Find the precedent opposing counsel missed.

Four research modes in one engine. Search 5,000,000+ judgments across the Supreme Court and 25 High Courts by keyword, by legal concept, across the open web, and through the statute book — without switching tools, without missing authority.

100% Grounded. Zero Hallucination.

The problem with legal research today

No lawyer can read 5 million judgments.
Opposing counsel only needs to find the one that hurts you.

Traditional keyword search is a lottery. You type the words you remember, and the engine returns documents that happen to contain those exact words. The binding Supreme Court ruling that settled your question ten years ago — if it used different vocabulary — is invisible.

So associates spend three days reading through five hundred irrelevant results, chasing half-remembered case names, pulling bare Acts in three windows, and hoping nothing important slipped through. Senior counsel gets the research note at midnight, spots a gap, and sends it back.

Meanwhile the case moves on. The opposing party's counsel — who only needs to find one good precedent — has already found theirs.

The firms that win are the ones that find every precedent. Not the ones that look the hardest.
Four research modes

One engine. Four ways to find the law.

Different questions need different search. Veritect routes each query through the mode that actually answers it — from instant citation lookup to multi-step agentic research.

Mode · 01

Lightning Search — sub-second results across every court.

When you know the case name, the judge, or roughly when it was decided — Lightning gets you there before your coffee cools.

  • 20 searchable fields · case name, judge, bench, citation, statute, section, year, disposal type
  • 12 facet filters · narrow by court, bench composition, landmark status, subject-matter taxonomy
  • Multi-court simultaneous search — all 27 at once, or just yours
Median response< 600 ms
Mode · 02

Advanced Research — concept-based semantic search.

Ask for what you mean, not what you remember. Veritect's AI agents understand legal concepts — so you catch the precedent that opposing counsel finds and you don't.

  • Fast mode · semantic matches in seconds for quick lookups
  • Deep Research · parallel multi-tool agent that cross-references across dimensions
  • Per-court specialized indexes — jurisdictional nuance preserved
Deep Research runtime~60 seconds
Mode · 03

Web Research — beyond court databases.

Tribunals, notifications, regulatory circulars, academic commentary — the sources that shape statutory interpretation but never show up in case law search.

  • NCLT, NCLAT, RERA, SAT, ITAT — specialized tribunals covered
  • RBI, SEBI, MCA notifications · commercial and regulatory context
  • Deep Web Research · agent reads, evaluates, cross-references across the internet
Sources synthesizedup to 40 per query
Mode · 04

Bare Acts & Statutory — never cite a repealed law.

Full enacted text of 1,000+ Central Acts — the actual provision as Parliament passed it. Repealed acts automatically mapped to their modern replacements.

  • 50,000+ sections · not summaries, the real statutory text
  • IPC → BNS · CrPC → BNSS · Evidence → BSA — auto-mapped
  • CPC Order & Rule references resolved automatically · 21 regulatory domains
Statutory lookup~8 seconds
The differentiator

Same query. Same database. Different answers.

Keyword search finds cases that use your exact words. Semantic search finds cases about the same legal concept — including the ones that settled your question using different vocabulary.

Traditional keyword search
Baseline
"tenant eviction personal necessity elderly"
Munshi Ram v. Shiv Charan Das
Raj HC · 1996 · Uses exact phrase "personal necessity elderly"
Rameshwar v. Kishan Chand
P&H HC · 2011 · Keywords match in para 14
— 3 more results using the exact keywords —
Binding SC authority missed · uses "bona fide requirement" instead
5 results returned Binding authority: not surfaced
Veritect · Semantic search
Veritect
landlord's right to evict for personal necessity when tenant is elderly and long-occupying
Raghunath Pandey v. Bobby Bedi
SC · 2006 · "Bona fide requirement" · directly on point
Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad
SC · 1981 · Comparative hardship doctrine
Munshi Ram v. Shiv Charan Das
Raj HC · 1996 · Also surfaced via keyword overlap
Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim
SC · 2003 · Doctrine of "reasonable requirement"
2,147 results · ranked by relevance 3 binding SC rulings surfaced
The case that wins your argument doesn't use the words you typed. It uses the words the bench used.
Coverage

Every bench. Every judgment. Every year.

Veritect indexes the Supreme Court of India and every High Court in the country — from Allahabad to Guwahati to Madras. Not a sampled subset. Not the "landmark cases." The complete reportable record, cleaned, structured, and indexed for both keyword and semantic retrieval.

Every court has its own tuned index, so your search for a Delhi HC rent matter respects Delhi-specific statutes like the DRCA — while your search for a Gujarat land dispute applies Gujarati statutory vocabulary and local precedents.

The result: the most persuasive authority — your own High Court plus binding SC rulings — surfaces first, every time.

The largest searchable Indian judgment corpus, purpose-built for practitioners in Indian courts.
Every judgment · five ways Per-case toolkit
Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India Supreme Court Reportable
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018 · Full Bench · ● Dismissed
  • AI Summary
    8-line digest of facts, issue, ratio, outcome
  • Analysis
    Ratio, obiter, cited authorities, appeal history
  • Chat
    Ask anything — answers cite paragraphs
  • Read
    Structured reader — headnotes, paragraphs, jump-nav
  • Original
    Court-released PDF — for filing and citation
27 courts · 5,023,400+ judgments SC + SC Reportable + every HC
Statutory research

The law as it is today — not as it was in 2019.

2023 rewrote the criminal code. The Bharatiya series replaced the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act overnight. Cite the wrong one and you lose credibility in the first paragraph.

Veritect's statutory database contains the full enacted text of 1,000+ Central Acts and 50,000+ sections — the real provisions, not paraphrases. Every repealed act is automatically mapped to its modern replacement, and the search engine accepts either name.

Search for "IPC Section 302" and Veritect returns BNS Section 103 — with the exact current text, annotated with cross-references, proper citation format, and drafting guidance. No more 2024 filings citing a repealed statute.

The system also resolves the messy parts of Indian statutory law that trip up manual research: CPC Orders and Rules from the Schedule, subsection notation normalized across formats, and 21 regulatory domain categories (banking, labor, tax, environment, IP) with direct links to government sources.

Repealed → Modern · automatic mapping
Indian Penal Code1860 · Repealed 1 Jul 2024
Bharatiya Nyaya SanhitaBNS · 2023 · in force
Code of Criminal Procedure1973 · Repealed
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaBNSS · 2023 · in force
Indian Evidence Act1872 · Repealed
Bharatiya Sakshya AdhiniyamBSA · 2023 · in force
Companies Act 1956Superseded
Companies Act 2013Current enactment
End-to-end example

One query. Three passes. A complete research note.

Here's what a Veritect Deep Research run actually looks like — same query, different modes, compounding answers.

QUERY
"Is an e-mail acknowledgement sufficient acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act to extend the period of limitation?"
Semantic Search

Binding authority, ranked.

The Deep Research agent expands the query into seven legal concepts — acknowledgement, Section 18, electronic record, writing requirement, signature — and runs parallel semantic searches.

Limitation Act s. 18 IT Act s. 4 Acknowledgement Electronic record
Shah Steel v. Madhya Bharat Cables
"An e-mail, if signed, satisfies the writing requirement of Section 18..."
SC · 2022 · RELEVANCE 97
Web Research

Commentary and cross-refs.

Parallel pass across the open web picks up ICSI guidance, academic commentary on electronic signatures, and two relevant NCLAT orders that don't appear in judgment databases.

NCLAT ICAI commentary SCC Online blog
NCLAT · Balaji Steel Re-rolling
"Digital signature on e-mail acknowledgement — held equivalent to physical signature..."
NCLAT · 2023 · RELEVANCE 89
Bare Acts

Statutory text, verified.

Fetches the exact current text of Section 18 Limitation Act, Section 4 IT Act (legal recognition of electronic records), and Section 3A IT Act on electronic signatures — with proper citation formatting.

Limitation Act 1963 IT Act 2000 Current text
Section 18 · Limitation Act 1963
"Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of any property or right has been made in writing signed by the party..."
VERIFIED ENACTED TEXT · VERITECT STATUTORY DB
Granular by design

20 fields. 12 facets. One query.

Most legal databases give you a search box and a year filter. Veritect gives you the most granular search available in Indian legal research — letting you narrow to a specific bench, a specific judge, a specific disposal type, across a specific statutory domain.

Need every Division Bench ruling by Justice Chandrachud on Section 482 CrPC quashing petitions between 2015 and 2022 where the matter was allowed? That's a single query.

Every search is shareable. Every result set is exportable. Every citation is ready to copy into your draft in the format your court prefers.

Refine search Advanced · 8 active
Court
Supreme Court Bombay HC Delhi HC + 24 more
Bench composition
Division Bench Full Bench Constitution Bench Single Judge
Disposal type
Allowed Dismissed Disposed Remanded
Subject taxonomy
Rent Control Landmark Contempt Quashing s. 482
Year range
1998 — 2024 Last 10 yrs Pre-1990
Speed & coverage

What used to take three days takes a minute.

Measured against the way junior associates actually research today — one judgment database, one statute portal, two open browser tabs for regulatory circulars, and a stack of Xeroxed printouts.

Research stage Manual workflow With Veritect
Find cases on a specific legal question 2 – 5 days < 60 seconds
Locate binding authority across Supreme Court and 25 High Courts 1 – 2 days ~30 seconds
Verify current statutory text 2 – 4 hours ~8 seconds
Map repealed Act to current Act 30 – 60 minutes instant
Regulatory notifications & tribunal orders Half day of browsing ~1 minute
Compile a research note with citations 1 – 3 days ~5 minutes
Complete research for a typical matter 1 – 2 weeks Under an hour

Numbers reflect the actual experience of associates at firms we work with — measured before and after adopting Veritect on matched matters. No single tool replaces judgment. But the mechanical work of locating, verifying, and citing authority compresses dramatically.

Inside the platform

Research is the start, not the whole job.

Every result you approve in Legal Research feeds the next stage of the platform — Case Analysis, Strategy, Judgment Compilation, and VeriScribe drafting — without a single copy-paste.

01

Research

Search, filter, approve the judgments and statutes that matter.

YOU ARE HERE
02

Case Analysis

Para-wise response map. Issues. Evidence inventory — grounded in your documents.

DOCUMENT-GROUNDED
03

Strategy

Defense or Offense — with every argument rated strong, moderate, or speculative.

ROLE-AWARE
04 · 05

Compile & Draft

Top-10 judgments + real statutory text → VeriScribe turns it all into a court-ready filing.

EVERY CITATION REAL

Research in isolation is a library visit. Research in a pipeline is a workflow. When you approve the five judgments you want to rely on in your petition, those five judgments are already known to the Strategy engine when it's rating your arguments — and they're already queued up for VeriScribe to cite when it drafts.

Brew Break runs the whole pipeline on one click. Research → Analysis → Strategy → Compilation → Draft. Walk away. Come back to a court-ready package.

Questions every litigator asks

What researchers want to know before they try a new engine.

Keyword search matches the exact words you type. If the bench ruled on the same point but used "bona fide requirement" where you typed "personal necessity," keyword search returns zero results. Semantic search reads both as the same legal concept and surfaces both. In real-world practice, semantic search finds 3–5× more binding authority on the same query.
Every judgment Veritect returns is a real case in our database — you can pull the full PDF, verify the citation, and see the complete text. We maintain a hard line between extraction (finding real judgments) and reasoning (AI-generated summaries). The AI explains relevance; it never invents cases.
Yes. Every repealed Act is mapped to its modern replacement, and a search for "IPC Section 302" returns BNS Section 103 (the current provision for murder) with its exact enacted text. You can search using either old or new names and Veritect normalizes to the currently-in-force provision.
Continuously. Reportable judgments from the Supreme Court and every High Court are ingested, cleaned, and indexed within 2–3 days of publication on the respective court websites. Statutory updates are pushed whenever Parliament enacts, amends, or notifies a change.
Deep Research runs as a background agent. You kick it off, close the tab if you want, and come back when it finishes (~60 seconds for typical queries). The result is saved in your case workspace and notified by email.
Yes. Every search result is exportable — individual judgments as PDFs, the full result set as a ZIP bundle with HTML summaries, or a curated shortlist directly into a VeriScribe draft as citable authority. Most firms use Veritect to compile, then drop the bundle into their document management system.

The precedent you missedjust cost you the hearing.

Start researching free