The Impact of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in 2024: Insights from a Recent Panel Discussion

In the evolving landscape of dispute resolution, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has emerged as a significant player. A recent panel discussion hosted by Mohit Mokal, founder of Mohit Mokal Mediation, brought together leading experts to discuss the impact assessment of ODR in 2024. The panelists included Vishwam Jindal, co-founder of Webnyay; Deepika Kinhal, co-founder of the Centre for Online Resolution of Disputes (CORD); and Akshetha Ashok, co-founder of SAMA.

1. ODR's Integration in Regulatory Frameworks

A major highlight of the discussion was the implementation of ODR by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Vishwam Jindal emphasized the significance of SEBI's Smart ODR portal, which has revolutionized dispute resolution in India's securities market. The portal has successfully resolved over 3,000 disputes with a total claim value exceeding ₹350 crores. This initiative has set a precedent for other regulatory bodies to incorporate ODR into their frameworks, ensuring faster, more transparent, and accessible dispute resolution.

Akshetha Ashok highlighted the collaborative effort among ODR providers to support SEBI's initiative, marking it as a collective win for the ODR community. The success of SEBI's Smart ODR demonstrates the potential for other sectors, such as banking and finance, to adopt similar models. The panelists agreed that the proactive approach taken by SEBI could serve as a model for other regulatory bodies to follow, thereby enhancing the overall efficiency of dispute resolution in India.

2. Challenges and Opportunities in the Banking Sector

Deepika Kinhal provided a nuanced perspective on the role of ODR in banking disputes. She noted that while ODR has not yet significantly reduced the backlog of cases in traditional courts, it has provided a formalized avenue for resolving disputes that previously lacked such mechanisms. This is particularly relevant for smaller-value disputes that do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs). By offering a structured and affordable resolution process, ODR platforms have created a viable alternative to traditional litigation, especially for disputes that might otherwise be written off by financial institutions.

The discussion also touched upon the broader implications of ODR in the financial sector. By enabling a more accessible dispute resolution process, ODR platforms can help banks and financial institutions manage their dispute portfolios more effectively, ultimately contributing to a more stable and predictable financial environment.

3. The Role of Technology in Enhancing ODR

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into ODR platforms was another key topic of discussion. Vishwam Jindal pointed out that AI and ML have the potential to significantly enhance the efficiency of ODR processes. From automated case management to predictive analytics, these technologies can help streamline dispute resolution, reduce costs, and improve the overall user experience.

One of the most promising applications of AI in ODR is the use of predictive analytics to assess the likely outcomes of disputes. While this technology is still in its early stages in India, it has the potential to influence the decision-making process in disputes, encouraging parties to opt for mediation or arbitration instead of litigation. Additionally, AI-powered tools can assist neutrals in managing cases more effectively, ensuring that disputes are resolved in a timely and transparent manner.

4. Regulatory and Policy Support for ODR

The discussion also explored the role of policymakers in supporting the growth and adoption of ODR. Deepika Kinhal emphasized the need for government and judicial support to make ODR a sustainable and widely adopted practice in India. While initiatives like SEBI's Smart ODR portal have shown what is possible, there is still a significant gap in terms of broader policy support for ODR.

The panelists agreed that more proactive steps are needed from the government to integrate ODR into various sectors. For example, the Mediation Act could have included stronger provisions for mandatory mediation, which would have further encouraged the use of ODR. Additionally, there is a need for more standardized regulations across different sectors to ensure consistency and fairness in ODR processes.

5. Best Practices for Neutral Appointment and Impartiality

Ensuring the impartiality and expertise of neutrals in ODR processes is crucial for maintaining trust in the system. Akshetha Ashok and Deepika Kinhal discussed the importance of subject matter expertise and language proficiency in appointing mediators and arbitrators. They also highlighted the challenges of ensuring impartiality when the same neutrals are repeatedly appointed by certain institutions.

One of the innovative solutions discussed was the use of algorithms to automate the appointment of neutrals, ensuring a more objective and transparent process. Additionally, Deepika Kinhal introduced the concept of an internal appellate mechanism within ODR platforms, which provides an additional layer of oversight and accountability. This approach not only enhances trust in the ODR process but also ensures that parties have recourse if they are dissatisfied with the initial resolution.

6. Expanding the Scope of ODR

The panelists were unanimous in their belief that ODR has the potential to expand beyond its current applications. While the focus has largely been on the BFSI (Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance) sector, there are numerous other areas where ODR can make a significant impact. For example, consumer disputes, employment disputes, and even complex commercial cases can benefit from the efficiency and accessibility of ODR.

Akshetha Ashok passionately argued against the misconception that ODR is only suitable for low-value disputes. She emphasized that ODR can be equally effective in high-value, complex cases, and that its success in these areas can further validate the model. The panelists also discussed the potential for ODR in resolving disputes related to land and construction, logistics, and data privacy, highlighting the versatility of the platform.

Conclusion: The Future of ODR in India

The discussion concluded on an optimistic note, with the panelists expressing confidence in the future of ODR in India. They acknowledged the challenges that still exist, particularly in terms of regulatory support and the need for greater public awareness. However, they also highlighted the significant strides that have been made in recent years, particularly in terms of technological advancements and the increasing adoption of ODR by major institutions.

As India continues to embrace ODR, it is clear that this innovative approach to dispute resolution will play an increasingly important role in the country's legal landscape. By building on the successes of initiatives like SEBI's Smart ODR and continuing to integrate AI and ML into the process, ODR has the potential to transform the way disputes are resolved in India, making justice more accessible, efficient, and fair for all.

The full video is available on our YouTube channel accessible here -

A full transcript of the discussion can be found below - 

Mohit Mokal: Thank you very much for joining everyone. Welcome, my name is Mohit. I'll be the moderator today.

Astha: Hello everyone. A very warm welcome. I’ll give you a brief introduction about our Organisation Mohit Mokal Mediation. It is a private consulting service for civil and commercial cases by out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms. 

We specialize in negotiation mediation and arbitration. Mohit Mokal the founder has trained more than 1000 students and successfully concluded several virtual and in-person training programs with leading universities in India including National Law University Odisha, NALSAR, Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai, and many more. 

We also have strategic partnership with esteemed institutions like RV University Bangalore to promote negotiation and mediation among students and professionals. Mohit is also engaged in developing legal tech tools enabled by artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Mohit Mokal: Before we begin today's session. I'd like to also introduce our panelists. Firstly, we have Vishwam. Jindal Vishwam is the co-founder of Webnyay one of India's leading online dispute resolution institutions. 

Vishwam is the co-founder of Webnyay, one of India's leading online dispute-resolution institutions. Vishwam is qualified as an advocate in India, a Solicitor in England & Wales, and a registered Attorney in the United Arab Emirates. With over nine years of experience working with prestigious law firms like DLA Piper and Linklaters, Vishwam has played a crucial role in advancing the ODR landscape in India through his work at Webnyay.

Mohit Mokal: Next, we have Deepika. Deepika is a distinguished lawyer with over a decade of experience across various legal sectors. Deepika's career began in corporate law and civil and commercial litigation in Karnataka. 

She later transitioned into the policy domain with Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, where she led the judicial reforms initiative, JALDI. Deepika's contributions have been instrumental in integrating technology into the judicial system and improving court and case management practices across multiple High Courts in India. 

As a co-founder of CORD - Centre for Online Resolution of Disputes, Deepika has been at the forefront of providing accessible and efficient dispute resolution avenues. Thank you so much for joining us.

Deepika Kinhal: Thanks Mohit, looking forward to the discussion.

Mohit Mokal: Lastly, we also have Akshetha. A very close friend of mine. Akshetha is the co-founder of SAMA, an innovative online dispute resolution platform that has gained national recognition, including a recent feature on Shark Tank where it secured one crore in funding for 1.5% stake in SAMA. 

Akshetha's leadership in the Indian Mediation Week campaign, supported by the Supreme Court Mediation Committee, NITI Aayog, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, has been instrumental in promoting the message "Suljhao, Magar Pyaar Se," encouraging peaceful and communicative dispute resolution across the country.

Akshetha Ashok: Thank you. Thank you so much.

Mohit Mokal: Now without further ado. We've divided this panel discussion into a few sections. First, we'll begin with a few questions with the panelists on different topics. Later towards the end, we have about 20 min reserved purely for interaction with the audience. So, if you have any questions, please feel free to drop them in the chat box or you can also ask them directly to the panelists at the end of the session.

Mohit Mokal: Now with that the 1st topic that we want to talk about today is the use of ODR in SEBI, RBI, and banking and finance disputes. So, without further ado Akshetha, my 1st question is for you.

Could you provide some examples of successful ODR implementation by SEBI and their impact on dispute resolution efficiency in SEBI?

Akshetha Ashok: I think it was like such a collective win for all of us in the ODR space to see a regulator of such stature take such a bold move in saying that hey we want the entire securities market to now adopt ODR and as ODR players, I think all of us it was like a breath of fresh air lot of like hard work. I think the rest would also be able to throw light on it, but for those in the room who don't know SEBI had put out a circular saying that the securities market of India is now going to adopt online dispute resolution as their main mode of dispute resolution for the investor market and the portal that's being used is called  Smart ODR.

I think that it's really nice for us to be able to track what it looks like for such a regulatory board to get in, start ODR and is ODR working, what's happening, what region, there's a lot of accountability on all of us as ODR players as well and I feel like in the last couple of years everyone's been asking all of us does ODR work? But why? Who's doing what? everything is there. It's been great. 

It's not easy I think for everyone involved to get this done. It's always easier to maybe also switch to a let's try hybrid and then move online but to take this sort of leap and get all of our stakeholders in together. It's been excellent. So, I think the biggest in the last one year would be that India has Smart ODR and the fact that all of us ODR players who've been doing this for so long actively like we were all ready to go. I remember in meetings all of us ODR players were like bring it in and we're here to provide these services. So, I think that's been great.

Mohit Mokal: Yeah, thanks for mentioning that, Akshetha. On the SEBI, Smart ODR portal a total of 3000 disputes worth over 191 crores have already been successfully resolved and the total claim value for the dispute submitted exceeds over 350 crores.

A lot of such information is already available and publicly accessible and that's what the Smart ODR mechanism has done. So, my next question is a little bit along these lines for Vishwam.

Could you please tell us how SEBI has incorporated these ODR mechanisms in resolving disputes related to securities and investments?

Vishwam Jindal: Sure, thanks, Mohit. We actually recently just crossed the 1st anniversary of ODR and the securities market but about a year ago SEBI came out with the circular on the 31st of July for online dispute resolution basically revamping the complete dispute resolution mechanism in the securities markets and what we have is now a multi-stage process where the ODR process kicks in from the smart ODR portal that Akshetha was mentioning.

The first step is generally conciliation where all disputes which couldn't get resolved during the grievance redressal process as part of the SEBI score. SEBI Score is another platform for grievance rehearsal.

They sort of flow into conciliation. There's another pre-conciliation stage as well but the ODR sort of really kicks in from the conciliation stage where we've got about 21 or 31 calendar days to try and settle the dispute which is sort of pretty aggressive timelines but so far I think most of us have been sticking to them. We've got about 21-31 calendar days to sort of resolve it within conciliation and the fees for the conciliation are generally borne by the market participant.

To give you an example, we've seen disputes between investors and listed companies, investors and mutual funds, investors and stockbrokers which is probably the biggest in terms of volumes between investors and depository participants and others.

The scope is actually pretty broad, the ambit is pretty wide and SEBI has been increasingly giving the signals that it wants to bring more and more disputes within the securities market into ODR and that includes some of the slightly bigger disputes as well which would eventually flow into ODR across securities markets.

After conciliation, if there's no settlement between the parties if they are not able to sort of amicably settle their disputes then the matter flows to arbitration. There are fairly split timelines within arbitration as well. If the dispute exceeds one lakh, we have 30 days plus another 30 days, so a maximum of 60 days to resolve disputes and this includes disputes with sometimes crores, where there we put a three-member tribunal but for most disputes, there is a sole arbitrator and solve resolution within 30 or 60 calendar days. The interesting part is that its end to end within 60 calendar days, so that includes issuance of the award.

So in a nutshell, you can easily have your dispute resolved in days, in conciliation, you can have your dispute resolved in 31 calendar days and if it is conciliation and arbitration, you can resolve your dispute in less than three months which wasn’t the case earlier and isn’t a case in this sector as well. So, it is fairly a watershed development, and it’s quite a landmark.

The cancellation is basically sort of like online mediation you could say like party driven settlement mechanism whereas arbitration is more like an adjudicatory process and if it is above 25 lakhs it could go for a multi-arbitrator sort of tribunal and if it is below 25 lakhs then a sole arbitrator sort of hears the case.

Mohit Mokal: Yeah, thank you. Thank you for explaining that. I think the highlight for me would be that, conciliation takes roughly 30 days to resolve, and within arbitration about 30 plus an additional 30 days. So a maximum of 2 to 3 months, and for an end-to-end solution with the SEBI Smart ODR portal. That's amazing and that's definitely good news for everyone who may have security or investment-related disputes, thanks, Vishwam for explaining that.

My next question in this segment is for Deepika.

Can you explain in your opinion, how effective has the ODR system been in reducing the backlog of banking-related disputes in India?

Deepika Kinhal: Sure, Mohit. Thanks for that question. So, this is going to be slightly nuanced. Why I say this is because we are not really looking at ODR’s intervention at this stage in terms of whether it has actually reduced backlog in any institution, or even in the judicial system, this is particularly the case with banking sector disputes, because what we are looking at addressing are those disputes which previously did not have formalized mode of dispute resolution. 

We, of course, have civil courts, and we have debt, recovery tribunals, as most of us are aware, but with each of these existing forums, there is a threshold. There is a jurisdictional requirement. For instance, with DRT there is a cap of 20 lakhs, and above, for banking sector disputes to come in. 

So, there is a large chunk of smaller value disputes that were left to explore other ways of the resolution, and we all are aware of what they can be from having agents call loan defaulters up to many other informal means or there were, sole arbitrators who were unilaterally appointed by the banking sector by the banks themselves. 

Therefore, what we are looking at doing at this phase of ODR development in the country is to really provide a formalized mode of dispute, resolution for these crores of disputes that otherwise did not have any avenue, and of course, you could go to civil court, but we all are aware of the cost and time implications that exist over there, which essentially meant that most of the banks used to write off and of course, when you come to NBFC there are several criteria that need to be met for them to be serviced by DRD.

Therefore, for a large number of NBCFs, they actually had to write off their loans. With the ODR coming in what we are essentially providing is a structured way of addressing these disputes through qualified trained dispute resolution professionals. 

Therefore, I wouldn't look at it from the prism of reducing the backlog, but essentially creating an avenue for dispute resolution itself which I think is a much bigger contribution with larger implications on the financial market than anything else.

Mohit Mokal: Well, yeah, that's definitely a fresher perspective and I really appreciate how you look at it and it's not about, currently at least reducing the backlog of cases that have gone to court, or that already following some pre-existing process. 

This is about giving access to those cases that earlier did not have a mode of dispute resolution that was either affordable or appropriate for those cases and so now all of these cases, which were under a lot of these different thresholds, where it wasn't feasible for users to get their money back. Now all those cases can come to ODR and be successfully resolved through ODR services.

That's thank you so much for that.

Now this brings us to the next segment that I want to talk about, which is the regulation of ODR. Currently, we know there is very little that anyone can definitely say that this is how ODR is regulated in the country, so maybe to try and shed a little bit more light on this topic.

Akshetha, my 1st question is for you.

Can you explain what impact does the Mediation Act have on the enforceability of ODR-related settlements?

Akshetha Ashok: Sure, I think one of the great parts of the act is the fact that enforcement as a decrease is now a thing. So, the Mediation Act really has a provision that now allows that once a settlement agreement is reached and recorded under this act can directly be enforceable in the court of law.

Now, having something that is clearly written down, I personally feel is extremely helpful because people have the same questions about this concept of mediation. Now that it's clearly written down there, I think that's a win in itself. 

I think also the fact that, could be biased because we're in the space of ODR, but the fact that online mediation is also like categorically written down in the act now. It’s a huge win! Was it needed? Would we have stopped working if it wasn't then? No, but it just makes life so much easier now that the word online mediation literally is written in the act. I would say that these are the 2 things that really stand out most from my point of view.

Mohit Mokal: Could you give any examples of any settlements that have been successfully enforced either pre-Mediation Act or post-Mediation Act at SAMA?

Akshetha Ashok: Right now, since getting it notified, and all of that is still up in the air, we have personally seen that people are still sticking to conciliation, something that they're more comfortable with have been using. But the shift will come in from SAMA’s point of view right now for the disputes that we're handling I wouldn't have any examples there. But yeah, I do feel once there's more clarity on the Act, it wouldn't be difficult for people to sort of switch over there and then see success in that space.

Mohit Mokal: Sure. Just to if I hear you correctly, currently people or ODR settlement agreements or awards are still being enforced under the previous Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, once the Mediation Act would become, once it does become notified and enforceable, then there will be stronger provisions for direct enforcement and also recognition of online mediation.

Akshetha Ashok: True and I'm speaking on behalf of SAMA if anyone else has any sort of examples that would be great. But yeah, that's how it is working now. Everyone's very pro-mediation, they are still doing mediation right now. But, as you stated correctly, it is falling under the it's a conciliation award at the end right now, because they're more comfortable. But that's what will happen.

Mohit Mokal: Got it. Thank you. Thank you for that. 

My next question is for Vishwam. Can you explain how the Information and Technology Act facilitates the legal recognition of electronic agreements or signatures and ODR processes?

Vishwam Jindal: Thank you, Mohit. I think, as far as electronic signatures, there's probably more confusion because the law has been fairly clear that there shouldn’t really be any distinction between an electronic signature versus any wet ink signature. For instance, If you look at the relevant provisions in the Act itself, specifically Chapter 2, Sections 3 and 3A, these sections expressly recognize electronic signatures, and if you read that with Section 5 of the IT Act, which deals with recognition, it makes it clear that as long as a document is electronically signed or signed with wet ink, there shouldn’t really be any problem.

From a legal standpoint, electronic signatures are just as admissible as wet ink signatures for any record or document. That being said, we still encounter issues or come across people who prefer wet ink signatures over electronic ones. 

I think it’s likely just a mindset shift that’s needed. However, we probably don’t need any more clarity or amendments in the law to recognize electronic signatures since it’s already covered under the IT Act.

Mohit Mokal: So just to confirm, your experience with enforcing electronic signatures has been mostly seamless, there haven’t been any issues with the IT Act per se.

Vishwam Jindal: Yes, at least we haven’t seen any challenge or any electronic signature not being accepted by a court or a tribunal. 

Mohit Mokal: That's great to hear, and very promising for users, there is usually a lot of hesitation about whether, should we physically sign it, or will this online signature work. So I think that definitely would restore a lot of confidence with the users that yes, electronic signatures have the same validity as physical ones.

 Now, Deepika, my last question in this segment is for you.

From a policy perspective, or, from a best practices perspective, what are some best practices for ensuring compliance with ODR regulations across different sectors?

Deepika Kinhal: I think I will take off from what Akshetha was saying that there is no one umbrella ODR regulation or legislation at the moment. It is mostly driven by individual sectors and SEBI  is one such example where an individual regulator has put together a set of requirements, a set of processes, and a set of criteria to assess the performance of ODR institutions, as well as various actors involved in dispute resolution, including the neutrals. Therefore, when it is a segment such as that where there is a clear-cut set of rules in terms of what needs to be done by the ODR platform institutions as well as arbitrators, mediators, conciliators, and whoever is onboarded, then it is about complying with them. Just to give you an example, for instance, SEBI itself today tracks around 150 odd data points, and Vishma and Akshata can correct me on this but roughly, it is around 150 data points per case that are tracked on a regular basis and this is as per the requirement laid down by SEBI itself. 

This is meant to boost confidence in ODR ecosystem overall, which is why all the ODR players also are welcoming this level of accountability that is being expected and as Akshada mentioned, there is also a dashboard where you can see some of these data indicators publicly, but a lot more is getting captured internally and shared with the regulator and I think this sets a good model for other regulators to follow. 

I think currently, with the Legislations, Mediation Act recognizes online mediation, recognizes online dispute resolution and then, hopefully, as, and when the Arbitration Council of India is established, there will be a separate set of, protocols identified for online arbitration. But until we reach that stage, I think the existing model that SEBI has pioneered can be adopted by other regulators, and that is the best way to ensure that we are also, as ODR players curating our own services and products to cater to specific categories of disputes because SEBI market itself is securities market, it requires certain level of understanding of the dispute category itself, so there is a lot of ecosystem building that is happening to cater to those disputes. 

If a similar model is adopted across the board, that is initiated by creating certain protocols and regulations, it will also become easy for ODR Service providers to adhere to those regulations. I see this heading in this direction rather than looking at any umbrella ODR regulation as such.

Mohit Mokal: I think you're right. SEBI’s current model, as you said identifies over 150 data points for every case, and that's what the analytics and the dashboard present to the user in a much more concise manner and just on the point of protocols and best practices, it would be very essential to also mention the justice protocol, or I think it's known as pulse now or there's also another one it's called the Justice Protocol. It's for the regulation, or it's a set of rules for dispute resolution services on blockchain. 

So there are these protocols that exist, and like the SEBI one, I think these models are great in terms of getting standardization and having accountability both for the users and from the platforms. 

So thank you so much for sharing some more light on this topic. We've covered half of the questions we are now moving on from SEBI and to a little bit more on the appointment of neutral in ODR platforms. So, Akshetha, my 1st question is for you.

Could you tell us what are some key criteria for appointing neutrals in ODR? And how do you ensure impartiality and expertise?

Akshetha Ashok: Sure. So, as we all know, it's really crucial who is helping you solve your dispute. Sometimes, we notice that it’s easy to assume that a low-stake matter may not need a lot of effort, the facts of what’s going on may be simple but sometimes, you just have a difficult person with simple facts. That's where it becomes really crucial who your mediator or arbitrator is when it comes to dispute resolution.

In our space, based on ground realities of how people have been reacting, subject matter expertise is really important. Just the comfort for your dispute resolution professional knowing the terms and being able to understand the concepts of what's going on, so, even if you have something as small as a credit card dispute or a personal loan dispute, you still need someone who has some sort of knowledge of the banking regulations and what's going on, because people are going to ask you a ton of questions, they’ll want you to explain what CIBIL is, what it’s not, and why it’s not happening a certain way and then having a mediator who doesn’t understand what's going on leaves a bad taste. 

It’s not that the issue can’t be resolved, but what could be resolved in 10 minutes might take an hour. So, subject matter expertise is a big one for us at SAMA. Language is another huge one. In a lot of cases, when you're upset, and I keep saying this, when you're angry and pissed off, you're thinking in your mother tongue. No one is trying to think in English and then figure it out and so be it, right? You should resolve your dispute in that language as well. There's no point in resolving your dispute in English, you just need to make sure it's resolved. So, we make it a point to understand which languages the parties are most comfortable with and then ensure that the dispute resolution professional can also speak that language fluently. 

That is a big one and of course, your general practices like non-disclosures, making sure there's no conflict of interest, and there is general hygiene in the ODR process are crucial. For us, these are standard practices, things we just do because we have to. But subject matter expertise and language, I would say, are the two big ones.

Since it's not offline, the region doesn’t really matter. If you speak Hindi and you're in Tamil Nadu, you can still handle a case with anyone who speaks Hindi. These are the large ones. We are also cautious about the pool of professionals we choose from. At SAMA, our onboarding process is extremely crucial.

We have a SAMA ODR course, which is like a refresher to ensure that professionals know the basics and are familiar with the platform. We also provide a coach who assists them during their first three months, and there is a mandatory one-hour session with a behavioral psychologist. Over there, that's where we, as admin, are just given some sort of queues on someone strikingly stronger when it comes to the EQ, someone is better at sort of bringing in like a level of strictness. So there are a bunch of parameters there that also play a role in sort of who gets appointed for these cases.

We've also dabbled with an algorithm with the help of the World Bank, and just being able to see automated appointments, and how that works out. So as a sample size increases, we're constantly working on that as well which again takes in these parameters as well, more nuanced ones, and then things as simple as your language, your subject matter expertise. How many years you've worked with a whole bunch of parameters that come in there. 

So yeah, it's exciting and I feel as all of us keep exploring new disputes as well the requirement for what is needed is also automatically going to change so, our lives are constantly going to be exciting when it comes to neutral appointments.

Mohit Mokal: Thank you for sharing SAMA’s personal experience in this case. I think it's absolutely essential to match service providers with the preferences of the users like you said, the two big ones are industry expertise or case-specific expertise and second is language and of course, there are various other parameters. I'm very excited to hear that there are already algorithms being used to match disputes with service providers.

Now, my next question on this topic is for Deepika.

In cases where there may be one bank or a large institution repeatedly getting the same kind of neutrals, or if a pool of, say, 100-200 neutrals is being used and 50-100 of them are managing disputes for one bank, does these repeated appointments of neutrals towards a particular party with a large number of cases create any perception of bias? How do we deal with this challenge?

Deepika Kinhal: I think that's a very fair concern to have, Mohit, and it is quite widespread as well. It's a concern that has been voiced across different quarters because this directly affects the confidence that the parties have in the dispute resolution process, that they are expected to participate in willingly and voluntarily.

Perception is an important element. Justice is only as good as the way you feel about it. Therefore, it is our responsibility as ODR service providers to create processes and protocols which are transparent, which allow parties to understand how the neutrals are getting appointed.

But before I get into what we at CORD are doing, or also lay out the general lay of the land, I do want to bring in a reality check, which is that there are millions of disputes and there are fewer neutrals than what is necessary to cater to the large-scale disputes that we are currently seeing coming ODR's way.

Of course, there is a responsibility on all of us to expand that pool of neutrals, be it arbitrators or mediators, and we are constantly working on it ensuring that training is given, there is quality control, we have streamlined onboarding processes. So that effort is something that is continuous.

However, I don't think we will ever reach a stage where we can promise to have a sizeable ratio between the number of neutrals and the number of cases that each one will handle and this is the case if you see even with the judiciary. 

There are thousands of cases that each judge handles, but however there the respect and integrity of the institution is not called into question because some of the processes the judiciary adopts, such as roster rotation, where no single judge sits on one category of disputes for years on end; it keeps changing. Unless of course, there are a few exceptions, but we don't need to go into that but roster change is a huge way of boosting confidence in the manner in which the case gets allocated to various judges, and of course the State's sanction itself in terms of appointment of judges, that also boosts confidence.

So, drawing parallel from that system to what we ought to do within the ODR ecosystem as well, we need to have transparent processes which allows parties to know exactly how and why a neutral is appointed, and internally, we need to have certain algorithms, certain rules to one, check the quality of neutrals, and I'm sure all ODR service providers have certain parameters which help us filter out the neutrals based on the manner in which they have dealt with parties to the quality of judgments, so that is again a continuous process.

But in terms of whether we will be able to immediately address that perception, I think it is going to be a journey. We will have to build ourselves to continuously boost confidence, and that is a responsibility that we have willingly undertaken, given that we have come this far, where people are bringing their disputes to us, I think it is our responsibility to ensure that in this crucial role of appointment of neutrals, we are as transparent and accountable as possible.

Here again, I will bring SEBI's model back in because SEBI’s processes and rules themselves identify certain parameters for neutral evaluation. I think that also plays a big role in overall boosting confidence in the ecosystem.

Mohit Mokal: Thank you so much, Deepika, for sharing that. I think this is definitely a long journey, but like you said as ODR service providers, it is your responsibility and our responsibility to make sure that the process is as transparent, and that we maintain user and investor confidence within the ODR process.

That brings me to my last question in this segment, which is for Vishwam on very similar lines. 

In your opinion, how can the appointment process for neutrals be improved to enhance transparency and trust in ODR systems?

Vishwam Jindal: Thanks, Mohit. I think Deepika and Akshetha have already covered some of the points, but just to make it more transparent, having some sort of checks and balances is quite critical. So, one of the points that Akshetha mentioned is, of course, subject matter expertise language, I think you really need clear and sort of standardized criteria for selection, for onboarding, and then for appointment of the neutrals, whether it's conciliators and arbitrators. As long as clear and standardized criteria are also conveyed to the parties and to the neutrals that would, I think, increase trust between all stakeholders. The parties who are parties to the arbitration or mediation or conciliation, as well as the pool of neutrals as well, that is actually quite critical as well and then, of course, some of the processes that have been mentioned like how we can look at the judiciary. 

For instance, if there's SEBI, it has some of the measures around, as to who can be appointed as an arbitrator, what is the number of years of experience they need to have, and then how you evaluate them. I think evaluation is actually quite critical because once you've appointed someone on a number of disputes you would be able to, tell how they're doing on whether they're doing good in certain number of cases or certain types of cases, but not so well in the other, for instance, or how their conduct has been, how prompt they have been, whether it's with the parties, or how much has there been a delay in drafting the award or assisting in settlement? 

So I think the checks and balances, especially when it comes to evaluation, are actually quite critical and then sort of feeding that back into future appointments or feeding that back into how you deal with arbitrators or mediators who are not doing well, I think that is also quite critical and another thing, I think, which will become very critical going forward is just, like a fact, finding mission on complaints received against arbitrators or against mediators, whether it's from the parties or whether it's from other co arbitrators in a panel. 

I think that will be quite critical, and there'll probably be a lot of eyes as well on that in terms of how that's been dealt with as part of that excite, but also going forward as well and if we can sort of do that in a fair and independent manner, I think that would then build a lot of trust within the system that not everyone has been able to become an arbitrator, and if they've done something wrong, then they've not been repeat appointed, for instance, and there have been repercussions and consequences. So I think all of that is probably some of the key points for building trust and transparency.

Mohit Mokal: A feedback system seems to be a very reliable method. But again this feedback system, whether it's maintained by the ODR Service Providers, whether it is maintained at some other 3rd party, neutral like list of service providers like, we have Trustpilot for a lot of online shops and things like that. 

This segment highlighted a few important things for me. One is that, although we have a significant number of neutrals who are interested and available to resolve cases in comparison to the potential inflow of disputes which is now flowing into ODR. 

There is still a challenge to ensure variation and to ensure that we can diversify the appointments and that is a challenge that we have to try and fix immediately but like Deepika shared that as service providers, we've been facing different challenges in the past right now on the appointments and neutrals, appointments of neutrals challenge, we have to maintain the trust of the users, be transparent in our processes, and try to follow the best practices, some of which are also followed or seen in the judiciary.

Deepika Kinhal: Just one quick intervention there. One of the things that we have also brought in at CORD is to provide an appellate mechanism It is an internal appellate mechanism. 

So if there is any complaint, any grievance with respect to the quality of the service provided to you, or the appointment issue itself, then you can elevate it within the platform. I think that is one other way of ensuring that the clients, the grieven parties who come to you have that confidence that they are not, left in the dark if they are not satisfied with the process that they have gone through.

Mohit Mokal: Would you be willing to share a little bit more about this appellate process?

Deepika Kinhal: The process essentially is 2 steps where, in the 1st level, you, either through arbitration or mediation, go through your dispute resolution process and once you receive the award or during the process, if you want to escalate any issue, you have an avenue to go into the appellate mechanism where a new neutral is appointed, or if it requires that a panel of neutrals be appointed, that is also something that the CORD Rules provide for.

Mohit Mokal: Thank you for sharing that Deepika. That's definitely very interesting for me. This is the 1st time I'm hearing about an appellate mechanism in the ODR space in India so thank you for sharing that.

Prithvish Rajamani: May I just add something on here, please? This is open to a discussion that we are actually having.

 Mohit Mokal: Yes, yes.

Prithvish Rajamani: I'll just take 1 minute of a time Deepika, Akshetha, Vishwam. Thank you so much Mohit for enabling and my question is, we were all talking about the mechanisms to appeal something, why are we not looking at the appointment itself? I think Deepika said, that a certain mediator, a 3rd party will be appointed. 

See, Appointed means enforcement. So can we take a little step back here and talk about how the 2 parties to a a dispute are going to choose their mediator rather than somebody appoint them that is the core concept of mediation. Right? Win-win situation, you take your own choices. I think the concept is not far removed. It is there in the US also where the jury is chosen by both parties. I think it's a very important issue. The appointment should be removed. The choice should be clear.

Mohit Mokal: Thank you for sharing. Maybe we can introduce this as a question for the panelists across the board a little later.

About this, instead of appointing mediators or arbitrators where parties are given the choice, although, of course, the most common problem over there is that it is difficult for the parties, or to get them to agree to one neutral beyond that what are your thoughts on this process? 

Akshetha Ashok: I also do feel the appellate tribunal, usually, at least, we've seen is more online arbitration-heavy. Your mediation cases because of mutual consent and settlement coming through I don't think we are seeing a lot of people have an issue in that sense and then, being like a sort of appellate tribunal that's needed internally, at least like Deepika because correct me if I'm wrong. But I think you were also talking more from the fact that all of us do online arbitrations and that sort of being a….

Deepika Kinhal: Yes, because with mediation, as you rightly said, settlement is arrived at, and it is it is based on consent, and collaborative participation, so less likelihood of there being a challenge.

Akshetha Ashok: Yeah. So I think in this space we all actively do online arbitrations as well or we all have these tiered mechanisms where doing mediations, doing conciliations and unfortunately, if we don't, if the parties don't settle there, it then moves on to an arbitration. That was just one clarification that I just wanted to bring in in terms of the question, and in terms of the appointment of the mediator. I absolutely agree, I think that the appointment of your mediator or arbitrator, there must always be the whole fundamental reason why we're doing this is your party autonomy, and how you want to sort of have, again it depends on who your 2 parties are, if you're 2 individuals sort of coming to one of us as ODR providers, it's a lot easier for them to sort of go through our panels pick someone or ask us to shoot out like 6 names, 300 names, 500 names, then you pick from that, that's an option. If you're looking at some of the work that all of us are doing. 

If you have, let's say enterprise on one side, and then you have your customers on the other side, the concept of repeat player, stuff like that which came up over there again, having a set of rules of making sure who's able to appoint that arbitrator or that mediator? What is our role as an independent institution coming in? What is the law saying right now? What are the courts saying right now, your whole Perkins sort of comes in there as well and all of these get hit at the enforcement stage.

Sir rightly pointed out, the stronger we get at the appointment bit, the lesser I feel the challenges can come up towards the end. But I feel initially everyone, from at least what I've seen, especially when it comes to enterprises, we are stuck with clauses that are unfortunately now outdated. Your sole arbitrator clause and stuff like that so, ODR players are almost providing a sort of mechanism to combat that, 10 years from now we're gonna have something clearer. We're gonna have something new possibly. 

Just to clarify the appellate tribunal is more on the arbitration side for all of us mediation, I don't think we're facing any sort of issues as such, but collectively, I think the appointment of neutrals, how they're being appointed, who's being appointed, like major points that we all keep in mind and, please feel free to add, Vishwam and Deepika if I've missed out anything or if you wanna delve into how parties have access to appointments or anything. But yeah, just my 2 cents.

Mohit Mokal: Thank you, Akshetha for sharing. I think this does highlight 1 or 2 important points, one, that the appointment process is streamlined in this manner for the benefit of the user, and secondly, for ensuring consistency in enforcement, so that later on there is not a question about appointment or any challenge to the appointment. Is there anything else, Vishwam and Deepika you would like to add to this topic?

Deepika Kinhal: I think I'm good, but I would just want to double click on the point that Mr. Prithvish is making, which is that party choice should be given privacy. So there are essentially two ways, right? One party identifies a mediator or arbitrator of their choice, and that gets communicated to the other side, and if they agree, then all is well. You go ahead and appoint. But oftentimes, given where the parties are, that sort of consensus is difficult to arrive at, which is where we come in, and all the points that Akshetha made comes into the picture. That is where we need to have streamlined processes, transparent processes, which makes the parties aware of why a certain neutral has been appointed but oftentimes, when they come to us, they are looking towards us to make that appointment for them, and in that, we have to be as objective and again, I’m repeatedly using the word—as transparent as possible.

Mohit Mokal: Thank you. Yes.

Vishwam Jindal: Nothing else to add. I think Deepika and Akshetha sort of covered all the points. I’d just like to say that if the parties can agree on the mediator or the arbitrator, our jobs would be much easier, like our lives would be much easier. But in practice, that's very difficult, and I’ve seen it very rarely happen.

Mohit Mokal: Yeah, absolutely I understand. Having been at the grassroots level of bringing in cases for mediation and arbitration, I have personally seen and faced how difficult it is. I'm sure all of you have experienced this as practitioners in this industry as well but thank you for answering that bonus question, and thank you, Prithvish Ji, for asking. 

I would request any other questions, please keep them for after the session. We just have the last segment of the three scheduled questions, and then the floor will be open for Q&A for all the participants. The last topic that we are talking about today is opportunities in ODR and how you see, the future of ODR.

The first question on this topic is for Akshetha: Akshetha, what opportunities exist for expanding ODR in other or newer areas of dispute resolution, such as, for example, consumer or employment disputes, and so on?

Akshetha Ashok: ODR seriously can be used in so many more places. Like, right now in India, I would say the spotlight is probably on the BFSI sector. It's been amazing, as we've been talking about, to see a regulator like SEBI sort of bring ODR into this space but there is no restriction on the other spaces that you can use ODR as of today. Of course, barring your major criminal matters. Just from our experience, we're seeing mediation itself being used in something as small as your tenant-landlord issues, and I'm not talking about your BFSI stuff that everyone's been working on. Landowners and builders—that's another big one. We're seeing that space coming in as well. Logistics companies are now also stepping up and going, “Hey, I think our dispute category almost fits into what everyone thinks ODR is today.” So that's another space that's sort of coming in.

 I think what happened in Kerala, in Kollam, what they did recently releasing Online 24/7 on court—amazing, awesome stuff and that's what I think the pilot project right now is for check-bounce cases. But just look at the sort of conceptualization, and I think, with the help of PUCAR and a whole bunch of really, really cool people coming together to try and push forth what is essentially online dispute resolution.

I’m so excited to see how that plays out. We are really thrilled to see how that's coming in, and, I think even abroad as well consumer disputes—there are literally like your European Union has an ODR platform, literally for your online consumer grievances, and it's nothing new. It's not new. It's just, I guess people are just going to catch on to it sooner. There are some people already doing it. 

Your e-commerce platform is already, arrived using ODR. I think from our vantage point, I feel land is another space where it can come up— your construction, your land disputes, and I know everyone keeps saying this, and I understand why the perception is that ODR is meant for small disputes and small-value disputes. I just really want to reiterate: it is just the lowest hanging fruit for all of us to be able to prove that ODR is worth spending your time, money, and efforts in. It is just a low-hanging fruit. So for all of us, it is an open opportunity and avenue for us, as ODR players, to be able to demonstrate that ODR works but it does not mean it is exclusively something that can be used only for low-value disputes.

I say this everywhere I go because I feel really bad when people categorize ODR as something that can only be used for, small-value disputes. That's not true at all from our experience and we're really hoping all of us collectively in the ODR sector can soon start throwing out some solid examples and case studies just to be able to stop that from being like this misconception about the work that we're all doing.

Just a quick reminder. Of course, if there's something super complicated, you want to make that hybrid totally possible but this is not just for your small-value disputes. I also think with the DPDP act coming in, there's gonna be a whole bunch of disputes in that space as well with regards to data and privacy. I think it's all lights ahead for ODR in terms of dispute categories, and we'll keep—based on our low-hanging fruits—we'll keep demonstrating all the cool stuff that ODR can do but it's just a matter of replication and then making slight tweaks to be able—no one would have thought the securities market can do ODR two years ago, three years ago. No one would even have brought it up in a conversation, like, “What about the securities market?” 

But, literally, check it out. India is slaying when it comes to that, There are literally advertisements being put out on ODR now. I never thought in my lifetime I would be able to send on my family WhatsApp group an ODR advertisement. So it’s great. It’s happening. It’s going to happen, and dispute categories are also, I feel, huge.

Mohit Mokal: Thank you for sharing, Akshetha. I think I was also very impressed and very happy to see the SEBI ODR ads on WhatsApp. I've also seen them now, but they've become very popular. But like you said, and I think this is very important to highlight, ODR does not have any industry-specific limitations. 

It is something which is highly flexible, highly adaptable across different sectors and the most important thing to highlight is that ODR is not just reserved for low-value cases. Even high-value, complex commercial cases can be resolved successfully through ODR, and we will definitely do another success stories campaign to highlight this as well.

Coming to my next question for Vishwam. Vishwam, this is a little bit on the AI side. What are the potential benefits that you see of integrating artificial intelligence and machine learning into ODR platforms? How do you see that working and helping?

Vishwam Jindal: Thanks, Mohit. I think there are potentially a lot of benefits to using AI and machine learning in ODR, and it depends, of course, on what you're looking into in ODR and I’m probably going to bring in the courts element as well. I think one benefit that we've all seen is, of course, transcription. 

The Supreme Court is transcribing constitutional judgments now, and we've seen increasing benefits of transcribing even arbitration proceedings as well, where you not only get a record, but that record can then be used for multiple purposes by the parties, either when it comes to submissions or for drafting judgments and awards. So, I think that is one potential benefit in terms of just increasing trust, transparency, but also faster disposal as well.

The other is, of course around automated case management as well, where you can use AI to sort of manage cases, manage documents, process documents faster. Whether it's your OCR using AI, whether it's data entry being automated, etc. 

So a lot of benefits and opportunities there to sort of reduce your time for resolving the disputes, both arbitration and mediation, whether it's through case management, document management—of course, that translates to cost reduction as well and of course, the last one, which we've not really seen much in India, but that's around predictive analytics, which is quite big in the US. In terms of actually seeing how cases, how a dispute would be decided, or what is the prediction outcome based on how such disputes have been decided in the past across courts.

So I think the inflection point for that hasn't come in India yet, but as we have more and more data, and there's, of course, challenges with data as well, especially on the legal and judicial side but I think that is probably a massive benefit as well, going forward, which would indirectly help ADR a lot because once you're able to see that this is my dispute, and that would probably be more for big-ticket disputes, saying, "this is how it's been decided in the past, and I only have a 30% chance of winning." They would prefer mediation or arbitration rather than actually going to court. So that's another big win for ODR. I think that's probably more long-term than short-term.

Mohit Mokal: Yeah, very, very interesting stuff, for sure. I think, for me, the highlight or the use of AI, I think, can be divided into two parts. One is as an assistant to the process neutrals or to the platform, whether it's in sorting case management and sending communications and transcribing, templates, etc. 

The second is like Deepika mentioned earlier, where currently there might still be cases which are not coming to ODR for a number of reasons, or are not coming to arbitration or mediation because the parties feel like it is not worth the expense because it still is too much for them, right? If we could have AI-enabled arbitration or mediation at a highly reduced cost for the parties, I feel like there might definitely also be scope for not shifting cases, but introducing a new category of cases into ODR using AI-enabled processes. Just a thought again might be realistic, but I don't think it's impossible.

Vishwam Jindal: Absolutely.

Mohit Mokal: So thank you for that, Vishwam. So my last question which is scheduled for this call, is for Deepika. Deepika, how can policymakers support the growth and adoption of ODR in India today?

Deepika Kinhal: Oh, there's plenty of policymakers. I would divide it into two categories, government and the judiciary, in various ways. I think the most important thing is to walk the talk, right? There has been so much that has been written about, discussed internally and publicly about why ODR is the need of the hour. India needs ODR, right? Indian legal health requires ODR to be a sustainable ecosystem.

And this is something that was thoroughly laid out in a policy document that NITI Aayog published a few years ago during COVID when ODR was brought to the forefront. It was a necessity, and it continues to be a necessity in that process, and I had the opportunity of working with the expert committee which was drafting ODR policy back then, in my different avatar and back then we engaged with multiple government departments, and all of them were extremely positive and showed huge appetite to take on ODR for their internal grievances, as well as grievances that their customers and consumers deal with.

But so far, I haven't seen that translating into concrete policies. SEBI itself was a surprise factor, as Aksheta also mentioned. We did not expect it, but the way it has taken off should serve as a lesson to other government departments, other regulators, that this is something that is here to stay, and is beneficial for everyone involved.

Say, for instance, MSME to consumer forums, they can readily onboard ODR in a much more credible, bigger way to ensure that it becomes a viable solution for people who are already approaching these departments. MSME has Samadhaan Portal, but it is about ensuring that it is broad-based and that it actually works for the benefit of people who are coming to these departments for the resolution of disputes. 

So is the case with consumer forums. There are multiple tiered consumer dispute resolution forums across the country, but we all know that they are also overburdened with cases. So ODR can be a ready way of reducing that burden on themselves while parallelly ensuring that consumers actually have a viable way of resolving their disputes. Similarly, every single government department in the country today is overburdened with litigation. This can be service matters to complaints and grievances filed against them by the public. ODR can be the first step that they use to filter out at least some categories of disputes before it is taken to maybe public court systems.

Therefore, when I think of what it is that the government can do, there is plenty at that department level. It needn't all come from the central government, PMO itself. There are several initiatives and policies that at the state level, at the local level, that can be taken to onboard ODR and on the side of the judiciary, I think it's slightly trickier but one case that comes to my mind is Vidya Drolia, where with the stroke of a pen, they essentially said that cases that are to be referred to DRT will not have the option of ODR. ODR option is foreclosed for them.

Judgments such as these need to be introspected. Either we take it back to the Parliament to see if something can be done about it or the judiciary itself is better equipped to understand where ODR is coming from, and why it is necessary to provide that additional layer of filtering mechanism before things reach any legal fora, be it a tribunal or the civil court system. So I think overall, there is plenty that can be done at the policy and law level to further boost ODR in the country.

Mohit Mokal: Thank you for explaining that so expansively. I definitely am in full agreement. One of my strongest opinions on this point, which may, people may disagree, is that I really feel with the Mediation Act as well, the government should have tried to take a little bit of a more proactive step and tried to make mediation mandatory and if things didn't work out, we could have had a number of ways to have the opt-out model or maybe de-notify the mandatory section a year or two later but that was a missed opportunity but there is still, a lot of scope for improvement and ODR policy to enable it to make sure it's accessible, to make sure it's the first mode of dispute resolution before escalating within the legal system but thank you so much for sharing that, Deepika.

Now, we have a little bit of time left for some Q&A. So the floor is open for all the attendees. If there are any questions that you'd like to ask, please do so. We do already have a list of questions that we have received, but I think we have one.

How can businesses leverage ODR to enhance their dispute resolution processes and customer satisfaction?

Akshetha Ashok: So even before I say anything, I just want to let you know that there is an excellent resource specifically for this. In 2022, there was an ODR handbook that was released on how businesses across sectors can actually adopt ODR. It covers what sort of homework you have to do internally, what goals you need to set, how you can do it, and then, of course, the fact that there are ODR providers like us that can help in the dispute resolution space. 

If anyone wants to add anything more, please go ahead.

Mohit Mokal: Okay, any other questions? Or if any of the speakers want to add to that.

Prithvish Rajamani: In support of what she said, ONGC is a government organization, they've settled issues worth 11,500 crores through mediation, 43% through ODR. They're the biggest government company doing it through mediation. My point is very simple, how can we make the process simpler and more direct? Arbitration comes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996, why is there no appeal against it? It is because it's very restrictive, restrictive to the extent that it says unless certain clauses are not met, you can't challenge it.

When we were all part and parcel, Mohit being a part of it, he's part of our WhatsApp group, which is like all over India, there was this concept that we are going to make mediation mandatory, nobody agreed to it. Nobody agreed from the Government to make themselves available for mediation. They said no.

Mohit Mokal: Prithvish, if I may, just try to get a question here. I think it is, how can we make the ODR process more direct and simpler?.

Prithvish Rajamani: Correct. It's already direct. It's simpler. See, people are not open to it as of now and the Mediation Act itself has not really made things better. They have not understood the concept of mediation because it has been pending for long.

Mohit Mokal: Let’s hear the panelists' thoughts on this, on how can we make the process simpler? 

Prithvish Rajamani: I'm not sure if Akshetha or Deepika once said, there's also something called a psychological aspect. It's hugely needed. Very timely and it's needed so much that anything we decide here, in the absence of people who are actually involved in it, is not something that's really going to work in the long run. That's my point of view.

Mohit Mokal: Yeah, I think... if there's not a question there...

Prithvish Rajamani: How do you make it simpler?

Mohit Mokal: Okay, how can we make it simpler? Any thoughts?

Prithvish Rajamani: To the extent that there is no appeal, as in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Mohit Mokal: If I understand correctly, I think mediation settlement agreements see a very, very fractional appeal, and even those that are appealed are rarely, successfully appealed.

Prithvish Rajamani: Same with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Mohit. My question is this, when the question was asked with regards to the mediator, then it becomes a question, same as in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, question to the arbitrator. So my simple, respectful submission here is that please get the Act to ensure that parties agree to the mediators' agree upon. So let us get them to agree upon the mediator as well. Then nobody can go back on it. Right now, we are open to any kind of challenge, whatever keeps going on.

Mohit Mokal: If I understand correctly, even when anyone is making appointments, I think the general best practice is that there has to be a conflict of interest check where we ensure that the mediator doesn't have any personal or professional relationship with either of the parties or their counsels and so, regardless of whether the parties have agreed to the mediator voluntarily, or if the mediator or arbitrator has been appointed, when this conflict of interest check is done, parties, if I understand correctly, essentially waive their right of challenging this appointment in the future unless they come across some new information that they did not have earlier or unless there are allegations of serious corruption or fraud. Is that correct? 

Vishwam and Deepika, anything you would like to add along those lines?

Vishwam Jindal: Thanks Mohit. So generally, we would sort of do a conflicts of interest check as well as take their declarations on being independent, impartial, and neutrals. I think that is done at each ODR service provider level, and there’s a record of that declaration in case it has to be produced in court later.

But of course, this problem is not limited to ODR. Arbitration, mediation, and conciliation have been around for hundreds of years, and sometimes there are allegations of fraud or the arbitrator not being independent or impartial, even though they said they were. For instance, this is a problem that isn’t specific or limited to ODR; it’s a general ADR problem that we need to find a solution for.

Mohit Mokal: Yeah.

Prithvish Rajamani: That's my question.

Mohit Mokal: I think this is a question that the entire industry has been questioning for or like actually for 12 years. Of course, if we have more thoughts on this, we can share but I am positive that we might not be able to reach a solution today.

Prithvish Rajamani: We should probably have another session on this. I don't want to intervene more in this session right now.

Mohit Mokal: Yeah.

Prithvish Rajamani: But this is a session which I would like to raise this question, Let's make it more involved than it is the way it is.

Mohit Mokal: I appreciate the sentiment, Prithvish ji and thank you so much for sharing.

Mohit Mokal: Okay, so we have another question. What challenges do financial institutions face in implementing ODR? In your experience, what are some challenges that they’ve faced, and how have you addressed those?

Deepika Kinhal: I think there are plenty, so I'll just pick one of the topics in my head. Our pitch has been that ODR is extremely convenient, accessible, and affordable. You can resolve your disputes from the comfort of your home, and so on and so forth.

However, when it comes to on-ground realities, especially from a bank's perspective, which disburses loans across various geographies and categories of clients, in terms of education background, economic background, to where they are currently stationed across the country, it becomes tricky to ensure that your pitch remains equally applicable to all of them. The pitch that it is accessible, convenient, and cost-effective. All these three may not be equally applicable across all categories of disputing parties, and that is one key gap that we are constantly striving to bridge.

A loan may be granted to a company or an individual in some remote part of the country. Ensuring, as a neutral institution, that you get both parties to appear before the arbitrator or the mediator, whatever the process may be, is a huge challenge. It requires certain skill sets, capacity, and additional training because, as we’ve been talking, there are regional and language variations, all of which we need to equip ourselves with.

It is as much of a challenge for the ODR institution as it is for the financial institutions as well in choosing a category of dispute that will give them quick results, or at least better results, than what they have been experiencing so far.

Having said that, it is a journey that all of us are collaboratively undertaking because we need to build this capacity to be in a position to actually help the clients who are coming to us, be it individuals or the banking system or any other categories of clients. It requires that constant investment across various categories of skills and that is what we are all striving to do.

It is not without its challenges, but that is the journey that we are on. It is actually linked to, I think, one of the other questions that I happened to see in the chat box, which is related to technological developments. I think the beauty of the ODR ecosystem is that it is going to speed up innovations at a great pace, at least at a pace that we haven’t seen in India before. The advantage is that we are working in a space where we can quickly test, see what works, see what doesn't work, and accordingly build solutions for different kinds within the population and scale it up.

Something like this is unthinkable within, say, the government or even within the judiciary. With the recent strides that we are talking about, say, with Kerala or with the Supreme Court transcription services, most of them are solutions that were tested outside and now they are being brought into the public court system. So, what we are going to see with ODR is not just being able to service a lot of people who were otherwise left out, but even in terms of contributing to the upgradation of existing systems. I think that is going to be at a much quicker pace than what we have seen so far.

Mohit Mokal: Yeah, I think that you're absolutely right. I agree with this sentiment. I feel like ODR is developing and progressing so drastically in India that it could not anywhere else, because of certain factors that make technology and development, internet options easier over here, and the kind of innovative tools that we can build and test out. I think India is definitely one of the pioneers in ODR, and I think with that we have maybe a few minutes left, but I would prefer not to rush in the end, and would like to conclude. Thank you so much, Deepika, Akshetha, Vishwam, for coming here. You are all pioneers in the ODR space, and I'm very grateful that I've been able to have you here today.

I'd like to extend my deepest thanks to everyone who's made this event possible. Thank you for all the participants for your active participation and engagement, and your interest in this discussion is crucial for driving the future of ODR in the country.

On the note of tools that we are talking about, there is a small announcement. I have been working on something that I'm very happy to share with everyone. There is an AI-enabled mediator bot that I've been working on called AskMM, which is accessible on our website, mohitmokalmediation.com. Ask MM is a unique AI tool that can help with a broad range of issues, especially for students practicing negotiation or mediation for any simulated problems or real-life cases. It can help prepare strategy and negotiation plans. It can help run and simulate negotiations as one party with the user as another party. It can also mediate a dispute as a mediator with two users negotiating against each other.

It can also give the users feedback on how to improve their negotiation or mediation skills. So please feel free to test it out. It's currently live on our website and let's continue the momentum from today's discussion as we work towards a more accessible and efficient dispute resolution system in India. Thank you again, everyone, for joining and have a good evening.

Vishwam Jindal: Thank you, Mohit. Thank you.

Akshetha Ashok: Thanks, Mohit.

Deepika Kinhal: Thanks, everyone.