The exponential growth in the application of ODR systems offers possibilities of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and increased accessibility, yet at the same time poses a threat to the very foundations of the audi alteram partem doctrine that is based on space and perception. The paper raises questions about whether “the right to be heard” remains conceptually intact within a digital forum and remains constitutional within an Indian context and common law tradition. The paper begins by exploring the underlying concepts of natural justice, outlining the different types of ODR from mere electronic filing of documents to fully virtual hearings, and analyzing the changing concept of “presence” in technology-enabled judicial proceedings. This is followed by a doctrinal study of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution, along with cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, and S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, to pinpoint the essential elements of “effective hearings.” In contrast to the normative benchmark, this paper provides an assessment of India’s online dispute resolution framework, encompassing the eCourts Mission Mode Project and the virtual courts during the pandemic period. Some of the major risks within the system include exclusion because of the digital divide, the erosion of the role of oral advocacy, limitations on cross-examination, potential data privacy threats, and the erosion of the open court doctrine. While rejecting technophobia on the one hand and indiscriminate digitalisation on the other, this article proposes a measured course based on purposive interpretation, proportionality, legal protection, and procedural due process requirements.