to readily opt for ODR as a preferred mode of dispute resolution.
B. LEGISLATIVE PREPAREDNESS
1. Key Legislations
As this section shall identify, even in its current form, there does exist a
governance framework to regulate ODR in the country. There are a range of
support legislations, which address both the technology and ADR aspects of
the ODR. In the realm of ADR, the most prominent of these legislations is the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration framework in India has
been supplemented through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act,
2019, which has recommended the establishment of a regulatory authority i.e. the
Arbitration Council of India.
186
and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment)
Act, 2020 which has removed the qualifications requirements for arbitrators.
While this legislation recognises arbitration procedure, the power of the court
to refer parties to not just arbitration but all forms of ADR comes from the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 89 of the code empowers the court to
refer a case for resolution through one of the ADR modes recognised under the
provision–arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through
Lok Adalat or mediation. In turn, the requirement to set up Lok Adalats comes
from the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which provides for conciliation
services through Lok Adalats. These Lok Adalats are required to be established
in every district and thereby enable greater access to justice to the weaker
sections of the society.
Further, there are a range of other legislations, which also provide for the use
of ADR in India. They are:
a. The Family Courts Act, 1984: Section 9 of the Act read along with
the ‘statement of object and reasons’ requires the court to assist and
persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement through conciliation.
Further, through K. Srinivas Rao v D.A. Deepa, the Supreme Court has
mandated that mediation as an avenue that must be exhausted in
matrimonial disputes.
187
b. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Ombudsman) Regulations,
2003: The regulation provides ombudsman services to resolve disputes
regarding allotment of securities, receipt of share-certificate, dividends,
interest on debentures and other related matters. Regulation 16(1)
mandates the Ombudsman to attempt settlement of the complaint
by agreement or mediation between the complainant and the listed
company or its intermediary.
188
c. Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 12A of the Act introduced
mandatory pre-litigation mediation in India. Owing to the legislation,
parties are required to initiate mediation before filing a suit unless a
300937/2021/DMEO
225 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 50
party to the dispute requires an urgent interim relief. Such a concept has
been successful across countries such as Italy and significantly reduced
the litigation burden on the civil courts.
189
Currently, Schedule II of the
Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules,
2018 specifies that the mediation fee payable should be in accordance
with the quantum of claim in commercial cases. To incentivise the use
of mediation, the Department of Justice has set up a Committee on
the Simplification of Rules to examine the reduction of the fees that are
required to be paid under the Act,
d. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Bye-Laws and
Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations,
2016: The Model Bye Laws under the Regulations mandates establishment
of Grievance Redressal Committee by the Insolvency Professional
Agencies.
190
As per the Model Bye Laws, such Committee should receive
complaints against the professional members of the Agency or any
person who has engaged the services of the concerned professional
members of the agency and attempt its redressal through mediation.
e. Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Mediation and Conciliation)
Rules, 2016: Section 442 of the Act requires the Central Government
to maintain a panel of experts called the ‘Mediation and Conciliation
Panel’. The Act empowers any party to proceedings before the Central
Government, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to request for the dispute
to be referred to mediation. In furtherance of this provision, the Ministry
of Corporate Affairs has also released the Companies (Mediation and
Conciliation) Rules, 2016, for regulating the empanelment of mediators
and prescribing the procedure for the mediation proceedings.
f. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Section 74 provides for the establishment
of Consumer Mediation Cells in every district to broad-base mediation
facilities for consumers. Chapter V of the Act encourages parties to
undergo mediation at any stage of the proceeding.
191
The Consumer
Protection Act (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 devised under this legislation
require e-commerce entities to develop internal grievance redressal
mechanisms within their companies thereby setting down the foundation
of ODR.
192
g. Industrial Relations Code, 2020: To promote the settlement of industrial
disputes, the Industrial Relations Code provides for appointment of
conciliation officers. As per the code, where any industrial dispute exists
or is apprehended, the conciliation officer should hold the conciliation
proceedings to persuade and assist parties to reach an amicable
settlement.
193
The act also promotes voluntary arbitration of the industrial disputes. It provides
the procedure for efficient resolution of disputes through such arbitration
proceedings while ensuring the protection of labour rights.
194
300937/2021/DMEO
226 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 51
While the above legislations identify the strides that the Government has taken
in terms of ADR, another aspect of ODR i.e. technology has also seen some
legislation. These include:
a. Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 65-A and 65-B of the Act recognises
electronic evidence and provides conditions for its admissibility. Such
provisions can provide guidance to regulate sharing of virtual documents
and conducting virtual hearings.
b. Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 4 and 5 of the Information
Technology Act provides recognition to electronic records and
electronic signatures. Such legal recognition can be crucial to enable
end-to-end digitisation of justice delivery processes.
Even though these legislations provide a framework that ODR can be introduced
within, India can still take further strides in terms of legislative preparedness
for ODR. At a preliminary level, amendments can be introduced within these
legislations to explicitly recognise ODR to increase its legitimacy and acceptability
in the long run.
Further, as identified by the Supreme Court in M.R. Krishna Murthi v. The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd.
195
, there is a pressing need for a mediation legislation for
India. To this end, in January 2020, the Supreme Court formed the Mediation and
Conciliation Planning Committee (MCPC) to draft a law that gives legal sanctity
to disputes settled through mediation.
196
This draft legislation prepared by the
MPCP was submitted to this Committee. Some of the key features suggested in
this draft legislation includes:
1. Recognition of ODR,
2. Mechanism for recognition and enforcement of settlement agreements,
3. Establishment of a central regulating body for mediation, mediation
institutes and mediators,
4. Incorporation of pre-litigation mediation, and
5. Provision for enforcement of international mediation settlements.
Such an extensive legislative framework for mediation will go a long way in
augmenting the ADR ecosystem in India.
A robust ODR framework in India will require a comprehensive data protection
law that can address both the confidentiality and security concerns that frequently
arise with ODR processes. In December 2019, the Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology tabled the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 in Lok
Sabha.
197
As of today, the Bill is being analysed by a Joint Parliamentary Committee
(JPC) in consultation with experts and stakeholders.
198
Further, the Committee of
Experts on Non-Personal Data Governance Framework, established by the Ministry
of Electronics and Information Technology, has also recommended regulations for
data to achieve social and economic value and encourage innovations in India.
199

These parallel developments can assist and foster the growth of ODR in India by
providing a robust data security framework.
300937/2021/DMEO
227 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 52
2. Parliamentary Standing Committee report on Virtual Courts
Recently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government and the judiciary have
actively embraced technology tools in justice delivery processes. In the past few
months, technology has played a crucial role in supporting the judicial functioning.
The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel,
Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its recent report on ‘Functioning of the
Virtual Courts/ Courts Proceedings through Video Conferencing’ has recognised
this contribution of technology.
200
The report noted that virtualisation of proceedings will help overcome major
challenges in justice delivery, such as distance, delays and cost. It further
stated that justice delivery through virtual courts will increase access to justice
and result in an affordable and citizen friendly legal system.
201
Recognising the
benefits of digital justice systems, the Committee recommended extending
the concept of virtual courts to arbitration and conciliation to make justice
delivery efficient and cost-effective.
202
While it is true that report comes in the context of virtual courts and not ODR,
it is reflective of shift in outlook of the judiciary and the Government towards
technology in the dispute resolution processes. It therefore, sets the stage for
further technological innovations in dispute resolution such as ODR.
3. United Nations Convention on International Settlement
Agreements Resulting from Mediation, 2018
In addition to internal legislative efforts, the Government has also chosen to be
governed by international obligations and standards of global best practices to
strengthen ADR in India. One of the recent steps in this direction is bringing to
force the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements
Resulting from Mediation (also referred to as the ‘Singapore Convention’).
203
The
Convention came into force in India on 12 September 2020.
204
It allows for direct
enforcement of mediated settlement agreements and enables swift enforcement
of settlement agreement arising from international mediation.
205
C. JUDICIAL PREPAREDNESS AND ACCEPTANCE
In addition to the executive and the legislature, the judiciary through its judgments
and practices, has created an enabling framework for ODR in India. The judiciary,
through increased reliance on ICT in judicial processes and explicit recognition of
the need for technology solutions to address the challenges of the judicial system
gave legitimacy to similar efforts in ADR mechanisms. Further, acknowledgment
of the benefits of ODR and its potential by several senior Judges has helped in
establishing legitimacy of ODR in the dispute redressal ecosystem.
300937/2021/DMEO
228 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 53
1. ICT Integration in the Judiciary
a. eCourts Mission Mode Project
The judiciary’s road to ICT integration started out in 1990 with attempts at
computerisation of judiciary initiated by the National Informatics Centre (NIC).
206

However, it was in 2005, that efforts were made to integrate ICT across all levels
of the judiciary from the Tehsils to the Supreme Court, in a phased manner. These
efforts started off as a part of ‘National Policy and Action Plan for Implementation
of Information and Communication Technology in the Indian Judiciary’
207
and
culminated into one of the judiciary’s flagship projects–the eCourts Mission
Mode Project (eCourts Project). Under the leadership of the E-Committee for
Monitoring the Use of Technology and Administrative Reforms in the Indian
Judiciary (E-committee) this project continues to advocate and work towards
greater reliance on ICT tools in the justice delivery process.
Over the course of the decade, among its many deliverables
208
, the eCourts
project has deployed technology infrastructure and standardised software in
District Courts across the country. Some of its key successes include the setting
up the eCourts websites, creation of the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)
and establishment of a unified CIS (Case Information System).
209
It has also
streamlined judicial process through litigant centric services like electronic cause
lists, e-filings, e-payments and easy access to case status and daily orders.
210

Further, under the project, funds have also been allocated for ICT integration in
District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and Taluk Legal Services Committees
(TLSC).
211
Additionally, CIS modules have been introduced for Lok Adalats and
mediation.
212
b. E-filing of cases
As mentioned above, the eCourts Mission Mode Project has already launched
eFiling Portal for District Courts and High Courts.
213
The portal has been successfully
tested in a lot of High Courts such as the one in Delhi which has seen 21,790
cases being filed in the year 2016-2017.
214
These numbers are likely to have seen
a further rise during the COVID-19 induced crises.
To address the burgeoning need to mainstream e-filing, in May 2020, the Supreme
Court issued Practice Directions for eFiling to enable Advocates-on-record to file
cases online through an e-filing platform.
215
Similarly, the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh,
216
High Court of Delhi,
217
Patna High Court,
218
and other High Courts have
also issued directions to enable online filing of cases during the pandemic.
c. Electronic Signature
Electronic signature is a crucial step towards digitising legal processes. Considering
the low availability of the hardware cryptographic token for eSignature on pdf
documents,
219
the eFiling Portal launched under the eCourts Mission Mode Project
also provides a facility for eSigning.
220
300937/2021/DMEO
229 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 54
d. Integration of Artificial Intelligence
Taking ICT integration one step further, the Supreme Court has now harnessed the
potential of artificial intelligence through the development of SUVAS i.e. Supreme
Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software. This artificial intelligence powered software has
the capability to translate judgments, orders and judicial documents from English
to nine vernacular language scripts (Marathi, Hindi, Kannada, Tamil, Telugu, Punjabi,
Gujarati, Malayalam and Bengali) and vice versa.
221
2. Support through judicial precedents
a. Recognition of online arbitration
The Supreme Court, in Shakti Bhog v Kola Shipping,
222
and in Trimex International
v Vedanta Aluminium Ltd.,
223
recognised the validity of use of technology in the
arbitration process. The court also upheld that the validity of online arbitration
agreements through emails, telegram or other means of telecommunication which
provide the record of agreement.
b. Recognition of video conferencing
The Supreme Court in Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v AES Corporation
224
allowed
consultation amongst people through electronic media and remote conferencing
for the purpose of appointing an arbitrator. In the case of State of Maharashtra
v Praful Desai
225
the court extended this recognition for modern modes of
communication and upheld video-conferencing as a valid mode for recording
evidence and testimony of witnesses. Further, in Balram Prasad v Kunal Saha and
Ors, the Supreme Court upheld the use video conferencing as a means to obtain
the expert opinion of a foreign doctor.
226
c. Expansion of disputes that are arbitrable
The question about the categories of disputes that can be subject to arbitration
has always been heavily contested. To address some of these doubts, in 2011, the
Supreme Court, in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v SBI Home Finance Ltd.
227
listed the
matters that are incapable of being settled through arbitration. Such a list included
disputes such as those relating to criminal offences or involving tenancy rights,
among others. Subsequently, through other judicial precedents, subject matters
were added to the list, such as those involving consumer disputes
228
or arising out
of trust deeds.
229
Over time, such restrictions have limited the use of arbitration
to resolve disputes and thereby impeded the use of ODR in online arbitrations.
However, precedents over the past few years have tried to relax such criteria
of arbitrability. For instance, in 2018, the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy v A.
Paramasivam
230
held that mere allegation of fraud does not make a dispute non-
arbitrable. The latest judgment in Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation
231

furthered such a pro-arbitration approach and held that landlord-tenancy
agreement disputes, apart from those controlled by special rent control legislation,
300937/2021/DMEO
230 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 55
could also be resolved through arbitration. Through such a precedent, the Supreme
Court has now laid down a four-fold test to determine arbitrability and thereby
provided a boost to the arbitration and ODR ecosystem in India.
As per the four-fold test laid out in the judgment, a dispute is not arbitrable—
1. when cause of action and subject matter of the dispute relates to
actions in rem, that do not pertain to subordinate rights in personam
that arise from rights in rem;
2. when cause of action and subject matter of the dispute affects third
party rights; have erga omnes effect; require centralized adjudication,
and mutual adjudication would not be appropriate and enforceable;
3. when cause of action and subject matter of the dispute relates to
inalienable sovereign and public interest functions of the State and
hence mutual adjudication would be unenforceable; and
4. when the subject-matter of the dispute is expressly or by necessary
implication non-arbitrable as per mandatory statute(s).
While this judgment provided helpful clarity on tenancy disputes and the overall
law on arbitrability, its express overruling of the judgment in HDFC Bank v Satpal
Singh Bakshi,
232
has the consequence of making banking disputes under the
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 (‘RDDBFI
Act’) unarbitrable. Such an exclusion leaves out a substantial number of disputes
and majorly impacts a sector, which could potentially immensely benefit from
ODR solutions. Further, varied application of the test in the future might further
lead to ambiguities on how arbitrability comes to be understood and the question
of who decides on arbitrability, open and uncertain. It is thus recommended
that the Central Government may consider making suitable amendments to the
RDDBFI and Debt Recovery Tribunals Act to clarify that the disputes under the
Acts are arbitrable, effectively re-instituting the status-quo prior to the Supreme
Court verdict. It is also urged that this matter be referenced to a larger bench
of the Supreme Court to identify and segregate different categories of disputes,
including banking disputes, to which the judgment will not be applicable.
a. Recognition of electronic summons
The Supreme Court in Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v National
Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd
233
allowed service of summons through
email along with other modes. Further, Delhi High Court in Tata Sons Ltd v John
Doe
234
and Bombay High Court in Kross Television India Pvt Ltd v Vikhyat Chitra
Production
235
has recognised service through instant messaging applications and
permitted service of summons through WhatsApp .
Recently, considering the restrictions in physical service of summons during the
lockdown period, the Supreme Court, in a suo moto writ petition In re Cognizance
300937/2021/DMEO
231 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 56
for Extension of Limitation
236
directed all service of summons, notices and
pleading to be effected by email, facsimile and commonly used instant messaging
applications, such as WhatsApp, Telegram and Signal.
b. Admissibility of electronic records as evidence
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for admissibility of electronic
evidence. In recent years, the Supreme Court, through judicial precedents has
strengthened this procedure for admissibility electronic records.
In 2005, the Supreme Court in State of NCT Delhi v Navjyot Singh
237
held that
electronic evidence can be admitted as secondary evidence, regardless of
compliance with section 65B. However, in 2014, in Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer,
238

the Supreme Court overruled this position and held that compliance with the
conditions mentioned in section 65B at the time of proving the record is necessary
for the admissibility of any electronic evidence. In July 2020, the Supreme Court
in Arjun Paditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors
239
further clarified
the principle laid down in Anvar P.V. and strengthened the procedure for admission
of electronic evidence.
c. Virtual Courts for traffic challenges and cheque bouncing cases
The Supreme Court in M/S Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kanchan Mehta
240

identified that complete reliance could be placed on technology tools to resolve
disputes. The court observed that some cases could partly or entirely be
concluded ‘online’ and recommended the resolution of simple cases like those
concerning traffic challans and cheque bouncing through online mechanisms.
d. Integration of Digital Mediation in Digital NI Courts
Recently Delhi High Court has undertaken a project to establish Digital NI Act
Court at the district level for online filing, hearing and disposal of cheque dishonour
cases.
241
The procedure for resolution of these cases involves digital mediation
process, which allows parties to utilise the mediation forum and settle the
case.
242
The guidelines also provide for e-signature to assist the digital mediation
process. Upon receiving the terms of settlement and statement of the parties,
the Magistrate in Digital NI Act Court dispose of the case.
243
This Digital process
ensure accessible and efficient dispute redressal for cheque dishonour cases.
3. Explicit Recognition of ODR’s Potential
a. Recognition by judicial members
In a stakeholders’ meeting titled “Catalyzing Online Dispute Resolution in
India”
244
organised by NITI Aayog on June 6 2020, Justice Indu Malhotra spoke
about the advantages of ODR as an expeditious and cost-effective mechanism
for dispute resolution. She observed its potential for commercial disputes,
particularly concerning Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and disputes under
300937/2021/DMEO
232 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 57
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. At the same meeting, Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud observed the utility of ODR as a service to avail justice and thereby
use technology to promote a sense of inclusive justice. He noted that ODR can
also provide dispute containment and dispute avoidance services, in addition
to dispute resolution. Further, while discussing the nationwide implementation of
ODR, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul acknowledged the potential of ODR to address
disputes arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as other personal and
commercial disputes. Similarly, Justice (Retd.) A K Sikri, while underlining the
benefits of ODR, urged that incentives need to be provided for parties to opt
for pre-litigation ODR.
In another stakeholder meeting organised by NITI Aayog, titled ‘Unlocking Online
Dispute Resolution to Enhance the Ease of Doing Business’ Justice (Retd.) B.N.
Srikrishna noted that ODR systems will prevent cluttering of courts by resolving
a large number of disputes.
245
b. Conducting e-Lok Adalats
The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an impetus to the authorities to use online
mechanisms in their daily functioning. As a consequence, India saw the organisation
of various e-Lok Adalats across States. The first e-Lok Adalat organised by the
Chhattisgarh High Court and State Legal Services Authority, on 13th July 2020,
settled 2,270 cases in a single day through video conferencing.
246
Following this
success, e-Lok Adalats have been organised in Karnataka which saw even higher
numbers i.e. resolution of 1.15 lakh cases on a single day with a total of Rs. 330.3
crore awarded as compensation or settlement amount.
247
E-Lok Adalats were also
consulted in Chhattisgarh,
248
Delhi,
249
Jharkhand,
250
Jammu and Kashmir
251
and
Rajasthan
252
and will soon be replicated across different states.
253
Some State Legal
Service Authorities have taken technical assistance from ODR service providers
to organise e-Lok Adalats.
254
D. ECOSYSTEM’S EAGERNESS
While ODR has seen potential and success within the legislature, executive and the
judiciary, a significant potential for growth in ODR is seen in early innovation and
adoption by the private sector. The private sector ODR ecosystem constitutes a
variety of actors including start-ups that provide ODR services, dispute resolution
centres (DRCs) that have expanded their traditional modes of service to include
ODR, dispute resolution professionals (DRPs) who are now adopting technology
tools to provide their services, and most importantly, businesses which are
adopting ODR processes for resolving disputes arising out of their course of
business. This section identifies some of the key developments across different
actors in the private sector in India, especially in the last couple of years.
300937/2021/DMEO
233 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 58
1. Growth of start-ups providing ODR platforms and services
For a few years now, legal technology start-ups have been attempting to make
a difference to the justice delivery systems in India. An important impetus came
in 2019 when an ‘E-ADR Challenge’ was organised by a non-profit organisation
Agami in collaboration with ICICI bank.
255
The goal of the challenge was to identify
the most promising start-ups that could solve millions of disputes online. As a
part of this, ICICI bank pledged to send 10,000 of its disputes below the value
of INR 20 lakhs, for resolution through an ODR start-up ‘Sama’, the winner of
the challenge.
256
Today, there are multiple start-ups in the country following a
variety of models that continue to innovate on a daily basis with an aim to
provide accessible and affordable ODR services to individuals, businesses, State
Governments and the judiciary. Collaboration between the private sector and
the judiciary, as seen in the case of e-Lok Adalats, has been very successful in
resolving disputes.
257
In a welcome move to provide recognition and legitimacy to
such start-ups, the Department of Legal Affairs has recently invited applications
from institutes providing ADR/ ODR services in the country to host such list of
service providers on its website.
258
2. Dispute Resolution Centres adopting ODR
Even dispute resolution centres which have traditionally been providing ADR
services, have expanded their modes to include ODR processes. For example,
a. the Indian Institute for Arbitration and Mediation has developed an ODR
Platform called Peacegate, which hopes to integrate all facets of ADR
ranging from filing to back-office support.
259
b. Bangalore International Mediation, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre
offers online arbitration, conciliation, mediation services since 2013.
c. Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration offers video conferencing
facility to enable online arbitration proceedings.
d. In 2020, the Delhi Dispute Resolution Society has introduced an initiative
called SEHMATI, which is dedicated solely to ODR.
260
3. Businesses adopting ODR
ODR has seen success not only in the realm of private service providers but also at
the end of businesses which have established in-house ODR Platforms to resolve
disputes.
261
Even the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), while addressing
concerns regarding Ease of Doing Business, recommended strengthening of ADR
along with digitisation of judiciary to facilitate a business-friendly environment in
India.
262
The above instances are evidence that private innovation and eagerness amongst
businesses to adopt ODR are going hand in hand. This momentum towards ODR
is driven as much by necessity stemming from the stalemate in the judiciary,
as well as an opportunity to create a dispute resolution ecosystem that works
300937/2021/DMEO
234 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 59
for the benefit of all. Moving forward, an important question that will need to
be addressed is how the growth and innovation in the private sector can be
facilitated while balancing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice,
and basic standards in data protection, privacy and confidentiality. Chapter VI
addresses focuses on this issue in greater detail.
300937/2021/DMEO
235 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 60
Though ODR holds immense potential to provide for efficient and effective
dispute resolution, its integration in the mainstream dispute resolution ecosystem
holds several challenges. A successful implementation of ODR depends on several
factors such as availability of a reliable and secure technology tools, digital
infrastructure to enable usage, willingness of parties to adopt to a new way of
resolution, co-operation and support from lawyers, judiciary, Government to ensure
enforcement of awards and agreements etc.
263
The interests and incentives for
each of the different stakeholders involved in the process needs to be considered
and addressed to enable widespread adoption of ODR.
Based on extensive literature review and consultations with key stakeholders
in India, the Committee has identified the following challenges that need to be
addressed in a phased manner for successful implementation of ODR.
A. STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES
1. Digital infrastructure
A pre-condition to ODR integration is robust technology infrastructure across the
country. This includes access to computers, smart phones and medium to high
bandwidth internet connection for at least the length of time it takes to conduct
meaningful hearings. The lack of such requirements is likely to disadvantage those
that have limited access to digital infrastructure.
264
Currently, efforts to expand digital infrastructure have been taken under the
National Digital Communication Policy, 2018 which aims to provide universal
broadband connectivity and facilitate effective participation in global digital
economy.
265
Working towards this goal, in December 2019, the Central Government
launched National Broadband Mission with an objective to provide broadband
access to all villages by 2022.
266
Further details on the initiatives taken by the
Government and the mechanism through which it can be achieved can be found
in the Recommendations chapter of this report.
267
CHALLENGES FACED IN
ADOPTION OF ODRV
300937/2021/DMEO
236 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 61
2. Digital literacy
Apart from digital infrastructure, a pre-requisite to ODR is widespread digital
literacy. In India, this digital literacy often varies across age, ethnicity and
geography. For instance, out of the 743.19 million internet subscribers in India,
the internet rural penetration rate is only 32.24% (with 285.97 million subscribers)
which is less than one third of the urban penetration rate of 99.12% (with 457.23
million subscribers).
268
Further, it is estimated that out of total 5,97,618 inhabited
villages, including Gram Panchayats in the country (as per the Census 2011), only
about 5,69,897 are covered by mobile services, leaving around 27,721 villages that
are not covered by mobile services.
269
To enable the large scale adoption of ODR
it is necessary that such a digital divide be addressed.
270
To achieve this, there is a need for programmes that focus on boosting internet
accessibility in rural areas combined with dedicated initiatives to popularise basic
skill sets required to access ODR services. Initiatives such as the Pradhan Mantri
Gramin Digital Saksharta Abhiyaan (PMGDISHA) will go long way to ensure access
to justice in even the remotest and the most marginalised sections of the society.
271
3. Divide in access to technology
In India, there exists a divide with respect to the access to technology across
gender, geography, class and age. As per Internet India Report 2019, women
constitute only 1/3
rd
of internet users in India.
272
The situation is even worse
in rural India where women constitute only 28 per cent of the internet users.
Due to the uneven distribution of access to technology, only 27 percent of the
rural population has access to the internet whereas in urban India, internet has
percolated to 51 percent of the population.
273
Further, individuals above 40 years
constitute only 15 percent of internet users in India.
274
Such divide in accessing the internet might result in uneven access to ODR
services, thereby exacerbating the divide that already exists in terms of access to
justice through traditional courts. It is essential that targeted attempts are made
to bridge this divide to truly be able to deliver the benefits of ODR to all citizens.
B. BEHAVIOURAL CHALLENGES
1. Lack of awareness regarding ODR
ODR, in its early phase, mirrors off-line ADR mechanisms, albeit through a
technology interface. Even then, such usage of technology to connect disputing
parties with Neutrals and resolve disputes is at a very nascent stage in India.
Therefore, it is essential that apart from strengthening ADR processes that people
are already familiar with, initiatives should be taken to build awareness regarding
ODR. At present, the lack of awareness regarding ODR translates into litigants and
businesses having low confidence in ODR processes and restricted application of
ODR in sectors with huge potential for such as MSME, consumer disputes etc.
300937/2021/DMEO
237 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 62
As with any technology services, comfort and trust is built over time with
continuous usage. Our consultations revealed that individuals become accustomed
to ODR with its increased usage. Therefore, apart from increasing awareness
through systematic campaigns, there is an equal need to provide more avenues
for continuous usage of ODR.
2. Lack of trust in ODR services
Linked to the above point is the issue of lack of trust in ODR. This mistrust
stems at several levels – from scepticism regarding technology to questions
regarding enforceability of ODR outcomes. The endeavour towards mainstreaming
ODR needs to address the issue of trust at every level.
275
Like other emerging
technologies, ODR is bound to be met with scepticism from potential users,
especially regarding its effectiveness given the lack of in-person interactions, as
well as regarding data security and confidentiality.
276
In the following chapters, this report lays down a governance framework aimed at
addressing these concerns to ensure that ODR service providers are functioning
ethically and meeting certain standards requires of any system functioning in the
‘justice space’.
277
3. Legal culture
It is often difficult to introduce ODR in countries where people rely more on courts
and there is low percolation of ADR mechanisms for dispute resolution.
278
Lack
of reliance on ADR despite the costs and delays associated with the judiciary
is due to multiple reasons which have already been elaborated elsewhere.
279

However, going forward, it is necessary to create capacity to provide quality
ADR services through mediation and arbitration. This will help in transitioning
faster towards ODR. Specific measures to strengthen ADR are provided in the
following chapters.
280
4. Role of the government and the PSUs
The Government and Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) are amongst the biggest
litigants in India. Adoption of ODR to resolve inter and intra Governmental
disputes would be a key step in boosting confidence in the process. This will
automatically address the issue of trust in ODR processes and outcomes. For
this, the officials in Government Departments and PSUs need to be trained and
empowered to effectively participate in ODR processes. This is essential to unlock
the potential of ODR to significantly reduce the burden on courts.
C. OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES
1. Privacy and confidentiality concerns
Greater integration of technology and reduced face to face interactions create
new challenges for privacy and confidentiality, especially in dispute resolution.
281

300937/2021/DMEO
238 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 63
These challenges include online impersonation, breach of confidentiality by
circulation of documents and data shared during ODR processes, tampering of
digital evidence or digitally delivered awards/ agreements. ODR service providers
should be extremely mindful of building robust data storage and management
frameworks to address these concerns. Digital signatures,
282
encryption of
documents to ensure confidentiality
283
etc. are some of the measures that need
to be taken to sustainably integrate ODR for large scale of disputes. The principles
framework detailed in the next chapter
284
seeks to guide ODR service provides
in this aspect while being mindful of the need to not view these challenges as
barriers to integrate ODR itself.
2. Availability of Neutrals
The adoption of ODR will likely generate a huge demand for Neutrals who are
comfortable with technology and trained to effectively guide the parties through
the ODR process.
285
A robust training ecosystem for ADR/ ODR professionals
that caters to this demand is necessary while pushing towards integration of ODR
as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism. The next chapter identifies certain
standards for training and certification of Neutrals, to help foster this ecosystem.
286
3. Archaic Legal Processes
The Supreme Court in Garware Walls Ropes Ltd. v Coastal Marine Constructions &
Engineering Ltd.
287
held that arbitration agreement cannot be given effect unless
the stamp duty is paid. Although the Central Government has simplified the
process for payment of stamp duty through e-Stamps and online payment
288

the rules framed by the State Governments still require parties to attach a copy
of eStamp certificate to the agreement as a proof of payment of stamp duty.
289

The archaic process does not work well with the end-to-end online process of
dispute resolution and creates barriers for ODR.
Further, in India there are no provisions for online notarisation of documents.
As per the Notaries Rules 1956, notarisation of documents can only be done in
person
290
and hence, require physical action on the part of parties. Such processes
should be digitised to ensure an end-to-end ODR process.
4. Enforcement of the outcome of ODR process
A key challenge towards meeting the objectives of this report itself is the
existing uncertainty regarding enforcement of ODR outcomes. There has been
uncertainty regarding enforcement of mediation settlements for a long time now.
The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v Cherian Varkey Construction
held that the court-initiated mediation proceedings will be deemed as Lok Adalat
and hence settlements reached through such proceedings are enforceable under
S. 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
291
However, there seems to be a
legal vacuum when we consider mediation processes that are not initiated by the
courts. For these proceedings, settlements can only be enforced as an agreement
300937/2021/DMEO
239 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 64
between the parties and any breach of such agreement will result in further
judicial processes.
Further, the process for enforcement of arbitral award India is complex and
burdensome. Firstly, arbitration awards require stamp duties in most of the States.
292

As mentioned above, the archaic requirement to attach eStamp certificate to the
document creates barriers in an otherwise end-to-end online process.
Secondly, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for enforcement
of the arbitral award in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court.
293

While deciding upon the jurisdiction of the court to execute arbitral award, the
Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Limited v Abdul Samad
294
allowed the
execution proceedings to be filed anywhere in the country, where such decree
can be executed. However, the process of execution of awards through courts
can be cumbersome for the parties and may result in delays. Such a complex
process acts contrary to the objectives of ODR to provide convenient and efficient
dispute redressal.
300937/2021/DMEO
240 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 65
While a myriad of challenges have been identified in the previous chapter, the
future of ODR in India is bright. Making ODR a reality will require co-ordinated
efforts from all stakeholders and for this reason, the list of recommendations
that have been identified are addressed not just towards the Government but
a various list of stakeholders that have the capacity and influence to usher in
change and provide impetus to broad base ODR in India.
To enable a speedy integration, some of the recommendations that have been
identified build on existing capabilities and policies that have already been
introduced by the Government such as the SAMADHAAN initiative and the
National Broadband Mission. Others are novel introductions in the Indian context,
such as introducing an opt-out model for mandatory pre-litigation mediation in
India.
The following section provides a step-by-step narrative of how access to
infrastructure can be increased, capacity can be built and trust can be increased
in ODR. It also recommends a soft touch regulatory model which identifies the
ways to strengthen the current legislative framework and introduces principles
that should voluntarily be adopted by stakeholders such as ODR Platforms, ODR
Centres and Neutrals. The phased manner in which ODR should be executed and
implemented has also been identified.
A. INCREASE ACCESS TO DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE
A pre-condition for all technology related innovations, including ODR, is widespread
access to digital infrastructure. Such access should not just be understood to
mean physical access to technology and its tools but also include its utilisation
and thus necessitate digital literacy. Additionally, it is important that such access
addresses gaps created by differences in class, caste, gender and age and include
those individuals who are often on the margins. While the task is a mammoth one,
there is hope that this can be realised as the Government has already introduced
some initiatives that can bridge these gaps. This section identifies ways in which
they can be capitalised upon and strengthened; ways to increase digital literary
and initiatives that can reduce the digital divide that might continue to persist.
RECOMMENDATIONSVI
300937/2021/DMEO
241 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 66
1. Increase physical access to infrastructure
Increased physical access to technology and infrastructure can only be achieved
by the combined efforts of two key stakeholders – the Government and the
judiciary. Fortunately, key initiatives by both these stakeholders are already
underway and can be further leveraged to increase access to ODR.
All of the Governments’ initiatives come in light of the its flagship ‘Digital India’
project, which hopes to transform the entire ecosystem of public services through
the use of information technology.
295
To extend digital infrastructure to rural India
and provide internet connectivity to every citizen, the Government launched the
BharatNet Project, in 2011. Formerly known as the National Optic Fibre Network
(NOFN), this aimed to provide optic fibre connectivity to 2.5 lakh Gram Panchayats
by 2019.
296
However, the project was delayed due to a lack of funds and slow
implementation.
297
To remedy this delay, in 2019 the Government launched the
National Broadband Mission.
298
The Prime Minister in his Independence Day
speech announced that the Government would extend Internet connectivity to all
6 lakh villages in India within 1000 days.
299
Similarly, the PM WANI (Prime Minister
Wi-Fi Access Network Interface) scheme has been introduced to provide public
access to wi-fi through a pay as you go public data offices (PDOs) model.
300

The successful implementation of these initiatives will augur well for ODR usage.
While these initiatives will increase the overall reach of technology across the
country, the Government can also consider setting up kiosks in selected locations
in rural areas and train paralegal volunteers to help in assisting their usage. The
Government can also leverage the Common Service Centers (“CSCs”) established
under Digital India Programme to connect local population to ODR services.
301

Also, the capabilities developed under Tele-Law programme launched by the
Department of Justice can also be used to encourage resolution of disputes
through ODR and by offering paralegal services.
302
The Government can consider collaborating with the private sector service
providers to develop pilot programs and customised solutions.
The judiciary’s efforts have been initiated through the eCourts Mission Mode
Project, which has been discussed in detail in chapter IV of the report.
303
Phase III
of the Project can be leveraged to build ODR infrastructure. Court-annexed ADR
centres can be equipped with digital technology and Legal Services Authorities
and ADR centres can be used as nodal agencies to spread awareness regarding
ODR. All further development of ODR in the nation will be contingent on the
foundation laid out by these combined efforts of the Government and judiciary.
2. Increase digital literacy
Physical access to technology and infrastructure is only one aspect of access
to digital infrastructure. To unlock its true potential, users of such technology
should be digitally literate. Fortunately, the Government has already taken steps
towards increasing digital literacy through its initiative–the Pradhan Mantri Gramin
Digital Saksharta Abhiyan (PMGDISHA). Launched in March 2019, the initiative has
300937/2021/DMEO
242 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 67
successfully trained more than 2 crore individuals and certified them as digitally
literate. Through this initiative, the Government has also established more than 3
lakhs training centres and completed over 3 crores trainings to promote digital
literacy in rural India.
304
This initiative can be leveraged to inform individuals about
basic tools that are used in ODR – such as audio, video and text communication.
A dedicated section in this chapter identifies other ways in which awareness can
be generated about ODR in India.
305
3. Reduce digital divide through targeted policies
Very often the benefits of policies and initiatives, such as the ones above, fail
to reach classes and communities that exist on the margins of society.
306
This
stands true even in the use of the internet and access to technology, which differs
according to geographies, age groups, genders, etc. The following numbers from
a survey conducted by the Internet and Mobile Association of India point out
these disparities.
307
i. Women constitute only one-third of the internet users in the country.
ii. The majority of Internet users in India are younger individuals and those
above 40 years constitute only 15 percent of the internet users.
iii. 99 percent of the Internet users in India access it through mobile phones.
iv. Percolation of desktop and laptop computers is 10 percent in cities and
3 percent in rural parts of the country.
In light of these numbers, it is important that the success of the above-mentioned
initiatives be measured by their successful reach to these classes of individuals
and not just in whole numbers that include one and all.
308
Some ways in which
this can be achieved are:
a. Design platforms that maximise access: It is recommended that ODR
Platforms be mobile friendly to enable their wide adoption. Further, it is
also desirable that the private sector develops solutions, which are based
on voice prompts technology given the limitations in digital literacy. The
Government can also incentivise platforms to develop interfaces that
cater to differently abled persons.
b. Encourage the use of technology among women and elders: It is
recommended that the Legal Service Authorities, with the support of the
judiciary, civil society organisations and self-help groups, design special
campaigns to encourage use of technology among women and elders .
Such campaigns should run in parallel to the digital literacy programmes
to make individuals comfortable with the use of technology and in turn
increase ease of use of ODR tools.
4. Encourage innovation of accessible technology solutions
As identified above, very often the answer to the lack of technology infrastructure
is increased access to it. However, along with increasing access, it is equally
300937/2021/DMEO
243 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 68
important that innovations on the side of the private sector also respond to
the needs of marginalised. It is thus important; that the Government specifically
encourages the growth of technology solutions that increases access amongst
the marginalised. The Government through its initiatives such as Atal Innovation
Mission
309
, should encourage the innovations to increase access amongst differently
abled persons, that understand and respond to the regional and multi-lingual
diversity of the country.
B. INCREASE CAPACITY
While access to digital infrastructure is necessary for the inclusion of the end user,
increase in capacity of the professionals and the service providers is necessary
if ODR is to be scaled up in India. This can be achieved only through systematic
and co-ordinated engagement of all concerned stakeholders ranging from the
Government to the businesses and the judiciary. To achieve this, there is a need to
introduce training programmes, strengthen paralegal services within communities,
encourage growth within the private sector, increase capacity of court-annexed
ADR centres and co-opt ODR into specific government sectors. Through focused
recommendations, this section explains how capacity can be increased both in
the short and the long term.
1. Introduce training at all levels
To have well trained professionals is a prerequisite for a well-developed ODR
framework. It is their existence that can raise the confidence in the end users–
individuals, businesses and Governments. Data from NALSA suggests that there
already does exist sufficient capacity in trained mediators to scale up mediation
in the country.
310
However, the data is not very helpful when it comes to assessing
the quality of this capacity or of other types of ADR professionals. That said, given
the growth that the private sector has seen over the past few years, there has
been an increase in the number of trained ODR professionals in India. Therefore,
while the Government should attempt to increase ODR capacity in the long term,
users of ODR such as individuals, businesses and the Government at all levels, can
utilise the pre-existing trained professionals in the interim. In fact, increase in the
number of cases being resolved through ADR and ODR will create an impetus
necessary to attract qualified individuals towards becoming dispute resolution
professionals.
To ensure that the quality of professionals is maintained in the country, it is
recommended that a body to regulate these training standards be present at a
national level. To this end, in the field of arbitration, the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act (Amendment) Act, 2019 has mandated the setting up Arbitration Council for
India. A similar institution can be set up for mediation in India. As the mediation
legislation drafted by the MCPC suggests there is a need to set up a Mediation
Council of India. Alternatively, the powers to regulate mediation can continue
to be proactively exercised by the Arbitration and Mediation Council of India as
envisioned by Section 43D of the Amendment Act. Further, following are some of
the other measures that can be taken to ensure that the quality of professionals
is maintained.
300937/2021/DMEO
244 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 69
a. Introduce uniform training standards
It is recommended that a uniform set of training standards, to upskill ADR
professionals to become ODR professionals be introduced. Therefore, the
requirement to meet these standards should be in addition to the pre-existing
requirements set out by legislations or rules for that type of professional. For
instance, an arbitrator seeking to provide e-arbitration services should be required
to meet the standards set out by the Arbitration Council of India, the requirements
under the respective rules of the various High Court annexed centres or private
dispute resolution centres and the below mentioned ODR training standards. These
standards should be uniform across all ODR professionals. It is recommended
that the following components form a part of the training standards for ODR
professionals
311
:
i. Basic training:
- Basic knowledge of all types of ODR: eADR and algorithmic
resolutions
- Basic knowledge of communication through ODR: both
synchronous and asynchronous
- Adapting offline ADR techniques to online environment
ii. Training on ethics:
- Familiarise neutrals on the ethical standards
312
- Party psychology and common online behaviours
- Diversity and cross-cultural communication
- Methods to increase accessibility and accommodate disability
iii. Training on best practices:
- Prepare and conduct online mediation and arbitration
- Overview of various platforms, processes and tools
- Address pitfalls when communicating online
- Privacy, security, data protection and legal issues in ODR
- Methods to ensure quality in ODR
iv. Training on practical skills through demonstrations and simulations
on:
- Techniques for audio, video and text-based communication
- How to manage party expectations and encourage participation
- Time management in asynchronous online conversations
Uniform implementation of these standards will ensure that even though the
training is being provided by a variety of stakeholders and institutes, the quality
of ODR professionals across the nation is ensured.
300937/2021/DMEO
245 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 70
b. Expand the scope of ODR professionals through training
ODR presents an opportunity to create a cadre of a host of new ODR professionals
across the country. These individuals can range from traditional ADR professionals
such as arbitrators and mediators and extend to case managers and tribunal
secretaries, which might go on to play a more integral role in ODR proceedings.
Thus, the training that should be offered must be directed to a wide set of
future professionals. Fortunately, the Government seems to have already started
the processes of taking an expansive approach to professionals in the context of
arbitrators, having omitted the Eighth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 via an ordinance in November 2020.
313
In the context of mediation, the need to expand the scope of mediators to
include other domain professionals has been recognised on multiple occasions.
For instance, in Daramic Battery Separator India Pvt. Ltd.,
314
NALSA was unable
to find a suitable commercial mediator within its pool of mediators. Similarly,
some commercial disputes before the Legal Service Authorities have seen a
lack of domain specific experts.
315
This problem can be addressed by including
professionals such as retired bankers, chartered accountants, company secretaries,
social workers and psychologist etc. into the fold of mediators by providing them
suitable training on the requirements of the process of mediation and arbitration.
Further, in the context of mediation, in addition to basic subject matter knowledge,
it is key that mediators have process expertise, adequate communication skills
for effective problem solving and skills to diffuse tension during impasses. Thus,
training for such soft skills should therefore be a part of the training curriculum.
c. Collaborate to expand training capacities
The onus to ensure growth of the ODR sector and undertake training of
professionals does not have to be fulfilled by the Government alone. Instead, it is
important that various actors undertake collaborative efforts to introduce training
and certification programmes. To this end, some actors such as state institutions
316

and universities
317
have already introduced training programmes. Moving forward,
Bar Councils, District Legal Services Authorities and Judicial Academies can
be encouraged to impart training for lawyers and other domain experts to
become ODR professionals. Even court annexed centres can provide practical
training through observation and mentorship programs which can be headed by
experienced mediators. To ensure that the standards across these institutes are
maintained, the Government can introduce uniform training standards like the
ones mentioned in Section (a).
d. Introduce remote teaching courses
Like training, which is being provided by various institutes, the method of imparting
this training can also be diverse. They can thus take the form of remote courses.
Due to the COVID-19 induced crises; universities across the country now provide
courses through video conferencing.
318
Given the unique nature of ODR, Judicial
300937/2021/DMEO
246 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 71
Academies, Bar Councils, and universities can be encouraged to provide training
through such remote courses.
e. Use SWAYAM to introduce multilingual courses
To ensure that training is not limited to just English or some regional languages,
the Government initiative Study Webs of Active-Learning for Young Aspiring
Minds (SWAYAM) can be harnessed. SWAYAM is an open online course (MOOC)
platform launched by the Government of India under the Digital India initiative.
319

Courses available on the platform are free of cost and available in multiple
languages.
320
ODR courses and ODR training can be provided by this platform.
f. Introduce ODR in legal education and continuing legal education
Training does not have to start after individuals become professionals. Instead, it
can be initiated right at the level of law students. Even though the Bar Council
mandates alternative dispute resolution to be a compulsory subject for legal
education, the requirements provided under the rules to conduct it through
simulations and case studies are often not followed across universities. The
University Grants Commission and the Department of Legal Affairs can issue
circulars to universities to encourage them to have multiple elective subjects on
ADR including ODR. State Bar Councils and Judicial Academies can also be
encouraged to introduce continuing legal education through curated curriculums
and certificate courses that emphasize first-hand experience with technology and
up-skilling advocates before they take up the roles of Neutrals.
g. Train judicial officers and court staff
In anticipation of the increased use of ODR, the support staff across court-
annexed centres should also be provided sufficient training. Additionally, training
of court staff and members of the Registry will ensure that these stakeholders
are familiar with ODR processes and can standardise processes relating to the
enforcement of ODR settlement agreements and awards. It is also recommended
that judicial officers be provided training to effectively refer cases to ADR. Such
training can take the form of management of rosters and identification of cases
that are suitable to be resolved through ODR.
2. Strengthen paralegal services within communities
The concept of Para-Legal Volunteers (PLVs) can be traced back to 2009, when
the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) recognizing the need to bridge
the gap between the common people and the Legal Services Institutions (LSIs)
321

introduced the Para-Legal Volunteers Scheme.
322
The objective of the scheme
was to impart legal training to PLVs who in turn provide people, in their locality,
information about the free legal facilities available at the LSIs. In addition to
bridging this gap, the PLVs also play the critical role of generating awareness
about the benefits of settlement of disputes at the pre-litigation stage through
300937/2021/DMEO
247 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 72
Lok Adalats, conciliation, mediation and arbitration. Therefore, they are a major
resource that can increase the reach of ODR in rural areas and remote locations.
However, the current status of PLVs in India, is sub-par. Under the scheme, every
DLSA was to ideally have 50 active PLVs.
323
To this end, most states complied
with the numbers, with about 27 states/UTs seeing more than twice the number
of PLVs and nine states/UTs having less than the required numbers.
324
However,
further research shows a less promising picture. States with high populations (such
as Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar among others) show a figure of less than
5 PLVs per lakh of the population.
325
These numbers are inadequate to cater to
the needs of the population, especially during the introduction of an unfamiliar
initiative such as ODR. Apart from just the numbers, various other issues such
as the lack of clarity on the criteria for qualifications, inadequate training and
monitoring mechanisms have limited the success of the scheme.
Investment in PLVs should be thought of as an investment in building a community
asset whose impact will not just be an increase in the possible reach of ODR
to rural areas, but also address larger access to justice issues. NLSA can take
some of the following measures to address the problems in a phased manner.
i. Ensure that the numbers of PLVs are assigned proportionate to the
population of the District as opposed to a designated quota per DLSA.
ii. Use PLVs services to assess the legal needs of the community in a
planned and structured manner.
iii. Provide targeted and curated curriculums with simulations in contrast to
the current four days induction course and three days advance training
course, which cover a very wide range of legislations in a short period
of time.
iv. Ensure continuous training to respond to the contemporary issues faced
by the community.
v. Providing step-by-step, script-based solutions to recurring problems
such as filing FIRs, motor vehicle claims and cheque bouncing cases.
vi. Introduce a continuous and streamlined monitoring system.
vii. Provide adequate and fair compensation.
viii. Reassess the qualification of minimum education.
ix. Provide clarity on the criteria for selection.
x. Provide community members information on the available ADR and ODR
mechanisms through literary camps.
3. Encourage growth in the private sector
The Government does not have to build capacity for ODR in India all by itself.
Instead, it can collaborate with the private sector, to innovate and develop long-
300937/2021/DMEO
248 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 73
term ODR solutions. Since the private sector has already seen some growth
in the past few years, the Government can co-opt the existing platforms and
utilise their capacity in the immediate future. To truly harness the private sector’s
potential, the Government has to encourage growth through targeted initiatives
that encourage innovations and new entrants. Some of the ways in which growth
can be enabled in the private sector have been identified below.
a. Set up Legal-Tech Hubs
Another method of encouraging growth is through setting up of Legal Tech
Hubs across the nation. Inspiration can be drawn from countries like Singapore,
which have set up legal tech hubs and actively worked towards increasing their
Ease of Doing Business parameters.
326
For example, the Future Law Innovation
Programme (FLIP) set up by the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) is an industry-
wide initiative to drive innovation and encourage the adoption of new technology
across the legal sector.
327
Through collaboration between the Government, the
judiciary and the legal-tech community, a similar framework for India can be
created.
b. Encourage development of different variants of ODR
Given that ODR is still in its nascent stages of development, there is a lot of scope
to originate and design desirable tools and technologies.
328
Such a freehand can
be used to develop customisable solutions based on the classes of disputes or
categories of parties. For instance, technologies used to resolve e-Lok Adalats
disputes will be differ from that used in small value e-commerce disputes.
The latter for example, can potentially be contained through a comprehensive
customer service system. To encourage the development of diverse solutions, it is
essential that ODR should not be circumscribed by what currently exists. Instead,
it should be loosely defined such that it fosters innovation to truly deliver on the
promise of access to just, speedy and effective resolution of disputes.
c. Collaborate with the private sector to resolve an upsurge of
cases arising during the COVID-19 related pandemic
Owing to the COVID-19 induced pandemic, the number of disputes across India
are likely to see a rise in numbers. They can be across various sectors and include
disputes such as non-payment of wages, termination of employment, surge in
tenancy and consumer disputes and a host of commercial disputes. A following
identifies an indicative list of disputes that are likely to see an upsurge owing to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
329
These disputes can benefit from resolution through
ODR as they allow for parties to arrive at resolution by bargaining for their interest
and in many situations contain limited questions of law.
1. Commercial Disputes involving a breach of contract, non-performance of
contract, delays in payments or delivery of goods or services.
2. Labour disputes involving payment of wages, taking leaves, layoffs,
retrenchment, or working conditions.
300937/2021/DMEO
249 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 74
3. Family disputes involving payment of maintenance, custody, divorce or
domestic violence.
4. Consumer disputes involving industries such as e-commerce, aviation,
healthcare, insurance, hospitality and travel.
5. Tenancy disputes involving possession of property, payment of rent or
eviction.
To address this rise and resolve some of the above disputes, the Government
can introduce a COVID-19 related scheme that recommends resolution of these
disputes through ODR, subject to limits of arbitrability.
330
Under the scheme the
Government can:
i. Introduce a tiered dispute resolution framework for cases, which can be
resolved through negotiation, mediation and arbitration in a time-bound
manner, for all disputes below a certain monetary limit. The model used
in Hong Kong can be used as a reference point.
331
ii. Introduce a 24*7 legal help desk for commercial and employment
disputes. The help desk or curated online platform can educate the
public regarding their rights and obligations under law. The model used
in China can be used as a reference point.
332
,
iii. Introduce temporary schemes with reduced legal service fee or free
legal aid for workers to cater to a large number of displaced workers
from the lower economic strata.
iv. Collaborate and co-opt existing expertise and resources from grass-root
organisations and private sector ODR service providers. The Department
of Legal Affairs has already taken a step towards identifying all existing
ADR and ODR institutions.
333
From this list, the Department of Justice
and the Department of Legal Affairs can identify service providers who
satisfy the minimum standards and adhere to the principles laid down
in Section D of this Chapter.
334
v. Incentivise service providers to provide services in rural areas. Some of
such incentives are identified in Section C of this Chapter.
335
4. Increase the capacity of court-annexed ADR centres
The concept of court annexed ADR centres is synonymous with the amendment
to Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and can be traced back to the
year 1999. However, it was only in April 2005, that they were piloted at the Tis
Hazari District Courts, under the supervision of the Supreme Court’s Mediation and
Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC).
336
Since then, courts across the country
have set up their own court annexed mediation centres, such as Samadhan by
the Delhi High Court and the Bangalore Mediation Centre by the Karnataka High
300937/2021/DMEO
250 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 75
Court. These centres are governed by their own set of rules that vary across
High Courts.
During the COVID-19 induced pandemic, some court annexed centres such as
Samadhan have led the way in adopting ODR, through programs like ‘On-Line
Mediation Project’.
337
This project has also seen keen interest from disputants,
having received more than 90 applications between June and September 2020.
338

Similar initiatives along with some of the recommendations mentioned below will
enable these centres to cater to larger volumes, thereby fulfilling their objective
to reduce the burden on the public court system.
Presently, most of the developments in these court annexed centres tends
to be limited to metros and other commercial centres which have sufficient
infrastructure, interest from litigants and existence of trained professionals. For
such these centres to be one of the focal points of growth of ODR, their reach
needs to be expanded to include more cities and towns. Efforts have to be
consciously undertaken to reduce the digital divide existent in India.
a. Equip court annexed centres with ODR facilities
At present, funding of court annexed mediation centres comes from State
Governments with High Courts exercising some control over drawing up of
budgets and utilisation of funds.
339
With support from the Supreme Court through
the eCourts Project, which currently does not fund court annexed mediation
centres, primary ICT facilities such as video conferencing tools, WAN connectivity
and hardware equipment can be provided. The existence of these facilities will
form the foundation for future ODR enablement.
b. Relax criteria for empanelment of mediators and recognition of
institutions for court-annexed mediation
At present, the mediation rules of the various High Courts list out the criteria for
qualifications, which by design are oriented towards judicial officers and advocates
with considerable experience.
340
While these rules provide for empanelment of
‘other professionals’, they often have requirements such as 15 years’ experience
or requirements to be experts in mediation. This acts as a barrier to entry for
on boarding of Neutrals and also challenges the autonomy of parties that may
prefer appointment of non-experts but mutually trusted individuals as Neutrals.
Similarly, qualification criteria vary across fora, as regards recognition of mediation
institutions. For instance, while some rules recognise mediation institutions
341
other
rules only recognize persons and professionals and not institutions as qualified for
empanelment.
342
Akin to professionals, they act as barriers to entry and overlook
a key stakeholder in the dispute resolution process.
It is therefore recommended that the rules lay down only certain basic standards
regarding conflict disclosure and due process and expand the scope of who
can resolve a dispute. This will lead to the recognition and appointment of
diverse Neutrals. It is also necessary to standardise the criteria for recognition
300937/2021/DMEO
251 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 76
of institutions, since partnership with existing ADR centres with well-equipped
ODR facilities is a critical way to ensure ODR scales up faster.
c. Set up specialized court-annexed centres for certain classes of
disputes
As noted in Chapter III
343
, globally, several jurisdictions have co-opted ODR into
their own public court systems by setting up court annexed ODR Centres for
certain class of cases such as motor vehicle accident cases, loan defaults, and
consumer cases that have limited questions of law and fact.
344
The judiciary and
the Government can, in collaboration, identify classes of disputes that are fit for
ODR and set up specialized court annexed centres for a streamlined and targeted
resolution of disputes. Given that the tools of ODR are still emerging and its
efficacy in complex cases has not been tested, at the preliminary stages, ODR
can be utilised for disputes of low pecuniary value and high volume, on a pilot
basis in some sectors. Section D of this chapter, identifies some of the disputes
that can benefit from ODR.
345
d. Harness the potential of technology
As mentioned in Chapter III, there are numerous ways in which AI/ML can be
embraced in the resolution of disputes. Some examples of this include the legal
consultation by intelligent tools incorporated in Zhejiang Province’s Online Dispute
Diversification Resolution Platform, China
346
and the algorithm driven dispute
resolution process adopted by Smartsettle.
347
In the stakeholder meeting organised by NITI Aayog, while discussing the future
of ODR in India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that this is an opportunity for
the Government to employ AI tools to aid Government disputes.
348
AI and other
technology tools holds immense potential to reimagine the dispute resolution
system. These technologies can organise complex problems, identify the trade-
offs and help parties arrive at an ideal solution in an efficient manner. Further,
such technologies can be scaled up to address multiple disputes simultaneously
and hence reducing the delay in disposal of disputes.
However, the development of AI and other advanced technology for efficient
dispute resolution requires a comprehensive data corpus for identification of
patterns and rules in dispute resolution.
349
The Government should take measures
to encourage analysis and review of dispute resolution framework to identify rules
and patterns and help in developing AI based dispute resolution tools.
One of the ways to enable this can be allowing AI systems to analyse and
observe dispute resolution process in court-annexed ADR centres. This can help in
developing data sets for specific dispute categories which will then empower AI/
ML tools to offer advanced dispute resolution services.
350
Such data sets can then
be provided to researchers, institutions and organisations to develop targeted
technology solutions for efficient resolution of disputes. The Government should
notify appropriate privacy measures and responsibilities on researchers while
processing and analysing such data.
300937/2021/DMEO
252 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 77
5. Adopt ODR for specific Government sectors
As mentioned in Chapter III, ODR has been co-opted not just by judiciaries across
the globe but also by various Government institutions seeking to contain disputes
even before they can reach courts. While the initiatives that have been co-opted
by the Government departments in India are mentioned in Chapter IV,
351
this
section explains how they can be further scaled up moving forward. Given that
the private sector is seeing a growth in India, it is recommended that the services
of the private sector be utilised wherever possible during these early stages of
innovation.
a. Strengthen MSME SAMADHAAN for all kinds of money due cases
As mentioned in Chapter IV,
352
at present, MSME SAMADHAAN covers only
issues related to delay of payments. However, this portal can be scaled up to
incorporate settlement of all MSME related disputes, and thereby provide a single
window dispute resolution facility for MSMEs. However, before it is scaled up
the Department can conduct an audit to determine the causes for its limited use
in the past. This portal can then be linked to other fora/ platforms for effective
end-to-end dispute resolution. To execute this expansion, inspiration can be drawn
from the Asia-Pacific Eastern Co-operation, which has devised a collaborative
framework to resolve low value disputes involving cross-border business-to-
business (B2B) disputes, to help MSMEs.
353
For disputes of an international nature,
this framework can be adopted. For disputes of a domestic nature, the portal can
develop a comprehensive set of model procedural rules and maintain a list of
service providers that can resolve disputes through ODR within the procedural
guidelines laid down by the Ministry.
b. Enable ODR for INGRAM and Consumer Mediation Cell
As mentioned in Chapter IV,
354
the Department of Consumer Affairs has
spearheaded ODR integration into government run ODR programs with the
introduction of the National Consumer Helpline (NCH). Further, it has laid the
foundation for future ODR integration with the Integrated Consumer Grievance
Redressal Mechanism (INGRAM) and soon to be introduced Consumer Mediation
Cells (CMCs). The following paragraphs explain how the latter two initiatives can
be scaled up.
For Consumer Mediation Cells: Given that these cells were introduced only via
the 2019 Amendment Act
355
, they are still in their nascent stages of development
thereby providing a perfect opportunity to integrate them with ODR services.
The Department can equip these cells with relevant technology infrastructure
such as audio-visual equipment, good Internet connectivity and impart training to
all in-house mediators. A dedicated platform for communication and document
submission during the mediation process can be developed which guarantees
confidentiality and privacy. Rules can be framed to allow for asynchronous
communication as well.
300937/2021/DMEO
253 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 78
For INGRAM: At present, the INGRAM portal under the National Consumer Helpline
project provides a three-tier approach to dispute resolution – resolution through
the platform, followed by sector specific regulatory authority and finally through
the Consumer Commission. National Consumer Helpline also offers pre-litigation
mediation services to address consumer disputes concerning companies under
its convergence programme.  The Department can consider the integration of
ODR processes to strengthen such pre-litigation dispute containment initiatives.
To this end, the Department can use the pre-existing facilities of the Consumer
Mediation Cells.
c. Use ODR to resolve Insolvency and Bankruptcy Disputes
Internationally, there have been a lot of successes in using mediation to resolve
insolvency disputes like in the case of the Lehman Brothers Holdings case in
the United States.
356
Recognising such a potential, the Report of the Bankruptcy
Law Reforms Committee recommended a process for the negotiated settlement
between creditors and debtors without the active involvement of the court.
357

Today, even though the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) prescribes a
time limit to resolve disputes, they are seldom met due to the delays at the
National Company Law Tribunal.
358
To overcome such delays the Government
can consider introducing a mediation mechanism, which has been successful in
other jurisdictions.
359
To further expedite the process, resolution can take place
through ODR. To this end, the services of the private sector can be utilised and
a roster of mediators and institutions can be identified by the NCLT. A framework
that can enable this already pre-exists within the Code. For instance, presently the
Code already allows for settlement of disputes at various stages of the insolvency
processes including during the pre-admission, post-admission and before the
formation of the committee of creditors. Suitable amendments to the Code will
allow for these settlement proceedings to be conducted online.
C. BUILD TRUST IN ODR
While building infrastructure and ensuring adequate capacity can form the
foundation for ODR, its mainstreaming will require increased trust in ODR
processes from its end users- individual disputants, businesses and governments.
This trust can be built only through collaborative and coordinated efforts from all
concerned stakeholders–Neutrals, lawyers, ODR/ ADR institutions, ODR Platforms
along with the Government and the judiciary.
The Government through the Department of Legal Affairs has already initiated the
process by inviting submissions to recognise ADR and ODR services providers.
360

Through such as list, the Government can provide users with a clear description
of the services provided by the institutions e.g. e-arbitration, e-mediation etc.
and the sectors that they are currently servicing. Such a list can then be shared
between Government Departments and PSUs to enable them to choose service
providers that satisfy their requirement criteria.
300937/2021/DMEO
254 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 79
Even the judiciary has taken an initiative to mainstream mediation in the country
through the establishment of the Mediation and Conciliation Planning Committee
(MCPC).
361
The coming section identifies some of the other measures that can be
taken to generate trust in ODR.
1. Adopt ODR for Government litigation
As discussed in Chapter IV
362
, the Government is the biggest contributor to
litigation in the country.
363
As a result, the Government incurs heavy expenditures
of public money as litigation costs.
364
While there have been several attempts
to encourage Government Departments, Ministries and PSUs to adopt ADR
initiatives, they have not achieved the desired results and have in fact added to the
delay.
365
Overtime, the Government can mandate certain categories of disputes
to be resolved through ODR before approaching courts. Such a strategy can be
implemented in an incremental manner by using it in the beginning for smaller
value, simpler Government disputes and expand its use for disputes between
Government Departments and Ministries and subsequently as a mandatory step
for a wide variety of commercial cases.
In fact, the ‘Action Plan to reduce Government Litigation’ released by the
Department of Justice in 2017 also advocates for the use of ODR to resolve
disputes between the Government and private entities.
366
Similarly, the Government
can also consider making suitable amendments to the National Litigation Strategy
to include a reference to ODR.
2. Introduce an awareness campaign for ODR
Introduction of new technologies, in this case ODR, often face scepticism from
society. While these technologies show a lot of promise, acceptance is often an
organic process that takes a lot of time. It has to go through gradual evolution
with acceptance increasing in a progressive manner. One of the ways to remedy
this scepticism is to increase awareness about ODR processes, platforms and their
benefits. To this end, the Government, through its various Departments and the
judiciary can run a comprehensive campaign that utilises multimedia platforms,
such as television, radio shows, publication on Government and Supreme Court
and High Court websites to guide the public on the ways to use ODR processes.
The Government can also leverage its social media presence to highlight ODR
success stories to encourage people to adopt ODR. Taking a cue from the
Government’s initiatives, private platforms can also publish success stories and
hold free awareness sessions on weekends to increase the reach of ODR.
The Government should also endeavour to increase the reach of ODR in rural
areas by increasing awareness through the National Digital Literary Mission and
introduce campaigns at the panchayat level with the help of paralegal volunteers.
To help produce content for such campaigns the Government can collaborate
with the growing private sector and start-up community. However, awareness in
this regard should not just be exposure to all good that ODR can do, but instead
be a transparent showcase of both the benefits and challenges. This will help
300937/2021/DMEO
255 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 80
individuals make thoughtful decisions on how ODR can help them. This will also
help limit and prevent abuse from dubious providers.
3. Introduce targeted incentives for stakeholders
The lack of targeted incentives for stakeholders is one of the reasons behind the
limited adoption of ODR in India. Identified below are some of the initiatives that
the Government and the judiciary can introduce to encourage these stakeholders.
a. Incentives for businesses
Due to an increase in use of technology, businesses across the digital economy
(like e-commerce and hospitality) as well as traditional industries (like banking
and housing) have shown an interest in integrating technology into their dispute
resolution.
367
To make ODR clauses easy to draft, ODR centres and start-ups can
identify ideal ODR clauses that businesses can integrate during their contract
drafting processes. The community can also consider collaborating to identify
an ideal clause that can be used throughout the business community. Further,
the implementation of Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 by
businesses is also likely to encourage the creation of consumer grievance redressal
mechanisms.
The Government can encourage this interest by introducing dedicated schemes.
In March 2020, the Government launched the ‘Vivad se Vishwas’ and offered
incentives like waiver of penalty and interest to the parties who volunteer to
resolve their tax disputes under the scheme.
368
As on September 8, this scheme
has resulted in resolution of 35,074 disputes.
369
Similar schemes can be introduced
for other sectors to resolve disputes between Government and private entities.
The Government can also introduce sector specific schemes to resolve disputes
arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic through ODR.
370
b. Incentives for lawyers
As the letter from the Bar Council to the Chief Justice mentioned, the inclusion of
technology tools in dispute resolution can create hardships for lawyers and can
disproportionately benefit lawyers from privileged backgrounds.
371
Further, given
the nature of ODR, there can be a perceived sense of threat among lawyers,
that ODR might impact their traditional sources of revenue. As a result, it might
disincentivise them from recommending ODR to their clients. To address this, the
Government and the Judiciary can provide lawyers easier access to technology by
building digital infrastructure
372
and develop necessary skills
373
for their effective
inclusion in ODR processes as both representatives for parties and as Neutrals.
Further, referring cases to ODR by the Courts will also increase the legitimacy
of the processes and help build trust within the lawyer community. To generate
awareness about the manner in which lawyers can be integral to the ODR process,
modules on ODR can be circulated within Bar Councils and Bar Associations at
both the taluka and state level.
300937/2021/DMEO
256 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 81
c. Incentives for start-ups
To encourage growth, the Government can introduce tax incentives directed at
start-ups that newly enter the ecosystem. It can take a cue from the past, where
the Government has provided incentives to start-ups in its Annual Budgets.
374

Additionally, various Government Departments such as the Department of
Promotion and Industry and Internal Trade have also recommended extension of
tax incentives to incubators supported under Atal Innovation Mission or reduced
Goods and Services Tax rates on alternate investment funds management fees
and tax benefits on employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs).
375
Similar incentives
directed at private ODR related platforms and services can be introduced. Further
ADR service providers should be encouraged to adopt ODR mechanisms in their
processes.
To provide greater legitimacy to such start-ups and institutions providing ODR
services, the Courts can maintain a roster of institutions to which cases can be
referred to under existing legislations such as Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
While implementing all the above-mentioned initiatives will go a long way, building
trust and generating awareness is a continuous process. Given the fast-paced
nature of innovation associated with ODR, it will be essential that the growth and
the success that the industry sees over time be communicated with the public at
large. A platform to showcase success stories and latest developments in ODR
can be considered as a permanent feature on the Department of Justice website.
D. SUITABLY REGULATE ODR
Today, ODR in India is at a pivotal cusp. The past few years have seen rapid
developments in innovations and the emergence of a variety of ODR solutions.376
As identified in the previous chapters, these innovations have garnered a lot of
interest from various stakeholders, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.377
Given sufficient time and room for growth, India has the potential to be the
epicentre for innovation and the dynamic development of ODR. With new
players entering the field and the ecosystem seeing increased activity, there will
be a corresponding need to ensure that the rights of the end users are protected.
On the other hand, even though ODR has seen new innovation, these technology
solutions are still in their early stages of development. Therefore, it is necessary
that the regulatory model adopted by India protect the rights of the end users
while ensuring that over-regulation does not stifle innovation.378 To this end, a
light touch approach to regulation is well suited for India, especially during the
early stages, which are likely to see immense growth and innovation of a variety
of ODR solutions.379
The Government can adopt this light touch regulatory model
380
through a two-
pronged approach that uses legislative and non-legislative tools. First, it can
amend the existing legislations to incorporate ODR and introduce mandatory pre-
litigation online mediation for certain classes of cases.
381
To increase the likelihood
of success, an opt-out model can be adopted.
382
Second, it can introduce a set
300937/2021/DMEO
257 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 82
of voluntary principles that act as the ideal set of standards that stakeholders
can follow.
383
These principles can govern the technology and design of ODR
platforms and ethical obligations for ODR Centres and Neutrals. The following
two sections–strengthen the existing framework and regulate through principles
provide a detailed explanation of how this can be achieved.
However, this light touch regulatory model does not need to indefinitely be
adopted.
384
With an increase of entrants into the market, diversity of technology
innovations and practices, a more proactive approach to regulation can be
considered for the future.
385
In the past, a similar progressive model of regulation
has been adopted by the European Commission, which over the course of a
decade transitioned from non-binding principles
386
to directives
387
. If adopted, the
timeline for such progression is likely to be determined by the extent of innovation
in the country and observance of voluntary principles by the stakeholders. As
is frequently the case, technology related laws often last for a short duration
and require regular amendments.
388
Even though these are considerations for
the future, it is important that a cautious but responsive attitude is adopted by
the Government, as opposed to one that is steeped in worry and apprehension
of breach.
389
The goal of introducing such a regulatory framework is to help
design ideal systems. Systems to detect non-compliant actors are integral, but
mechanisms to identify such actors can be developed as the ecosystem grows
and progresses.
1. Strengthen existing legislative framework
As mentioned at the start, primary ODR services tend to often mirror ADR
processes and reflect the same through an online interface. Hence, regulation
of ODR should start from strengthening the existing framework for ADR in
India. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regulates the appointment of
neutrals, enforcement of the outcome and the other procedures for arbitration and
conciliation proceedings. This act can be modified to include ODR and therefore
provide an efficient regulatory structure for e-ADR and especially online arbitration
as it involves precise legal procedure.
390
This will also facilitate the integration of
ODR in the dispute resolution framework. The requirement for appointment of
the same arbitration institution to resolve disputes involving a single party can
also be relaxed, given that ODR is likely to see a high volume of disputes arising
from the same players. To ensure that this does not lead to a repeat player bias,
the principles identified in the next section should be strictly enforced.
Such amendments will also be in line with the UNCITRAL Working Group
on Arbitration and Conciliation, which in 2006 in their forty-fourth session
recommended revision of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Arbitration Rules to
incorporate ODR.
391
Such recommended amendments can be made to incorporate
ODR in existing legislations. Amendments to existing legislations can also be
made to incorporate provisions of the UNCITRAL Technical Rules on ODR .
392

Further, supplementary rules can be introduced to accommodate the concerns
that may arise during online arbitration and mediation processes. To this end, the
300937/2021/DMEO
258 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 83
Seoul Protocol on Video Conferencing in International Arbitration, 2020 can be
considered.
393
a. Introduce a regulatory framework for mediation and e-mediation
As discussed in detail, previously, there is a need for legislation to govern
mediation in the country.
394
Currently, mediation is inadequately regulated
in a piecemeal fashion with references across various legislations and judicial
precedents. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has already established a committee
to prepare a draft legislation for mediation.
395
The Committee has now put
forth a draft legislation that provides legal recognition to mediated settlement
agreements, irons out issues concerning enforcement, addresses issues that may
arise in online mediation and also explicitly recognises ODR and e-mediation.
Once promulgated into a law with a strong enforcement framework, parties are
likely to be encouraged to participate in mediation and eventually reduce the
burden on traditional courts.
A separate and dedicated legislation on mediation will help reduce problems in
interpretation that might arise while reading distinct but similar provisions of law
across different legislations. However, in the event the Parliament is unable to
pass a dedicated legislation on mediation, mediation provisions can be introduced
as a part of the larger ADR Code through amendments to the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 with a dedicated part for mediation, akin to conciliation.
This will allow for all ADR related law to be consolidated in one legislation and
make for easy regulation of the ecosystem including hybrid models of ADR. The
final decision on such matter can be taken after consulting with stakeholders that
are most impacted by this introduction.
b. Introduce ODR related amendments or an umbrella legislation
While it is certain that ODR requires a robust legislative framework, there are
multiple ways in how it can be introduced and integrated. First, ODR can be
read within the ambit of ADR across various legislations. This will allow for the
inclusion of ODR without changing the current legal framework. Second, ODR
can be explicitly introduced in these legislations to provide it greater validity and
recognition. To this end, Annexure A of the report identifies various legislations
and the amendments that can be made to them. Such a method provides greater
flexibility and allows legislations to be responsive to the growth of ODR in their
respective sectors. For instance, the mediation related legislation, mentioned
above, can explicitly recognise and identify the procedures to be followed during
e-mediation.
Third, ODR can be introduced in the form of an umbrella legislation which
addresses all ODR related issues. For instance, such a legislation can detail out
minimal threshold for legitimacy in processes across all ODR proceedings. The
decision of the appropriate method that can be adopted can be determined as
ODR grows in India.
300937/2021/DMEO
259 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 84
c. Strengthen existing regulation of online interactions
As mentioned in Chapter IV, there have been some legislations which recognise
and regulate the use of technology namely the Information Technology Act, 2000
and the recognition of electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
396

However, the Government can introduce amendments into these legislations
to accommodate ODR processes and protect the data privacy, confidentiality,
security and protection of rights of all parties. Additionally, the Government should
also implement the personal and non-personal data protection framework through
the establishment of a regulatory authority and a comprehensive legislation on
personal data protection, after going through the necessary rigorous legislative
drafting process.
d. Digitise and innovate legal processes
At present, the legal compliances such as affixture of stamp paper to the
agreement and notarisation of documents require parties to maintain physical
copies of the documents and be physically present for verification. This impedes
ODR service providers from providing seamless end-to-end online dispute
resolution at a large scale. The following suggestions identify how some of these
processes can be digitised.
i. Mainstream e-stamping: In 2014, the Central Government introduced
e-stamping to address counterfeiting and enable online payment of
stamp duty.
397
Though this measure made obtaining stamps convenient,
State rules still require parties to attach a copy of the e-stamp certificate
to the document as a proof of payment of stamp duty.
398
As payment of
stamp duty is essential for arbitration agreement
399
and arbitral awards
in most of the States, such an archaic process of physically attaching
e-stamp certificate defeats the purpose of digitisation and creates
barriers for ODR. Further, even though e-stamps are available, the lack of
accessibility of e-stamps results in black marketing and artificial shortage.
Such artificial shortage may delay in the entire ODR process.
400
As ODR often deals with inter-state disputes where disputing parties are
residing in different jurisdiction, there is a need to harmonise stamp-duty
and procedural requirements across different States. Also, the e-stamp
should be made more accessible and the process of attaching e-stamp
certificate should be digitised to enable digital contracts and support
ODR processes. Since, the issue of stamp duty is a state subject, the
respective state governments need to play a proactive role harmonising
such duties. To address these complexities, the Government may also
consider carving an exemption from payment of stamp duty for
outcome of ODR processes up to a certain monetary value.
ii. Allow online notarisation: In India, the process of getting documents
notarised requires the physical presence of the parties. Online notarisation
through secure e-signature and electronic notary seal can address this
300937/2021/DMEO
260 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 85
challenge and provide an online mode for authentication and validation
of the documents
401
Following measures can be considered to enable
online notarisation in India.
a. Integration of eSign for electronic signature and electronic seal:
Aadhaar eSign service offers electronic signature to all through
e-KYC service to identify the signer.
402
The process has made
electronic signature accessible for all by exempting the use of
physical cryptographic key. This service can be leveraged to
provide electronic seal and enable electronic signature during the
notarisation process.
b. Maintaining secure electronic records: Digital lockers can be
provided to the notaries to store and maintain all the necessary
records for the documents notarised through online notarisation.
c. Automated notarisation tools: Moving forward, the Government
should consider developing automated systems for authentication
of the documents and maintenance of records. This will reduce
human intervention and make the process more efficient.
In the long run, the Government can consider completely doing away with
notarization through the deployment of advanced authentication tools that will
completely digitise the process. The benefits of process re-engineering these
procedures will also aid in achieving the goals of the eCourts Project.
e. Mandate pre-litigation mediation
At present, there has been a lot of interest in using pre-litigation mediation to
reduce the burden on traditional courts.
403
In February 2020, the Chief Justice
of India, Justice S.A. Bobde called for devising comprehensive legislation with
compulsory pre-litigation mediation to address pendency and slow disposal
rates in courts.
404
As an initial start in legislation, pre-litigation mediation has
been introduced through Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and
Commercial Courts (Pre-institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018. Even
the Mediation Bill submitted by the MPCP to this Committee recommends the
introduction of pre-litigation mediation. However, if pre-litigation mediation is to
be scaled up, a well-developed system will have to be devised.
Internationally, the key to such a system has come in the form of an opt-out model
of compulsory or mandatory pre-litigation mediation. Successfully implemented
in Italy and other jurisdictions, this process mandates parties to attend initial
mediation sessions to understand the benefits of the mediation process and
explore possible settlement. After this mandatory initial session, the party may
decide to opt-out of the mediation process or continue with the process to
resolve their disputes. Mandatory pre-litigation mediation therefore becomes a
necessary step before approaching courts. Along with the opt-out option, the
Italian model also prescribes minimal mediation fee and sanction for the parties
who fail to attend the initial mediation session.
405
This balance between incentives
300937/2021/DMEO
261 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 86
and sanctions has resulted in upscaling the mediation process in Italy and reducing
the burden on the judiciary.
406
Many countries, like Turkey
407
and Brazil
408
have successfully replicated this model
to reduce the case burden on the courts. In Brazil, the Code of Civil Procedure, 2015
also allows for pre-litigation mediation and conciliation proceedings to be held
electronically.
409
However, incorporation of compulsory pre-litigation mediation
in some countries, like Romania has resulted in barriers in access to courts. In
Romania, the mandatory nature of the provision and lack of incentives has reduced
the mediation process into a mere compliance before incorporation of cases
before the court.
410
Therefore, a framework for India needs to be carefully thought
out based on the realities of India’s litigation culture, and more importantly, the
ecosystem’s ability to provide a large number of mediators.
As seen in the case of Italy, the success of the opt-out model has rested in
the parties’ abilities to opt-out of the process at any stage without the fear of
sanctions.
411
Thus, for mandatory pre-litigation mediation to be a success, it is
important that even though parties are encouraged to use ODR, they always have
the voluntary option to undertake in-person resolution, if they so desire.
If successfully introduced, the Government can gradually roll out mandatory
pre-litigation mediation for the dispute categories including but not limited
to:
a. Banking disputes,
b. Consumer disputes,
c. Disputes arising from business or commercial leases
d. Disputes involving negotiable instruments,
e. Disputes regarding bailments,
f. Disputes regarding division of assets,
g. Family disputes,
h. Inheritance disputes,
i. Insurance disputes,
j. Labour and employment disputes,
k. Real Estate disputes and
l. Tenancy disputes.
The roll out can be done in a phased manner for a select class of disputes
and then eventually expanded to a wide array of disputes. The Government
can arrive at a final list of disputes that are most suitable for mandatory
pre-litigation mediation after consultation with the public, experts and the
judiciary. During these consultations the cases that are suitable to be resolved
through ODR can also be identified.
300937/2021/DMEO
262 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 87
It is important that the expansion in classes of disputes see reciprocal increase
in capacity and quality of dispute resolution centres and neutrals. Only then
can it be ensured that pre-litigation mediation does not fall prey to the pitfalls
it faced internationally. In this context, given ODR’s many benefits that lead to
an increase in access to justice, it can be relied on as the preferred method of
dispute resolution.
2. Guidance through principles
While the previous section identifies a more permanent method to consolidate
ODR into the legal framework, this section identifies how, moving forward, the
ODR ecosystem should be shaped. It is recommended that this modelling be
done through a voluntary set of principles.
412
They are intentionally general and
will act as guidelines that can lead the future development of standards and best
practices. They are not intended to supplant any existing or future laws.
413
Even
though these principles, in their current form, are voluntary and not mandatory
it is strongly recommended that the stakeholders comply with them in letter
and spirit. To encourage the compliance with these principles, it is recommended
that these stakeholders publicly articulate self-certification or declaration on their
respective websites. The Government Departments, Ministries and Judiciary can
also consider the self-certification of the compliance with these principles as a pre-
condition to engagement. To provide validity to these principles, the Department
of Justice can consider its publication through a circular.
These principles are designed to guide and regulate various aspects of ODR
processes – the technology platform used in ODR processes, the institutions
providing ODR services and the Neutrals that facilitate or adjudicate the dispute
resolution process. The intention of creating these three categories is to cover the
universe of service providers within them. The terms should hence be read with
a wide import to cover even those actors, which though momentarily, perform
the role of or interface with these three actors. These principles are overarching
and intend to cover the ecosystem as a whole. In the future, these principles
can be customised and modified, as required, to make them applicable at an
operational level.
300937/2021/DMEO
263 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 88
Online Dispute Resolution
ODR Technology
Platforms
Neutrals
ODR Institutions
Design Principle
Ethical Principles
While some of these principles overlap between the three components, especially
between Neutrals and ODR Centres, they have been included in both categories
for they place separate obligations on them. These principles are intended to be
forward thinking and address not just e-arbitration and e-mediation but also leave
room for the development of future ODR tools. The Committee believes that the
principles should not pre-empt and stifle innovation but respond and adapt to it.
Therefore, even though there are references to algorithmic dispute resolution, no
separate sets of principles to regulate them have been identified for now. That
said, all forms of ODR, including those introduced through AI/ML would continue
to be guided by the following principles that have been identified. Further, to
ensure adaptability, these principles should see timely revisions, respond to new
innovations and pave the way for the future development of AI specific guidelines
that speak to the intricacies of AI usage. Sources that have aided the creation
of these principles have been identified in the footnotes. The whole principle or
some components of the principle have been derived from these sources.
a. Design Principles for ODR Platforms
These principles apply to the technology layer in any ODR process and would
be applicable irrespective of how this service is offered or used. The principles
can guide ODR start-ups and institutions that provide ODR services and also in-
house ODR Platforms that have been integrated by specific businesses to cater
to their disputes. Though these principles rely on distinct elements, they need to
be read with each other to realise their true intent and purpose. Given the novel
nature of their creation, these principles are followed with a short commentary
that hopes to provide insights into their intent and expected practical application.
300937/2021/DMEO
264 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 89
Interoperability
Modularity
Privacy, Security, and
Trust by design
Resilience
Scalability
Data-driven
Development
Accessibility and equality
User-Centricity
Data empowerment
Portability
TransparencyFairness
i. Interoperability
It is strongly recommended that ODR platforms should be designed in such a
manner that independently developed components can interact and cooperate
with internal and external systems, networks and entities and with capabilities for
integration with old and new technologies.
414
Commentary: Designing software, tools and platforms to be interoperable will
potentially allow them to be plugged into the other platforms as well as operate
with ancillary judicial systems under the eCourts Project. For example, development
of platforms for e-commerce disputes that are cognizant of the record keeping
practices and applications developed by the Consumer Commissions will allow
for data to be easily gathered and shared. This will in turn facilitate systematic
approach towards future changes in laws and policy.
ii. Portability
It is strongly recommended that ODR Platforms should be designed in such a
manner that data can be transported from one platform to another without
incurring any additional costs.
Commentary: The ODR Platforms should be designed to enable easy transfer of
disputes and dispute related data to another platform without any cost or the risk
of leaving the data behind. Absence of data portability can create entry barriers
for software developers and hence distort competition. It could also unnecessarily
inconvenience the parties who may be dissatisfied with the services provided by
one ODR Platform and would prefer to shift to others. ODR ecosystem should
come up with the necessary standards to ensure portability between different
platforms and APIs to assist the ODR process. 
300937/2021/DMEO
265 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 90
iii. Modularity
Complex designs developed by ODR Platforms should produce modular solutions
that can form the building blocks for future innovations and allow for iterative
development.
Commentary: While simple problems such as addressing refunds for ticketing can
be addressed through simple solutions, automated and algorithmic resolution of
disputes that involve the submission of documentation require complex software
and solutions. To ensure that these solutions can be used for different purposes
in the future, platforms can be designed to be modular.
iv. Privacy, Security and Trust by design
Platforms should take adequate safeguards to protect the privacy of its users and
security and integrity of the data exchanged during the dispute resolution process.
These platforms should induce trust in every interaction. Platforms should also
be designed to capture minimal personal identity related data or other sensitive
data, which should be stored in an anonymised way with only relevant attributes
being displayed on the user interface.415 For information that is stored, platforms
should develop policies for access, retention and destruction of data and publish
such policies on their websites and applications.416
Commentary: Platforms that are designed should be intrinsically secure and
protect the security of the data and privacy of the individuals. They should also
be supported by adequate and robust policy measures. Privacy can be ensured
through data minimalism, informed consent, security through encryption, trust via
registries, signatures, digital attestation, frequent internal system audits, measures
for management of assets such as trade secrets and confidential information
disclosed during proceedings and limiting access of information to authorised
personnel.
417
v. Transparency
Platforms should be designed to be transparent and accountable to all its
stakeholders. They should be designed in such a manner that both the processes
adopted and the outcomes arrived at can be made available to the end user.
418

They should be transparent in their use of artificial intelligence and provide the
manner of its use in a non-technical language.
419
They should clearly disclose
their funding structure, affiliations, privacy and security measures that have been
adopted while designing the platforms.
Commentary: The goal of introducing a principle on transparency is to ensure
that the platform is accountable to its users and any deviance in adherence with
the other design principles are made explicitly available to the users.
vi. User centricity
Platforms must be designed to keep the primary users at the center and ensure
choice of access, ensure accountability among actors on the platform, and be
300937/2021/DMEO
266 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 91
transparent about rules, pricing, participation, processes etc. Platforms should be
designed to be affordable and users should have the ability to interact without
needing a middleman is critical.
Commentary: Read along with the principle of accessibility, platforms should be
designed keeping the user in mind. In the context of India, they should especially
be affordable to cater to all classes of individuals.
vii. Accessibility and equality
ODR Platforms should be designed in such a manner that they can effectively
be used by individuals who are differently abled or from different communities,
classes and backgrounds. They should be designed to cater to diversity across
language, context, device, connectivity, capacity etc. and ensure that the system
addresses users with special needs with tools and content.
420
The platforms
should also ensure that offline privileges and disadvantages are not replicated in
the ODR process.
Commentary: The potential benefits of ODR do not have to be limited to the
economically advantaged individuals from urban areas, with easy access to
technology, but also to the marginalised and less privileged. It is also necessary
that ODR platforms account for the cultural diversity of its users both within
India and during cross-border ODR. The principle of accessibility encourages
platforms to develop tools that can cut across and also be responsive to the
heterogeneous identities of all its potential end users. In terms of ensuring
equality, the technology should not be allowed to become a barrier for one or
both the parties to present their case before the Neutrals. This would also require
the entities that use the platforms ensure that the parties are given sufficient
notice and training to effectively participate in online processes.
viii. Fairness
ODR platforms should be designed to uphold due process and rectify bias that
might arise, either implicitly or otherwise, for or against individuals or groups,
including those based on algorithms. They should be designed so that they can
easily be amended and made responsive to and reflective of the concerns of the
communities and stakeholders they serve.
421
Commentary: Platforms should be designed to pre-emptively rectify the biases
arising from integration of AI/ML based solutions.
422
They should also be designed
to ensure that they do not disadvantage those individuals that might be first
time users of such technology such as document sharing or video conferencing.
ix. Resilience
Platforms should have the ability to address challenges and have the capacity
to adapt and incorporate new features. The services and systems that the ODR
platforms provide should be replaceable and have the ability to respond to the
variability of ODR processes and future changes and innovations.
300937/2021/DMEO
267 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 92
Commentary: Platforms should be designed keeping the possibilities of future
innovations in mind. This can be achieved by producing modular solutions and
creating tools that can be easily modified.
x. Scalability
Platforms should be scalable to keep pace with the new innovations and
incorporate new technologies in its functioning. They should be designed to
handle an unexpected surge of disputes.
Commentary: While current ODR tools might have limited users, the mainstreaming
of ODR is likely to increase both awareness and access to ODR leading to a large
influx of cases. To address this future likelihood, platforms, solutions and tools
should be designed to be scalable.
xi. Data-driven Development
Platforms should be designed to observe data and identify new behavioural
patterns and use cases. Based on such patterns, additional features and
modifications should be made to the ODR Platform. Such an incremental approach
to changes will ensure that the ODR Platforms are responsive to the needs of
the community. To adequately address and prevent the possibility of repeat
player bias, arising from such data-driven development, platforms must develop
strict internal policies and introduce safeguards. These policies must centre on
the other design principles that have been identified.
Commentary: Data driven development encourages platforms to use artificial
intelligence to come up with solutions for long standing problems. To enable
the development of such solutions it will be necessary for the Governments and
the judiciary to ascribe to principles of open data and publish past, present and
future information.
423
Even though the current tools adopted by the Judiciary
in the form of National Judicial Data Grid, increase access to data, they do not
make it available in formats that can be used for the further development of AI/
ML tools. It is also important for platforms to pre-emptively address all issues
that might arise on account of repeat player bias without intention and introduce
safeguard to ensure that situations do not arise where it can be misused with
intention. Finally, the understanding of the term community is to be understood
in line with the principles of user-centricity, accessibility and equality.
xii. Data Empowerment
Data pertaining to individuals and entities must be made accessible to them in
a standardized, machine readable, and digitally signed way. Data protection and
empowerment implemented across these platforms must be fully aligned with
data protection laws.
Commentary: Read along with the principle of portability, the data regarding the
users should be available to the user at all times in an accessible format.
300937/2021/DMEO
268 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 93
Since the ecosystem primarily consists of private ODR Platforms, the above
principles are intended to regulate them. To facilitate justice for all while also
creating new avenues for innovation to help ensure ease of access to justice,
the Government will likely need to be a key service provider of ODR. To enable
accessible ODR services to all, countries such as China
424
and Brazil
425
have built
ODR Platforms to offer trusted online negotiation and mediation facilities to the
disputing parties. It is thus recommended that in addition to the above design
principles, the Government contemplate a scalable platform using technology
that is designed on the principle of free and open source software (FOSS).
Inspiration for such a precedent can be taken from the judiciary that, through the
eCourts Project, has only relied on open source software for all its innovations.
426

Also, in complementary sectors such as banking through UPI and the India Stack,
the Government has developed the largest open API in the world.
427
Adoption of the open source principle will foster faster growth and long-term
development not just for the Government, but for the whole ecosystem. This will
allow the stratification of services, where justice for all goals can be targeted
through the proposed Government led FOSS. At the same time, private sector
participants/start-ups can continue to differentiate products that entail proprietary
components. They can then benefit from intellectual property rights they create
and ensure a competitive market ecosystem that allows for profitable ventures.
Therefore, a bifurcated structure is recommended wherein FOSS standards are
not recommended for the private sector.
b. Principles for ODR Centres
Transparency
Competence
Confidentiality
Neutrality
Impartiality
Fairness
Consent
300937/2021/DMEO
269 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 94
i. Transparency
Parties should be aware of the risks and advantages of resolving disputes
through ODR. The ODR Centre’s conflict disclosure policies, funding structure,
affiliations, privacy and security measures and potential impacts of incidents,
should be disclosed in an easily understandable manner. In situations involving
repeat players, the non-repeat player should be informed of the prior relationship
between the ODR Centre, Neutral and the parties. If artificial intelligence is used at
any stage of the processes, the details of such use should be made available to
user. Wherever possible, ODR Centres should publish statistics and anonymised
data of the outcome of ODR processes to illustrate lack of biasness consistent
with the principles of confidentiality.
Commentary: The principle on transparency seeks to ensure that the end user
is made aware of all aspects of the ODR process ranging from the use of the
platform to the relationships with Neutrals, so that they can take informed
decisions after assessing the risks involved.
428
For instance, the user should have
the opportunity to accept or decline situations involving conflict of interests
or those involving repeat players through the disclosure of information and
availability of statistics. The principle also encourages platforms to disclose
security and privacy policies adopted by them.
429
To generate trust of the users
it is recommended that all ODR Centres publicly disclose details of their investors,
ultimate beneficiaries and directors on their websites. Such information should be
updated to reflect any changes.
Compliance with this principle of transparency is particularly important in
cases involving repeat players i.e. the same business or an entity seeking
to resolve multiple disputes by the same ODR Centre. Such a situation
can increase the likelihood of bias or perceived bias. Therefore, read along
with the principle of neutrality, the onus to introduce mechanisms that
prevent such an occurrence rest on the ODR Centre. ODR Centres must
be transparent about their dealing in such situations so that users can take
informed decisions. Such disclosures can also help generate trust in ODR and
therefore in the self-interest of the ODR service providers in the long run.
ii. Competence
Confidence in the ability of Neutrals to manage the disputes on ODR Platforms is
essential for disputing parties. The ODR Platforms should provide a comprehensive
policy for selection and training of Neutrals. The platform should also introduce
an internal oversight, quality assurance and grievance redressal process which
may help the platform ensure that both the Neutral and the platform conform
with the standards it has set for itself. Assignment of competent Neutrals with
sufficient training and/ or experience in dealing with disputes assigned to them
is necessary for parties to repose trust in ODR platforms.
430
300937/2021/DMEO
270 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 95
Commentary: To balance the minimalist approach to regulation adopted by the
Government, the principle of competence urges platforms to develop a robust
internal self-regulatory mechanism that can ensure quality and address grievances.
It encourages platforms to have comprehensive and stringent standards for
training and selection of Neutrals and an internal redressal mechanism that the
users can turn to in case of violations and breaches of these principles.
431
iii. Consent
The ODR process should be based on explicit, informed and continuous consent
of the parties.
Commentary: In consonance with and the culmination of the principle of
transparency, the platform should ensure that active and continuous consent is
obtained from parties.
432
Such consent will also ensure reduced challenge to the
outcome of ODR processes, on the ground of lack of consent by the parties to
such process.
iv. Neutrality
Absence of perceived or real conflict of interests between the platforms and
Neutrals on the one hand and one or more disputing parties on the other, is
important to ensure fairness in ODR proceedings. Platforms should develop a
code of ethics to check for conflict of interests and ensure independence of
Neutrals.
433
Commentary: Platforms should ensure that they adopt a code of ethics to
avoid any issues involving conflicts of interest. Read along with the principles
of transparency, platforms should inform users on the alternatives, if available,
in situations involving conflict. Consistent with the principle of consent, the final
autonomy to decide on issues involving conflict should rest on the end user.
v. Fairness by due process
ODR Platforms should facilitate and uphold due process, without bias for or
against individuals or groups, including in processes based on algorithms. They
should be responsive to and reflective of the concerns of the communities and
stakeholders they serve.
434
The procedure adopted by the centres should also
be well laid out and predictable to ensure that all users have the same user
experience.
Commentary: The principle of fairness is to ensure that due process is followed
and fair opportunity to be heard is provided to all involved users including
situations where fair hearing is made difficult on account of technical glitches. The
principle also hopes to address future concerns of biases arising from integration
of artificial intelligence and machine learning based solutions.
435
The end goal of
the platforms being responsive to communities is to ensure that any biases arising
from pre-existing relationships, either in community run programs or otherwise
do not replicate themselves during the ODR process. Centres should also clearly
300937/2021/DMEO
271 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 96
lay out a threshold procedure that will be followed by the users such as sharing
a screen to show documents or switching on the video while conducting video
conferencing. Such predictability in the procedure will allow parties to prepare
themselves for proceedings and know the avenues through which they can
express themselves and therefore ensure a fair hearing.
vi. Impartiality
Platforms should introduce mechanisms to ensure that the platforms themselves
and the Neutrals act impartially by accounting for conditions that could structure
patterns of privilege in processes and outcome for repeat players.
Commentary: The principle on impartiality places obligations on Centres to ensure
that both the platforms and the Neutrals appointed by the Centre maintain high
standards of impartiality. Mechanisms that ensure that disputes involving the
same user or repeat users are addressed by different neutrals can be adopted
by platforms. Additionally, following due processes as identified in the principle
for fairness can also ensure impartiality.
vii. Confidentiality
The ODR service providers should maintain high standards of confidentiality and
data protection to protect all the personal information of the parties.
436
Commentary: Confidentiality forms the cornerstone of ADR and ODR processes.
Therefore, platforms should ensure that they maintain the highest standards of
both confidentiality and data protection to ensure that users have trust and
faith in the system. In consonance with the principles of transparency and
consent, platforms are to ensure that any possibilities of disclosure are clearly
communicated to parties so that continuous consent can be obtained.
c. Principles for Neutrals
Akin to the wide import attached to the term ODR Platforms, the term ODR
Neutrals is also to be understood to mean all possible Neutrals or dispute
resolution professionals involved in conducting ODR proceedings. This also
includes Neutrals that choose to take upon this role on a volunteer or pro-bono
basis at the request of the parties.
Ethical principles involving neutrals have existed for decades in the context of
arbitrators and mediators. Therefore, they are for the most part self-explanatory. It
is for this reason that no need was felt to include a commentary for this section.
It is important that these ethical principles be read along with other ethical
obligations placed on Neutrals through law or via regulations, rules, guidelines
created by the affiliated institutions for different categories of Neutrals.
Given the peculiar nature of ODR, there might be multiple cases where a neutral
sees repeat clients. These situations are likely to occur in cases such as consumer
related contracts, where the consumer has to either agree with the terms or not
avail the service at all. In such cases, neutrals might asymmetrically be appointed
300937/2021/DMEO
272 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 97
by the party with a better bargaining power. Neutrals appointed in such cases
should particularly adopt heightened standards of the principles mentioned
below. The failure of adopting heightened standards might lead to abuse of the
processes and in the long term eventually reduce the faith of individuals in ODR.
It is also recommended that these principles see timely revision, especially to
incorporate the future possibility of artificial intelligence and algorithms taking
on the role of Neutrals.
Transparency
Competence
Confidentiality
Equality
Impartiality
Fairness
Independence
i. Transparency
The Neutral should ensure that the parties are aware of the role that the Neutral
shall undertake during the process.
437
The Neutral should also be transparent in
their conduct and inform parties about their affiliations, privacy policy, obligations
of parties, possible conflict of interest and details of the systems involved in the
ODR process.
438
While dealing with repeated clients, the neutral should adopt
greater transparency by compulsorily following disclosure protocols.
439
ii. Independence
The Neutral should act independently, without any influence of other actors,
throughout the dispute resolution process and accrue no benefits from the
outcome of the case, for themselves or the ODR Centres they are empanelled by,
which may, though not exclusively, be in the form of a successful case settlement,
recommendation or decision in favour of a party.
440
Benefit accruing from the
outcome of the case shall also be understood to include possible re-assignment or
continued selection of the Neutral or the ODR Centre, to resolve future disputes
involving one of the parties.
iii. Competence
The Neutral should have technical, legal, cultural and domain specific knowledge
along with language skills to provide efficient dispute resolution.
441
The Neutral
300937/2021/DMEO
273 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 98
should also satisfy the qualifications criteria set out by the relevant authority,
which consists of both affiliated institutions and Government or legislative bodies.
iv. Confidentiality
The Neutral should maintain high standards of confidentiality and not disclose
confidential information without permission of all parties or unless required by
law, court rule or other legal authority.
442
The neutral should also ensure that there
are sufficient safeguards in place to protect the confidentiality of proceedings
and its associated recordings, if any.
v. Fairness
The Neutral should uphold the due process of law and provide a fair hearing to all
participating parties. The Neutral should also ensure that processes of the dispute
resolution are not implicitly biased towards either of the participating parties.
vi. Impartiality
The Neutral should act impartially and be free from favouritism either by words
or actions throughout the course of the dispute resolution process.
443
The Neutral
should also avoid bias based on parties’ backgrounds, personal attributes, conduct
or pre-existing knowledge of the dispute or disputants.
444
vii. Equality
Neutrals should treat all parties with respect and dignity. The neutral should
ensure that the marginalised voices are heard during the dispute resolution
process and that the privilege is not replicated during the dispute resolution
process.
445
The future of light touch regulation
While ODR involves private actors facilitating the dispute resolution process, it
is at its core a method of justice delivery. It is therefore important that these
principles, though voluntary, be adopted by Platforms, Centres and Neutrals
in form and spirit. The intent of these principles is to divest the role that is
traditionally played by the Government back to the ecosystem. It would therefore
only follow that the mechanisms to check compliances should also be developed
by the ecosystem itself. One way in which platforms can self-regulate themselves
is by self-prescribing regulations based on these principles to guide their ODR
processes. For example, in the e-commerce marketplace, Alibaba has introduced
and published a series of rules to govern its ODR Platform.
446
Similarly, the
COVID-19 scheme release in Hong Kong is governed by the rules framed by
eBRAM.
447
Another, more consolidated, self-regulatory model that has seen some early
success comes in the form of a self-regulatory organisation (SRO) in the realm
of account aggregators.
448
The SRO, Sahamati is a collective of the account
300937/2021/DMEO
274 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 99
aggregator ecosystem and has been set up as a not for profit private limited
company.
449
The organisation co-creates strategic goals and executes it through
working groups. It is governed by a charter and regulates those organisations,
which have been recognised by the RBI.
450
Several sunrise sectors are also
seeing the evolution of an SRO concept that fosters compliance, innovation and a
broad-based ecosystem growth and expansion framework. Such a self-regulatory
mechanism, that sets out defacto standards, as opposed to Government setting
out dejure standards, can also be considered by the ODR ecosystem. To recognise
those institutions that are complying with the standards, the SRO can identify
ways to conduct internal audits of the ecosystem. The Government on the other
hand, can itself or through a recognised private entity consider the introduction of
trust marks or recognition of these institutes on its website (akin to the invitation
that has been circulated by the Department of Legal Affairs).
451
A somewhat more structured form of regulation may also be considered in the
future once the sector matures. This could be in consonance with the National
Payments Corporation of India, which introduced UPI. Although it is also a
confederation of banks along the same lines of Sahamati, it has been set up under
the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and promoted by the RBI. The
decision on this does not have to be taken under the current scenario however.
The success of this self-regulatory model and the extent of compliance of its
actors will pave the way for future modifications of the regulatory framework and
the extent of governmental intervention. There are however inherent limitations
to the self-regulatory model.
452
Moving forward, based on the requirements for
the future, the Government can consider introducing an external grievance
redressal mechanism where end-users who find a breach of these standards
can file a complaint to a regulatory body. It could also introduce a method of
certification and accreditation of service providers akin to the European Union
model.
453
This can be done at a central level or through sector specific regulatory
bodies.
454
The Government can also consider requiring the publication of annual
reports or a permanent annual auditing mechanism to check compliance of
these standards.
455
While these initiatives have been successful internationally, the
question of whether and manner in which, they should be adopted in India, will
be determined by how well the ecosystem is able to self-regulate.
E. IMPLEMENT ODR IN A PHASED MANNER
As mentioned in Chapter IV, the technological developments in recent years
have positioned the country to stride towards wide-scale adoption of ODR.
Implementation of the above mentioned recommendations and sustained efforts
from the Government and the judiciary is likely to unlock the true potential of
ODR in India. However, keeping in mind that the capacity of the ecosystem
is still largely untested and technological innovations are still developing, it is
recommended that ODR be progressively implemented in a phased manner .
That said, since some of the measures that have been identified require long term
efforts such as building infrastructure or provide training, completion of all the
measures in a phase are not a pre-requisite to move onto the next phase. For a
300937/2021/DMEO
275 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 100
detailed identification of goals and measures that they constitute, please look at
the recommendations section of the report.
The phases that have been identified move from building infrastructure and
testing the market for its ODR capabilities, to expanding ODR to a greater class
of disputes and finally utilising ODR to address the long-standing problems of
pendency and delay that currently impair the judicial system.
Phase 1: Set up infrastructure and utilise existing capacity and
capabilities
As mentioned in an earlier section of this chapter,
456
due to the COVID-19 induced
pandemic, there is likely to be an upsurge in certain classes of disputes. Fortunately,
most of these classes of disputes can be adequately addressed through ODR
without requiring the physical presence of parties. The lists of disputes that are
likely to see a rise in numbers are mentioned in the previous section of this
chapter.
457
To execute and implement Phase I, the Government should aim to
position ODR as a legitimate dispute resolution process by co-opting the services
of the private sector, building capacity and encouraging its use both within the
Government and the private sector. This phase should concentrate on introducing
initiatives that can create long-term capacity and also test the capabilities of the
current ecosystem. The respective implementing bodies can take the following
measures:
S.
No.
MeasuresImplementing Body
Build
infrastructure
and increase
capacity
1.
Collaborate with institutions to
introduce training programs for
Neutrals
Judicial Academies and
Legal Service Authorities
Ministry of Law and Justice
2.
Encourage the private sector to
innovate cost-effective digital
infrastructure
Government of India and
private sector
3.
Equip Consumer Mediation Cells
with ODR capabilities
Ministry of Consumer
Affairs
4.
Implement large scale policies
to increase digital infrastructure
and digital literacy across the
country and introduce targeted
initiatives to cater to individuals
on the margins
Government of India
5. Set up legal tech hubs Government of India
6.
Solicit the names and details
and host a list of ODR service
providers
Department of Legal Affairs
300937/2021/DMEO
276 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 101
Promote the
use of ODR
and generate
interest in
ODR
7.
Amend the rules of the court-
annexed ODR centres to
include other professionals and
institutions
Court-annexed ODR
centres
8.
Encourage institutions providing
ODR services to publish ODR
clauses on their websites
Ministry of Law and Justice
and private ODR service
providers
9.
Encourage universities and
institutions to introduce courses
on ODR
Department of Legal
Affairs, University Grants
Commission,
Bar Council of India
10.
Finalise a list of training standards
for Neutrals after receiving inputs
from domain experts
Ministry of Law and Justice
and consultation to be
coordinated by NITI Aayog
11.
Introduce a large-scale awareness
campaign through the use of
multi-media and collaborate with
the private sector to develop
literature and collaterals that can
be disseminated
Ministry of Law and Justice
in collaboration with the
private sector
12.
Identify and publish a principle
framework for ODR
Ministry of Law and
Justice and principles to
be finalised in coordination
with the NITI Aayog
13.
Release an indicative list of
categories of disputes suitable
for mandatory pre-litigation
mediation to solicit public
comments
Ministry of Law and Justice
and consultation to be
coordinated by NITI Aayog
Use ODR
to resolve
disputes
14.
Adopt ODR to resolve low value
and small claims disputes in
Government Litigation by utilising
the services of the private sector
Public Sector Enterprises
and the Department of
Legal Affairs
15.
Introduce a scheme to resolve
COVID-19 related disputes and
utilise the services of the private
sector
Ministry of Law and Justice
in collaboration with other
Departments and Ministries
16.
Promote the use of ODR by
enterprises and organisations
that are technologically advanced
to cater to digitally literate
citizens that wish to adopt ODR
voluntarily
Ministry of Law and
Justice and private and
Government businesses
300937/2021/DMEO
277 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 102
Phase II: Mainstream ODR
Mainstreaming ODR will require a favourable ecosystem of law and policy to
support its growth in India. It will also require initiatives from the Government to
support ODR by deploying digital infrastructure, building trust in ODR, modifying
legislations to enable ODR and training individuals to act as neutrals for ODR
proceedings. Given that capacity of the private sector and the Government would
have been tested through some pilot initiatives, the scope of disputes that can
be resolved through ODR can be expanded. Therefore, the Government can work
towards enriching the legal culture in the society by incentivising out-of-court
resolution of dispute, especially through ODR processes.
Considering this, for Phase II of incorporating ODR in India, it is recommended
that Government should aim to:
S.
No.
MeasuresImplementing Body
Build further
infrastructure
and capacity
1.
Deploy digital infrastructure
in courts and Legal Service
Authorities
Ministry of Law and Justice
2.
Encourage private parties
to adopt ODR by publishing
success stories on the website
and social media handles
Ministry of Law and Justice and
sector-specific Departments
3.
Equip Consumer Mediation
Cells with ODR capabilities
Ministry of Consumer Affairs
4.
Equip court-annexed ODR
centres
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Supreme Court of India and
High Courts
5.
Introduce tax incentives to set
up start-ups
Department for Promotion of
Industry and Internal Trade
6.
Train lawyers and other
professionals to perform the
role of Neutrals
Bar Council of India, State
Bar Councils and Ministry
of Law and Justice and
the NITI Aayog can help in
coordination
7.
Train paralegal volunteers so
that they can disseminate
information about ODR
National Legal Services
Authority in collaboration
with Judicial Academies and
the private sector
300937/2021/DMEO
278 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 103
Introduce
legislative
amendments
8.
Consider the introduction of an
umbrella ODR legislation
Department of Legal Affairs
9.
Amend legislations to include
ODR for specific dispute
categories like insolvency
related disputes
Sector-specific Ministry/
Department and the
NITI Aayog to conduct
consultations on proposed
amendments
10.
Amend rules of court-annexed
centres to include other kinds
of professionals beyond judicial
officers
Supreme Court and Ministry
of Law and Justice and NITI
Aayog to help in coordination
11.
Based on compliance of the
ecosystem with the principle
framework, identify and publish
a set of best practices
Ministry of Law and Justice
12.
Modify the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act,1996 and
procedural laws to incorporate
ODR
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Parliament and public
consultation to be coordinated
by the NITI Aayog
13.
Provide legislative framework
for mediation either through
a standalone legislation or
through suitable amendments
to the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act.
Mediation and Conciliation
Planning Committee, Ministry
of Law and Justice and
Parliament
Use ODR
to resolve
disputes
14.
Encourage business to adopt
ODR through reduction in
court fee
Department of Legal Affairs
15.
Ensure compliance of the
e-commerce industry which is
to set up internal grievance
redressal mechanisms as
mandated by the Consumer
Protection (E-Commerce)
Rules, 2020
Ministry of Law and Justice
16.
Introduce mandatory pre-
litigation mediation for a
specific category of disputes
on a pilot basis
Sector-specific Ministries /
Departments
17.Using ODR for inter-
governmental disputes and
those involving PSUs
Public Sector Undertakings
and Department of Legal
Affairs
300937/2021/DMEO
279 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 104
Phase III: ODR as a primary mode of dispute resolution
ODR has immense potential to provide a new dimension to the dispute resolution
ecosystem in India. As mentioned in the introduction, ODR can help in promotion
of legal health in the country, the avoidance of disputes, the containment of
disputes and the resolution of those disputes that knock on the doors of the
judiciary. To extract all of the benefits that ODR has to offer, there is a need
for a deeper percolation of technology in the society and expanding the use of
internet and digital tools.
Therefore, in Phase III, the Government and judiciary should focus on fostering the
ODR ecosystem and encouraging innovations. By encouraging innovations, the
judiciary and the Government will have at its disposal an enormous set of tools
that can be integrated and adopted to resolve disputes. The increase in capacity
and tools to resolve disputes would also allow for the diversion of cases that are
pending before the judiciary to be resolved through ODR. ODR can therefore be
leveraged by the judiciary to not just contain disputes from coming before it but
also to reduce its past pendency.
Given the nascency of ODR, this Report has largely left it to the ecosystem to test
and develop capabilities for different classes of disputes and different categories
of disputing parties. However, there are obvious limitations in the private sector
since they are at the end of the day largely driven by profit motives. Therefore,
unless incentivised by the Government, innovations and services from private
ODR service providers will be limited to avenues which make business sense.
Therefore, in the third phase, it is desirable that the Government builds a National
ODR Platform which will serve the needs of the most marginalised across the
remotest parts of the country. The lessons from the first two phases of ODR
should feed into the design and development of the National ODR Platform.
For this ambitious project to take off, it is necessary that the Government takes
the necessary steps to put together a team of technology experts, technocrats
and other experts who have experience in building large scale systems, to get
started on building a blue print of the ODR Platform. It is essential that sufficient
budgetary allocation is made towards building, maintaining and evaluating
the National ODR Platform. It needs to be backed by a suitable governance
framework which provides for participation by the wider ODR community. This
is essential to ensure that this ODR Platform remains relevant and continues to
evolve to meet the growing needs of its end-users.
The following can be considered as objectives for Phase III.
a. Take steps towards developing a National ODR Platform
b. Encourage dispute avoidance to reduce the influx of cases into the
judiciary
c. Legal health promotion with the use of technology and ODR
d. Encourage innovations and entrepreneurship in ODR
e. Divert cases to ODR to reduce judicial pendency.
300937/2021/DMEO
280 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 105
S. No.MeasuresImplementing Body
1.
Based on compliance of the industry with
best practices identify and publish a set of
mandatory standards that should be adopted
by all institutions providing ODR services
Ministry of Law and Justice
and compliance with the
ecosystem
2.
Develop a national ODR Platform that can be
managed by the Government
Ministry of Law and Justice
3.
Encourage the use of ODR to resolve certain
classes of disputes that have been pending
before courts
Judiciary
4.
Expand the use of INGRAM and SAMADHAAN
to cater to all consumer and MSME related
disputes
Ministry of Consumer Affairs
and Ministry of Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises
5.
Expand the use of ODR for a variety of
disputes for Government litigation
Department of Legal Affairs
6.
Extend mandatory pre-litigation mediation for
all the specified classes of cases
Ministry of Law and Justice
7.
Introduce a multilingual course on ODR on
SWAYAM with the collaboration of the private
sector
Ministry of Human Resource
and Development
As will hopefully be conveyed by this report, ODR holds a lot of promise in
addressing long-standing problems of justice delivery. Fortunately, the realisation
of this promise is not a far-fetched one. People are very willing and accepting of
technology to ease their daily lives. In turn, technology has shown to be responsive
and adaptive to the needs of its users. The synergy of these occurrences, in the
dispute resolution ecosystem, takes the form of ODR. It would therefore only
follow that there has never been a better time to harness ODR’s potential than
now. It will now depend on the various actors and stakeholders to determine the
extent to which they are willing for their lives to be truly altered.
300937/2021/DMEO
281 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 106
Currently, the dispute resolution framework in India is facing many long-standing
challenges including the lack of efficiency and access. Due to delay in the disposal
and high pendency in the traditional courts and tribunals, dispute resolution in
India involves a high expenditure of time and resources. This has an adverse
effect on the ease of doing business in India. Though India has made recent
advancements in the ease of doing business ranking released by the World Bank,
the inefficiency of the dispute resolution framework prevents the country from
providing an ideal environment for businesses and entrepreneurs.
The future of dispute resolution revolves around the ICT innovations and new
ideas to make dispute resolution efficient and accessible for every section of the
society. ODR can play an important role in this aspect. Through easily accessible
and user-centric processes, ODR can offer curated dispute resolution solutions
for businesses, thereby enabling entrepreneurs to enforce contracts efficiently.
Further, it can also provide an accessible mode of dispute resolution to masses
which will eventually reduce the burden on the traditional court system.
ODR has the potential to decentralise dispute resolution in India and empower
innovators across communities to create targeted ODR processes to resolve
disputes efficiently. Such targeted innovations will help address the unique
challenges faced by communities while resolving their disputes and attend
to the dispute resolution requirement of our diverse society. The need for an
efficient dispute resolution system and advancement in information technology
has uniquely positioned India to emerge as the epicentre for these developments
in ODR.
Though recent years have witnessed an exponential growth in ODR, the current
developments are just a tip of the iceberg. Continuous encouragement and
support from the Government will enable the ODR ecosystem to develop and
this report outlines the initial measures that can be taken by the Government in
this direction.
Integration of emerging and contemporary technologies including AI and ML tools
into the ODR processes can take ODR beyond the contours of dispute resolution
CONCLUSIONCONcLUSION
300937/2021/DMEO
282 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 107
and offer services directed towards improving the legal health and awareness in
the society. Further, effective use of AI and ML can widen the possibilities for
ODR by improving the efficiency of the system, assisting disputing parties and
introducing new models for dispute resolution. Hence, the Government should
adopt a forward-looking approach to leverage these technologies to maximise
the benefit while at the same time, adopting a cautious approach to minimise
the risk associated with integration of technology in dispute resolution.
Towards this balanced approach, the Government may on one hand consider a
more proactive approach to guide the development and use of these advanced
technologies in dispute resolution. This may include development of a nation-
wide platform to offer ODR services. Such a platform/s and affordable services
will increase access to dispute resolution, through the use of ODR. On the other
hand, the Government may also consider a more proactive role in regulating ODR
by introducing permanent auditing and accreditation mechanism. The question
of how and whether such initiatives will be required will be determined by how
the ecosystem responds to the current guidance framework in the coming years.
What is, however, certain is that our conceptions of normal are vastly changing.
In the dispute resolution ecosystem, ODR is that change. ODR is the future and
that future is now. CONcLUSION
300937/2021/DMEO
283 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 108
The following is an indicative list of the amendments that can be introduced to
legislatively enable ODR in India.
Sr.
No.
Legislation/
Rules/
Regulations
Implementing
Authority
Proposed Amendments
Amendments Recognising and Incorporating ODR within the Legislative
Framework
1.Arbitration and
Conciliation
Act, 1996
Ministry of Law
and Justice
• Amend definition of ‘Arbitration’ under
Section 2 (1) (a) to include arbitration
that is wholly or partly conducted online
by using ICT.
• Insert section 61(1A) to provide
recognition to conciliation conducted
electronically, whether wholly or partly,
using ICT.
• Introduce provisions and supplementary
rules enabling online arbitration, and
conciliation processes such as electronic
exchange of documents, communication
between parties, examination of
witnesses and passing of electronic
awards.
2. Code of Civil
Procedure,
1908 and ADR
rules of High
Courts
Ministry of Law
and Justice
and High
Courts
• Amend Section 89(1) of the CPC
to recognise ODR for each of the
category of ADR including Lok
Adalats.
• Amend section 89 (2) (d) to provide
that the procedure for mediation shall
be as per the mediation law as and
when the legislation is passed.
• High Court rules to be consequently
amended to recognise ODR.
ANNEXURE AANNEXURE A
300937/2021/DMEO
284 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 109
3. Commercial
Courts Act,
2015 and
Commercial
Courts (Pre-
Institution
Mediation and
Settlement)
Rules, 2018
Ministry of Law
and Justice
• Allow for the voluntary adoption of
ODR for pre-litigation mediation on a
pilot basis.
• Amend section 12A to recognise
the use of ODR for pre-institution
mediation and settlement.
• Amend Rule 4 to include the
electronic portals provided by
identified ODR service providers as a
‘venue’.
• Introduce provisions in the Act and
the Rules allowing ODR service
providers to conduct mediation and
settlement.
4. Companies
Act, 2013 and
Companies
(Mediation and
Conciliation)
Rules, 2016
Ministry of
Corporate
Affairs
• Amend Rule 11 to include electronic
mode as a ‘place’ for conducting
mediation and conciliation.
• Amend Rule 25 to introduce provision
for electronic signature/ Aadhar based
authentication on the settlement
agreement by the parties.
• Introduce rules allowing ODR service
providers to conduct mediation and
conciliation.
5. Consumer
Protection
Act, 2019 and
Consumer
Protection
(Mediation)
Rules, 2020
Department
of Consumer
Affairs
• Amend the definition of ‘mediation’
under section 2 (25) to include
e-mediation and amend section 79 to
include mediation conducted through
electronic means using ICT.
• Introduce provisions in the Rules
recognising institutions offering ODR
services as mediators, mediation
through electronic means and
electronically signed settlement
agreements.
6. Family Courts
Act, 1984
Ministry of Law
and Justice
• Amend section 9 to recognise ODR as
a means for settlement of disputes.
• Introduce supplementary rules charting
out the procedure for ODR. ANNEXURE A
300937/2021/DMEO
285 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 110
7.Industrial
Relations Code,
2020 and
(Draft Rules)
The Industrial
Relation
(Central) Rules,
2020
Ministry of
Labour and
Employment
• Amend section 4 and draft rule 5
to provide recognition to conduct
the proceedings of the Grievance
Redressal Committee to conduct the
process using ICT, either wholly or
partly.
• Amend section 42 and draft rule 17
to include arbitration that is wholly or
partly conducted online by using ICT.
• Amend section 53 to include
conciliation that is wholly or partly
conducted online by using ICT.
• Amend draft rule 22 completely
integrating the conciliation procedure
on the proposed Samadhan
Portal which may facilitate filing
of application, video conferencing
between parties, submission of
statements and the uploading of the
conciliator’s report. Similarly, amend
the rule to completely integrate
the procedure before the Industrial
Tribunal and the National industrial
Tribunal with the Samadhan Portal
from filing of application to disposal.
• Amend section 49 and draft rule 22
to clarify that the powers of civil court
granted to the conciliator, Industrial
tribunal and National Industrial Tribunal
can be exercised using ICT.
8.Insolvency and
Bankruptcy
Code, 2016
Ministry of
Corporate
Affairs
• Introduce provisions empowering the
NCLT to refer a matter for mediation
between parties before admission of
an application to initiate corporate
insolvency resolution process. while
explicitly recognising e-mediation
by using ICT through ODR service
providers. For individual insolvency
matters, amendment to section 100 (2)
incorporate a similar mechanism.
• Introduce supplementary rules charting
out a procedure and the process for
e-mediation using ICT.
9. Insurance
Ombudsman
Rules, 2017
Ministry of
Finance
• Introduce rules recognising the use of
ICT for resolving insurance disputes
through an Ombudsman for the
entire process, right from filing of the
complaint, to conducting mediation
and on failure of such mediation,
passing of an award. ANNEXURE A
300937/2021/DMEO
286 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 111
10.The Legal
Services
Authorities Act,
1987 and
The National
Legal Services
Authority
(Lok Adalat)
Regulations,
2009
Ministry of Law
and Justice
and
National Legal
Services
Authority
• Amend the definition of ‘Lok Adalat’
under section 2 (1) (d) and ‘Permanent
Lok Adalat’ under section 22A to
include Lok Adalats held through
electronic means.
• Amend section 22 clarifying that the
power granted to Lok Adalats therein
can be exercised through electronic
means using ICT and introduce
regulations for the procedure to be
followed.
• Amend regulation 8 to recognise
electronic platforms as a ‘place’ for
holding Lok Adalats
11.Micro, Small
and Medium
Enterprises
Development
Act, 2006
Ministry of
Micro, Small
and Medium
Enterprises
• Amend section 18 to include ODR
service providers as ADR centres
which the MSE Facilitation Council
may appoint for conducting
conciliation and arbitration.
• Introduce provisions and
supplementary rules to integrate
the procedure for conciliation
and arbitration with the existing
Samadhaan portal making the entire
process seamlessly online.
• Introduce provisions to expand the
scope of disputes within the ambit of
section 18.
12.Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988
Ministry of
Road Transport
and Highways
• Introduce provision and supplementary
rules empowering the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal to refer a matter
to mediation including mediation
conducted, either wholly or partly,
electronically through ICT.
13.Negotiable
Instruments
Act, 1881
Ministry of
Finance
• Amend section 143 empowering
the Magistrate to refer a matter to
mediation (including e-mediation
conducted by electronic means
through ICT) at any stage of the trial
either on its own motion or at the
request of the parties.
• Introduce supplementary rules laying
down the procedure for mediation and
recording of terms of settlement. ANNEXURE A
300937/2021/DMEO
287 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 112
14.Real Estate
(Regulation
and
Development)
Act, 2016 and
Rules made
thereunder by
the Central
Government
and State
Governments
Ministry of
Housing and
Urban Affairs
and State
Governments
• Introduce provisions for mediation
and settlement of disputes between
developers and allottees though ICT.
15 Securitization
and
Reconstruction
of Financial
Assets &
Enforcement
of Security
Interest Act,
2002
Ministry of
Finance
• Introduce a provision in section 13
enabling the parties to voluntarily
enter into mediation/negotiation by
using ICT through private ODR service
providers.
16.Umbrella
mediation
legislation
Ministry of
Law and
Justice and
Mediation and
Conciliation
Project
Committee
• The new law should provide a
comprehensive framework for
mediation and should atleast include
provisions for:
• Explicit recognition of e-mediation
• Recognition of opt-in and opt-out
models
• Standards for accreditation
• Basic principles to be followed
• Recognition of institutions including
ODR service providers as mediators
• Confidentiality of proceedings
• Party autonomy
• Simplified enforceability of settlement
agreements for all mediations
conducted under any law
Amendments to Facilitate, Aid And Simplify the ODR Process
17.The Indian
Evidence Act,
1872
Ministry of Law
and Justice
• Amend section 65B clarifying that
the production of certificate is not
mandatory and that the person
producing the document may prove it
during examination. ANNEXURE A
300937/2021/DMEO
288 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 113
18.Indian Oaths
Act, 1969
And procedural
rules of High
Courts
Ministry of Law
and Justice
and High
Courts
• Introduce provisions permitting
online oath taking and affirmation of
pleadings.
19.Indian Stamp
Act, 1899;
State Stamp
Acts and Rules
notified under
them
Department
of Revenue,
Ministry of
Finance
and State
Legislatures
• Amend the legislations to explicitly
recognise electronic agreements.
• Introduce provisions to pay stamp
duty electronically without any
requirement of attaching physical
copies to the agreements when the
agreements are electronic in nature.
• Attempt to harmonise the legislations
and bring uniformity.
• Exempt Arbitration Agreements and
Awards from Stamp Duty.
20.The
Information
Technology
Act, 2000
Ministry of
Electronics and
Information
technology
• Introduce provisions regulating
safe exchange of documents,
communication between parties,
examination of witnesses and passing
of awards/executing settlement
agreements in ODR.
21.The Notaries
Act, 1952 and
The Notaries
Rules, 1956
Department of
Legal Affairs
• Introduce provisions in the Act and
the Rules permitting online notarisation
of documents and provide the
procedure to be followed. ANNEXURE A
300937/2021/DMEO
289 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 114
The following is the list of the members of the judiciary consulted during the
process of drafting this report.
S. No. Name
1. Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) B.N. Srikrishna
2. Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
3. Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra
4. Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
The Ld. Attorney General Shri KK Venugopal was also consulted during the
process of the report being drafted.
The following is the list of individuals and organisations consulted by the
Administrative Secretariat during the process of drafting this report. The list
includes those who submitted written responses to questionnaires circulated
by the Secretariat as well as those who were a part of targeted stakeholder
consultations.
S. No. NameOrganisation
ODR Start-ups
1. Aditya ShivkumarResolve Disputes Online
2. Akshetha Maithri Ashok Sama
3. Badarivishal KinhalCORD
4. Bhargavi TMAdresNow
5. Bhavesh ShahPresolv 360
6. Kanchan GuptaCADRE
7. Namita ShahPresolv 360
ANNEXURE BANNEXURE B
300937/2021/DMEO
290 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 115
8. Prashant SoniJustAct
9. Raman AggarwalJupitice
10. Rishabh GoelCredgenics
11. Vikas MahendraCORD
12. Vishwam JindalWebNyay
Dispute Resolution Professionals
13. Arif Mohammed Madani Independent Arbitrator
14. Chitra Narayanan
Foundation for Comprehensive Dispute
Resolution
15. Jonathan Rodrigues
CAMP Arbitration and Mediation Practice
Private Limited
16. Laila Ollapally
CAMP Arbitration and Mediation Practice
Private Limited
17. Poornima HattiSamvad Partners
18. Prathamesh D PopatPrachi Mediation Chambers
19. Rukmani Menon
CAMP Arbitration and Mediation Practice
Private Limited
20. Sangeeta MehrotraIndependent Practitioner
21. Shreyas JayasimhaAarna Law
22. Tanu Mehta
Honorary Director, Centre for Mediation and
Research, MNLU
Dispute Resolution Centres
23. Anil Xavier
Indian Institute of Arbitration & Mediation
(IIAM), Cochin
24. B C Thiruvengadam
Bangalore International Mediation, Arbitration,
and Conciliation Centre
25. Justice (Retd.) ML Mehta Delhi Dispute Resolution Society
26. Madhukeshwar DesaiMumbai Centre for International Arbitration
27. Nanjunda SwamyArbitration and Conciliation Centre- Bangalore
28. PK Malhotra
Former Secretary General, International
Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution
29. Tara Ollapally
CAMP Arbitration and Mediation Practice
Private Limited
Lawyers
30. Ajay BahlAZB & Partners
31. Ajay BhargavaKhaitan & Co
32. Ajay ThomasIndependent Practitioner
33. Amit Kapur J. Sagar Associates
34. Anand DesaiDSK LegalANNEXURE B
300937/2021/DMEO
291 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 116
35. Arjun KrishnanSamvad Partners
36. Badri NarayananLakshmikumaran and Sridharan
37. Dheeraj NairJ. Sagar Associates
38. Harish B NarasappaSamvad Partners
39. Hemant KrishnaLakshmikumaran and Sridharan
40. Hemant SahaiHSA Advocates
41. Jyoti SagarJ. Sagar Associates
42. Nandan KamathLawNK
43. Niti DixitS&R Associates
44. Nooreen SarnaChambers of Mr. Nakul Dewan
45. Payal ChawlaJuscontractus
46. Rahul MatthanTrilegal
47. Sameer JainPSL – Advocates & Solicitors
48. Shivam SinghChamber 20A
49. Shivank DiddiKhaitan & Co
50. Somasekhar Sundaresan Senior Advocate
51. Vismay P. ShroffParimal K. Shroff & Co.
Businesses
52. Ajay SinghBharti Airtel Limited
53. Amit BhasinHindustan Unilever Limited
54. Avinash KumarICICI Bank
55. B. MurliNestle India Limited
56. Deep KalraMakeMyTrip.in
57. Hemant KumarLarsen & Toubro Limited
58. Jatin JalundhwalaAdani Enterprises Limited
59. Khozem MirzaAditya Birla Group
60. Lekha BapnaAditya Birla Group
61. Poornima SampathTata Sons
62. Pramod RaoICICI Bank
63. Rahul KumarInterGlobe Aviation Limited
64. Rajneesh JaswalNestaway Technologies Private Limited
65. Sanjay MohanMakeMyTrip.com
66. Venkatesh BharadwajMakeMyTrip.com
ADR Service Providers in Rural Areas
67. Amol KulkarniCUTS International
68. Nupur SinhaCentre for Social JusticeANNEXURE B
300937/2021/DMEO
292 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 117
69. Renu Mishra
Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives
(AALI)
70. Santosh PooniaAajeevika Bureau
71. Satyapal SinghCUTS International
72. Sheetal JainMicrofinance Institutions Network (MFIN)
73. Shubhangi Singh
Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives
(AALI)
Other Experts
74. Aditi SinghDalberg Advisors
75. Chittu Nagarajan
The International Council for Online Dispute
Resolution
76. Colin Rule
The International Council for Online Dispute
Resolution
77. Ethan Katsh
The International Council for Online Dispute
Resolution
78. Indraneel Gunjal
The International Council for Online Dispute
Resolution
79. Janet Martinez
The International Council for Online Dispute
Resolution
80. Leah Wing
The International Council for Online Dispute
Resolution
81. Namita WahiCentre for Policy Research
82. Pablo CortesUniversity of Leicester, United Kingdom
83. Pramod VarmaEkStep
84. Sachin MalhanAgami
85. Shilpa KumarOmidyar Network IndiaANNEXURE B
300937/2021/DMEO
293 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 118
REFERENCES
1 Richard Susskind, ‘The Future of Courts’ (2020) 6 (5) The Practice <https://
thepractice.law.harvard.edu/article/the-future-of-courts/> accessed 15 October
2020
2 Ethan Katsh, ‘ODR: A Look at History’ in Mohamed Abdel Wahab and others (ed),
Online Dispute Resolution Theory and Practice (EIP 2013) 21
3 ‘ICC Guidance Note on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating the Effects of
the COVID-19 Pandemic’ (International Chamber of Commerce, 09 April 2020)
<https://iccwbo.org/content/uploads/sites/3/2020/04/guidance-note-possi -
ble-measures-mitigating-effects-covid-19-english.pdf> accessed 15 October
2020; ‘SIAC Covid-19 Updates’ (Singapore International Arbitration Center)
<https://www.siac.org.sg/covid-19> accessed 15 October 2020
4 Goudong Du and Meng Yu, ‘COVID-19 Turns all Chinese Courts into Internet
Courts Overnight’ (China Justice Observer, 19 February 2020) <https://www.chi-
najusticeobserver.com/a/covid-19-turns-all-chinese-courts-into-internet-courts-
overnight> accessed 15 October 2020; ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19) advice and
guidance’ (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary) <https://www.judiciary.uk/coronavi-
rus-covid-19-advice-and-guidance/> accessed 15 October 2020
5 William Gibson, Neuromancer (Ace Books 1984); Also see Rahul Matthan, ‘The
future is here. It is just not evenly distributed yet’ (Live Mint, 13 December 2019)
<https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/opinion-the-future-is-here-it-is-
just-not-evenly-distributed-yet-11577733442732.html> accessed 15 October 2020
6 ‘Phase II Objectives Accomplishment report as per Policy Action Plan Document’
(eCommittee, Supreme Court of India, 2019) <https://ecourts.gov.in/ecourts_
home/static/manuals/Objective%20Accomplishment%20Report-2019.pdf> ac -
cessed 15 October 2020
7 Constitution of India Article 39A; State of Haryana v Darshana Devi AIR (1972)
SC 855; Also see Justice Madan Lokur, ‘COVID-19, Technology and Access to Jus-
tice’ (United Nations Organisation of Drugs and Crime) <https://www.unodc.org/
dohadeclaration/en/news/2020/04/covid-19—technology-and-access-to-justice.
html> accessed 15 October 2020
8 Shreya Tripathy and Tarika Jain, ‘Caseload During COVID-19 (April 2020): A Look
at the Numbers’ (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy , 20 July 2020) <https://vidhilegal-
policy.in/research/supreme-courts-caseload-during-covid-19-april-2020-a-look-
at-the-numbers/> accessed 23 October 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
294 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 119
9 Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, ‘Gavel To Click: Covid-19 Poised To Be Inflection
Point For Online Courts In India’ (Bloomberg Quint, 12 April 2020) <https://www.
bloombergquint.com/opinion/gavel-to-click-covid-19-poised-to-be-inflection-
point-for-online-courts-in-india> accessed 05 September 2020
10 Ejaz Kaiser, ‘Chhattisgarh organises India’s first e-Lok Adalat’ (The New Indian
Express, 11 July 2020) <https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/jul/11/
chhattisgarh-organises-indias-first-e-lok-adalat-2168331.html> accessed 28 Sep-
tember 2020. Also see Chapter IV, Section C.
11 ‘MSME SAMADHAAN – Delayed Payment Monitoring System’ (Ministry of Micro,
Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of India) <https://samadhaan.msme.
gov.in/MyMsme/MSEFC/MSEFC_Welcome.aspx> accessed 15 October 2020; Re -
serve Bank of India, ‘Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) System for Digital Pay-
ments’ (RBI/2020-21/21 dated 06 August 2020) < https://m.rbi.org.in/Scripts/
BS_CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=11946> accessed 14 October 2020
12 PTI, ‘CJI focus on speedy end to litigation’ (Telegraph India, 08 December 2019)
<https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/cji-bobdefocuses-on-speedy-end-to-lit-
igation/cid/1725051> accessed 22 May 2020 ; Kritika Padode Bhandari, ‘Block-
chain, the legal way’ (The Hindu, 25 July 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/
education/how-introducing-blockchain-technology-in-law-can-revolutionise-le-
gal-procedures/article32190200.ece> accessed 15 October 2020
13 Agami and others, ‘Digital Courts: A Roadmap’ (10 May 2020)
14 Stuart D. Levi and Alex B. Lipton, ‘An Introduction to Smart Contracts and Their
Potential and Inherent Limitations’ (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate
Governance, 26 May 2018) <https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/05/26/an-in -
troduction-to-smart-contracts-and-their-potential-and-inherent-limitations/>
accessed 15 October 2020
15 Colin Rule, ‘Is ODR ADR’ (2016) 3 International Journal of Online Dispute Resolu-
tion <http://www.colinrule.com/writing/ijodr.pdf> accessed 31 August 2020
16 ibid
17 ibid
18 Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford University
Press 2019) 114
19 Amitabh Kant and Desh Sekhri, ‘Technology could make justice delivery effi -
cient and affordable’ (Mint, 12 August 2020) <https://www.livemint.com/opin-
ion/online-views/technology-could-make-justice-delivery-efficient-and-afforda-
ble-11597244653331.html> accessed 01 December 2020
20 The UNCITRAL technical notes on ODR prescribes that ‘ODR requires a technolo-
gy-based intermediary’ i.e. an ‘ODR platform’. It removes from its ambit all forms
of ad-hoc usage of technology. This understanding of ODR however caters well
only to the cross-border disputes that the technical notes cater to and not nec-
essarily to the Indian context, where aggregated use of technology tools is likely
to be more mainstream. This is due to the constraints in availability of technolo-
gy infrastructure and levels of digital literacy required to access ODR platforms.
<https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/odr/V1700382_English_Technical_
Notes_on_ODR.pdf > accessed 8 October 2020
21 Deepika Kinhal, Ameen Jauhar and others, ‘Virtual Courts in India: A Strategy
Paper’ (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, 01 May 2020) <https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/
research/virtual-courts-in-india-a-strategy-paper/> accessed 07 November 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
295 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 120
22 Ethan Katsh, ‘ODR: A Look at History’ in Mohamed Abdel Wahab and others (ed),
Online Dispute Resolution Theory and Practice (EIP 2013) 23 <https://www.medi-
ate.com/pdf/katsh.pdf> accessed 05 September 2020
23 Ethan Katsh, Janet Rifkin and Alan Gaitenby, ‘E-Commerce, E-Disputes, and
E-Dispute Resolution: In the Shadow of eBay Law’ (2000) 15 Ohio State Journal
in Dispute Resolution 708 <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/952e/c0a7b70bb-
553ddb2cb15d8a28b977f9a6fcd.pdf > accessed 1 September 2020
24 Ethan Katsh, ‘ODR: A Look at History’ in Mohamed Abdel Wahab and others (ed),
Online Dispute Resolution Theory and Practice (EIP 2013) 27
25 Ethan Katsh, Janet Rifkin and Alan Gaitenby, ‘Commerce, E-Disputes, and E-Dis-
pute Resolution: In the Shadow of eBay Law’, (2000) 15 Ohio State Journal on
Dispute Resolution 705 < https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/952e/c0a7b70bb-
553ddb2cb15d8a28b977f9a6fcd.pdf > accessed 05 September 2020
26 Louis F. Del Duca and others, ‘eBay’s De Facto Low Value High Volume Resolution
Process: Lessons and Best Practices for ODR Systems Designers’ (2014) 6 Year-
book on Arbitration and Mediation 204, 205 < https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1060& -
context=arbitrationlawreview> accessed 15 September 2020
27 Ethan Katsh, ‘ODR: A Look at History’ in Mohamed Abdel Wahab and others (ed),
Online Dispute Resolution Theory and Practice (EIP 2013) 27
28 Vikram, ‘1995-2015: 50 Key Events in Evolution of Online Justice System’, (The
IMW Post, 12 December 2015) <https://imwpost.com/1995-2015-50-key-events-
in-evolution-of-online-justice-system/> accessed 14 October 2020
29 Karolina Mania, ‘Online dispute resolution: The future of justice’ (2015) 1 Internation-
al Comparative Jurisprudence 76-86 at 78 <https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/
sd/pii/S2351667415000074?token=BBD407137E939C8EFA3FE8086DDDB69D-
F06E40EB05FE7E083FFC7635FC4B36509D1A767098ECED87D9A7E79482E-
BE67E> accessed 14 October 2020
30 Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy, (ICANN Archives, 26 August 1999)
<http://archive.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm> accessed 14 Octo-
ber 2020
31 ibid
32 Karolina Mania, ‘Online dispute resolution: The future of justice’ (2015) 1 Interna-
tional Comparative Jurisprudence 76-86 at 77 <https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/
sd/pii/S2351667415000074?token=BBD407137E939C8EFA3FE8086DDDB69D-
F06E40EB05FE7E083FFC7635FC4B36509D1A767098ECED87D9A7E79482E-
BE67E> accessed 14 October 2020
33 Daniel Hays, ‘New York City Settling Claims via the Web’ (NU Property Casualty
360, 10 March 2020) <https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2004/03/10/new-
york-city-settling-claims-via-the-web/?ref=navbar-next> accessed 1 September
2020
34 Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group, ‘Online Dispute Resolution for Low
Value Civil Claims’ (Civil Justice Council, 2015) 15 <https://www.judiciary.uk/
wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Online-Dispute-Resolution-Final-Web-Version1.
pdf> accessed 31 August 2020
35 ‘Consumidor.gov.br’ (Consumidor) <https://www.consumidor.gov.br/pages/prin-
cipal/?1598987311319> accessed 1 September 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
296 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 121
36 ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Why the ODR platform matters for traders’( Europe-
an Commission) <https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.trader.
register> accessed 02 September 2020.
37 ‘Eerste Hulp Bij Oplossingen’ (Rechtwijzer) <https://rechtwijzer.nl/> accessed 1
September 2020
38 ‘Welcome to the Civil Dispute Tribunal’ (Civil Dispute Tribunal) <https://civilreso-
lutionbc.ca/> accessed 1 September 2020
39 ‘Money Claim Online’ (HM Courts and Tribunal Service) < https://www.money-
claim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome> accessed 1 September 2020
40 ‘Welcome to the New Mexico Courts Online Dispute Resolution Center’ (New
Mexico Courts) <https://newmexicocourtsdmd.modria.com/#home > accessed 1
September 2020
41 See Colin Rule, ‘The 2011 ODR Working Group Meeting – Chennai, India February
7-9’ (The Center for Internet and Society, 03 December 2010) <http://cyberlaw.
stanford.edu/blog/2010/12/2011-odr-working-group-meeting-chennai-india-feb -
ruary-7-9> accessed 14 October 2020; Team YS, ‘Chennai plays host to the 10th
Online Dispute Resolution Conference’ (Your Story, 07 February 2011) <https://
yourstory.com/2011/02/chennai-plays-host-to-the-10th-online-dispute-resolu -
tion-conference> accessed 14 October 2020 ; Team YS, ‘10th International Online
Dispute Resolution Conference: Need to build awareness for ODR, (Your Story,
08 February 2011) <https://yourstory.com/2011/02/10th-international-online-dis-
pute-resolution-conference-need-to-build-awareness-for-odr> accessed 14 Oc-
tober 2020.
42 A survey conducted by DAKSH in 2017 found that on an average a litigant in -
curred a cost of Rs. 1049 per day while engaging with courts, with Rs. 728 per day
on average as direct spending and Rs. 321 per day due to the loss of business. On
the other hand, the litigants who have opted for out of court resolution of dispute
have incurred 37 percent less cost per day during the dispute resolution pro-
cess. See, Padmini Baruah and others, ‘Paths to Justice: Surveying Judicial and
Non-judicial Dispute Resolution in India’ (Daksh, 2017) <https://dakshindia.org/
Daksh_Justice_in_India/12_chapter_02.xhtml> accessed 18 September 2020
43 Neutrals in these reports refers to a party, which provides neutral third party,
consented to by the parties, to provide assistance to facilitate the resolution of a
dispute. Neutrals can take the form of dispute resolution professional (DRPs) or a
dispute resolution center (DRCs). Unless specified otherwise, the term neutral is
used to refer to both these categories of stakeholders.
44 Joseph W. Goodman, ‘The Pros and Cons of Online Dispute Resolution: An As -
sessment of Cyber-Mediation Websites’ (2003) 2 Duke Law & Technology Review
<https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=dl-
tr> accessed 31 August 2020
45 Subrat Das and others, ‘India Justice Report: Ranking States on Police, Judici-
ary, Prisons and Legal Aid’ (Tata Trust, 2019) <https://www.tatatrusts.org/upload/
pdf/overall-report-single.pdf> accessed 18 September 2020
46 Dushyant Mahadik, ‘Analysis of Causes for Pendency in High Courts and Subordi-
nate Courts in Maharashtra’ (Administrative Staff College of India, 2018) <https://
doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/ASCI%20Final%20Report%20Page%20641%20
to%20822.pdf> accessed 18 September 2020.
47 Colin Rule, ‘Is ODR ADR’ (2016) 3 International Journal of Online Dispute Resolu-
tion <http://www.colinrule.com/writing/ijodr.pdf> accessed 31 August 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
297 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 122
48 Charlotte Austin, ‘Online dispute resolution – An introduction to online dispute
resolution (ODR), and its benefits and drawbacks’ (Government Centre for Dis-
pute Resolution, Ministry of Business, Innovation and employment, New Zea -
land Government, 2017) 11 <https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/00ddebf604/on -
line-dispute-resolution-report-2018.pdf> accessed 31 August 2020
49 Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group, ‘Online Dispute Resolution for Low
Value Civil Claims’ (Civil Justice Council , 2015) 17 <https://www.judiciary.uk/
wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Online-Dispute-Resolution-Final-Web-Version1.
pdf> accessed 31 August 2020
50 Carol Izumi, ‘Implicit Bias and Prejudice in Mediation’ 70 SMU Law Review 681
<https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4696&context=smulr> ac-
cessed 18 September 2020
51 Charlotte Austin, ‘Online dispute resolution – An introduction to online dispute
resolution (ODR), and its benefits and drawbacks’ (Government Centre for Dis-
pute Resolution, Ministry of Business, Innovation and employment, New Zea -
land Government, 2017) 14 <https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/00ddebf604/on -
line-dispute-resolution-report-2018.pdf> accessed 31 August 2020
52 Amitabh Kant and Desh Sekhri, ‘Take online route for better justice delivery’ (The
Hindu BusinessLine, 03 August 2020) <https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/
opinion/take-online-route-for-better-justice-delivery/article32261376.ece> ac-
cessed 01 December 2020
53 Text in Ch VI p 95 and 98
54 NITI Aayog, ‘Unlocking Online Dispute Resolution to Enhance the Ease of Doing
Business’ (Press Information Bureau, 08 August 2020) <https://pib.gov.in/Press-
ReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1644465> accessed 15 October 2020
55 Richard Susskind, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (Oxford
University Publication, 2013)
56 NITI Aayog, ‘Catalyzing Online Dispute Resolution in India’ (Press Information Bu-
reau, 07 June 2020) <https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1630080>
accessed 20 October 2020
57 Amitabh Kant, ‘Part 1: Setting the Context’, ‘Catalyzing Online Dispute Resolu-
tion in India’ (NITI Aayog, 12 June 2020) <https://niti.gov.in/catalyzing-online-dis-
pute-resolution-india#p1> accessed 20 October 2020
58 ‘Catalyzing Online Dispute Resolution in India’ (NITI Aayog, 12 June 2020)
<https://niti.gov.in/catalyzing-online-dispute-resolution-india> accessed 20 Oc-
tober 2020
59 ‘Unlocking Online Dispute Resolution to Enhance the Ease of Doing Business’
(NITI Aayog, 25 August 2020) <https://niti.gov.in/unlocking-online-dispute-reso-
lution-enhance-ease-doing-business> accessed 20 October 2020
60 ‘Catalyzing Online Dispute Resolution in India’ (NITI Aayog, 12 June 2020)
<https://niti.gov.in/catalyzing-online-dispute-resolution-india> accessed 20 Oc-
tober 2020
61 ‘Home’ (Consumidor) <https://consumidor.gov.br/pages/princi-
pal/?1597747439986> accessed 16 August 2020
62 MJ Schmidt-Kessen, R Nogueira & M Cantero Gamito, ‘Success or Failure?—Ef -
fectiveness of Consumer ODR Platforms in Brazil and in the EU’ (Journal of Con-
sumer Policy) 659-686 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10603-020-
09448-y> accessed 16 August 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
298 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 123
63 ‘About the Service’ (Consumidor) <https://consumidor.gov.br/pages/conteudo/
sobre-servico> accessed 16 August 2020
64 ‘Terms of Use of Consumidor.gov.br’ (Consumidor) <https://www.consumidor.
gov.br/pages/conteudo/publico/7> accessed 5 September 2020
65 ‘Get to know your Consumidor.gov.br’ (Consumidor) <https://www.consumidor.
gov.br/pages/conteudo/publico/1> accessed 5 September 2020
66 ‘Online Dispute Resolution’ (European Commission) <https://ec.europa.eu/con-
sumers/odr/main/?event=main.home.howitworks > accessed 5 September 2020
67 ‘Dispute Resolution Bodies’ (European Commission) <https://ec.europa.eu/con-
sumers/odr/main/?event=main.adr.show2 > accessed 5 September 2020
68 European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee’ COM (2019)
425 final <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX -
:52019DC0425&from=EN > accessed 21 October 2020
69 Matthew Love, ‘Hong Kong Announces Its New Online Dispute Resolution
Scheme’ (Hugill and Ip, 22 April 2020) <https://www.hugillandip.com/2020/04/
hong-kong-announces-its-new-online-dispute-resolution-scheme/ > accessed 16
August 2020
70 Online mediation and arbitration are both provided by Court Mediators or Judge
Mediators from the official judicial system.
71 ‘Covid-19 ODR Scheme’ (eBRAM) <https://www.ebram.org/covid_19_odr.html>
accessed 5 September 2020
72 ‘Rules for the Covid-19 ODR Scheme’ (eBRAM) < https://www.ebram.org/down-
load/Covid-19+Rules+(draft).pdf> accessed 16 August 2020
73 ‘Concilianet’ (Concilianet) <http://concilianet.profeco.gob.mx/Concilianet/inicio.
jsp> accessed 18 August 2020
74 ‘Participating Providers’ (Concilianet) <https://concilianet.profeco.gob.mx/Con-
cilianet/proveedores_que_concilian.jsp> accessed 16 August 2020
75 ‘What is Concilianet?’ (Concilianet) <https://concilianet.profeco.gob.mx/Concili-
anet/comoconciliar.jsp> accessed 16 August 2020
76 ‘OECD Telecommunication and Broadcasting Review of Mexico’ ((OECD, 2017)
206 < https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264278011-8-en.pdf?ex-
pires=1599262418&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=5992870D7665A6851F-
7C569A14C4E424 > accessed 5 September 2020
77 Yeong-Kwan Song, ‘Korea’s E-Commerce Policy Experiences’ (Ministry of Strat-
egy and Finance, Republic of Korea, 2016) 106 <http://www.ksp.go.kr/api/file/
download/11457?downloadFilename=Korea%E2%80%99s%20E-commerce%20
Policy%20Experiences%20(English).pdf> accessed 5 September 2020
78 Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Commerce 1999 (ROK)
79 ‘Home’ (Financial Ombudsman Service) < https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.
uk/> accessed 18 August 2020
80 Complaints we can help with (Financial Ombudsman Service) <https://www.fi-
nancial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help > accessed 19 Au-
gust 2020
81 ‘How we make decisions’ (Financial Ombudsman Service) <https://www.finan-
cial-ombudsman.org.uk/who-we-are/make-decisions > accessed 18 August 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
299 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 124
82 ‘Financial Ombudsman Service’ (The European Timeshare Law Institute) <https://
www.tetli-institute.com/financial-ombudsman-service> accessed 19 August 2020
83 Financial Conduct Authority, ‘FCA Handbook’ < https://www.handbook.fca.org.
uk/handbook/DISP/INTRO/?view=chapter > accessed 5 September 2020
84 P Shank, ‘EServices-TAGS’ (Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service) <www.
fmcs.gov/services/resolving-labor-management-disputes/eservices-tags/> ac-
cessed 19 August 2020
85 ‘Transforming Dispute Mediation Through Technology: FMCS’ ( Facilitate
Pro) < https://www.facilitate.com/article/11275-transforming-dispute-media-
tion-through-technology-fmcs> accessed 5 September 2020
86 ‘Home’ (Civil Resolution Tribunal) <https://civilresolutionbc.ca/> accessed 18 Au-
gust 2020.
87 ibid
88 ‘Tribunal Decision Process’ (Civil Resolution Tribunal) <https://civilresolutionbc.
ca/tribunal-process/tribunal-decision-process/> accessed 16 August 2020
89 ‘Tribunal Decision Process’ (Civil Resolution Tribunal) <https://civilresolutionbc.
ca/tribunal-process/tribunal-decision-process/> accessed 16 August 2020
90 Civil Resolution Tribunal Act 2012 (CA) <https://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/
id/complete/statreg/12025_01> accessed 19 August 2020
91 The CRT Process (Civil Resolution Tribunal) <https://civilresolutionbc.ca/faq/#we-
reached-an-agreement-about-the-dispute-what-happens-next> accessed 20
October 2020
92 Yuan Yanchao, ‘China Establishes Three Internet Courts to Try Internet-Related
Cases Online- Inside China’s Internet Courts Series – 01’ (China Justice Observer,
16 December 2020) < https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/china-establish-
es-three-internet-courts-to-try-internet-related-cases-online> accessed 18 No-
vember 2020
93 ‘Mediation Process’ (Beijing Internet Court, 9 May 2019) <https://english.bjintern-
etcourt.gov.cn/2019-05/09/c_149.htm> accessed 18 November 2020
94 ‘White paper on trials of Beijing Internet Courts’ (Beijing Internet Court, 14 Octo-
ber 2019) <https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/specials/20190820-B-0003-0904-F-
trialswhitepaper.pdf> accessed 18 November 2020
95 Guodong Du, ‘Beijing Internet Court’s First Year at a Glance: Inside China’s In-
ternet Courts Series – 05’ (China Justice Observer, 19 October 2019) <https://
www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/beijing-internet-courts-first-year-at-a-glance>
accessed 18 November 2020
96 Yuan Yanchao, ‘China Establishes Three Internet Courts to Try Internet-Related
Cases Online- Inside China’s Internet Courts Series – 01’ (China Justice Observer,
16 December 2020) < https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/china-establish-
es-three-internet-courts-to-try-internet-related-cases-online> accessed 18 No-
vember 2020
97 Lin Haibin, ‘A Close Look at Hangzhou Internet Court: Inside China’s Internet
Courts Series – 06’ (China Justice Observer, 3 November 2020) <https://www.
chinajusticeobserver.com/a/a-close-look-at-hangzhou-internet-court> accessed
18 November 2020
98 ‘Live: An exclusive tour of China’s first Internet Court in Hangzhou’ (CGTN, 4
December 2019) < https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-03/Live-An-exclusive-REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
300 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 125
tour-of-China-s-first-Internet-Court-in-Hangzhou-M80pW1KcSs/index.html > ac-
cessed 18 November 2020
99 Lin Haibin, ‘A Close Look at Hangzhou Internet Court: Inside China’s Internet
Courts Series – 06’ (China Justice Observer, 3 November 2020) <https://www.
chinajusticeobserver.com/a/a-close-look-at-hangzhou-internet-court> accessed
18 November 2020
100 Lin Haibin, ‘A Close Look at Hangzhou Internet Court: Inside China’s Internet
Courts Series – 06’ (China Justice Observer, 3 November 2020) <https://www.
chinajusticeobserver.com/a/a-close-look-at-hangzhou-internet-court> accessed
18 November 2020
101 Lifan Yang and Jianzheng Yang, ‘Online Diversified Dispute Resolution Platform’
<https://www.yundr.gov.cn/> accessed 16 August 2020
102 Alison Xu, ‘Chinese judicial justice on the cloud: a future call or a Pandora’s box?
An analysis of the ‘intelligent court system’ of China’ (2016) 68 Information &
Communications Technology Law < https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.108
0/13600834.2017.1269873> accessed 16 August 2020
103 Lifan Yang and Jianzheng Yang, ‘The Drafting Idea of UNCITRAL ODR Rules and
ODR Enforcement Practice in China’ (30 November 2018) <http://klri.re.kr:9090/
bitstream/2017.oak/6480/1/The%20Drafting%20Idea%20of%20UNCITRAL%20
ODR%20Rules%20and%20ODR%20Enforcement%20Practice%20in%20China.
pdf> 152-153, accessed 16 August 2020
104 ibid
105 Community Justice and Claims Tribunal (State Courts of Singapore) <https://
www.Statecourts.gov.sg/CJTS/#!/index1> accessed 05 September 2020
106 ‘Filing a Claim at the Small Claims Tribunals: E-Negotiation’ (State Courts of Sin-
gapore) <https://www.Statecourts.gov.sg/cws/SmallClaims/Pages/e-Negotia -
tion.aspx> accessed 16 August 2020
107 ibid
108 ‘Resolving an ECT Dispute Online’ (State Courts of Singapore) <https://www.
Statecourts.gov.sg/cws/ECT/Pages/Resolving-an-ECT-Dispute-Online.aspx > ac-
cessed 05 September 2020 and Sanjana Hattotuwa and Melissa Conley Tyler,
‘An Asian Perspective on Online Mediation’ (2005) 7 Asian Journal on Mediation
Vol. 1 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925159> accessed
16 August 2020
109 ‘State Court Practice Directions’ (State Courts of Singapore) <https://www.State-
courts.gov.sg/cws/Resources/Documents/Master%20PDs%20-%20effective%20
PD%203%20of%202020.pdf > accessed 20 November 2020
110 About the DIFC Courts (Dubai Internal Finance Centre Courts) <https://www.difc-
courts.ae/about-courts-2/> accessed September 5 2020
111 ‘DIFC Courts leverages digital infrastructure to accommodate rapid rise in com-
mercial claims’ (Press Releases, DIFC Courts, 24 August 2020) <https://www.difc-
courts.ae/2020/08/24/difc-courts-leverages-digital-infrastructure-to-accommo-
date-rapid-rise-in-commercial-claims/> accessed September 5 2020
112 ‘Money Claim Online (MCOL) – User Guide for Claimants’ (HM Courts & Tribunal
Service) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/762843/mcol-userguide-eng.pdf > accessed 21
October 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
301 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 126
113 ‘Money Claim Online (MCOL) – User Guide for Claimants’ (HM Courts & Tribunal
Service) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/762843/mcol-userguide-eng.pdf > accessed 21
October 2020
114 CPR PD 7E (Money Claim Online)
115 CPR PD 51R (Online Civil Money Claims Pilot)
116 ‘Resolve a Dispute Online with MI-Resolve’ (Courts of Michigan) <https://courts.
michigan.gov/Administration/SCAO/OfficesPrograms/ODR/Pages/MI-Resolve.
aspx> accessed 19 August 2020
117 Dunrie Greiling, ‘Michigan’s MI-Resolve ODR an Outside the Box Strategy (Tran-
script)’ (Matterhorn, 26 May 2020) <https://getmatterhorn.com/michigans-mi-
resolve-odr-an-outside-the-box-strategy-transcript/> accessed 21 October 2020
118 ‘Resolve a Dispute Online with MI-Resolve’ (Courts of Michigan) <https://courts.
michigan.gov/Administration/SCAO/OfficesPrograms/ODR/Pages/MI-Resolve.
aspx> accessed 19 August 2020
119 Dispute Resolution Center, ‘15th District Court Small Claims Mediation Program
Description Using MI-RESOLVE’ (Courts of Michigan ) <https://www.a2gov.org/
departments/15D/Documents/15dc-DRC-MI-Resolve-Information-Sheet.pdf > ac-
cessed 14 October 2020
120 ‘New Mexico Courts Online Dispute Resolution Center’ ( New Mexico Courts)
<https://adr.nmcourts.gov/odr.aspx> accessed 19 August 2020
121 ‘New Mexico Courts Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)’ (New Mexico Courts)
<https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/39088/Modria-New-Mexi -
co-Courts-Poster.pdf> accessed 19 August 2020
122 Online Dispute Resolution FAQs (New Mexico Courts) <https://adr.nmcourts.gov/
faq.aspx> accessed 05 September 2020
123 ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (Online Dispute Resolution Franklin County Munici-
pal Court) <https://sc.courtinnovations.com/OHFCMC/help> accessed 19 August
2020
124 ibid
125 ‘About the Court’ (Franklin County Municipal Court Data Project) <https://sites.
google.com/view/fcmcdataproject/about > accessed 19 August 2020
126 Joint Technology Committee, ‘Case Studies in ODR for Courts’ (JTC Re -
source Bulletin), 28 January 2020) <https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_
file/0020/16517/2020-01-28-odr-case-studies-v2-final.pdf> accessed 19 August
2020
127 ‘Technical Assistance Grant: Final Report’ (Utah Online Dispute Resolution Pi-
lot Project, December 2017) <https://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collec-
tion/adr/id/63/download> accessed 05 September 2020
128 Bob Ambrogi, ‘Utah Courts Begin Unique ODR Pilot for Small Claims Cases
Tomorrow’ (LawSites, 04 September 2018) < https://www.lawsitesblog.
com/2018/09/utah-courts-begin-unique-odr-pilot-small-claims-cases-
tomorrow.html> accessed 05 September 2020
129 Vivi Tan, ‘Online Dispute Resolution for Small Civil Claims in Victoria: A New Par-
adigm in Civil Justice’ (2019) 24 (1) Deakin Law Review <https://ssrn.com/ab-
stract=3452952> accessed 19 August 2020
130 ‘Homepage’ (Australian Disputes Centre) <https://www.disputescentre.com.au/>
accessed 5 September 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
302 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 127
131 ibid
132 About the Office’ (PARLe) <https://www.opc.gouv.qc.ca/en/opc/parle/descrip-
tion/> accessed 05 September 2020
133 Zhang Juanjuan, ‘On China Online Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Following UN-
CITRAL TNODR and Alibaba Experience’ (2017) 4 IJODR 14
134 Homepage (Youstice) < https://www.youstice.com/en/> accessed September 5
2020
135 ‘Youstice–Youstice Partners With Nubelo, Offering 300,000 Service Providers
Fast And Efficient Customer Care Tool’ (Youstice) <https://www.youstice.com/
en/news/3191-youstice-partners-with-nubelo-offering-300-000-service-provid -
ers-fast-and-efficient-customer-care-tool> accessed September 5 2020
136 ‘What we do’ (Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry ) <https://www.duba-
ichamber.com/what-we-do/legal-and-policy-support/legal-services> accessed
16 October 2020
137 ‘About’ (Resolver) <https://www.resolver.co.uk/about> accessed 19 November
2020
138 ‘Financial year statistics 2019’ (Resolver) <https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/
press-releases-upload/Finanical+Year+statistics+2019.pdf> accessed 19 Novem-
ber 2020
139 Jeremy Barnett and Philip Treleaven, ‘Algorithmic Dispute Resolution—The Au-
tomation of Professional Dispute Resolution Using AI and Blockchain Technol-
ogies’ (2018) 61 The Computer Journal <https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/arti-
cle/61/3/399/4608879> accessed 31 August 2018
140 Elizabeth B. Juliano, ‘The Evolution, Benefits, and Challenges of Alternative Dis-
pute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution’ (LMI, 10 June 2019) <https://www.
lmiweb.com/article/evolution-benefits-and-challenges-alternative-dispute-reso-
lution-and-online-dispute> accessed 5 September 2020
141 Colin Rule, ‘Using Technology to Manage High Volume Caseloads: The eBay/Pay-
Pal Experience’ (National Archives, 2010) <https://www.archives.gov/files/ogis/
events-presentations/acus-colin.pdf> accessed 25 August 2020
142 ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Companies Implementing ODR’ (University of Missou-
ri Libraries) <https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/c.php?g=557240&p=3832247 >
accessed 27 August 2020
143 ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Other ODR Software’ (University of Missouri Librar-
ies) <https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/c.php?g=557240&p=3832248 > accessed
5 September 2020
144 ‘Ways to use Smartsettle’ (Smartsettle) <https://info.smartsettle.com/resources/
articles/ways-to-use-smartsettle/> accessed 31 August 2020
145 ‘About ICODR’ (ICODR) <https://icodr.org/sample-page/> accessed 14 October
2020
146 ‘ICODR Standards’ (ICODR) <https://icodr.org/standards/> accessed 14 October
2020
147 ‘ICODR ODR Training Components’ (ICODR) < https://icodr.org/guides/training.
pdf> accessed 14 October 2020
148 ‘ICODR Video Mediation Guidelines’ (ICODR) < https://icodr.org/guides/vid-
eomed.pdf> accessed 14 October 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
303 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 128
149 ‘ICODR Video Arbitration Guidelines’ (ICODR)<<https://icodr.org/guides/video-
arb.pdf> accessed 14 October 2020
150 ‘About’ (Resolver) <https://www.resolver.co.uk/about> accessed 19 November
2020
151 Alex Sanchez and Paul Embley,’ Access Empowers: How ODR Increased Participa-
tion and Positive Outcomes in Ohio’ (NCSC Trends in State Court) <https://www.
ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/42166/access_empowers_Sanchez-Emb -
ley.pdf> accessed 5 September 2020
152 Business Wire, ‘New Mexico Works to Improve Access to Justice with Tyler Tech-
nologies’ Modria Solution’ (Bloomberg, 3 June 2019) <https://www.bloomberg.
com/press-releases/2019-06-03/new-mexico-works-to-improve-access-to-jus -
tice-with-tyler-technologies-modria-solution> accessed 5 September 2020
153 ‘Transforming Dispute Mediation Through Technology: FMCS’ (Facilitate Pro)
<https://www.facilitate.com/article/11275-transforming-dispute-mediation-
through-technology-fmcs> accessed 5 September 2020
154 ‘Help Center : Frequently Asked Questions’ (Online Dispute Resolution Franklin
County Municipal Court) <https://sc.courtinnovations.com/OHFCMC/help> ac-
cessed 5 September 2020
155 ‘ADR Path to Settlement > ODR > FAQs’ ( New Mexico Courts) <https://adr.
nmcourts.gov/faq.aspx> accessed 5 September 2020
156 UNGA ‘Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution of the United Nations Com-
mission on International Trade Law’ (13 December 2016) UN Doc A/71/507
157 European Union Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of 21 May 2013 on online dispute
resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004
and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR) [2013] OJ L165/1
158 Text in ch I p 9
159 Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, ‘Circular’ (Supreme Court of India, 26
March 2020) <https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/cir/26032020_134544.pdf> accessed 2
October 2020
160 Shreya Tripathy and Tarika Jain, ‘Caseload During COVID-19 (April 2020): A Look
at the Numbers’ (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, 2020) <https://vidhilegalpolicy.
in/research/supreme-courts-caseload-during-covid-19-april-2020-a-look-at-the-
numbers/> accessed 23 September 2020
161 National Internet Exchange of India, ‘.In Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’
(16 September 2020) <https://www.registry.in/IN%20Domain%20Name%20Dis -
pute%20Resolution%20Policy%20%28INDRP%29 > accessed 14 October 2020
162 INDRP Rules of Procedure, Rule 11 <https://www.registry.in/INDRP%20Rules%20
of%20Procedure> accessed 14 October 2020 and ‘ODR Opportunities in India
(Agami and Sama, December 2019) 6
<https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bc39a39b7c92c53642f -
c951/t/5e13302088456a2a6f7e4c35/1578315811604/Updated_ODR+Opportuni -
ties+in+India.pdf> accessed 14 October 2020
163 Department of Consumer Affairs, ‘Annual Report 2019’ (2019) 41 < https://con-
sumeraffairs.nic.in/sites/default/files/file-uploads/annualreports/1596167686_
Annual%20Report%202019-20.pdf > accessed 27 September 2020
164 ibid
165 Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020, r 4(7)REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
304 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 129
166 Department of Consumer Affairs, ‘Annual Report 2016-17’ 35 <https://consumeraf-
fairs.nic.in/sites/default/files/file-uploads/annualreports/1535004643_AR_2016-
17.pdf> accessed 24 November 2020
167 Department of Justice, ‘Online Dispute Resolution through Mediation, Arbitration
and Negotiation’ (2017) <https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/firm%20details.
pdf> accessed 24 September 2020
168 PIB Delhi, ‘Major policy initiatives and achievements of the Micro, Small & Medium
Enterprises (MSME) in 2017’ (PIB, 21 December 2017) <https://pib.gov.in/PressRe-
leseDetail.aspx?PRID=1513711> accessed 24 September 2020
169 Subhayan Chakraborty, ‘Govt accounts for nearly 94% of Rs 1,819 cr dues pay-
able to MSMEs: CII poll’ (Business Standard, 19 May 2020) <https://www.busi-
ness-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-accounts-for-nearly-94-of-
rs-1-819-dues-payable-to-msmes-cii-poll-120051801158_1.html> accessed 27
September 2020
170 Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, ‘Cases filed in MSE Facilita-
tion Council (MSEFC) after 30/10/2017 (i.e. after Launch of MSME-Samadhaan)’
<https://samadhaan.msme.gov.in/MyMsme/MSEFC/MSEFC_Welcome.aspx > ac-
cessed 2 October 2020
171 Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, ‘Draft National e-Com-
merce Policy’ (2019) < https://dipp.gov.in/sites/default/files/DraftNation-
al_e-commerce_Policy_23February2019.pdf > accessed 28 September 2020
172 ibid
173 Committee on Deepening of Digital Payments, ‘Report of the High Level Com -
mittee on Deepening of Digital Payments’ (May 2019) 97 < https://rbidocs.rbi.
org.in/rdocs/PublicationReport/Pdfs/CDDP03062019634B0EEF3F7144C3B -
65360B280E420AC.PDF > accessed 28 September 2020
174 Yogesh Dagal, Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, ‘Statement on De-
velopmental and Regulatory Policies’ (Reserve Bank of India, 06 August 2020)
<https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=50176> ac-
cessed 14 October 2020
175 P. Vasudevan, Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, ‘Online Dispute Res-
olution (ODR) System for Digital Payments’ (RBI/2020-21/21, 06 August 2020)
<https://m.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=11946> accessed
14 October 2020
176 ibid
177 Divya Baweja, ‘How E-assessment makes dealing with the tax department a
smooth affair’, (Money Control, 20 July 2020) <https://www.moneycontrol.com/
news/business/personal-finance/how-e-assessment-makes-dealing-with-the-
tax-department-a-smooth-affair-4795041.html> accessed 04 October 2020
178 ‘E-Challan – Digital Traffic/Transport Enforcement Solutions’ (Ministry of Road
Transport & Highways, Government of India) <https://echallan.parivahan.gov.in/
index/accused-challan> accessed 04 October 2020
179 Department of Justice, ‘Action Plan to reduce Government
Litigation’ (13 June 2017) <http://doj.gov.in/page/action-plan-reduce-Government-lit-
igation> accessed 27 September 2020
180 Lok Sabha, ‘Expenditure Incurred in Contesting Court Cases’ (Unstarred Ques-
tion No 228, 18 July 2018) <http://164.100.24.220/loksabhaquestions/annex/15/
AU228.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
305 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 130
181 ONGC v Collector of Central Excise 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541; ONGC v Collector of
Central Excise (2004) 6 SCC 437
182 Sunil Mishra, Director (Administration), The Cabinet Secretariat, Government of
India, ‘Office Memorandum: Settlement of Disputes Between One Central Gov -
ernment Department and Another and One Central Government Department
and Central Government Public Enterprises and Public Enterprises and Anoth -
er’ (Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, 1 September 2011) <https://cabsec.
gov.in/files/committeondisputes/codsep2011.pdf> accessed 27 September 2020
183 Department of Public Enterprise, ‘Settlement of commercial disputes between
Public Sector Enterprises inter se and Public Sector Enterprise(s) and Govern-
ment Department(s) through Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators (PMA) in the
Department of Public Enterprises’ (22 January 2004) <http://dpe.gov.in/sites/
default/files/Guideline-260.pdf> accessed 28 September 2020
184 ‘Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of CPSEs Disputes (AMRCD)’ (De -
partment of Public Enterprises) <https://dpe.gov.in/dpe-guidelines/administra-
tive-mechanism-for-resolution-of-cpses-disputes-(amrcd)> 16 December 2020
185 Yatish Yadav, Cabinet Secretariat steps in as mounting litigation stalls Rs 1.5 lakh
cr worth of infra projects, leading to delays, cost overruns (Firstpost, 17 December
2018) <https://www.firstpost.com/india/cabinet-secretariat-steps-in-as-mount-
ing-litigation-stalls-rs-1-5-lakh-cr-worth-of-infra-projects-leading-to-delays-cost-
overruns-5742401.html> accessed 19 October 2020
186 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, ss 43D and 43I.
187 K. Srinivas Rao v D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226
188 Securities and Exchange Board of India (Ombudsman) Regulations 2003, reg
16(1).
189 Leonardo D’usro ‘Bridging the Gap between Mandatory and Voluntary Mediation’
(ADR Centre for Development, 4 April 2018) <https://www.adrcenterfordevelop-
ment.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Italys-Required-Initial-Mediation-Ses -
sion-by-Leonardo-DUrso-5.pdf> accessed 27 September 2020
190 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board
of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations 2016, reg 3(2)
191 Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 37
192 Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 <https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/
sites/default/files/E%20commerce%20rules.pdf> accessed 10 November 2020
193 Industrial Relations Code 2020, s 53.
194 Industrial Relations Code 2020, s 42.
195 M.R. Krishna Murthi v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 2476-
2477 of 2019, order dated 5 March 2019
196 Ajmer Singh, ‘Supreme Court forms committee to draft mediation law, will send
to Government’ (The Economics Times, 19 January 2020) <https://economic-
times.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-forms-commit -
tee-to-draft-mediation-law-will-send-to-Government/articleshow/73394043.
cms?from=mdr> accessed 27 September 2020
197 The Personal Data Bill 2019
198 Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Joint Committee on the Personal Data Protec-
tion Bill, 2019 seeks views and suggestions (Press Information Bureau, 3 February
2020) <https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1601695> accessed 28
September 2020 REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
306 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 131
199 Kris Gopalakrishnan and others, ‘Report by the Committee of Experts on Non-Per-
sonal Data Governance Framework’ (Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology, 2020) <https://ourgovdotin.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/kris-go-
palakrishnan-committee-report-on-non-personal-data-governance-framework.
pdf> accessed 3 October 2020
200 Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public
Grievances, Law and Justice, ’Functioning of the Virtual Courts/ Courts Proceed-
ings through Video Conferencing’ (Report no 103, 11 September 2020) <https://
districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/pdf_upload-381310.pdf> accessed 15
November 2020
201 ibid para 3.9
202 ibid para 3.37
203 UNGA Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Me -
diation (adopted on 20 December 2018) UN Doc A/73/496 < https://uncitral.un-
.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/singapore_convention_eng.pdf> accessed 28 Sep-
tember 2020
204 PTI, ‘Singapore Convention on Mediation comes into force‘ (The Hindu, 13 Septem-
ber 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/business/singapore-convention-on-me -
diation-comes-into-force/article32589671.ece> accessed 28 September 2020
205 UNGA Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Medi -
ation (adopted on 20 December 2018) UN Doc A/73/496 art 4 < https://uncitral.
un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/singapore_convention_eng.pdf> accessed 28
September 2020
206 See generally Deepika Kinhal and others, ‘Virtual Courts in India: A Strategy Pa-
per’ (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, 1 May 2020) 18
< https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/virtual-courts-in-india-a-strategy-paper/>
accessed 23 October 2020
207 E-Committee, Supreme Court of India, ‘National Policy and Action Plan for Im-
plementation of Information and Communication Technology in the Indian Ju -
diciary’ (2005) <https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/ecommittee/action-plan-ecourt.pdf>
accessed 27 September 2020
208 E-Committee, Supreme Court of India, ‘Objectives Accomplishment Report as
per Policy Action Plan Document Phase II’ (2019) 5
<https://ecourts.gov.in/ecourts_home/static/manuals/Objective%20Accomplish -
ment%20Report-2019.pdf> accessed 28 September 2020
209 E-Committee, Supreme Court of India, ‘Objectives Accomplishment Report as
per Policy Action Plan Document Phase II’ (2019) 5
<https://ecourts.gov.in/ecourts_home/static/manuals/Objective%20Accomplish -
ment%20Report-2019.pdf> accessed 28 September 2020
210 ibid
211 ibid p 13
212 R. Arulmozhiselvi, ‘Case Management through CIS 3.0’ (eCommittee, Supreme
Court of India, August 2018) 50, 52 <https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/CIS%20
3.0%20final_0.pdf> accessed 16 October 2020
213 eCommittee, Supreme Court of India, ‘eCourts Project Phase II Objective Accom-
plishment Report As per Policy Action Plan Document’ <https://ecourts.gov.in/REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
307 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 132
ecourts_home/static/manuals/Objective%20Accomplishment%20Report-2019.
pdf> accessed 14 October 2020
214 ‘E-filing statistics’ (Delhi High Court) < http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/statistics.pdf>
accessed 24 November 2020
215 Supreme Court of India, ‘Practice Direction for E-Filing (Phase-II) in The Supreme
Court of India’ <https://main.sci.gov.in/php/FAQ/5_6246991526434439183.pdf >
accessed 14 October 2020
216 High Court of Andhra Pradesh, ‘E-Filing and Video Conferencing Guidelines for
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh’ <http://hc.ap.nic.in/docs/efilingandvc.pdf>
accessed 14 October 2020
217 High Court of Delhi, ‘Practice Direction for Online Electronic Filing (E-Filing) in
the High Court of Delhi’ (Direction No 01/IT/DHC, 13 June 2020) <http://delhi-
highcourt.nic.in/pdf/efilingpracticedirection.pdf> accessed 14 October 2020
218 E-Filing Rules 2020 (Patna High Court)
219 ‘Introduction’ (Controller of Certifying Authorities, Ministry of Electronics and In-
formation Technology, Government of India) <http://cca.gov.in/eSign.html> ac-
cessed 16 October 2020
220 eCommittee, Supreme Court of India, ‘eCourts Project Phase II Objective Accom-
plishment Report As per Policy Action Plan Document’ <https://ecourts.gov.in/
ecourts_home/static/manuals/Objective%20Accomplishment%20Report-2019.
pdf> accessed 14 October 2020
221 Supreme Court of India, Press Release 25 November 2019 <https://main.sci.gov.
in/pdf/Press/press%20release%20for%20law%20day%20celebratoin.pdf > ; Also
see Ajmer Singh, ‘Supreme Court develops software to make all its 17 benches
paperless’ (Economic Times, 26 May 2020) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.
com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-develops-software-to-make-all-
its-17-benches-paperless/articleshow/75989143.cms?utm_source=contentofin -
terest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst > accessed 28 September 2020
222 Shakti Bhog v Kola Shipping (2009) 2 SCC 134
223 Trimex International v Vedanta Aluminum Ltd 2010(1) SCALE574
224 Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v AES Corporation (2002) 7 SCC 736
225 State of Maharashtra v Praful Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
226 Balram Prasad v Kunal Saha and Ors (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 327
227 Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 532
228 Emaar MGF Ltd. v Aftab Singh (2018) SCC OnLine SC 2378
229 Vimal Kishor Shah v Jayesh Dinesh Shah 2016 SCC OnLine SC 825
230 A. Ayyasamy v A. Paramasivam 2016 SCC OnLine SC 110
231 Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation Civil Appeal No. 2401 of 2019 (Supreme
Court of India, 14 December 2020)
232 HDFC Bank v Satpal Singh Bakshi 2013 (134) DRJ 566 (FB)
233 Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v National Hydroelectric Power Corpo-
ration Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 280
234 Tata Sons Limited & Ors v John Doe 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8335
235 Kross Television India Pvt. Ltd. v Vikhyat Chitra Production 2017 SCC OnLine Bom
1433REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
308 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 133
236 In re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.
3/2020
237 State of NCT Delhi v Navjyot Singh (2005) 11 SCC 600
238 Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
239 Arjun Paditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 3 SCC 216.
240 M/s Meters and Instrument Private Limited v Kanchan Mehta 2017(4) RCR (Crim-
inal) 476
241 Bhadra Sinha, ‘Delhi gets 34 paperless courts for cheque-bouncing cases that al-
low digital arguing,judgments’ (The Print, 22 November 2020) <https://theprint.
in/judiciary/delhi-gets-34-paperless-courts-for-cheque-bouncing-cases-that-al-
low-digital-arguing-judgments/549615/> accessed 24 November 2020
242 SCMSC, Delhi High Court, ‘Digital NI Act Courts in Delhi Project Implementation
Guidelines’ (2020) <https://delhicourts.nic.in/DigitalNIActCourtsProjectImple-
mentationGuidelines.pdf> accessed 24 November 2020
243 ibid
244 NITI Aayog, ‘Catalyzing Online Dispute Resolution in India’ (12 June 2020)
<https://niti.gov.in/catalyzing-online-dispute-resolution-india> accessed 20 Oc-
tober 2020
245 NITI Aayog, ‘Unlocking Online Dispute Resolution to Enhance the Ease of Doing
Business’ (25 August 2020) <https://niti.gov.in/unlocking-online-dispute-resolu-
tion-enhance-ease-doing-business> accessed 3 October 2020
246 Ejaz Kaiser, ‘Chhattisgarh organises India’s first e-Lok Adalat’ (The New Indian
Express, 11 July 2020) <https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/jul/11/
chhattisgarh-organises-indias-first-e-lok-adalat-2168331.html> accessed 28 Sep-
tember 2020
247 Special Correspondent, ‘A record 1.15 lakh cases settled amicably in mega e-Lok
Adalat’ (The Hindu, 21 September 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/na-
tional/karnataka/a-record-115-lakh-cases-settled-amicably-in-mega-e-lok-ada-
lat/article32663389.ece> accessed 21 November 2020
248 Live Law News Network, ‘Chhattisgarh Organizes India’s First E-Lok Adalat; Set-
tles 2270 Cases Via Video Conferencing’ (Live Law, 12 July 2020) < https://www.
livelaw.in/news-updates/chhattisgarh-organizes-indias-first-e-lok-adalat-set-
tles-2270-cases-via-video-conferencing-159768> accessed 15 September 2020
249 A total of 5838 disputes were settled, with total settlement value crossing Rs.
46.28 crores. See Delhi State Legal Services Authority, ‘Report of e-Lok Adalat
held on August 2020’ < http://dslsa.org/2020/08/09/e-lok-adalat-8th-august-
2020-report-by-sama/> accessed 21 November 2020 ; Richa Banka, ‘Lok Adalat
held online’ (Hindustan Times, 10 August 2020) <https://www.hindustantimes.
com/cities/lok-adalat-held-online/story-6HtKmag2TJDKwAPJkYkm2L.html> ac -
cessed 21 November 2020
250 A total of 10,719 disputes were settled with the total settlement value being Rs.
65.89 crores. JHALSA, ‘Report as to JHALSA Programme’ < https://drive.goog-
le.com/file/d/1n__0Xb7Lt6dGUgjf6yZVHUuGD2XVF1aE/view > accessed 21 No-
vember 2020; Lakshya Tewari, ‘Country’s First Insurance E-Lok Adalat Conduct-
ed By Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority’ (Law Street Journal, 2 October
2020) <https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/jhalsa-insurance-elok-adalat/> accessed 21
November 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
309 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 134
251 Mohsin Dar, ‘Jammu & Kashmir Legal Services Authority organises first e-Lok Ada-
lat amid COVID-19’ (Bar & Bench, 23 August 2020) < https://www.barandbench.
com/news/jammu-kashmir-legal-services-authority-organises-first-e-lok-ada -
lat-amid-covid-19> accessed 15 September 2020
252 A total of 33,546 disputes were settled with total settlement value crossing Rs.
270 crores. E-Lok Adalats were held across 351 Benches. ‘Online Lok Adalat’
(Sama) <https://www.sama.live/lokadalat.php> accessed 21 November 2020; In-
dian Legal Bureau, ‘First E-Lok Adalat a huge success’ (India Legal Live, August
22 2020) <https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/top-story/first-
e-lok-adalat-a-huge-success/> accessed 21 November 2020
253 Special Correspondent, ‘Online Lok Adalat in October’ (The Hindu, 2 Septem-
ber 2020) < https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/online-lok-ada-
lat-in-october/article32505231.ece> accessed 28 September 2020
254 Richa Banka, ‘Lok Adalat held online’ (Hindustan Times, 10 August 2020) <https://
www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lok-adalat-held-online/story-6HtKmag2T -
JDKwAPJkYkm2L.html > accessed 19 October 2020
255 Agami, ‘Creating Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) solutions to resolve millions
of disputes outside the courts’<https://agami.in/odr/> accessed 28 September
2020
256 Soumyajit Saha, ‘Online Dispute Resolution of Banking Disputes in the wake of
COVID-19’ (Bar & Bench, 13 June 2020) https://www.barandbench.com/appren -
tice-lawyer/online-dispute-resolution-of-banking-disputes-in-the-wake-of-cov-
id-19
257 See text in ch IV p 57
258 Hosting of List of Institutions Offering Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
(Including ODR) on the Website of Department of Legal Affairs
< https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sectiondivision/hosting-list-institutions-offering-al-
ternate-dispute-resolution-mechanisms-including> accessed 12 October 2020
259 ‘PeaceGate App’ (IIAM)<https://www.arbitrationindia.com/peacegate.html> ac-
cessed 28 September 2020
260 ‘Sehmati’ (DDRS) <https://www.sehmati.org/> accessed 28 September 2020
261 For instance, NestAway began with resolving their disputes via email, and even-
tually went on to incubate an ODR platform — CADRE or Centre for Alternate
Dispute Resolution Excellence. See Indulekha Arvind, ‘Online dispute resolution is
beginning to find takers in India’ (The Economic Times, 12 January 2020) <https://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/features/online-dispute-reso-
lution-is-beginning-to-find-takers-in-india/articleshow/73206371.cms> accessed
28 September 2020
262 CII, ‘Easing Doing Business for Cost Competitiveness’ (20 June 2020) <https://
www.mycii.in/KmResourceApplication/66255.EoDB.pdf > accessed 28 Septem-
ber 2020
263 Roger Smith, ‘Rechtwijzer: why online supported dispute resolution is hard to im-
plement’ (Law, Technology and Access to Justice, 20 June 2017) <https://law-tech-
a2j.org/odr/rechtwijzer-why-online-supported-dispute-resolution-is-hard-to-im-
plement/> accessed 31 August 2020
264 Joseph W. Goodman, ‘The Pros and Cons of Online Dispute Resolution: An As -
sessment of Cyber-Mediation Websites’ (2003) 2 Duke Law & Technology Review
<https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=dl-
tr> accessed 9 September 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
310 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 135
265 Department of Telecommunication, ‘National Digital Communication Policy 2018’
(2018) 6 <https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/EnglishPolicy-NDCP.pdf> ac-
cessed 3 October 2020
266 DD News, ‘Govt. launches National Broadband Mission, aims to provide broadband
for all’ (DD News, 18 December 2020) <http://ddnews.gov.in/node/39578#:~:tex-
t=The%20government%20yesterday%20launched%20the,to%20all%20villag -
es%20by%202022 .> accessed 3 October 2020
267 Text in ch VI p 67
268 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, ‘The Indian Telecom Services Performance
Indicators January –
March 2020’ (17 September 2020) <https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/
PIR_17092020_0.pdf> accessed 17 November 2020
269 Starred Question no. 245, Lok Sabha Question, March 11th, 2020;
<http://164.100.24.220/loksabhaquestions/annex/173/AS245.pdf> Accessed 17
November 2020
270 Charlotte Austin, ‘Online dispute resolution – An introduction to online dispute
resolution (ODR), and its benefits and drawbacks’ (Government Centre for Dis-
pute Resolution, Ministry of Business, Innovation and employment, New Zea -
land Government, 2017) 18 <https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/00ddebf604/on -
line-dispute-resolution-report-2018.pdf> accessed 31 August 2020
271 PMGDISHA, ‘Objective’ (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Gov-
ernment of India) <https://www.pmgdisha.in/about-pmgdisha/ > accessed 3 Oc-
tober 2020
272 IAMAI, ‘India Internet 2019’(2019) <https://cms.iamai.in/Content/ResearchPa-
pers/d3654bcc-002f-4fc7-ab39-e1fbeb00005d.pdf > accessed 27 September
2020
273 ibid
274 ibid
275 Charlotte Austin, ‘Online dispute resolution – An introduction to online dispute
resolution (ODR), and its benefits and drawbacks’ (Government Centre for Dis-
pute Resolution, Ministry of Business, Innovation and employment, New Zealand
Government, 2017)) 22 < https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/00ddebf604/on -
line-dispute-resolution-report-2018.pdf> accessed 31 August 2020
276 Louise Ellen Teitz, ‘Providing Legal Services for the Middle Class in Cyberspace:
The Promise and Challenge of On-Line Dispute Resolution’ (2001) 70 Ford -
ham Law Review 1009 < https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti-
cle=3777&context=flr> accessed 1 September 2020
277 Text in ch VI p93
278 Judit Glavanits, ‘Obstacles of ODR in Developing Countries’ (2017) UNCITRAL
Furthering the Progressive harmonization and Modernization of Internation -
al Trade Law Conference working paper <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/
congress/Papers_for_Congress/> accessed 1 September 2020
279 Bibek Debroy and Suparna Jain, ‘Strengthening Arbitration and its Enforcement
in India – resolve in India’ (NITI Aayog) <https://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/
document_publication/Arbitration.pdf> accessed 20 October 2020
280 Text in ch VI p 74
281 Charlotte Austin, ‘Online dispute resolution – An introduction to online dispute
resolution (ODR), and its benefits and drawbacks’ (Government Centre for Dis-REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
311 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 136
pute Resolution, Ministry of Business, Innovation and employment, New Zealand
Government, 2017)) 19 < https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/00ddebf604/on -
line-dispute-resolution-report-2018.pdf> accessed 31 August 2020
282 Esther van der Heuvel, ‘Online Dispute Resolution as a Solution to Cross Border
e-Disputes’ (2000) OECD < https://www.oecd.org/internet/consumer/1878940.
pdf> accessed 1 September 2020
283 ibid
284 Text in ch VI p 88
285 Graham Ross, ‘Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing ODR’ in Proceed-
ings of the UNECE Forum on ODR (2003) <https://www.mediate.com/Integrat-
ing/docs/ross.pdf> accessed 9 September 2020
286 Text in ch VI p 69
287 Garware Walls Ropes Ltd. v Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd. 2019
SCC Online SC 515
288 Shoaib Zaman, ‘Duly Stamped’ ( Money Today, January 2014) <https://www.
businesstoday.in/moneytoday/financial-planning/electronic-stamping-is-a-con-
venient-way-to-pay-stamp-duty/story/201780.html#:~:text=The%20Indian%20
government%20introduced%20e,be%20paid%20through%20e%2Dstamping.>
accessed 6 October 2020
289 Chhattisgarh Stamp (Payment of Duty by Means of e-Stamp Certificate) Rules
2016, r 33; See Karnataka Stamp (Payment of Duty by Means of e-stamping)
Rules 2009, r 27(1)
290 The Notaries Rules 1956
291 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v Cherian Varkey Construction Co (P) Ltd (2010) 8 SCC
24
292 See Stamp (Delhi Amendment) Act 2001, sch 1A art 12
293 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 36
294 Sundaram Finance Limited v. Abdul Samad 2018 SCC OnLine SC 121
295 ‘About Digital India’ (Government of India) <https://digitalindia.gov.in/content/
about-digital-india> accessed 18 October 2020
296 Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay, ‘Planning for BharatNet
Phase 2’ (Bharat Broadband Network Limited, September 2016) < http://bbnl.
nic.in/WriteReadData/LINKS/Rpt_Nw_Plg_tool6cad24a7-eea8-4adc-91ff-
468d7119eeb0.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020
297 Sumyesh Srivastava, ‘Bharatnet Implementation has Been Slow, Riddled
with Shortcomings; Needs Urgent Remedial Action to Democratise Inter -
net Access’ (Firstpost, 26 December 2019) <https://www.firstpost.com/tech/
india/bharat-net-implementation-has-been-slow-riddled-with-shortcom -
ings-needs-urgent-remedial-action-to-democratise-internet-access-7827681.
html> accessed 8 October 2020
298 ‘National Broadband Mission’ (Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of
Communications, Government of India) < https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/
National%20Broadband%20Mission%20-%20Booklet_0.pdf?download=1 > ac-
cessed 18 October 2020
299 PTI, ‘All villages to be connected with optical fibre in 1,000 days: PM Modi’ (The
Hindu, 15 August 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/all-villag-REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
312 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 137
es-to-be-connected-with-optical-fibre-in-1000-days-pm-modi/article32361806.
ece> accessed 8 October 2020
300 ‘Connecting more people: on PM WANI’ (The Hindu, 12 December 2020) <https://
www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/connecting-more-people-the-hindu-edito -
rial-on-prime-minister-wi-fi-access-network-interface-pm-wani/article33309724.
ece> accessed 16 December 2020 and Preeti Mudliar, ‘Taking WiFi public’ (The
Hindu, 07 September 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/tak -
ing-wifi-public/article19631829.ece> accessed 16 December 2020
301 ‘Common Service Centre Scheme’ (Ministry of Electronics and Information Tech-
nology) <https://csc.gov.in/aboutus> accessed 5 October 2021
302 Department of Justice and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology,
‘Tele-Law Service Mainstreaming Legal Aid through Common Service Centrers
(CSCs)’ <https://tele-law.in/static/dist/pdf/iec-materials/handbook/Tele%20
Law%20Brochure-PRINT.pdf> accessed 3 October 2021
303 Text in ch IV p 58
304 ‘PMGDISHA’ <https://www.pmgdisha.in/> accessed 8 October 2020
305 Text in ch VI p 79
306 Joachim von Braun and Franz W. Gatzweiler ‘Marginality–An Overview and Impli-
cations for Policy’ in Joachim von Braun and Franz W. Gatzweiler (ed) Marginality
– Addressing the Nexus of Poverty, Exclusion and Ecology (Springer, Dordre -
cht 2014) <https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-7061-4_1> ac-
cessed 18 October 2020
307 IAMAI, ‘Internet Report 2019’ (2019) <https://cms.iamai.in/Content/ResearchPa-
pers/d3654bcc-002f-4fc7-ab39-e1fbeb00005d.pdf > accessed 8 October 2020
308 Desh Sekhri and Satwik Mishra, ‘How design-thinking can help justice delivery in
the Covid era’ (DailyO, 16 June 2020) <https://www.dailyo.in/variety/judicial-sys-
tem-design-thinking-supreme-court-online-filing-of-cases/story/1/33147.html>
309 Atal Innovation Mission (NITI Aayog) <https://www.aim.gov.in/> accessed 24 No-
vember 2020
310 ‘Statistical Information in Respect of Cases Settled Through Mediation in Me-
diation Centers/ADR Centers’ (National Legal Service Authority) <https://nalsa.
gov.in/lsams/nologin/lsamsMediationInformationReportGenerateView.action >
accessed 8 October 2020
311 International Council on Online Dispute Resolution, ‘ICODR ODR Training Compo-
nents’ <https://www.icodr.org/guides/training.pdf> accessed 14 October 2020;
The Mediation Room, ‘Training in Online Dispute Resolution’ <https://themedi-
ationroom.teachable.com/> accessed 14 October 2020; ADR Institute of Can -
ada, ‘ODR – A Practical Program for Practitioners’ <https://adric.ca/online-dis-
pute-resolution-course/> accessed 14 October 2020
312 Ethical standards set out in Ethical Principles for Neutrals. See text in ch VI p 100
313 Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 <https://legalaf -
fairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/The%20Arbitration%20and%20Conciliation%20
%28Amendment%29%20Ordinance%202020.pdf> accessed 08 November 2020
314 BN Srikrishna and Ashok Barat, ‘VIEW: Resolving Commercial Disputes during
Coronavirus (CNBC TV 18, 24 April 2020) <https://www.cnbctv18.com/views/
view-resolving-commercial-disputes-during-coronavirus-5767711.htm> accessed
8 October 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
313 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 138
315 ibid
316 Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs, ‘Be a Commercial, Consumer and Financial
Mediator’ <http://www.mediationiica.in/> accessed 8 October 2020
317 Maharashtra National Law University, ‘MA Mediation and Conflict Resolution’
<http://mnlumumbai.edu.in/Mediation.php> accessed 10 October 2020
318 Goutam Das, ‘How NIIT University pivoted to digital, minimized COVID-19 disrup-
tion’ (Livemint, 23 March 2020) <https://www.livemint.com/news/india/how-ni -
it-university-pivoted-to-digital-minimized-covid-19-disruption-11584960267257.
html> accessed 8 October 2020
319 ‘Swayam’ <https://swayam.gov.in/about> accessed 8 October 2020
320 Srinivas G Roopi, ‘Swayam to introduce courses in 8 Indian languages including
Hindi and Telugu’ (Economic Times, 19 May 2020) <https://government.econom-
ictimes.indiatimes.com/news/education/swayam-to-introduce-courses-in-8-indi-
an-languages-including-hindi-and-telugu/75819347#:~:text=Swayam%20to%20
introduce%20courses%20in%208%20Indian%20languages%20including%20
Hindi%20and%20Telugu,-The%20courses%20on&text=National%20online%20
education%20portal%20Swayam,languages%20including%20Hindi%20and%20
Telugu.> accessed 8 October 2020
321 Such as the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), District Legal Services Au-
thority (DLSA), Taluk Legal Services Committee (TLSC), High Court Legal Servic-
es Committee (HCLSC) and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC)
322 National Legal Services Authority, Scheme for Para-Legal Volunteer (Revised)
& Module for the Orientation – Induction – Refresher Courses for PLV Training
<https://nalsa.gov.in/acts-rules/preventive-strategic-legal-services-schemes/
scheme-for-para-legal-volunteers> accessed 8 October 2020
323 ibid
324 ‘India Justice Report: Ranking States on Police, Judiciary, Prisons and Legal Aid’,
(Tata Trusts, New Delhi, India, 2019) <https://www.tatatrusts.org/upload/pdf/
overall-report-single.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020
325 ibid
326 Dominic Wrench, ‘Singapore: Why Singapore Is A Global Hub For Le-
gal Tech’ (Mondaq, 9 August 2019) <https://www.mondaq.com/employ -
ment-and-hr/835578/why-singapore-is-a-global-hub-for-legal-tech> accessed 8
October 2020
327 ‘About’ (Future Law Innovation Programme) <https://www.flip.org.sg/about> ac-
cessed 8 October 2020
328 Desh Sekhri and Satwik Mishra, ‘India needs more online dispute resolution’ (Fi-
nancial Express, 31 October 2020) <https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/
india-needs-more-online-dispute-resolution/2117658/> accessed 01 December
2020
329 Deepika Kinhal and others, ‘ODR: The Future of Dispute Resolution in India’ (Vidhi
Centre for Legal Policy, 28 July 2020) <https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/
the-future-of-dispute-resolution-in-india/> accessed 24 November 2020
330 Text in ch IV p 69
331 ‘COVID-19 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Scheme’ (SJ’s Blog, 13 April 2020)
(HK) <https://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/blog/20200413_blog1.html > accessed
8 October 2020 REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
314 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 139
332 Ministry of Justice Government Network, ‘Epidemic prevention and control and
public enterprises resumed production complex legal service guide’ (03 March
2020) (CN) <http://www.moj.gov.cn/government_public/content/2020-03/03/
tzwj_3243112.html> accessed 8 October 2020
333 ‘Hosting Of List Of Institutions Offering Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
(Including ODR) On The Website Of Department Of Legal Affairs.’ (Department
of Legal Affairs) <https://legalaffairs.gov.in/hi/sectiondivision/hosting-list-insti-
tutions-offering-alternate-dispute-resolution-mechanisms-including> accessed 8
October 2020
334 Text in ch VI p 83
335 Text in ch VI p 86
336 Veena Ralli and Iram Majid, ‘The Court Annexed Mediation Mechanism: An Over-
looked Avenue For Justice’ (LiveLaw, 21 September 2020)
<https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/articles/the-court-annexed-mediation-mech -
anism-an-overlooked-avenue-for-justice-163279> accessed 8 October 2020
337 ‘Samadhan Online Mediation Project’ (Delhi High Court Mediation and Concilia-
tion Centre, 26 June 2020) <http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/Upload/
PublicNotices/PublicNotice_Z4XCD72WY9Z.PDF> accessed 8 October 2020
338 ibid
339 Alok Prasanna Kumar and others, ‘Strengthening Mediation in India: A Report
on Court-Connected Mediations’ (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, December 2016)
<https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/Final%20Report%20of%20Vidhi%20Cen -
tre%20for%20%20Legal%20Policy.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020
340 For example, Rule 3 of the Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 requires that
the mediators be former judicial officers such as the retired judges of the Su-
preme Court, High Courts or District Courts or members of the bar with atleast 10
years working experience. While the rules do allow other professionals, they are
restrictive. For example, even though the rules allow for ‘other professionals’ they
require 15 years of standing or require individuals to be experts in mediation.
341 Rule 4 of the Mediation/Conciliation Rules of Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules 201
342 Rule 4 Companies (Mediation and Conciliation) Rules, 2016 and Rule 3, Mediation
and Conciliation Rules 2004 (High Court of Delhi)
343 Text in ch III p 25
344 Deepika Kinhal, ‘Every Crisis Presents an Opportunity – It’s Time for India to Ramp
Up its ODR Capabilities’ (Live Law, 22 March 2020) <https://www.livelaw.in/col-
umns/every-crisis-presents-an-opportunity-its-time-for-india-to-ramp-up-its-
odr-capabilities-154196> accessed 8 October 2020 ; See also, Akankshha Agraw-
al, ‘With judiciary embracing technology, time to push dispute resolution online’
(Business Standard, 29 March 2020) <https://www.business-standard.com/
article/current-affairs/with-judiciary-embracing-technology-time-to-push-dis-
pute-resolution-online-120032901023_1.html> accessed 8 October 2020
345 Text in ch VI p 86
346 Text in ch III p 31
347 Text in ch III p 43
348 ‘Catalyzing Online Dispute Resolution in India’ (NITI Aayog, 12 June 2020)
<https://niti.gov.in/catalyzing-online-dispute-resolution-india> accessed 17 No-
vember 2020 REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
315 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 140
349 Dave Orr and Colin Rule, ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Online Dispute
Resolution’ (New Handshake) <http://www.newhandshake.org/SCU/ai.pdf> ac-
cessed 16 November 2020
350 ibid.
351 Text in ch IV p 53
352 Text in ch IV p 41
353 APEC, ‘APEC Collaborative Framework for Online Dispute Resolution of Cross-Bor-
der Business-to-Business Disputes – Endorsed (Second Economic Committee
Meeting, 26-27 August 2019) <http://mddb.apec.org/Documents/2019/EC/
EC2/19_ec2_022.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020
354 Text in ch IV p 52
355 Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 74
356 Kayjal Dasan and Samuel Seow, ‘Seminar Review: Mediation in International In-
solvency, (International Arbitration Asia, 20 September 2015) <http://www.inter-
nationalarbitrationasia.com/mediation_in_international_insolvency_disputes>
accessed 14 October 2020
357 Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee, ‘The report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms
Committee Volume I: Rationale and Design’ (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board
of India, November 2015) <https://ibbi.gov.in/BLRCReportVol1_04112015.pdf> ac-
cessed 14 October 2020
358 Amitabh Kant, ‘IBC delayed is IBC denied’ (Economic Times Blog, 24 June 2019)
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/ibc-delayed-is-
ibc-denied/> accessed 14 October 2020
359 Veena Mani, ‘Changes in IBC will allow provision for mediation to cut costs, time’
(Business Standards, 22 April 2019) <https://www.business-standard.com/article/
economy-policy/changes-in-ibc-will-allow-provision-for-mediation-to-cut-costs-
time-119042100645_1.html> accessed 14 October 2020
360 ‘Hosting Of List Of Institutions Offering Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
(Including ODR) On The Website Of Department Of Legal Affairs’ (Department
of Legal Affairs) <https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sectiondivision/hosting-list-institu-
tions-offering-alternate-dispute-resolution-mechanisms-including> accessed 9
October 2020
361 Janet Martines and others, ‘Dispute System Design: A Comparative Study of In-
dia, Israel and California’ (2013) 4 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 809
362 Text in ch IV p 53
363 Department of Justice, ‘Action Plan to reduce Government Litigation’ (13 June
2017) <http://doj.gov.in/page/action-plan-reduce-Government-litigation> ac-
cessed 6 October 2020
364 Lok Sabha, ‘Expenditure Incurred in Contesting Court Cases’ (Unstarred Ques-
tion No 228, 18 July 2018) <http://164.100.24.220/loksabhaquestions/annex/15/
AU228.pdf> accessed 6 October 2020
365 Department of Public Enterprise, ‘Settlement of commercial disputes between
Public Sector Enterprises inter se and Public Sector Enterprise(s) and Govern-
ment Department(s) through Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators (PMA) in the
Department of Public Enterprises’ (22 January 2004) <http://dpe.gov.in/sites/
default/files/Guideline-260.pdf> accessed 6 October 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
316 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 141
366 Department of Justice, ‘Action Plan to reduce Government Litigation’ (13 June
2017) <https://doj.gov.in/page/action-plan-reduce-government-litigation> ac-
cessed 6 October 2020
367 Indulekha Aravind, ‘Online dispute resolution is beginning to find takers in In-
dia’ (Economic Times, 12 January 2020) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
small-biz/startups/features/online-dispute-resolution-is-beginning-to-find-tak-
ers-in-india/articleshow/73206371.cms?from=mdr> accessed 19 October 2020
368 ENS Economic Bureau, ‘Vivad se Vishwas: Rules & forms notified; e-facility to
avail scheme’ (Indian Express, 20 March 2020) <https://indianexpress.com/ar-
ticle/business/vivad-se-vishwas-rules-e-facility-to-avail-scheme-6323047/> ac-
cessed 8 October 2020
369 FE Bureau, ‘Over 35,000 direct tax disputes resolved under Vivad se Vishwas’
(Financial Express, 15 September 2020) < https://www.financialexpress.com/
money/income-tax/over-35000-direct-tax-disputes-resolved-under-vivad-se-
vishwas/2083107/> accessed 8 October 2020
370 For further discussion on resolving COVID-19 related disputes through ODR
please see text in ch 6 p 78
371 Legal Correspondent, ‘Resume physical courts from June 1, Bar Council urges
CJI’ (The Hindu, 27 May 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/re-
sume-physical-courts-from-june-1-bar-council-urges-cji/article31689599.ece >
accessed 6 October 2020
372 Text in ch VI p 70
373 Text in ch VI p 73
374 ‘Startup Recognition & Tax Exemption’ (Government of India, Ministry of Com-
merce and Industry) <https://www.startupindia.gov.in/content/sih/en/startup-
gov/startup-recognition-page.html> accessed 8 October 2020
375 PTI, ‘Govt may provide tax incentives for startups in Budget’ (Economic Times,
30 December 2019) <https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/
govt-may-provide-tax-incentives-for-startups-in-budget/73030763> accessed 8
October 2020
376 Agami and Sama, ‘ODR Opportunities in India’ (December 2019) < https://stat-
ic1.squarespace.com/static/5bc39a39b7c92c53642fc951/t/5e13302088456a2a -
6f7e4c35/1578315811604/Updated_ODR+Opportunities+in+India.pdf > accessed
13 October 2020
377 Sanjna Pramod, ‘Covid-19 and the rise of online dispute resolution’ (Deccan Her-
ald, 14 July 2020) <https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/panorama/covid-
19-and-the-rise-of-online-dispute-resolution-861291.html> accessed 13 October
2020
378 OECD, ‘Regulatory Reform and Innovation’ <https://www.oecd.org/sti/
inno/2102514.pdf> accessed 13 October 2020
379 Eugene Clark and Arthur Hoyle, ‘E-ADR: On-Line Dispute Resolution: Issues
and Recent Developments’ (2002) 8 < http://www.canberra.edu.au/ncf/publica-
tions/e-adr.pdf> accessed 13 October 2020; Noam Ebner and John Zeleznikow,
‘No Sheriff in Town: Governance for Online Dispute Resolution’ (2016) 32 Nego-
tiation Journal 297 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.jour-
nals/nejo32&div=27&id=&page=> accessed 13 October 2020
380 Linda Senden, ‘Soft law, Self-Regulation and Co-Regulation in European Law:
Where do they Meet?’REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
317 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 142
9 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 1 (2005) <https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/228322818_Soft_Law_Self-regulation_and_Co-regulation_in_
European_Law_Where_do_they_Meet > accessed 13 October 2020
381 Press Trust of India, ‘Time is ripe for legislation containing compulso -
ry ‘pre-litigation mediation’: CJI’ (Economic Times, 8 February 2020)
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/
time-is-ripe-for-legislation-containing-compulsory-pre-litigation-mediation-cji/
articleshow/74026498.cms?from=mdr> accessed 13 October 2020
382 Ruslan Mirzayev, ‘After Italy And Turkey, Azerbaijan Also Follows The Opt-Out
Mediation Model’ (Kluwer Mediation Blog, 1 May 2019) <http://mediationblog.
kluwerarbitration.com/2019/05/01/after-italy-and-turkey-azerbaijan-also-fol-
lows-the-opt-out-mediation-model/> accessed 13 October 2020
383 See European Commission, ‘98/257/EC: Recommendation on the principles
applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer
disputes (30 March 1998) < https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/pub-
lication/0c096a7b-99f5-4794-93e6-e2bc374308ff/language-en > accessed 14
October 2020 ; European Commission, ‘2001/310/EC: Recommendation on the
principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution on con-
sumer disputes (4 April 2001) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001H0310&from=EN > accessed 13 October 2020
384 Sree Krishna Bharadwaj Hotur, ‘The Ambivalence of Self-Regulation in ODR’
(Mediate, May 2017) <https://www.mediate.com/articles/Bharadwaj1.cfm#com -
ments> accessed 13 October 2020
385 Thomas Shultz, ‘An Essay on the Role of Government for ODR: Theoretical Con-
siderations about the Future of ODR’ (Mediate, 2003) <https://www.mediate.
com/integrating/docs/schultz.pdf> accessed 13 October 2020
386 ibid
387 European Commission, ‘2013/11/EU: Directive on alternative dispute resolution
for consumer disputes’ (21 May 2013) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0011&from=EN > accessed 13 October 2020 ;
European Parliament and the Council, ‘Regulation (EU) No. 524/2013 on online
dispute resolution for consumer disputes (May 2013) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:165:0001:0012:EN:PD> accessed 13 Oc-
tober 2020
388 Rafal Morek, ‘The Regulatory Framework for Online Dispute Resolution: A Critical
View’ (2006) 38 University of Toledo Law Review
389 Mark Fenwick, Wulf Kaal and Erik Vermeulen, ‘Regulation Tomorrow: What Hap -
pens When Technology Is Faster Than The Law?’ (2017) 6(3) American University
Business Law Review < https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcon-
tent.cgi?article=1028&context=aublr> accessed 13 October 2020
390 Rafal Morek, ‘The Regulatory Framework for Online Dispute Resolution: A Critical
View’ (2006) 38 University of Toledo Law Review
391 Working Group on Arbitration and Conciliation, UNCITRAL ‘Report of the Work-
ing Group on Arbitration and Conciliation on the work of its forty-fourth session’)’
(2006) <https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/592> accessed 13 October 2020.
392 ‘UNCITRAL Technical Rules on Online Dispute Resolution’ (United Nations, 2017)
<https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/odr/V1700382_English_Technical_
Notes_on_ODR.pdf> accessed 10 November 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
318 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 143
393 Kevin Kim and others, ‘Seoul Protocol on Video Conferencing in International
Arbitration’ (New York International Arbitration Centre, 2020) <https://nyiac.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/KCABs-Seoul-Protocol-on-Video-Confer -
ence-in-International-Arbitration.pdf> accessed 25 November 2020
394 Text in ch IV p 59
395 Ajmer Singh, ‘Supreme Court forms committee to draft mediation law, will send
to government’ (The Economic Times, 19 January 2020) accessed 13 October
2020
396 Text in ch IV p 51
397 Shoaib Zaman, ‘Duly Stamped’ (Business Today, January 2014) <https://www.
businesstoday.in/moneytoday/financial-planning/electronic-stamping-is-a-con-
venient-way-to-pay-stamp-duty/story/201780.html#:~:text=The%20Indian%20
government%20introduced%20e,be%20paid%20through%20e%2Dstamping.>
accessed 6 October 2020
398 See, Chhattisgarh Stamp (Payment of Duty by Means of e-Stamp Certificate)
Rules 2016, r 33; Karnataka Stamp (Payment of Duty by Means of e-stamping)
Rules 2009, r 27(1)
399 Garware Walls Ropes Ltd v Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd 2019
SCC Online SC 515
400 DNA Correspondent, ‘E-stamping facilities all set to go up drastically across Gu-
jarat’ (DNA, 4 September 2019) <https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-
e-stamping-facilities-all-set-to-go-up-drastically-across-gujarat-2787338> ac-
cessed 17 November 2020
401 CII, ‘Use of Technology in the Justice System’ (May 2020) <https://www.cii.in/
PublicationDetail.aspx?enc=QIAAEJ5LsHNWtaL76yIUV9psxIk0dXVXqS7derhl -
BUsHrL2XCjIMvJ7SabwG3Frmsrtu7PPxMBXHfmn5hUUWxP15Wt+JYTj/091yO-
dZkfkTSVygL/I9NfOwQPMd6W08zosUoIwJnD5DQfDCcPNDYw3dFqoZ6JI1Qv0z-
VRG+XIkdULZbmnaMHXFlGCi3RGO0Ga0gbbMHeSPhT8MOGlIubqe+CtF+U/
Ye1O2GaiUff7RcHwFt1VARx5JSKV0vUydXexRNkv1vQC+Q6lDQTVC28I-
6Jmuu9h+jHQj7ZHClfEDw4uYhwNPgJH8n3tad7jwgKCInfFECHhVrmQLHmK-
4PiGeMhC3/4g1Ybi2mMixPyXhI4= > accessed 8 October 2020
402 Electronic Signature or Electronic Authentication Technique and Procedure Rules
2015
403 NITI Aayog, ‘Catalyzing Online Dispute Resolution in India’ (12 June 2020)
<https://niti.gov.in/catalyzing-online-dispute-resolution-india> accessed 13 Octo-
ber 2020
404 Press Trust of India, ‘Time ripe for legislation carrying compulsory pre-liti-
gation mediation: CJI’ (Business Standard, 8 February 2020) <https://www.
business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/time-is-ripe-for-legislation-contain-
ing-compulsory-pre-litigation-mediation-cji-120020800624_1.html> accessed 13
October 2020
405 Leonardo d’Urso, ‘Italy’s ‘Required Initial Mediation Session’: Bridging The Gap be-
tween Mandatory and Voluntary Mediation’ (Alternatives, 4 April 2018) <https://
www.adrcenterfordevelopment.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Italys-Re -
quired-Initial-Mediation-Session-by-Leonardo-DUrso-5.pdf> accessed 13 Octo-
ber 2020
406 ibidREFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
319 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 144
407 Leonardo d’Urso, ‘How Turkey Went from Virtually Zero to 30,828 Mediation in
Just One Month’ (Mediate, February 2018) <https://www.mediate.com/articles/
depalog20180222.cfm> accessed 13 October 2020
408 Code of Civil Procedure 2015, art 334 (BRA)
409 Code of Civil Procedure 2015, art 334 para 7 (BRA)
410 Constantin-Adi Gavrila and Christian-Radu Chereji, ‘Don’t Rush’ (Kluwer Mediation
Blog, 2 March 2015) <http://mediationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2015/03/02/
dont-rush/?doing_wp_cron=1589283508.1908419132232666015625 > accessed
13 October 2020
411 Leonardo d’Urso, ‘Italy’s ‘Required Initial Mediation Session’: Bridging The Gap be-
tween Mandatory and Voluntary Mediation’ (Alternatives, 4 April 2018) <https://
www.adrcenterfordevelopment.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Italys-Re -
quired-Initial-Mediation-Session-by-Leonardo-DUrso-5.pdf> accessed 13 Octo-
ber 2020
412 Julia Black, ‘Forms and Paradoxes of Principles Based Regulation’ (23 September
2008) LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 13/2008 <https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1267722. > accessed 13 October 2020
413 International Council for Online Dispute Resolution, ‘ICODR Standards’ <https://
icodr.org/standards/> accessed 13 October 2020
414 Luis M. Camarinha-Matos and Hamideh Afsarmanes, Processes and Foundations
for Virtual Organizations (Springer, 2004) <https://link.springer.com/content/
pdf/10.1007/978-0-387-35704-1_34.pdf> 323- 330
415 ‘Security’ (Information Commissioners Office) <https://ico.org.uk/for-organi-
sations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regu -
lation-gdpr/security/#:~:text=At%20a%20glance,and%20physical%20and%20
technical%20measures.> accessed 13 October 2020
416 International Council of Commercial Arbitration, New York City Bar Association
and International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, ‘Protocol on
Cyber Security in International Arbitration’ (2020) <https://www.arbitration-icca.
org/media/14/76788479244143/icca-nyc_bar-cpr_cybersecurity_protocol_for_
international_arbitration_-_print_version.pdf> accessed 13 October 2020 ; Deb-
orah Bodeau and Richard Graubart, ‘Cyber Resiliency Design Principles’ (2017)
<https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/PR%2017-0103%20
Cyber%20Resiliency%20Design%20Principles%20MTR17001.pdf > accessed 13
October 2020
417 International Council of Commercial Arbitration, New York City Bar Association
and International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, ‘Protocol on
Cyber Security in International Arbitration’ (2020) <https://www.arbitration-icca.
org/media/14/76788479244143/icca-nyc_bar-cpr_cybersecurity_protocol_for_
international_arbitration_-_print_version.pdf> accessed 13 October 2020
418 Janet Martinez, ‘Designing Online Dispute Resolution’ (2020) 1 Journal of Dis-
pute Resolution 135 at 148 <https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1853&context=jdr> accessed 15 November 2020
419 Fenna Woudstra, ‘What does Transparent AI mean?’ (AI Policy Exchange, 09 May
2020) <https://aipolicyexchange.org/2020/05/09/what-does-transparent-ai-
mean/> accessed 15 November 2020
420 Leah Wing, ‘Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution: A GPS Device for
the Field’ (2016) 3(1) International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution <https://REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
320 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 145
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973278> accessed 13 October
2020;
National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, ‘Ethical Principles for
ODR Initiative at Accessibility’ <http://odr.info/ethics-and-odr/> accessed 11 Oc-
tober 2020
421 National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, ‘Ethical Principles for
ODR Initiative at Accessibility’ <http://odr.info/ethics-and-odr/> accessed 11 Oc-
tober 2020; Leah Wing, ‘Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution: A GPS
Device for the Field’ (2016) 3(1) International Journal on Online Dispute Resolu-
tion <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973278> accessed
13 October 2020
422 Advisory Committee of the National Centre for Technology and Dispute, ‘Online
Dispute Resolution Standards of Practice’ (2009) <https://www.icann.org/en/
system/files/files/odr-standards-of-practice-en.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020
423 Prashant Reddy T. and others, ‘Open Courts in the Digital Age: A Prescription for
an Open Data Policy’ (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy , November 2019) <https://
vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/OpenCourts_digital16dec.pdf>
accessed 13 October 2020
424 Zhang Juanjuan, ‘On China Online Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Following
UNCITRALTNODR and Alibaba Experience’ (2017) 4 IJODR 14
425 Consumidor.gov.br, ‘Sobre o Serviço’ (Consumidor) <https://www.consumidor.
gov.br/pages/conteudo/sobre-servico> accessed 27 October 2020
426 eCommittee, Supreme Court of India, ‘eCourts Project Phase 2’ <https://ecourts.
gov.in/ecourts_home/static/manuals/Objective%20Accomplishment%20Re -
port-2019.pdf> accessed 13 October 2020
427 PP Thimmaya, ‘India Stack: To serve the undeserved’ (Financial Express, 24 Au-
gust 2017) <https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/india-stack-
to-serve-the-underserved/821926/> accessed 16 October 2020
428 UNCITRAL, ‘UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution’ (United
Nataions, 2017) <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/odr/V1700382_Eng-
lish_Technical_Notes_on_ODR.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020 ; Leah Wing, ‘Eth-
ical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution: A GPS Device for the Field’ (2016)
3(1) International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution <https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973278> accessed 13 October 2020
429 New York City Bar Association and International Institute for Conflict Prevention
and Resolution, ‘Protocol on Cyber Security in International Arbitration’ <https://
www.arbitration-icca.org/media/14/76788479244143/icca-nyc_bar-cpr_cyber -
security_protocol_for_international_arbitration_-_print_version.pdf> accessed 11
October 2020
430 UNCITRAL, ‘UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution’ (United
Nations, 2017) <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/odr/V1700382_Eng-
lish_Technical_Notes_on_ODR.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020
431 ibid
432 UNCITRAL, ‘UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution’ (United
Nations, 2017) <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/odr/V1700382_Eng-
lish_Technical_Notes_on_ODR.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020
433 ibid REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
321 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 146
434 National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, ‘Ethical Principles for
ODR Initiative at Accessibility’ <http://odr.info/ethics-and-odr/> accessed 11 Oc-
tober 2020; Leah Wing, ‘Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution: A GPS
Device for the Field’ (2016) 3(1) International Journal on Online Dispute Resolu-
tion <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973278> accessed
13 October 2020
435 Advisory Committee of the National Centre for Technology and Dispute, ‘Online
Dispute Resolution Standards of Practice’ (2009) <https://www.icann.org/en/
system/files/files/odr-standards-of-practice-en.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020
436 Leah Wing, ‘Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution: A GPS Device for
the Field’ (2016) 3(1) International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution <https://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973278> accessed 13 October
2020
437 Mediators Ethics Guidelines’ (JAMS Mediation Services) <https://www.jamsadr.
com/mediators-ethics/> accessed 13 October 2020
438 Leah Wing, ‘Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution: A GPS Device
for the Field’ (2016) 3(1) International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973278> accessed 13
October 2020
439 Advisory Committee of the National Centre for Technology and Dispute, ‘Online
Dispute Resolution Standards of Practice’ (2009) <https://www.icann.org/en/
system/files/files/odr-standards-of-practice-en.pdf> accessed 8 October 2020
440 ibid
441 Leah Wing, ‘Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution: A GPS Device for
the Field’ (2016) 3(1) International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution <https://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973278> accessed 13 October
2020 ; ‘Mediators Ethics Guidelines’ (JAMS Mediation Services) <https://www.
jamsadr.com/mediators-ethics/> accessed 13 October 2020
442 ‘Mediators Ethics Guidelines’ (JAMS Mediation Services) <https://www.jamsadr.
com/mediators-ethics/> accessed 13 October 2020
443 ‘Mediators Ethics Guidelines’ (JAMS Mediation Services) <https://www.jamsadr.
com/mediators-ethics/> accessed 13 October 2020
444 ibid
445 Leah Wing, ‘Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution: A GPS Device for
the Field’ (2016) 3(1) International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution <https://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973278> accessed 13 October
2020
446 Zhang Juanjuan, ‘On China Online Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Following UN-
CITRAL
TNODR and Alibaba Experience’ (2017) 4 IJODR 14, 17
447 Rules for the Covid-19 ODR Scheme’ (eBRAM) < https://www.ebram.org/down-
load/Covid-19+Rules+(draft).pdf> accessed 16 August 2020
448 Reserve Bank of India, Master Direction- Non-Banking Financial Company–Ac -
count Aggregator (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016 <https://www.rbi.org.in/
Scripts/BS_ViewMasDirections.aspx?id=10598> accessed 16 October 2020 and
Reserve Bank of India, ‘Directions regarding Registration and Operations of
NBFC–Account Aggregators’ <https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/bs_viewcontent.
aspx?Id=3142> accessed 16 October 2020REFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
322 Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India 147
449 ‘About us’ (Sahamati) <https://sahamati.org.in/about/> accessed 16 October
2020
450 Pricewaterhouse Cooper, ‘An overview of the account aggregator ecosystem’
<https://www.pwc.in/consulting/financial-services/fintech/fintech-insights/ac-
count-aggregators-putting-the-customer-in-charge.html#sources> accessed 16
October 2020
451 ‘Hosting of List of Institutions Offering Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
(Including ODR) on the Website of Department of Legal Affairs’ (Department
of Legal Affairs) <https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sectiondivision/hosting-list-institu-
tions-offering-alternate-dispute-resolution-mechanisms-including> accessed 9
October 2020
452 For literature on the debate surrounding regulation of online dispute resolution
please see
Kananke Chinthaka Liyange, ‘The Regulation Of Online Dispute Resolution: Ef-
fectiveness Of Online Consumer Protection Guidelines’ (2013) 17(2) Deakin Law
Review <http://Www.Austlii.Edu.Au/Au/Journals/Deakinlrev/2012/11.Pdf > ac-
cessed 13 October 2020; Gralf-Peter Calliess and Simon Johannes Heetkamp
‘Online Dispute Resolution: Conceptual and Regulatory Framework’ (17 Decem -
ber 2019) TLI Think! Paper 22/2019 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf -
m?abstract_id=3505635> accessed 13 October 2020
453 Pablo Cortes, ‘Developing Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in The EU:
A Proposal for the Regulation of Accredited Providers’ (2010) 19(1) International
Journal of Law and Information Technology < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa-
pers.cfm?abstract_id=1819086> accessed 13 October 2020
454 Alexandre Biard, ‘Impact of Directive 2013/11/EU on Consumer ADR Quality: Evi-
dence from France and the UK’ (2018) 42(1) Journal of Consumer Policy <https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743740/> accessed 13 October 2020
455 An example is Belgium where the national competent authority conducts once a
year ‘full audits’ of two certified ADR entities and ‘mini audits’ of all other certified
ADR entities; See Alexandre Biard, ‘Towards high-quality Consumer ADR: the Bel-
gian experience’ (2018) <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329482685_
Towards_high-quality_Consumer_ADR_the_Belgian_experience_author_copy>
accessed 13 October 2020
456 Text in ch VI p 78
457 ibidREFErENCES
300937/2021/DMEO
323 DESIGNING THE FUTURE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Designed b y
THE ODR POLICY PLAN FOR INDIA
DESIGNING THE FUTURE
OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
300937/2021/DMEO
324