Upload any Indian judgment and extract ratio, arguments, precedents, and key findings — all linked to the exact page and source text. Ready to cite.
16 key legal fields·No Hallucinations·100% Grounded in the text
Try it — select a judgment
Judgments we've already analyzed
Select a landmark case and watch ratio, arguments, precedents, and key findings — all linked to the exact source text.
Supreme Court of India · 25 January 1978 · 7-judge bench · (1978) 1 SCC 248
Supreme Court held passport impoundment without reasons violates Article 21 and that procedure under Art. 21 must satisfy Articles 14, 19 and 21 read together.
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution are not mutually exclusive but form an integrated scheme. Any law or procedure depriving a person of personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 14 (non-arbitrariness) and Article 19 (reasonable restriction of freedoms). A procedure that is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable does not qualify as 'procedure established by law' within Article 21.
“Article 21 requires that the procedure must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.”
The right to travel abroad is a component of personal liberty protected under Article 21 and cannot be curtailed without procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable.
“The right of a citizen to go abroad is a fundamental right falling within the meaning of the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21.”
The denial of reasons for impoundment violates the audi alteram partem principle, a basic requirement of natural justice that must be read into any statute.
“The principle of audi alteram partem is so deeply embedded in our jurisprudence that it must be imported into every proceeding affecting the rights of a citizen even where the statute is silent.”
Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act expressly empowers the Passport Authority to impound a passport 'in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India' and no further procedure is mandated.
“The statute itself is the procedure. Once Parliament has prescribed the grounds for impoundment, there is no additional procedural requirement to be implied.”
A.K. Gopalan correctly holds that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are independent guarantees; Art. 21 is satisfied once there is a law authorising the procedure regardless of its content.
“Article 21 says 'procedure established by law' not 'procedure that is just, fair and reasonable'. The legislature is the judge of the reasonableness of the law.”
Legal Issues
These are real extractions from your actual system. Not curated examples.
The extraction schema
Not summaries. Not guesses. Structured legal insights — fully grounded in the original text and ready for litigation.
Every field links back to the exact page in the judgment. Not an AI guess — an extraction with an address.
You don't read a judgment top to bottom. You jump to the ratio, check what the other side argued, look for distinguishing facts. The schema matches that workflow.
No other platform in India automatically extracts dissenting and concurring opinions as structured fields. In a 7:6 split decision, the minority is half the judgment.
What changes for you
Upload a stack of judgments from any source. Each one gets a one-line outcome, the binding ratio, and which side won. Triage 40 cases in the time it used to take to read one.
Every argument the other side has made in similar cases, structured by party, with the cases they cited for each argument and the page number where the court addressed it.
Every extracted principle shows the exact paragraph it came from. One click copies the citation-ready text: case name, citation, paragraph reference. No more manual hunting.
Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
How we compare
The platforms you already use are databases with AI added. We are intelligence-first.
| Feature | CaseIntel | SCC Online AI Pro | Manupatra FILAC | CaseMine AMICUS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upload any judgment (source-agnostic) | Yes | No | No | No |
| Ratio decidendi — extracted and pinned to paragraph | Yes | Partial | Partial | Partial |
| Petitioner vs respondent arguments — separated | Yes | No | Partial | Partial |
| Dissenting opinions — structured extraction | Yes | No | No | No |
| Amicus curiae identification | Yes | No | No | No |
| Procedural history | Yes | No | Partial | No |
| Source paragraph pinning on every field | Yes | No | No | No |
| One-line triage summary | Yes | No | No | No |
| Confidence scoring on extractions | Yes | No | No | No |
| Works on District Court judgments | Yes | No | No | Partial |
Source: public product documentation and direct platform testing, April 2026.
Built for Indian law
“I used to spend three hours briefing a judgment before a morning hearing. Now I upload it the night before and get the ratio, both sides' arguments, and every relevant precedent in under a minute.”
Free to use. No credit card. Works on judgments from any court, any source, any format.
Upload your first judgment in under 60 seconds.
Upload any judgment. Get the ratio, both sides' arguments, the dissent if there is one, and every finding pinned to the page.
Trusted by advocates at Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court, and Supreme Court of India.