PROJECT REPORT
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1. CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE
OF ADR
2. ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(ODR)
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:
DR. SUPREET GILL RUPANSH CHAUDHARY
UILS, B.COM LLB (HONS.)
PANJAB UNIVERSITY ROLL NO. – 304/22
CHANDIGARH SECTION – E
SEMESTER – 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from many
people and I am extremely fortunate to have got this all along the completion of my project
report. Whatever I have done is only due to such guidance and I would never forget to thank
them.
I take this opportunity to record deep sense of gratitude to my teacher, DR. Supreet , University
Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh for his incontestably perfect unmatched guidance,
encouragement, valuable suggestions and efforts made during the preparation of this project and
during his lectures which enabled me to complete this project successfully on the topic –
1. CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF ADR 2.
ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ODR)
I owe my regards to the entire faculty of the University Institute of Legal Studies, from where I
have learnt the basics of law and whose informal discussions, intellectual support helped me in
the entire duration of this work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• ABSTARCT
• INTRODUCTION
• CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF ADR
• ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ODR)
1. ORIGIN AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
2. ODR IN INDIA
3. ADVANTAGES OF ODR
4. DISADVANTAGES OF ODR
5. CHALLENGES OF ODR
6. WAY FORWARD CONCLUSION
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABSTRACT
This project explores the concept, legal framework, and practical applications of Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) within both the Indian and
global contexts. ADR, encompassing mediation, arbitration, and conciliation, offers a set of
mechanisms designed to resolve disputes without resorting to traditional litigation. These methods
are lauded for their cost-effectiveness, timeliness, and flexibility in resolving conflicts. In India,
although the Constitution does not explicitly mention ADR, its underlying principles are supported
by several constitutional provisions. Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Right to Life and Personal
Liberty), and 39A (Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid) ensure justice, fairness, and access to legal
remedies, forming a foundation for the development and promotion of ADR.
The report delves into the constitutional perspective of ADR, analyzing how the Indian
Constitution supports ADR's implementation. The welfare state doctrine, highlighted in the
Preamble and other constitutional directives, aims to ensure access to justice for all citizens,
particularly the marginalized. The Malimath Committee and the Law Commission of India's
reports have also recommended prioritizing ADR to reduce the burden on courts. These
frameworks underscore the importance of ADR in reducing legal costs, improving access to justice,
and providing efficient remedies, reflecting the broader goals of justice and equality enshrined in
the Indian legal system.
The project also traces the rise of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as a digital adaptation of
traditional ADR processes. ODR leverages technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes
arising primarily from online transactions, cross-border trade, and digital interactions. The report
reviews the historical evolution of ODR, from its origins in early e-commerce platforms like eBay
in the 1990s to its contemporary applications in global and Indian legal systems. ODR's
development is further analyzed through its key phases—starting with small-scale pilot projects in
the late 20th century, expanding to private and public platforms that now handle millions of
disputes annually.
In India, ODR has gained momentum, supported by legislative measures such as the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, and policy initiatives like NITI Aayog’s involvement in promoting
ODR. India’s judiciary has also taken steps toward embracing ODR technologies, with the
Supreme Court allowing for video conferencing as a legitimate tool for witness testimony,
signaling a broader shift toward digital dispute resolution mechanisms. Additionally, India has
witnessed the rise of ODR platforms, particularly in areas like MSMEs, consumer protection, and
tax disputes, demonstrating the increasing reliance on ODR to handle disputes efficiently.
The report identifies key advantages of ODR, including its accessibility for parties from different
geographical locations, cost savings through reduced legal fees and logistical expenses, and
efficiency in resolving disputes swiftly. ODR’s flexibility in accommodating different time zones
and maintaining confidentiality also presents significant benefits over traditional litigation.
However, the report acknowledges several disadvantages, including challenges related to
enforcing ODR decisions across jurisdictions, the absence of face-to-face communication, and
technological barriers such as digital literacy and infrastructure.
The project further addresses the challenges ODR faces in India, such as low digital literacy rates,
lack of trust in online systems, and concerns regarding data security and confidentiality. The way
forward involves enhancing public awareness of ODR, improving digital infrastructure, and
ensuring that ODR systems are accessible to all sections of society, including those in rural and
remote areas. Government participation is crucial in building technical and administrative
frameworks, providing financial assistance, and fostering public trust in ODR platforms.
INTRODUCTION
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a collection of methods used to resolve disputes without
resorting to traditional litigation in court. ADR is popular because it can provide a quicker, more
cost-effective, and more satisfying resolution to disputes for all parties involved. It encompasses
various processes, each with its characteristics and applications.
The accepted legal definition of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) generally describes it as a
set of practices and techniques aimed at enabling parties to resolve disputes outside of traditional
judicial processes. While there isn't a universal statutory definition that applies globally since
different jurisdictions might have specific nuances in their legal frameworks, the overarching
concept remains the same. The definition of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) varies
somewhat among different jurists and legal scholars, reflecting their perspectives and legal
interpretations based on cultural, contextual, and jurisdictional considerations.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has gained recognition and support in the legislative
framework of many countries. Legislatures around the world have passed laws and established
regulations that promote and regulate ADR methods like mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and
negotiation.
Overall, legislative recognition of ADR demonstrates a commitment to offering alternatives to
traditional litigation, promoting efficiency in resolving disputes, and reducing the burden on the
court system.
The Law Commission of India's 129th Report and the Malimath Committee both suggest that
courts should mandate the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) over litigation to resolve
disputes. The Malimath Committee, officially known as the Committee on Reforms of Criminal
Justice System, was a committee set up by the Government of India in 2000 under the
chairmanship of Justice V.S. Malimath. The committee was tasked with making recommendations
to reform the criminal justice system. In the context of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the
Malimath Committee recommended making it mandatory for courts to refer disputes for
resolution through ADR rather than traditional litigation. Additionally, the committee highlighted
the importance of training individuals who would serve as facilitators, mediators, and conciliators
in the ADR process.
CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE
OF ADR
Disputes are an unavoidable element of human interaction and society needs to develop
constructive and creative solutions to solve them. A dispute is a manifestation of unresolved
conflict. Conflict can simply be interpreted as the product of differences that make people different
and bring individual desires to life. While conflict is unavoidable, there is no need for disputes.
The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
methods such as mediation, arbitration, or conciliation. However, the Constitution of India does
provide for the establishment of a legal framework that supports the principles of justice, fairness,
and access to effective dispute resolution mechanisms. Also in the case, Food Corporation of
India v. Joginderpal1, the Court held that arbitration must be simple less technical and more
responsible to the actual reality of situations, responsive to the principle of justice and fair play.
Several provisions in the Indian Constitution and related laws reflect the underlying principles that
align with ADR processes. Some key aspects include:
1. Welfare state:
Welfare State is the basis of the Indian Constitution. By creating judicial and non-judicial
dispute resolution systems that offer timely and effective justice and preserve legal and
constitutional rights, the state must ensure access to justice for its citizens. Ignorance,
poverty, and other social dysfunctions shouldn't prevent justice.
2. Preamble:
The Preamble of our Constitution emphasizes this objective of social, economic, and
political justice. All Indians have justice, cultural, economic, and political rights per the
1
1989 AIR 1263
Preamble. "Justice" refers to Legal Aid Camps, Family Courts, Village Courts, Mediation
Centres, Commercial Arbitration, Women Centres, Consumer Protection Forums, and other
aspects of an effective alternative conflict resolution system.
The Constitution of India is this country’s fundamental norm; it includes provisions that
signify a harmonious integration of individual behavior with the general welfare of society
to achieve justice. A person’s behavior or action is said to be solely if it supports the
community’s general well-being.
The attainment of the common good, therefore, as distinct from the good of individuals, is
the essence of justice. Legal justice is part and parcel of social justice. As often the culture
gets upset when the legal justice is refused. A legal system forms part of a state which
maintains social stability by resolving disputes. In a country aimed at protecting citizens ‘
socio-economic and cultural rights, it is extremely necessary to settle cases in India rapidly,
as the courts alone cannot handle the huge backlog of cases. This can be effectively
achieved by applying the mechanisms of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
3. Article 14 Right to Equality:
This article ensures that all individuals are equal before the law and are entitled to equal
protection of the laws. ADR methods often emphasize fair and impartial treatment of all
parties involved in a dispute, reflecting the principles of equality and non- discrimination.
4. Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty:
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which encompasses the right to
access justice and seek redress for grievances. ADR mechanisms provide a means for
individuals to resolve disputes peacefully and effectively, thereby upholding the right to
justice.
5. Article 39A - Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid:
Article 39A of the Constitution mandates that the State shall ensure that the operation of
the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and provide free legal
aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied due to economic or other
disabilities. ADR methods, such as mediation, promote accessible and affordable dispute
resolution, aligning with the principles of equal justice. According to Article 39A of the
Indian Constitution, which falls under Part 4 and pertains to the directive principles of State
Policy, it is the duty of each state to ensure equal access to justice by offering free legal
aid. This is because the court proceedings can be costly, making it difficult for everyone to
afford. The ADR mechanism plays a role in accomplishing the purpose outlined in Article
39A.
6. Article 40 of the Directive Principles of State Policy
It mandates the State to establish village panchayats and endow them with the necessary
powers and authority to enable them to function as units of self- government. In the context
of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), this article lays a foundational framework for
decentralized justice through local governance. Village panchayats can play a crucial role
in resolving disputes at the grassroots level through methods like mediation and
conciliation, which align with the principles of ADR. This empowers communities to settle
conflicts amicably and efficiently, reducing the burden on formal judicial systems and
fostering a culture of participatory democracy and self-reliance in dispute resolution.
7. Article 51 of the Indian Constitution
It stipulates that the state should make efforts to
• promote international peace and security
• maintain fair and respectful relations between nations
• promote respect for international law and treaty obligations in interactions between
organised groups
• encourage the resolution of international disputes through arbitration, which is one
of the methods of alternative dispute resolution.
The concept of the rule of law, introduced by Dicey, refers to the principle of the supremacy of law
and equality before the law. Part III of the Indian Constitution, sometimes referred to as the "Magna
Carta" of the Indian Constitution, encompasses the fundamental rights. Article 14 of the
Constitution guarantees the Right to Equality, which encompasses the principles of equality before
the law and equal protection of the law. The principle that no individual is exempt from the law
and that all individuals are treated equally under the law. It possesses the same entitlement to seek
legal remedy as other litigants.
The broader interpretation of Article 21, which guarantees the "right to life and personal liberty,"
implies that no one can be deprived of their life and personal freedom unless it is done through a
legally defined method. Speedy justice is a constitutional right protected under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, as established in the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home
secretary, State of Bihar2. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) offers expeditious resolution
to the conflicting parties outside the confines of the judicial system, so achieving the constitutional
aim.
In addition to the constitutional provisions, the Indian legal system has also introduced specific
legislation to support and regulate ADR processes. The most notable legislation in this regard is
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Mediation Act, 2023 which govern arbitration
proceedings in India and provides a legal framework for conducting arbitration and enforcing
arbitral awards and mediation respectively.
Overall, while the Indian Constitution may not explicitly mention ADR, the spirit of justice,
fairness, and access to effective dispute resolution mechanisms enshrined in its provisions serves
as a foundation that supports the promotion and utilization of ADR methods in the Indian legal
system.
2
1979 SCR (3) 532
ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(ODR)
Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) represents significant evolutions in the way conflicts are
resolved, leveraging the power of technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes in the digital
realm. From its humble beginnings to its current widespread use, ODR has transformed the
landscape of conflict resolution, offering both advantages and disadvantages in its application.
Why is it in news?
In June 2020, NITI Aayog, in association with Agami and Omidyar Network India, brought
together key stakeholders in a virtual meeting for advancing Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in
India. Senior judges of the Supreme Court, secretaries from key government ministries, leaders of
the industry, legal experts and general counsels of leading enterprises participated in it.
Considering the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, on April 10, 2021, a handbook on ODR, developed
by Agami and Omidyar India, in association with NITI Aayog and with the support of ICICI Bank,
Ashoka Innovators for the Public, Trilegal, Dalberg, Dvara and NIPFP was released.
Origin and Historical Perspective:
The concept of ODR can be traced back to the early days of e-commerce and the need to resolve
disputes arising in online transactions. As the internet grew in popularity, so did the need for
efficient and accessible dispute resolution mechanisms. One of the earliest forms of ODR was the
resolution of disputes through online forums or email correspondence.
Over time, dedicated ODR platforms and systems were developed to address the unique challenges
of resolving conflicts in the online environment. These platforms combined aspects of
traditional Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods like mediation and arbitration with the
convenience and scalability of digital technology.
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 Information Communication and Technology (ICT).
Discussed below are the three phases:
• 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
• With the development of e-commerce, a robust system was required for operating
commercial activities on the internet. ODR offered a solution to this problem
• In 1999, eBay started a pilot project to provide online mediation facilities for
disputes arising between buyers and sellers on its platform
• By 2010 eBay was handling over sixty million disputes per year through its ODR
platform
• Second Phase: Boom of ODR start-ups
• The success of this model and the rapid growth of the internet kick-started the
evolution of ODR and led to the boom of ODR platforms. There were up to 21 new
ODR programs that were launched in the year 1999
• Only a few successful platforms such as Cybersettle, Smartsettle and the Mediation
Room were able to make a remarkable impact in the dispute resolution ecosystem
Adoption by the Government and Judiciary
• The success of a few of the private ODR platforms drew the interest of governments
towards this emerging addition to the dispute resolution ecosystem
Online Dispute Resolution in India
The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in 1985 and the UNCITRAL
Conciliation Rules in 1980. In the context of international commercial relations, this Model Law
has been recommended by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).
India incorporated these uniform principles of ADR in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In the context of India, given below is the timeline for ODR development in India:
2006 National Internet Exchange of India adopted ‘.IN’ domain name Dispute Resolution Policy
(INDRP) which provided the ODR
2011 Chennai hosted the 10th Annual International Forum on ODR
2017 Ministry of Law and Justice issued a statement to urge Government agencies to resolve
disputes through online arbitration
2018 Ministry of MSME launched SAMADHAAN Portal to address delays of payment disputes
involving Micro and Small enterprises
2019 E-ADR Challenge was launched to identify and support ODR start-ups
2020 • The government of India launched the Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme for the efficient
resolution of tax disputes through ODR
• Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy published a report on mainstreaming ODR in India
• NITI Aayog established a committee under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd.)
A.K.Sikri to broad-base the use of ODR in India
• Chhatisgarh conducted the first virtual Lok Adalat and provided conciliation services
• Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public
Grievances, Law and Justice, in their report called for the introduction of technology in
the arbitration and conciliation process
The Supreme Court also pioneered the growth of ODR in India, recently in State of
Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai 1 , The Supreme Court of India ruled that video
1
AIR 2003 SC 2053
conferencing is an admissible means of recording witness testimony. As a result, the legislative
framework, as well as precedents set by the Supreme Court of India, encourage the use of
technology for dispute resolution and encourages the implementation of ODR techniques. It is also
clear from a combined reading of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act of 1996, and the Information Technology Act of 2000 that Indian laws provide for the legality
and technological viability of ODR processes. Even, we also now have virtual court facility in
India which enables the Litigants to file the plaint electronically through e-Filing and also pay the
Court Fees or Fine online through https://vcourts.gov.in1 Litigant can view the status of the case
also online through various channels created for service delivery.
Advantages of ODR
1. Accessibility:
ODR provides a convenient and accessible platform for parties to resolve disputes from
anywhere in the world, reducing the need for in- person meetings and travel.
2. Cost-effectiveness:
ODR processes are generally more cost-effective than Traditional litigation, as they involve
fewer expenses related to legal fees, court costs, and logistical arrangements.
3. Efficiency:
ODR is often quicker than traditional dispute resolution methods, allowing for timely
resolution of conflicts and reducing backlog in the legal system.
4. Flexibility: ODR platforms offer flexibility in scheduling and conducting
proceedings, allowing parties to participate at their convenience and adapt to different time
zones.
1
https://vcourts.gov.in/virtualcourt/
5. Confidentiality: ODR processes can maintain confidentiality, protecting sensitive
information and preserving the privacy of the parties involved.
Disadvantages of ODR
1. Enforceability:
Enforcing ODR decisions may pose challenges, especially when parties are located in
different jurisdictions with varying legal systems and enforcement mechanisms.
2. Technical challenges:
Connectivity issues, data security concerns, and technological barriers may impede the
effectiveness of ODR processes, particularly for parties with limited access to technology.
3. Lack of personal interaction:
The absence of face-to-face communication in ODR can sometimes hinder the emotional
resolution of disputes and affect the parties' ability to build rapport and trust.
4. Limited remedies:
ODR may not offer the same range of remedies as traditional litigation, limiting the options
available to parties seeking relief.
Challenges of ODR
1. Digital literacy:
ODR requires a basic level of digital literacy as a prerequisite. In India, digital literacy
often varies across age, ethnicity and geography. This digital divide needs to be addressed
to ensure that ODR is adopted by society at large and not remain limited to urban areas.
2. Digital infrastructure:
A broad base adoption of ODR will require essential technology infrastructure across
the country.
3. Lack of trust in ODR services:
A lot of people in the country do not trust the emerging technology which is a major
challenge for the people of India.
4. 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.
Way Forward:
Although the amendments along with judicial decisions in recent years have put India on the right
path, we need to incentivize the use of ODR as a default dispute resolution tool. With rising online
transactions, fast-tracking enforcement of ODR is the need of the hour. As NITI Aayog claims that
India is uniquely positioned to emerge as the epicenter for the developments in ODR, we need to
solve the issues of funding, infrastructure and public policy support to make it happen.
CONCLUSION
Dispute settlement strategies have gone a long way in human civilization through the years. Fast
and inexpensive resolution of disputes has been a primary objective for the creation of online
dispute resolution (ODR) mechanisms. With the enormous expansion of the online market, the
ODR mechanism requires widespread public knowledge and training, which may be achieved
through social media, education, street plays, marketing, conferences, seminars, and campaigns,
among other means, at the grass-roots level. The participation of the government is also extremely
significant in granting financial assistance to ODR projects and assisting in the development of
technical and administrative infrastructure necessary for the establishment of an ODR process.
To ensure that all groups of society have access to justice, it is imperative that the system’s reach
be expanded to include as many as possible of them. Strong infrastructure for easy access and for
ensuring that justice is delivered in a timely and adequate manner must be built by increasing
literacy rates, reducing language and cultural barriers, and providing easy access to e-courts may
be a stepping stone towards achieving the aforementioned goals. Consequently, advancing ODR is
an important step in facilitating global concord and encouraging international cooperation in the
resolution of cross-border disputes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
• ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION BY DR. HARMAN SHERGILL SULLAR
• ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION BY DR. SUPREET GILL
WEBSITES
• https://byjus.com/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/
• https://viamediationcentre.org/
• https://indiankanoon.org/
