Abstract

India's e-commerce industry is regarded as a large and lucrative market for e-commerce businesses. However, most Indian e-commerce businesses are still unclear about the rules. As a consequence, most e-commerce websites do not follow Indian regulations and unknowingly violate them. Indian regulators are scrutinizing the procedures of e-commerce platforms, and several may face legal action. The fight is not only between regulators and e-commerce website owners; it is again among e-commerce websites and potential customers. In most cases, customers are ignorant of their digital rights whenever interacting with online retailers. Moreover, there are no forums or dispute resolution mechanisms for digital customers in India. In short, the Indian government will still handle e-commerce disputes. With the fast rapid growth of Internet and business applications, new conflict resolution methods are required to assist parties to settle issues in a fair, timely, and cost-effective way. ADRs are changing with new technology, allowing for electronic dispute resolution. In order to resolve online conflicts without the actual presence of the parties, online dispute resolution (ODR) has indeed been described as "a logical and natural step." Existing flaws occur due to a lack of complete ODR legislation and market, norm, and technological flaws. The present "hands-off" approach to ODR regulation seems to have failed, and it is time to reconsider. Citizens during the 21st century saw the ultimate social, economic, legal, cultural impact of information and communication technologies on the world at a time of globalization. The technological revolution of the Internet has increased the scope of human affairs and created new media that have influenced traditional juridical conceptions, especially in terms of the settlement. The growing complexity of connections, activities, and the decreasing cost of publication all accompany discrepancies and, thus, the demand for inventive-technology conflict resolution processes is on the increase. "JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED" - the legal maxim of William E. Gladstone, which asserts that if Justice is still not administered in a reasonable timeframe, it remains unremedied. Pending cases swamp the Indian judiciary. Its downsides include delays in court proceedings and considerable litigation costs. As a result of these problems, public faith in the Indian judicial system has been damaged. Following the launch of alternative disputes, the focus has evolved from formerly rigid ways of resolving disputes through lawsuits and towards ADR. As a result of massive ICT progressions inside the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, there has been an explosion in merge internet chats and e-commerce operations that has resulted in an increase in electronic issues, including such website domain disputes, phishing and confidentiality violations, e-stalking, e-commerce, and commodity trading, etc., requiring a dispute resolution system. Social media, training, street performances, advertising, conferences, seminars, and campaigns are all needed to raise public awareness and training. The government may also finance ODR projects and provide the necessary technical and organizational infrastructures. To maximize the benefits of the younger generation of technically advanced conflicts, use privacy boosting methods and improved security precautions such as protective design, privacy architecture, and personal identity. Codification of laws, norms, and regulations is also needed for domestic and international recognition and acceptability of ODR procedures. Everyone should be able to afford Justice. Availability to e-courts, which may assist promote e-commerce and e-government, is required for simple access to Justice. Domestic and international efforts are needed to boost ODR and relieve the judiciary. Thus, advancing ODR is essential for global peace and foreign diplomacy in merge conflicts.

Keywords