The Constitutional Limits of Digital Justice: Evaluating ODR Through Articles 14 and 21

India’s legal regime is witnessing a swift move towards Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), fuelled by the policy pronouncements of the NITI Aayog in 2021 amidst the serious problem of a judicial backlog of more than 50 million cases in the country. Nevertheless, with government bodies and businesses making ODR a mandatory precondition of relief, there is the emergence of a serious constitutional dilemma. In this article, the study focuses on the implications of an absolute virtual requirement that could institutionalise “digital apartheid” in view of the deep socio-economic disparities that exist. Examining the situation in light of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the research finds that mandatory ODR cannot stand the test of reasonable classification and substantive equality. Given that rural internet usage is at about 24% to 37% and there is the existence of a serious gender disparity where 25% of women have access to the Internet, the digitally illiterate and the rural poor are systematically disenfranchised in the pursuit of justice. Additionally, mandatory virtual proceedings in such unequal conditions violate Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Through the precedent set by the 2025 mandates of the Supreme Court of India in Amar Jain v. Union of India and Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, this paper establishes the right to digital inclusion as a part and parcel of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, thus establishing the principle that access to justice cannot be contingent on the ability of an individual to fund a device or data. In order to combine efficiency and equity of technology within the constitutional framework, this paper recommends the shift to a state-guaranteed hybrid model through the passing of the ODR Act 2026. Learning from the successful models from Singapore and Europe, this paper suggests a legislative solution which includes ODR kiosks in Panchayats, opt-out options for those who face connectivity issues, data subsidies and the use of vernacular language and voice-based AI translation. Finally, this paper concludes that although technology provides an effective means to ease out the backlogs of the courts, mandating digital public infrastructure without a physical one will make a procedural problem a constitutional one.