The Multi-Door Courthouse — A Proof of Concept

Proof of Concept

The Multi-Door Courthouse

A framework for intelligent dispute triage and resolution in the Indian justice system

The concept

The Multi-Door Courthouse is a model of justice envisioned by Professor Frank Sander of Harvard Law School in 1976: instead of routing every case automatically to a traditional, adversarial trial, a centralised intake centre diagnoses the conflict. Specialists then direct the parties to the most appropriate "door" for their specific situation. These options include:

  • Mediation — facilitating voluntary, mutual agreements
  • Arbitration — using a neutral third party to issue a binding decision
  • Early Neutral Evaluation — providing expert legal assessments to spur settlements
  • Traditional Litigation — proceeding to a standard trial if alternative methods fail

By integrating these ADR tracks, the model drastically reduces court backlogs, lowers legal expenses, accelerates resolutions, and helps preserve ongoing personal or business relationships.

In December 2025, Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant advocated for this concept, calling for a shift "from a culture of adjudication to a culture of participation." This proof of concept reimagines the Multi-Door Courthouse in a new light — with Online Dispute Resolution and ODR Institutions as a complementary layer woven into the framework alongside its traditional pathways.

How to use this page
0Total filed
0Arbitration
0Mediation
0Tribunals
0Court
Docket relief
Multi-door Courthouse Classical courthouse building with a central registry office and four dispute resolution doors: Arbitration, Mediation, Tribunals, and Court. MULTI-DOOR COURTHOUSE REGISTRY CASE TRIAGE OFFICE Examination criteria: Arbitration clause / agreement? Claim value assessable? Nature of parties? Sector-specific forum? Adjudication required? Arbitration MediationTribunals Courtvia ODR Institution Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 · Mediation Act, 2023 ODR-enabled · Judicial Forum Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 · Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Select a dispute type
Registry examination criteria
Arbitration clause / agreement present?
Claim value independently assessable?
Nature of parties and relationship
Sector-specific statutory forum available?
Adjudication required?
Click a door or select a dispute type to examine criteria
Routing outcome
Select a dispute type or click any door to route a case through the registry.
0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment

Delhi High Court Rules Email Delivery of Arbitral Awards Valid Under Arbitration Act.

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. Ernst and Young Pvt Ltd1Court: Delhi High CourtDate of Judgment: 23.08.2023

The Delhi High Court recently passed a judgment that has affirmed that the delivery of arbitral awards via email is valid under the Arbitration Act.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court stated that the delivery of a scanned, signed copy of an arbitral award via email falls squarely within the ambit of valid delivery as stipulated under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.This decision clearly delineates the legal standing of electronic delivery methods in arbitration proceedings.

The court specifically stated that “The law has to keep its pace in tandem with the developing technology. When service by email is an accepted mode of service, then sending scanned signed copy of the award/order of the Arbitral Tribunal to the parties would be a valid delivery as envisaged under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.”