How litigators use Justis AI

The problem

A brief arrives the evening before the hearing: a petition, three replies and forty annexures, half of them scanned orders in mixed Hindi and English. Building the list of dates takes a junior two days, and the date that decides the matter is on page 412 of an annexure nobody opened.

A chronology typed from memory on the way to court is also where mistakes live. Two documents give different dates for the same service, an interim order is referred to but never placed on record, and nobody notices until the other side does.

How Justis handles it

Upload the paper book to a matter. Justis reads every document, runs OCR on the scans and tells you when it is reading one, then builds a dated chronology in which every entry cites the document and page it came from.

It marks what does not reconcile: dates two documents give differently, orders referred to but not on file, and gaps in the sequence. It flags anything that raises a limitation question, and hands back the list of dates in Word, ready for the synopsis.

The problem

Limitation is argued at admission, and it is unforgiving. The period depends on the statute: ninety days for a first appeal to the High Court, sixty for a commercial appeal, three months and thirty days under section 34 of the Arbitration Act with nothing after that. Then come the exclusions: the time taken to obtain a certified copy, the day the court was closed, the time spent before the wrong forum.

Getting the arithmetic wrong by a day costs the matter, and condonation of delay is increasingly hard to get, especially in commercial matters and for government departments.

How Justis handles it

Justis identifies the provision that governs, reads the dates off the documents (the order, the application for the certified copy, the date it was ready) and computes the last date with every exclusion shown line by line, so you can check the working rather than trust a number.

It says whether section 5 condonation is available for that proceeding, drafts the delay paragraph or the condonation application when you are already late, and can keep a deadline register for the whole matter list.

The problem

The written statement is due thirty days from service, and in a commercial suit the outer limit of 120 days cannot be extended at all. Every averment must be admitted or specifically denied: a general denial is treated as an admission under Order VIII rule 5.

The preliminary objections that win suits early, such as territorial jurisdiction, limitation, valuation, or no pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, are easy to miss when the reply is written against the clock.

How Justis handles it

Justis reads the plaint, its documents and your client's instructions, then builds a paragraph-wise table: admit, deny or not within knowledge, with the document that supports each position. It checks the preliminary objections one by one and says which the record supports.

It drafts the written statement in your chambers' style, with the verification and the supporting affidavit, and computes both the thirty-day date and the outer limit from the date of service.

The problem

A search returns four hundred judgments. What you need is the one that binds your bench: the larger bench, the most recent word, not overruled or referred, and the exact paragraph that holds the point. Reading headnotes to find it takes an afternoon.

Citing a judgment that has since been overruled, or quoting a paragraph that does not say what the note claims, is the mistake that costs credibility in court.

How Justis handles it

Justis searches over 16 million Supreme Court and High Court judgments, reads the candidates and ranks them by what binds: Supreme Court decisions under Article 141, then larger benches, then your High Court. It looks for later treatment of each authority before relying on it.

It quotes the operative paragraph with a link to the judgment, and every quotation is checked against the source text before it is shown. If the words cannot be found, the citation is flagged instead of presented as checked. The research memo ends with a table of authorities and their weight.

The problem

Bail work is urgent and the papers are poor: an FIR photographed on a phone, remand orders in Hindi, a chargesheet that may or may not have been filed. The sections have changed since 1 July 2024, and an offence committed before that date is still tried under the old codes.

The strongest ground is often arithmetic, such as the day the right to default bail accrued, and it is lost if nobody counts the days.

How Justis handles it

Justis reads the FIR, the remand orders and the chargesheet, including scans, and classifies each offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: cognizable or not, bailable or not, the court that tries it.

It counts the custody period for default bail under section 187(3) BNSS, grades each ground Strong, Weak or Uncertain with the fact behind it, and drafts the application in Indian form, with the list of dates and the authorities.

The problem

Most writ petitions are lost on maintainability, not merits: there is an alternative remedy, the delay is unexplained, or the facts are disputed. The petition has to meet each objection before the bench raises it.

The paper book also has a fixed shape (synopsis, list of dates, memo of parties, grounds, prayer, affidavit, index), and assembling it by hand is where filing defects come from.

How Justis handles it

Justis grades each maintainability gate for your facts, including the exceptions that let a writ lie despite an alternative remedy: breach of natural justice, an order without jurisdiction, and enforcement of a fundamental right. It builds the grounds, strongest first, each tied to a page of the record.

It drafts the petition with the interim application and the affidavit, in the form your High Court expects, and says plainly when two gates look weak so you can decide before drafting.

The problem

The witness's affidavit in chief says one thing, the documents say another, and the earlier statement says a third. The contradictions that would win the cross are spread across hundreds of pages, and there is one evening to find them.

A cross built from memory asks open questions and gives the witness room. The one that works asks closed questions, one fact at a time, with the contradicting document in hand.

How Justis handles it

Justis puts each witness in a column and every disputed fact in a row, so a contradiction is something you see, with the page on each side. It builds the cross in chapters: closed, leading questions in sequence, and the prior statement or document to confront the witness with under section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

It also lists the questions not to ask, where the answer could hurt your client.

The problem

Benches increasingly ask for short written submissions, and a record of four hundred pages and twenty authorities has to become a few tight pages the night before. Every proposition needs its authority and its page of the record, and every quotation has to be exact.

The note of arguments you speak from is a different document again, and it is usually written last and fastest.

How Justis handles it

Justis turns the issues into propositions, each with the authority that supports it and the record page it rests on, and drafts the submissions around them. It answers the other side's best point instead of ignoring it.

It prepares a one-page note of arguments and a table of authorities, checks every quotation against the judgment it came from, and keeps the draft in your chambers' style.

The problem

The order arrives and the clock starts. The client wants to know, that day, whether to appeal, how long they have, whether the decree can be stayed, and at what cost. If you won, the question is how quickly the decree can be executed.

The grounds of appeal have to come from the judgment itself: the finding, the evidence it ignored and the law it misapplied, paragraph by paragraph.

How Justis handles it

Justis reads the judgment against the record, maps each finding to the evidence it rests on, and identifies the errors that make good grounds. It names the forum and the period, computes the last date, and sets out what a stay will usually cost, such as a deposit or security.

If the decree is in your favour, it drafts the execution plan instead: the court, the mode of execution and the assets to proceed against.

The problem

The charge-sheet copies arrive under section 230 BNSS a few weeks before the hearing on charge: the FIR, extracts of the case diary, statements recorded under section 180, a recovery panchanama and an arrest memo, half of it in Marathi or Hindi. The points that get an accused discharged or bailed are in the gaps between these papers, and nobody has read them side by side.

A recovery made before the arrest it supposedly followed, an IMEI that does not match, an identification made at the police station with no parade: each is visible only when two documents are open at once.

How Justis handles it

Upload the police file. Justis reads every paper, scans and regional-language pages included, and builds the prosecution's case as the record actually states it: who says what, when it was recorded, and what was recovered from whom.

It then lists every inconsistency with the page on each side, checks the procedure the BNSS and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam require (audio-video recording of a search and seizure under section 105 BNSS, the discovery proviso under section 23 BSA), and drafts a defence note: the points for discharge, the points for bail, and the chapters of cross-examination they support.

The problem

Four witnesses describe the same two minutes, and each statement was recorded on a different day by the same officer. One says two men on a black motorcycle, another three on a red one; one saw a knife, another saw none. These are the contradictions a cross-examination is built on, and they are lost when the statements are read one after another.

Comparing them by hand means a spreadsheet typed from the photocopies, and it is rarely done for every witness.

How Justis handles it

Tabular review puts each statement in a row and asks the same questions of all of them: when it was recorded, the time of the incident, the number of assailants and the vehicle, the weapon, how the witness says they identified the accused, and what the statement adds that the FIR did not say. Every cell carries the page it came from.

Reading down a column shows the contradiction; clicking a cell opens the statement at the line. Export the grid to Excel, or ask the Associate to turn it into cross-examination chapters under section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

The problem

An application is listed for hearing in ten days. The other side's reply raises four arguments and cites three judgments, the bench's last order names two points it wants addressed, and the junior's note answers only your own case. The weak points in your application are the ones the bench will go to first.

Preparing properly means setting both sides out together: each argument, the authority it rests on, whether that authority actually says it, and what the bench is likely to ask.

How Justis handles it

Justis reads your application, the reply and the order sheet against the pleadings, and lays out the arguments on both sides with the authority each relies on, read from the judgment rather than the headnote. It grades each argument Strong, Weak or Uncertain, with the reason.

It marks the opponent's misreadings of authority and your own exposed flanks, lists the questions the bench is likely to ask with a short answer and the page to turn to, and drafts a note of arguments in the order you will speak.

The problem

Every filing carries forms around the pleading: the list of documents under Order XI with its custody columns, the statement of truth, the vakalatnama, the process form. A clerk types them from an email the night before, and the defects come from there: the wrong court in the title, a signatory the board resolution does not authorise, an email filed without its certificate.

Registry objections cost a day; a statement of truth signed by the wrong person costs more.

How Justis handles it

Upload the blank forms your chambers uses and the client's data. Justis fills each form as a new Word document, field by field, from the data sheet, the board resolution and the pleadings already on file, and leaves a field blank with a note where the data is missing rather than guessing.

It checks the entries against the record as it fills: the court and suit number against the summons, the signatory against the resolution, each electronic record for its certificate under section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It does not file anything; the forms come back for you to check and sign.

The problem

A dishonoured cheque gives the payee a short, unforgiving route: a written demand within thirty days of hearing from the bank, fifteen days for the drawer to pay, and a complaint within a month after that. A notice that names the wrong drawer, demands the wrong figure or misses a director is the first thing the defence attacks.

Clients send what they have: a trading name, an old address, a ledger balance and a request to add interest and charges to the demand.

How Justis handles it

Justis reads the return memo, the cheque and the client's ledger, takes the drawer's name and the signatory from the bank's papers rather than the client's records, and computes the dates under section 138: the last day for the notice and when the cause of action for a complaint will arise.

It drafts the notice with the cheque amount demanded as its own head, any other sum kept separate, and the company and the directors responsible for its business as addressees, and it lists the points the complaint will need to meet, such as a cheque handed over post-dated.

The problem

The deal is agreed in a meeting and the other side's counsel sends the consent terms the next evening. The figure is right; the rest is not quite what was agreed: an admission of liability, a first instalment a month early, a default clause that revives the whole decree, costs nobody mentioned.

Consent terms recorded by a court are executed as they are written. The mark-up has to catch every departure from the client's instructions before it is signed.

How Justis handles it

Justis reads the draft against the client's instructions and the decree, and marks every departure as a tracked change in the Word file, with a comment giving the reason and the instruction it comes from. It checks the arithmetic of the instalments and the dates.

It also flags what the draft leaves out, such as recording satisfaction of the decree or the step needed to withdraw a suit pending in another court, and sends back a short note on the points that need the client's decision.