Building Trust In Digital Justice - A Case For A National Online Dispute Resolution Authority In India
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Technology, Cyber & Privacy
Published:
Updated:
BUILDING TRUST IN DIGITAL JUSTICE: A CASE FOR A
NATIONAL ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AUTHORITY IN INDIA
Mr. Praveen Arya, LL.M., IILM University, Greater Noida
ABSTRACT
India’s judiciary is currently burdened with an overwhelming backlog, with over 5. 2 crore cases pending across various courts as of early 2025. This staggering figure underscores the urgent need for alternative mechanisms to enhance access to justice. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) emerges as a promising avenue, offering cost-effective and timely resolution of disputes. Despite policy initiatives such as NITI Aayog’s 2021 report, Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India, and legislative developments including the Mediation Act, 2023, which formally recognises online mediation, there remains a notable absence of a comprehensive statutory framework governing ODR in India.
The existing legal landscape is fragmented, with ODR mechanisms operating in a voluntary and unregulated environment, raising concerns about procedural fairness, data security, and enforceability of outcomes. This paper advocates for the creation of a National Online Dispute Resolution Authority (NODRA) through specific legislative enactment, to ensure regulatory consistency, foster public trust, and enable systemic integration of ODR mechanisms within the Indian justice ecosystem. Drawing parallels with established regulatory bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the proposed NODRA would be empowered to accredit ODR platforms, standardise procedures, enforce data protection, and facilitate ODR’s alignment with formal judicial processes.
By examining global best practices and addressing potential implementation challenges, this study underscores the imperative for a centralised regulatory framework to institutionalise ODR in India, thereby enhancing the credibility and efficacy of digital justice delivery.
INTRODUCTION
India's judiciary is currently grappling with an overwhelming backlog, with over 5. 2 crore cases pending across various courts as of early 20251. This staggering figure underscores the urgent need for alternative mechanisms to enhance access to justice. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has gained recognition as a viable alternative, known for its affordability and efficiency in settling disputes within shorter time frames. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) refers to the utilisation of technology-driven processes to address and settle disputes between parties2, most commonly by way of digital negotiation, virtual mediation, or remote arbitration procedures. It is especially effective for disputes emerging from digital interactions, such as e-commerce transactions, where conventional legal proceedings may be inefficient or cost-prohibitive.
Acknowledging the emerging role of ODR in improving access to justice, NITI Aayog published a policy document entitled Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India in November 20213. The report outlines a phased implementation strategy to mainstream ODR in India, emphasising the need for infrastructure development, capacity building, and regulatory frameworks. In alignment with these policy initiatives, the Indian government enacted the Mediation Act, 2023, which provides statutory recognition to various forms of mediation, including online mediation. Under Section 30 of the Act, mediation may be conducted through online platforms, subject to the written consent of the parties involved. 4 This provision ensures that online mediation settlements have the same legal standing as those conducted in person.
Despite these advancements, there remains a conspicuous absence of a comprehensive statutory framework governing ODR in India. The current legal landscape is fragmented, with ODR mechanisms operating in a voluntary and unregulated manner. Without standardised regulation, issues related to procedural equity, information security, and the binding nature of resolutions remain unresolved.
1 National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), Dashboard – Total Pending Cases,
https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdgnew/ (last visited May 6, 2025). 2 Ethan Katsh & Orna Rabinovich-Einy, Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet of Disputes (2017). NITI Aayog, Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India (2021), https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-03/Designing-The-Future-of-Dispute-Resolution- The-ODR-Policy-Plan-for-India.pdf (last visited May 6, 2025).
4 The Mediation Act, No. 9 of 2023, § 30 (India).
This paper argues for the establishment of a National Online Dispute Resolution Authority (NODRA) through dedicated legislation. Drawing parallels with regulatory bodies like the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the proposed NODRA would be tasked with accrediting ODR platforms, standardising procedures, ensuring data protection, and integrating ODR within the broader judicial ecosystem. By analysing global best practices and addressing potential implementation challenges, this paper underscores the imperative for a centralised regulatory framework to institutionalise ODR in India, thereby fostering public trust and enhancing the efficacy of digital justice delivery.
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF LEGAL AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING ODR IN INDIA India's legal framework for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has evolved through a combination of legislative enactments, policy initiatives, and judicial interventions. The Information Technology Act, 2000, established the legal basis for digital interactions by granting recognition to electronic records and digital signatures, which in turn enabled the execution of electronic contracts and communications. 5 The Act lays down the essential legal groundwork required to support the operationalisation of Online Dispute Resolution mechanisms. In 2021, NITI Aayog introduced a policy document titled Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India, presenting a structured roadmap for integrating ODR into the Indian justice system.
The report emphasises the integration of ODR into existing legal frameworks and highlights the need for capacity building, infrastructure development, and the establishment of a conducive regulatory environment. It also advocates for the adoption of ODR in various sectors, including consumer disputes, tenancy matters, and small claims, to alleviate the burden on traditional courts. By enacting the Mediation Act, 2023, India has taken a major legislative stride towards the formal integration of ODR into its legal system. This legislation provides statutory recognition
5 The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 4 (India).
to mediation, including online mediation, and outlines the procedures and standards for conducting such processes. By legitimising online mediation, the Act enhances the credibility and enforceability of ODR outcomes. Despite these advancements, challenges persist in the widespread adoption of ODR. Issues such as digital literacy, access to technology, and the need for uniform standards across ODR platforms remain areas of concern. Furthermore, the absence of a central regulatory authority to oversee and accredit ODR service providers leads to inconsistencies in quality and service delivery. 6 To address these challenges, there is a growing consensus on the need for a dedicated regulatory body akin to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) or the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
Such an authority would be responsible for setting standards, accrediting ODR platforms, ensuring data security, and integrating ODR services within the broader justice delivery system. The 222nd Report of the Law Commission of India supported the mainstreaming of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms and highlighted the role of technology in overcoming barriers to justice, especially for underrepresented litigants. 7 The report specifically encouraged online mediation and conciliation in low-value, highvolume claims, reinforcing the idea that digitisation must complement traditional mechanisms, not replace them. Establishing a National Online Dispute Resolution Authority (NODRA) could provide the necessary oversight and coordination to foster trust and efficiency in digital dispute resolution mechanisms.
COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS
OF GLOBAL ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FRAMEWORKS The evolution of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has been marked by diverse approaches across various jurisdictions, reflecting differing legal traditions, technological advancements, and policy priorities. Examining these international models offers valuable insights for India as it seeks to develop a robust and effective ODR system. 6 Karthikeyan, M., Legal Framework and Regulatory Challenges in Online Dispute Resolution in India (2024), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/legal-framework-regulatory-challenges-online-dispute-resolution-m-e558c.
7 Law Commission of India, Need for Justice-Dispensation Through ADR and Mediation, Report No. 222
(2009), https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report222.pdf (last visited May 6, 2025).
In the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Justice has implemented the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service8, enabling individuals and businesses to initiate and manage claims electronically. This platform has streamlined the process for uncontested claims, reducing the burden on courts and litigants alike. The OCMC service provides a digital end-to-end process for issuing and responding to claims, enhancing accessibility and efficiency in the civil justice system. 9 The European Union has developed a comprehensive ODR framework to facilitate crossborder consumer disputes. Regulation (EU) No 524/201310 established an ODR platform that serves as a single point of entry for consumers and traders seeking to resolve disputes arising from online transactions.
This platform connects parties to approved Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entities, ensuring that disputes are handled efficiently and impartially. The EU's approach underscores the importance of accessibility, transparency, and consumer protection in ODR mechanisms. In the United States, various private and public initiatives have advanced the adoption of ODR. Platforms like MODRIA and Matterhorn have partnered with courts to offer ODR services for traffic violations, small claims, and family disputes. These platforms facilitate negotiation, mediation, and adjudication processes online, enhancing access to justice and reducing court caseloads. The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognised the potential of such platforms in improving the efficiency and accessibility of the justice system11 Canada has been at the forefront of integrating ODR into its justice system.
British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT)12 stands as Canada's first online tribunal, offering an accessible and affordable way to resolve various civil law disputes without the need for a lawyer or attending court. The CRT provides the public with access to interactive information pathways, tools, and a variety of dispute resolution methods, including negotiation, facilitation,
8 HM Courts & Tribunals Service, Online Civil Money Claims Fact Sheet,
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-reform-civil-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-online-civil-moneyclaims (last visited May 6, 2025). 9 Fact sheet: Online Civil Money Claims, GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-reformcivil-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-online-civil-money-claims (last visited May 5, 2025). 10 Regulation (EU) No. 524/2013, of the European Parliament and of the Council on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes, 2013 O.J. (L 165) 1.
11 American Bar Association, ABA Report on ODR in the United States, GET MATTERHORN (Oct. 20,
2020), https://getmatterhorn. com/aba-report-on-odr-in-the-united-states/ (last visited May 6, 2025). 12 Civil Resolution Tribunal, About the CRT, https://civilresolutionbc. ca/about-the-crt/ (last visited May 6, 2025). and adjudication. Participants can use these services from a computer or mobile device, ensuring flexibility and convenience. These international models demonstrate the potential of ODR in enhancing access to justice, reducing court backlogs, and providing efficient dispute resolution mechanisms. India can draw lessons from these frameworks to develop a tailored ODR system that addresses its unique challenges and leverages technological advancements to build trust in digital justice.
Comparative Table – ODR Models in Selected Jurisdictions Country / Region Governing Body Nature of Key Features Integration with / Platform Platform Judiciary India (Proposed) National Online Regulatory Accreditation of Under discussion Dispute (Proposed) ODR providers, (via Mediation Resolution data privacy, Act & policy Authority integration with push) (NODRA) eCourts United Kingdom HMCTS – Government-run End-to-end Fully integrated Online Civil ODR for civil claim filing, with court Money Claims claims defence, and procedures (OCMC) settlement via online portal European Union EU ODR Cross-border Access to Operates in Platform (Reg.
consumer certified ADR parallel to 524/2013) disputes entities across national court EU, multilingual systems interface United States MODRIA, Platform-based Facilitates Collaborates Matterhorn ODR systems traffic, family, with specific (Private + Courtand small claims state courts linked) disputes Canada (British Civil Resolution Statutory Online Negotiation, Fully replaces Columbia) Tribunal (CRT) Tribunal facilitation, court adjudication; no proceedings for court attendance listed disputes required
CHALLENGES
AND LIMITATIONS IN IMPLEMENTING ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN INDIA The implementation of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in India faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and effectiveness. These challenges can be broadly categorised into structural, behavioural, and regulatory issues. One of the primary structural challenges is the digital divide. According to the Internet India Report 2019, only 32. 24% of the rural population has access to the internet13, compared to 99. 12% in urban areas. This disparity limits the reach of ODR services to a significant portion of the population, particularly in rural and remote areas. One of the earliest judicial endorsements of technology-enabled adjudication in India came in State of Maharashtra v.
Praful Desai,14 where the Supreme Court upheld video conferencing as a valid method for recording evidence, thereby paving the way for digital proceedings. More recently, the Court in M/S Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta15 highlighted the importance of encouraging alternative, non-adversarial dispute resolution mechanisms for speedy justice delivery. These cases lend constitutional support to the integration of ODR into India’s judicial process. Additionally, digital literacy remains a concern, with many individuals lacking the necessary skills to effectively engage with digital platforms. This is further compounded by the fact that women constitute only one-third of internet users in India,16 with rural women making up just 28% of this demographic. Behavioural challenges also impede the adoption of ODR.
There is a general lack of awareness and trust in digital dispute resolution mechanisms among the public. Many individuals and businesses are unfamiliar with ODR processes and are hesitant to use them due to concerns about fairness, confidentiality, and enforceability of outcomes. This scepticism is particularly prevalent among older generations and those with limited exposure to digital technologies. Regulatory challenges further complicate the implementation of ODR in India. Currently, there is no comprehensive legal framework governing ODR17, leading to inconsistencies in standards 13 Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) & Nielsen, India Internet 2019, https://diligentias. com/theiamai-released-a-report-india-internet-2019-diligent-ias/ (last visited May 6, 2025).
14 State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 (India).
15 M/S Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, (2017) 1 SCC 568 (India).
16 Internet and Mobile Association of India Supra note 13
17 Karthikeyan, M., Supra note 6
and practices across different platforms. This lack of regulation raises concerns about data security, privacy, and the enforceability of decisions made through ODR processes. Moreover, the absence of a central regulatory authority to oversee and accredit ODR service providers results in a fragmented ecosystem that lacks uniformity and accountability. To overcome these challenges, a multi-faceted approach is necessary. This includes investing in digital infrastructure to improve internet connectivity in rural areas, implementing digital literacy programmes to educate the public about ODR18, and establishing a comprehensive legal framework to regulate ODR practices. Additionally, the creation of a National Online Dispute Resolution Authority (NODRA) could provide the necessary oversight and standardisation to build trust and ensure the effective functioning of ODR systems in India.
International frameworks further bolster the legitimacy of ODR as a judicially acceptable alternative. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) released Technical Notes in 2016, which outline a globally recognised framework for procedural conduct, transparency, and enforcement in ODR platforms. 19 Moreover, the OECD Recommendation on Consumer Dispute Resolution and Redress (2007) encourages governments to implement accessible and cost-effective ODR systems, particularly in crossborder digital commerce. 20 THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AUTHORITY (NODRA) The establishment of a National Online Dispute Resolution Authority (NODRA) is imperative to streamline and standardise the burgeoning Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) landscape in India.
Currently, the ODR ecosystem is fragmented, with various platforms operating without uniform standards or regulatory oversight. This lack of cohesion hampers the credibility and effectiveness of ODR mechanisms, necessitating the creation of a centralised authority to oversee and regulate these processes. A central authority like NODRA would be instrumental in formulating comprehensive guidelines and protocols for ODR service providers, ensuring consistency and quality across
18 NITI Aayog, supra note 3.
19 UNCITRAL, Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution (2016),
https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/odr/technicalnotes/odr(last visited May 6, 2025).
20 OECD, Recommendation on Consumer Dispute Resolution and Redress (2007),
https://legalinstruments. oecd. org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0344 (last visited May 6, 2025). the board. It would also be responsible for accrediting ODR platforms, thereby instilling confidence among users regarding the legitimacy and reliability of these services. Furthermore, NODRA could serve as a repository of best practices and facilitate the dissemination of knowledge and resources to enhance the overall efficiency of ODR mechanisms. The role of NODRA would extend to ensuring data security and privacy in ODR processes. Given the sensitive nature of information exchanged during dispute resolution, it is crucial to have stringent data protection measures in place. NODRA could establish and enforce data security standards, thereby safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.
Moreover, NODRA could play a pivotal role in integrating ODR into the mainstream justice delivery system. By collaborating with judicial bodies and legal institutions, NODRA could facilitate the adoption of ODR for various types of disputes, thereby alleviating the burden on traditional courts and expediting the resolution process. This integration would be particularly beneficial for resolving low-value, high-volume cases, which often clog the judicial system. The establishment of NODRA would also align with international best practices. Countries like the United Kingdom and Canada have successfully implemented centralised bodies21 to oversee ODR mechanisms, resulting in increased efficiency and user satisfaction22. By emulating these models, India can enhance its ODR framework and ensure that it meets global standards.
In conclusion, the creation of a National Online Dispute Resolution Authority is a critical step towards institutionalising ODR in India. It would provide the necessary regulatory framework, ensure standardisation, and facilitate the integration of ODR into the broader justice delivery system. By doing so, NODRA would play a vital role in building trust in digital justice and enhancing access to dispute resolution mechanisms across the country.
POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AUTHORITY To institutionalise Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and enhance access to justice in India, the establishment of a National Online Dispute Resolution Authority (NODRA) is imperative. This
21 (UK OCMC):HM Courts & Tribunals Service, Supra note 8
(Canada CRT):Civil Resolution Tribunal, About the CRT, Supra Note 12
22 Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (2019).
authority would serve as the central regulatory body overseeing the development, implementation, and standardisation of ODR mechanisms across the country. Firstly, NODRA should be empowered to develop comprehensive guidelines and protocols for ODR service providers. This includes setting standards for technology platforms, ensuring data security and privacy, and establishing ethical practices for mediators and arbitrators. By doing so, NODRA would ensure consistency and quality across ODR services, thereby building public trust in digital dispute resolution mechanisms. Secondly, NODRA should facilitate the integration of ODR into the mainstream judicial system. This involves collaborating with courts to identify suitable cases for ODR, training judicial officers and legal practitioners in digital dispute resolution, and promoting awareness among litigants about the benefits of ODR.
Such integration would alleviate the burden on traditional courts and expedite the resolution of disputes. Thirdly, to address the digital divide, NODRA should work in conjunction with government initiatives like the BharatNet project23 to enhance internet connectivity in rural and remote areas. Additionally, digital literacy programmes should be implemented to equip individuals with the necessary skills to engage with ODR platforms effectively. This would ensure equitable access to justice for all segments of the population. Furthermore, NODRA should establish a robust monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the performance of ODR platforms. This includes collecting data on case outcomes, user satisfaction, and compliance with established standards. Such data-driven insights would inform policy decisions and facilitate continuous improvement in ODR services.
Lastly, NODRA should engage in international collaborations to adopt best practices24 and align India's ODR framework with global standards. This would enhance the credibility of India's digital justice system and promote cross-border dispute resolution. In conclusion, the establishment of NODRA is a critical step towards modernising India's dispute resolution landscape. By providing regulatory oversight, facilitating integration with the judiciary, addressing digital disparities, and promoting continuous improvement, NODRA Ministry of Communications, BharatNet Project, https://www. bbnl. nic. in/content/page/bharatnetproject. php (last visited May 6, 2025).
24 American Bar Association, Supra Note 11
would play a pivotal role in building trust in digital justice and ensuring accessible, efficient, and equitable dispute resolution for all.
CONCLUSION
The integration of technology into the justice delivery system has emerged as a pivotal strategy to address the longstanding challenges of accessibility, efficiency, and affordability in dispute resolution. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) stands at the forefront of this transformation, offering a viable alternative to traditional litigation, particularly for low-value and high-volume cases. The establishment of a National Online Dispute Resolution Authority (NODRA) is essential to institutionalise ODR within India's legal framework, ensuring standardisation, accountability, and widespread adoption. The current ODR landscape in India is marked by fragmentation and a lack of cohesive regulatory oversight.
Various private and public initiatives have demonstrated the potential of ODR; however, the absence of a centralised authority has led to inconsistencies in service quality, data protection standards, and user trust. NODRA would serve as the cornerstone for a unified ODR ecosystem, setting forth guidelines, accrediting service providers, and monitoring compliance to uphold the integrity of digital dispute resolution processes. Moreover, NODRA's role would extend to fostering collaboration between the judiciary and ODR platforms, facilitating the seamless integration of digital dispute resolution into the broader justice system. This integration is crucial for alleviating the burden on courts, expediting case resolutions, and enhancing access to justice for underserved populations.
By promoting digital literacy and ensuring equitable access to ODR services, NODRA would play a transformative role in bridging the justice gap in India. International experiences underscore the efficacy of centralised ODR authorities in enhancing the quality and reach of digital justice services. India stands at a juncture where embracing such a model could yield significant socio-economic benefits, including reduced litigation costs, improved business confidence, and strengthened rule of law. The implementation of NODRA aligns with the vision of a digitally empowered society and a knowledge economy, as envisaged in national policy frameworks. In conclusion, the establishment of a National Online Dispute Resolution Authority is not merely a policy recommendation but a necessity25 for realising the full potential of digital justice in India.
By institutionalising ODR, NODRA would ensure that the promise of timely, efficient, and accessible dispute resolution becomes a reality for all citizens, thereby reinforcing trust in the legal system and upholding the principles of justice in the digital age. While the promise of ODR is significant, caution must be exercised to prevent unintended consequences. There is a risk of privatised justice emerging if digital platforms operate without stringent oversight. Additionally, disparities in digital literacy and connectivity could inadvertently exclude marginalised groups, thereby undermining the constitutional promise of equal access to justice. Any regulatory framework must therefore incorporate safeguards to ensure inclusivity, procedural fairness, and data sovereignty.
25 NITI Aayog, supra note
3 REFERENCES
1. National
Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), Total Pending Cases Dashboard, https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdgnew/ (last visited May 6, 2025).
2. The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 4 (India).
3. The Mediation Act, No. 9 of 2023, § 30 (India).
4 NITI Aayog, Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution
The ODR Policy Plan for India (2021), https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-03/Designing-The- Future-of-Dispute-Resolution-The-ODR-Policy-Plan-for-India.pdf (last visited May 6, 2025). 5. IAMAI & Nielsen, India Internet 2019, https://diligentias.com/the-iamai-released-areport-india-internet-2019-diligent-ias/ (last visited May 6, 2025).
6. M. Karthikeyan, Legal Framework and Regulatory Challenges in Online Dispute
Resolution in India (2024), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/legal-frameworkregulatory-challenges-online-dispute-resolution-m-e558c/ (last visited May 6, 2025).
7. HM
Courts & Tribunals Service, Fact Sheet: Online Civil Money Claims, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-reform-civil-factsheets/fact-sheet-online-civil-money-claims(last visited May 6, 2025).
8. Regulation (EU) No. 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on
Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes, 2013 O.J. (L 165) 1.
9. Am.
Bar Ass’n, ABA Report on
ODR in the United States, https://getmatterhorn.com/aba-report-on-odr-in-the-united-states/ (last visited May 6, 2025). 10. Civil Resolution Tribunal, About the CRT, https://civilresolutionbc.ca/about-thecrt/ (last visited May 6, 2025).
11. Bharat
Broadband Network Ltd. (BBNL), BharatNet Project Overview, https://www.bbnl.nic.in/content/page/bharatnet-project.php (last visited May 6, 2025).
12. UNCITRAL, Technical
Notes on Online Dispute Resolution (2016), https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/odr/technicalnotes/odr (last visited May 6, 2025).
13. OECD, Recommendation
on Consumer Dispute Resolution and Redress (2007), https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-
0344 (last visited May 6, 2025).
14. Law Commission of India, Need for Justice-Dispensation Through ADR and
Mediation, Report No. 222 (2009), https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report222.pdf (last visited May 6, 2025).
15. State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 (India).
16. M/S Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, (2017) 1 SCC 568 (India).
17. World Bank, Digital Development
Overview, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment (last visited May 6, 2025).
18. Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).
19 Ethan Katsh & Orna Rabinovich-Einy, Digital Justice
Technology and the Internet of Disputes (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017). Bibliography
1 Marc Galanter, Justice in Many Rooms
Courts, Private Ordering, and Indigenous Law (1981) 19 J. Legal Pluralism 1.
2 S.R. Subramanian, Digital India and Legal Tech
A New Era of Access to Justice (2021)
45 NUJS L. Rev. 72.
3 S. Raval, Legal Informatics and the Rule of Law
An Indian Perspective (2018) 10 Indian JL & Tech. 12.
4 A. Treuthart, Justice Without Lawyers
The Ongoing Debate (2004) 40 Willamette L.
Rev. 993.
5 OECD, Digital Government Review of Brazil
Towards the Digital Transformation of the Public Sector (2018). Webliography
1. World Bank, Digital
Development, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment (last visited May 6, 2025).
2. UNCITRAL, Online Dispute Resolution Technical
Notes, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/odr/technicalnotes/odr(last visited May 6, 2025).
3. NJDG (India), National Judicial Data Grid, https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdgnew/ (last
visited May 6, 2025).
4. Civil Resolution Tribunal (Canada), Official Website, https://civilresolutionbc.ca (last
visited May 6, 2025).
5. OECD, Legal Instruments – Recommendation on Consumer Dispute Resolution and
Redress, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0344 (last visited May 6, 2025).
6. Ministry of Electronics & IT (India), Digital India
Programme, https://www.digitalindia.gov.in/ (last visited May 6, 2025). List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Full Form ODR Online Dispute Resolution NODRA National Online Dispute Resolution Authority ICT Information and Communication Technology ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution CRT Civil Resolution Tribunal HMCTS Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service EU European Union ABA American Bar Association NJDG National Judicial Data Grid MODRIA Modular Resolution for Internet Disputes Interface Architecture UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development BBNL Bharat Broadband Network Limited eCourts Digitization initiative of the Indian judiciary