Case Law Search
Ask in plain language, by case name or by section. Name s. 438 CrPC and ALFRED returns only judgments that cite it or its BNSS counterpart.
- Statutory hard filter
- CrPC to BNSS crosswalk
- One result per judgment
ALFRED · Now in alpha
Legal research that shows its work.
ALFRED is an AI research engine for Indian advocates. It finds binding Supreme Court authority, ranks it the way a careful junior would, and links every answer to the exact page of the official judgment.
- Official Supreme Court sources
- Page-level citations
- Verified quotes
- CrPC and BNSS mapped
ALFRED · Case Law Search
Scope of anticipatory bail under s. 438 CrPC
Statutory filters. 438 CrPCs. 482 BNSS
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
(1980) 2 SCC 565 · Supreme Court of India
Constitution Bench5 judgesFollowed
Section 438 confers a wide discretion on the court. It should not be cut down by reading in conditions the legislature did not impose.
Confidence92%
Weighted 70% quote verification, 30% agreement between search methods
Quotes verified against sourceOfficial judgment, cited page
Product
Structured analysis, not a chat window.
ALFRED answers in the formats advocates already work in: a ranked list of authority, a judgment brief, a clause-by-clause contract review.
Judgment Analysis
The ratio decidendi, the principles relied on, the precedent chain and how strong the judgment is as authority, set out as a brief.
- Ratio and principles
- Judgment-strength score
- Dissent analysis
Contract Intelligence
Clause extraction, risk scoring and an Indian-law compliance review, with the reasoning behind every flag rather than a bare score.
- Clause-level risk
- Compliance review
- Decomposable health score
How it works
From question to authority, with nothing hidden.
- 01
Ask
Type the question as you'd put it to a colleague, or name the provision. Legal citations like Section 438(1B) are kept intact, not split into words.
- 02
Search
Exact legal keyword search and semantic search each propose candidate judgments, so a precise citation and a loosely worded question both land.
- 03
Rank
Candidates are weighed on authority, relevance and jurisdiction, less any negative treatment by later benches.
- 04
Answer
You get a structured brief with verified quotes, a link to each source page and a confidence score you can break down.
Principles
Built to behave like a meticulous junior advocate.
Most AI tools answer confidently and leave you to find out where they went wrong. ALFRED is designed the other way round.
Authority comes first
Judgments are ranked on authority, relevance and jurisdiction. Court seniority and bench size carry weight; recency only breaks near-ties.
Every answer is sourced
Each claim cites the passage it relies on and opens the official Supreme Court PDF at that page. Quotes are checked word for word against the source.
It says when it isn't sure
A confidence score combines quote verification with agreement between search methods. Below the bar, ALFRED warns you instead of bluffing.
It respects precedent
No automated overruling, and no smaller bench overruling a larger one. Overruled authority is withheld, with a warning that says why.
Status
Where ALFRED is today.
We'd rather tell you exactly what's built than oversell it.
Live
Interactive demo
Explore the full interface, all three modules, with worked examples.
Built
Search and ranking engine
Landmark Supreme Court judgments, taken in full from the Court's own servers and indexed passage by passage, each tied to its page.
Next
Live AI analysis
Connecting the engine to the demo, then opening early access to chambers and firms.
See how ALFRED reasons.
The demo walks through real Supreme Court authority end to end. No sign-up needed: choose “Use demo credentials” on the login screen.