In 1999, eBay ran a two-week pilot letting buyers and sellers resolve disagreements online instead of walking away from a bad transaction. It handled about 200 disputes in that window, more than any online process had managed before.
By 2010, that same system was resolving over 60 million disputes a year [1]. Nobody involved in most of those disputes ever spoke to a lawyer, or each other, in person.
That's the basic idea behind online dispute resolution, or ODR: taking a dispute that would normally need a courtroom, or at least a room, and resolving it entirely over the internet instead.
People search for this under a few different labels: ODR, online ADR, the ODR online dispute resolution process, or just the online dispute resolution process. They all mean the same thing.
What Online Dispute Resolution Actually Means
NITI Aayog's Expert Committee on ODR, chaired by Justice (Retd.) A.K. Sikri, defined it this way in its October 2021 report: "Online Dispute Resolution in simple terms is the use of technology to resolve disputes outside of the public court system" [2].
The definition sounds simple, but the Committee was careful to draw a line that most explanations skip. ODR is not the same thing as scheduling a hearing over email or exchanging a few documents online while everything else about the process stays exactly as it was on paper.
The Committee's own words: "mere scheduling of hearing dates through email or exchange of documents online would not classify as ODR" [3]. What actually qualifies is technology doing real work in the resolution itself, not just sitting alongside it.
This is also why ODR isn't simply "e-ADR," a term for using technology inside an existing ADR process. e-ADR is a subset of ODR, not a synonym for it [4]. At a more advanced stage, the Committee describes ODR as capable of acting as a "fourth party" to a dispute, alongside the arbitrator, mediator, or conciliator, through tools like automated resolution, algorithmic assistance, and structured negotiation software [5].
Some of this is already running elsewhere in the world. A blind-bidding platform in the United States, Cybersettle, let two sides submit settlement numbers neither could see from the other, and the system found a match automatically, no human negotiator required [6].
Where ODR Sits Inside ADR
Online dispute resolution in ADR terms is best understood as a layer, not a category of its own. Negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration are all separate legal mechanisms, each with its own rulebook. ODR doesn't add a fifth one. It's a way of running any of the existing four (or five, counting the Lok Adalat) through a screen instead of a room.
That distinction matters because it changes what ODR actually promises. It can't turn a weak legal claim into a strong one, and it doesn't rewrite what makes an outcome binding. What it changes is how a dispute gets from filing to resolution, and how much friction sits in between.
How an ODR Case Actually Moves: The Process, Stage by Stage
This is usually where explanations of ODR get vague, so it's worth walking through what actually happens, and what makes each stage legally sound.
Filing and consent
A case begins the same way most ADR processes do: one side files, describing the dispute and naming the other party. What makes this legally workable online is a piece of law that predates ODR itself. Section 4 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives electronic records the same legal standing as paper ones, so long as the information is accessible for later reference [7].
Section 10-A, inserted through a 2008 amendment, goes further and specifically protects contracts and agreements formed electronically: a contract "shall not be deemed to be unenforceable solely on the ground that such electronic form or means was used for that purpose" [8].
Without this pair of provisions, an online filing or an electronically given consent to arbitrate would sit on far shakier legal ground than it does today.
Selecting a neutral
Whether the process is mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, a neutral has to be assigned, and both sides typically get some say in who that is.
This step doesn't change much just because it happens online, beyond usually being faster: a platform can surface a panel of qualified neutrals in minutes rather than requiring either side to source one independently.
Exchange of pleadings and evidence
Both sides file their claims, responses, and supporting documents, usually as uploads rather than physical filings. This is where the strength of India's electronic evidence framework actually gets tested.
If a document's authenticity is disputed later, its admissibility is governed by Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which sets out the certificate requirements for electronic records to be treated as reliable evidence [9]. A well-run ODR process captures this kind of certification at the point of upload, not after a dispute over the record arises.
The hearing, if one is needed
Not every ODR case needs a live hearing at all; a lot of disputes are resolved entirely on the documents. Where a hearing is needed, it's typically conducted by video conference. This isn't a workaround or a compromise, it's squarely within the law. Sections 18, 19, and 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 give a tribunal broad discretion over its own procedure and require only that both sides be treated equally, not that they be treated in the same physical room [10].
Some High Courts have gone further and formalised this. The Delhi High Court's Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 explicitly extend recognition of virtual hearings to arbitration proceedings within its jurisdiction, not just to court cases [11].
This is also the clearest place to see why "video call" and "ODR" aren't interchangeable. A hearing conducted over Zoom, sitting inside a process where filing, evidence, and communication all still happen on paper, doesn't clear the threshold the NITI Aayog Committee set. Genuine ODR digitises the whole path a dispute travels, not just the one moment where two people happen to be looking at a screen instead of each other.
Resolution and award
How a case ends, and what makes that ending stick, depends on which underlying mechanism was used, exactly as it would offline. A mediated settlement reached through an ODR platform is enforceable under Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023, in the same way as any other mediated settlement [12].
An online arbitration produces an award enforceable under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [13]. A conciliated settlement takes on the status of an arbitral award under Section 74 of the same Act [14]. And a dispute resolved through an e-Lok Adalat carries the same finality under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as one resolved in a physical sitting, no appeal lies against it either way [15]. The technology changes how the resolution was reached. It does not change what makes it binding.
Types of Online Dispute Resolution
ODR isn't a single format, and the models that have developed internationally roughly map onto three structures.
Online negotiation keeps the process between the two disputing parties, sometimes with a structured tool in between. Some systems use blind bidding, where each side submits a number neither can see, and a settlement is proposed automatically if the numbers overlap [16].
Online mediation and conciliation bring in a neutral, but everything from case filing to the settlement document runs through the platform rather than requiring anyone to be in the same room, or even active at the same time. A lot of ODR relies on this kind of asynchronous communication, letting parties respond when convenient rather than requiring a synchronised hearing [17].
Online arbitration carries the process through to a binding decision, with the neutral acting more like a judge than a facilitator, but conducted entirely through digital filings and, where necessary, virtual hearings.
Beyond these three, ODR platforms are also commonly grouped by who runs them: government-run platforms built for a specific regulatory purpose (India's SAMADHAAN portal for delayed payments to small enterprises is one example [18]), court-annexed platforms that operate alongside the judiciary, and private platforms operated by businesses or independent providers [19].
What Still Gets in the Way
None of this works if the honest limitations are left out. The same NITI Aayog report that makes the case for ODR is direct about where it currently falls short in India, organised into three categories: structural challenges like uneven digital infrastructure and low digital literacy, behavioural challenges including a lack of public trust in a process without a physical courtroom, and operational challenges such as a shortage of neutrals trained to actually run a case online rather than on paper, and genuine difficulty enforcing some ODR outcomes in practice [20].
These aren't abstract concerns. A platform can digitise every stage of a process and still fail if the person on the other end doesn't have reliable internet, doesn't trust that a settlement reached over a screen will actually hold up, or can't find a neutral qualified to handle their specific dispute. Building ODR that works means addressing all three, not just the technology.
Sama's Approach
Most of what makes an ODR process trustworthy has very little to do with how polished the video call looks. It's whether the filing is genuinely simple to understand without legal training, whether both sides get a real chance to be heard rather than a formality, whether the evidence submitted is captured in a form that holds up if it's ever challenged, and whether the eventual outcome, whatever mechanism produced it, is enforceable exactly the way the law says it should be.
That's the standard Sama's platform is built around: negotiation, mediation, and arbitration conducted entirely online, with each dispute routed to whichever of the three actually fits it, rather than defaulting every case into the same process because that's what the platform happens to support.
Over 2 crore disputes have been filed on Sama to date, more than 35 lakh of them resolved, at an average of 45 days from filing to conclusion, handled by a panel of 3,000+ neutrals working across 500+ districts in India. Those numbers are a function of process design, not just headcount: an ODR platform that only replicates the hearing online, while leaving everything else about the process as slow and paper-bound as it always was, hasn't really changed much for the person on the other end of the dispute.
The whole point of doing this online is that the entire journey, not just the final conversation, gets faster.
Endnotes
[1] "Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India," NITI Aayog Expert Committee on ODR (October 2021), Chapter I, Section C ("Origins of ODR") — https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-03/Designing-The-Future-of-Dispute-Resolution-The-ODR-Policy-Plan-for-India.pdf
[2] Ibid., Chapter I, Section B ("Understanding ODR").
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., Glossary, definition of "e-ADR."
[5] Ibid., Chapter I, Section B.
[6] Ibid., Chapter III, Section C ("Private ODR Platforms").
[7] Section 4, Information Technology Act, 2000 — https://lawgist.in/information-technology-act/4
[8] Section 10-A, Information Technology Act, 2000, inserted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 — https://lawgist.in/information-technology-act/10A
[9] Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — https://ibclaw.in/section-63-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-2023/
[10] Sections 18, 19, and 24, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — https://ibclaw.in/section-19-determination-of-rules-of-procedure-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996/
[11] Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, notified by the High Court of Delhi on 4 July 2025 (in effect from 9 July 2025), published in the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary, Part II, Section I, No. 25 (NCTD No. 118), dated 7 July 2025 — official text: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/files/2025-07/citizen-charter/ee_vc_2025.pdf; on the Rules' express coverage of arbitration proceedings, see "Delhi High Court Notifies 'Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025,'" Jurishour — https://www.jurishour.in/notification/electronic-evidence-video-conferencing-rules-2025/; and "Electronic Evidence & Video Conferencing: Delhi High Court's 2025 Rules redefine Digital Justice," SCC Online — https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/11/delhi-high-court-electronic-evidence-video-conferencing-rules-2025/
[12] Section 27, Mediation Act, 2023 — https://ibclaw.in/section-27-of-mediation-act-2023-enforcement-of-mediated-settlement-agreement/
[13] Section 36, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as quoted in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), 2024 INSC 857 — https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28531/28531_2019_1_1502_57055_Judgement_08-Nov-2024.pdf
[14] Section 74, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — https://ibclaw.in/section-74-status-and-effect-of-settlement-agreement/
[15] Section 21, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19023/1/legal_service_authorities_act,_1987.pdf
[16] "Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India," NITI Aayog Expert Committee on ODR (October 2021), Chapter III, Section C ("Private ODR Platforms").
[17] Ibid., Chapter I, Section D ("Benefits of ODR").
[18] Ibid., Chapter IV, Section A ("Role of the Executive").
[19] Ibid., Chapter III ("International Experience in ODR").
[20] Ibid., Chapter V ("Challenges Faced in Adoption of ODR").