Manupatra Legal Database and Current Era of an Artificial Intelligence

Citation

Raut, B. J. (2026). Manupatra Legal Database and Current Era of an Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Research, 13(13), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijr/2026/s13/3

Bhupendra J. Raut

 Ph.D. Scholar, KBCNMU, Jalgaon

Abstract

AI is being incorporated into legal research databases which will change how legal information is accessed, organised and interpreted significantly.  Manupatra (one of the largest legal research databases in India) lies at an important intersection of traditional forms of accessing legal information and the new generation of advanced AI-enabled legal research tools. This study has been developed in response to the significant increase in the number of judgements, statute material and regulations in India which has made traditional keyword-based systems of legal research increasingly ineffective.  This study will evaluate how AI-enabled features within legal databases are changing legal research practices and may raise important ethical and governance issues as well.

This study will be based on a doctrinal and analytical research methodology based purely on secondary data sources which include scholarly literature about legal technology, artificial intelligence and digital legal research systems. The article provides a comprehensive overview of the progression of legal research from traditional methods to electronic formats and finally to AI-assisted legal research tools such as Manupatra. Furthermore, the article critically appraises the ethical issues associated with using AI for legal research, including algorithmic bias, transparency and data concentration to name just a few. While AI improves the efficiency, contextual understanding and depth of legal research it will potentially standardise legal thinking / reasoning and exacerbate existing inequalities in society if no regulation is implemented.

The author highlights some of the ways that Manupatra’s AI enhanced legal research improves precision and connectivity by using AI, but also recognises that better standards for transparency, ethics and inclusive access are needed to optimise its use in legal research. The author makes a recommendation that AI should only be an assisting tool in legal research not the key determinant in legal reasoning. Lastly, the author states that effective regulation of AI legal databases through governance, oversight and capacity building will assist in ensuring AI legal databases move towards improving fairness, pluralism and access to justice in India.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Legal Research Databases, Manupatra, Access to Justice, Legal Technology

1. INTRODUCTION

In the Indian legal ecosystem, Manupatra has become one of the most well-known digital research platforms that has been created with an objective to alleviate the aspects of scale, complexity, and fragmentation of the vast amount of legal information on India’s courts, statutes, tribunals, regulatory materials, etc. To create a research environment that can support researching large numbers of case laws and legal texts, Manupatra has to create a collection of actionable items that are searchable, can link to other case laws, and are fully supported with structured finding tools such as subject classification and citation links; a critical requirement to a legal system where precedent and cross-references play a significant role in the legal reasoning process. Manupatra’s own available training and product documentation describes it as an online legal research solution that facilitates search and retrieval by providing structured search and retrieval interfaces and back-end mechanisms that help to reduce the time spent searching through large volumes of legal material (Manupatra, n.d.-a; Manupatra, n.d.-b).

In direct contrast, the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has opened a new chapter in the history of legal research. With the use of machine learning and natural language processing systems that allow for the automated interpretation of vast quantities of text, as well as the ability to identify patterns that are not quickly identifiable through traditional keyword searches, AI has changed the way legal scholars approach the task of researching legal issues. Although AI’s application in the field of law has been understood to include a variety of computational techniques aimed at performing legal tasks such as information retrieval, classification, summarization, and prediction, the adoption of these technologies also introduces new concerns about lack of transparency and accountability, and the potential for erroneous results to be introduced into the legal process. A broader understanding of the impact of these technologies is important because it highlights that the purpose of conducting legal research is no longer simply to find relevant documents but rather, to manage the overwhelming amount of information available while still providing the necessary level of interpretative accuracy, procedural fairness and professional integrity (Surden, 2019).

As the quantity of legal resources dramatically outdistances the limit of human ability to read, analyze and compare them, so too does the urgency of the need to study Manupatra in today’s age of AI. Traditional keyword searches are frequently unable to capture critical nuances in the law because many concepts may be articulated in differing ways in separate cases, and the relevance of a legal concept often relies heavily on the context within which it is found (i.e., facts, issues, outcome, and how future courts have interpreted similar decisions). An additional aspect of this issue is that AI can facilitate access to and retrieval of case law through the use of semantic search capabilities, citation analytics, and automated recommendations to direct the user from one useful piece of authority to another in a more efficient manner. An indication of the current evolution of Manupatra includes a specifically created narrative for an AI-centric legal technology suite, which places the overall process of legal research within a broader context of a workflow that is supported by the use of AI in legal operations (Manupatra, n.d.-c; Surden, 2019).

This research is motivated by both practical and normative considerations regarding the accuracy, transparency, accessibility, and ethics of AI-supported legal research – especially when these tools are provided as part of proprietary platforms. If recommendation systems do not have an explainable rationale for why certain cases were ranked higher, there may be no way for users to assess how that ranking may affect their argument and potentially influence the outcome in a courtroom. The risks inherent with using AI-generated outputs become increasingly apparent when used without an adequate validation process – as exemplified by various incidents reported recently whereby legal documents contained non-existent citations that have been incorrectly attributed to an artificial intelligence tool. These examples highlight that while AI tools may enhance overall efficiency, they do not relieve the user from his or her obligation to verify and confirm the accuracy of any work produced (The Guardian, 2025).

This paper explores the research question of how the proprietary legal database Manupatra has been adapting to meet AI expectations while also meeting the requirements of speed and convenience (i.e., to practitioners) and reliability, interpretive neutrality, and access to justice (i.e., to the public). The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate Manupatra’s current role, capabilities, limitations, and direction in the AI-enabled legal research ecosystem. This evaluation considers how AI will change the way lawyers conduct legal research, how professionals will become dependent on technology, and how AI will affect fairness in information access.

In conducting this study, the researchers utilized a doctrinal and analytical approach to research methodology and relied solely on secondary source materials. Sources included, but were not limited to, peer-reviewed open access academic literature on artificial intelligence and law; publicly available legal informatics research studies; policy and institutional documentation about legal technology; and platform documentation that may be freely available. In synthesizing these sources of information across the fields of legal technology, artificial intelligence governance, and digital legal research, the researchers used comparative and thematic analysis to produce structured insights regarding the benefits, risks, and governance requirements that apply to AI-based legal databases.

2. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE EVOLUTION OF LEGAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS

Phases of evolution in legal research illustrate how legal information is stored, classified and organised. The earlier manual way of performing legal research involved using printed sources of law: case law reports, digests, citators and treatises. The ability to find and use legal authority was dependent upon the expertise of the researcher in making the application. Although providing an analytic basis for reading with care and doctrinal precision, the earlier manual method for conducting legal research was also fundamentally constrained in three ways: (1) research relied heavily on physical access to libraries; (2) the availability of reports; (3) the ability of lawyers to follow a taxonomy determined by the editorial structure of the relevant publication in order to identify which authority was “relevant” to their research problem. The way legal information is compiled has never been “neutral”. It is through the classification of legal material and the editorial decisions that determine how professionals attend to legal material, and thereby effectively standardise legal understanding, over time (Berring, 1987).

The introduction of full-text databases and computer-aided legal research was a significant technological advancement around legal research. Instead of having to use indexes for finding cases or legal articles, attorneys are able to rapidly perform searches with Boolean and free-text queries across an entire body or corpus of cases. While this change increased access to legal resources and reduced the amount of time required to find those resources, it also impacted research habits. Lawyers increasingly began their research by formulating search strings rather than thinking about the concept before searching and using printed resources like digest using the 3rd edition of Digest of Decisions of the United States Supreme Court to identify the areas they plan to research then, using those digests when researching to identify those cases you are going to use. The early digital tools did not automatically fix the larger question of how to determine meaning in law. Because the determination of meaning or legal reasoning requires contextual, factual, procedural, and subsequent court treatment of each case, keyword searches are often, too broad or too narrow. Thus, while they are able to execute their research at a much faster pace, there is still a significant amount of interpretation required, on the part of the researcher, to convert the results from the digital research into usable authority (Berring, 1986).

AI fundamentally changed legal research from retrieving documents to extracting meaning and discovering relationships. To achieve this, AI-based systems depend largely on natural language processing to interpret text beyond literal keywords and find documents conceptually similar to one another. A semantic search enables systems to identify relevant cases that use different word combinations or phrases to express the same legal idea. Also, citation networks expand the ability of systems to identify relevant cases by graphically representing the precedential relationships between cases (instead of treating cases as discrete documents, systems treat cases as nodes in a graph of influence and treatment of one another), showing clusters of cases, lines of authority and trends in judicial emphasis over time. Recommendation algorithms provide another means of identifying relevant authorities or cases by learning the patterns of usage of various legal materials, then recommending authorities, quotes of a particular passage or doctrinal paths regarding the question or document (Ashley, 2019).

Global advancements of AI-enabled legal research technologies have demonstrated increased efficiency gains and enhanced contextual assistance. The most recognizable benefit has been the reduction of time: AI-enabled systems are able to identify which cases will most likely be relevant for review, identify important passages within a case, and highlight connections between multiple cases that would have otherwise required users to perform multiple searches to verify. This has a particular value in environments that are experiencing rapid growth in litigation activity and expanding decision making capabilities. A second benefit is that AI systems will assist users in thinking about a judgment not only as a single authority, but as part of a larger system of doctrine, where future citations, negative treatments, and “side” reasoning will affect the practical impact of a particular authority. Many users have time limitations; therefore, AI systems can serve as decision-support tools that will limit the amount of time users will spend searching for information and assist them to focus their attention more effectively (Hellyer, 2005).

The features of AI tools that make them useful also introduce new risks. The primary issue of risk is over-reliance on AI systems because ranked results and recommendations can lead to a false sense of completeness, especially if users treat top-ranked outputs as fully valid authorities. In the law, relevance is subjective and dependent on context, arguments, and issue type (e.g., fact pattern) for any given case in any given court. If the logic of the recommendation system is not transparent to the user, they may not know why some authorities are given more prominence than others. It is this lack of transparency in how a case has been analyzed that is most problematic for users because the law requires that lawyers provide justification for their authority choices and reasoning processes, while judges should base their decision on arguments that can be traced back to valid source(s) and/or verify logical basis(es) used by each party. Consequently, ethical discussions around AI tools for use in the practice of law increasingly define them as supports that remain secondary to the verification and accountability established through the professional ethic of practice by lawyers and judges, rather than as alternatives to professional practice (Walters, 2019).

A serious challenge is presented by the possibility that algorithmic systems will reinforce existing paths of judicial authority through their use of citation ranking systems. A citation ranking system may work well for common or accepted doctrines; however, the same system may inadvertently do extensive harm to dissenting voices, to less commonly used doctrines or to newly established doctrines that are not widely cited. Over enough time, this situation creates a scenario such that a researcher seeking out an opinion has his or her results influenced by where the system directs him/her to look, rather than by where the most analytically appropriate source may be found for the specific issue being addressed by the researcher. In practical terms, the researcher will be limited by what the prevailing system directs him or her to consider and as such will develop procedural patterns consistent with “recommendation” based systems rather than those consistent with an exploratory thought process. This issue is not merely a technical one; this also presents a methodology problem in terms of the way legal reasoning will be conducted and the way in which the ability to think outside the box will develop (Ashley, 2019).

AI is not just about speedy searching; it also denotes an alteration in how we conduct our research as it changes the first thing that Legal Professionals do when engaging with a Legal Text, the primary focus of their search, and what constitutes ‘authoritative’ sources. Also, AI will change how we interact with Legal Texts in that we now will have an added layer of Computational Interpretation that translates from User to Source Material. Therefore, while AI can decrease workloads and enhance accuracies, it will also create a greater need for Critical Oversight, Transparency Norms, and Professional Discipline in order to evaluate the credibility of the source, challenge the validity of Ranking Systems, and ensure you consider as many different Research Fields as possible when conducting Research (Walters, 2019; Hellyer, 2005).

Table 1: Evolution of Legal Research Systems

Phase	Research Method	Core Characteristics	Key Limitations
Manual Era	Printed law reports, digests, citators	Deep doctrinal reading; human interpretation; editorial classification	Time-intensive; physically constrained access; taxonomy dependence
Digital Database	Full-text databases; Boolean/keyword search	Faster retrieval; broader coverage; searchable corpora	Contextual gaps; search imprecision; heavy reliance on query formulation
AI-driven Era	NLP, semantic search, citation networks, recommendations	Context-aware retrieval; relationship mapping; interpretative assistance	Opacity; interpretative dependence; potential reinforcement of dominant trends

The AI systems significantly improved time and the contextual relevance of information and increased transparency and reliance on interpretations by providing clear evidence of the methods and rankings used to generate algorithm-generated output; therefore, requiring critical evaluation and monitoring (oversight) because the manner in which these algorithm-generated recommendations influence legal reasoning and the selection of authority is often unclear. Through the transformation of legal research from one of gathering information to one of assisting in interpretation, AI has changed and is continuing to change how lawyers engage professionally with the legal profession, as well as the manner in which lawyers access and use legal research in doing their daily work. AI’s effect on the way lawyers access legal materials is not limited to where they search, but the manner in which relationships between materials and relevance, authority and doctrinal pathways are developed.

3. MANUPATRA AS AN AI-ENABLED LEGAL RESEARCH PLATFORM

Manupatra has gradually transitioned from a traditional digital legal database to a new AI-powered legal research platform created specifically for the complex structure and principles of the Indian legal system. The design of its architecture has taken into consideration the way that precedents, statutory interpretation, and tribunal adjudication coexist in many jurisdictions that also use different languages. Rather than being like other generic legal search engines, Manupatra combines its structured databases of decisions from the Supreme Court, High Court and tribunals with statutory material, rules, circulars and commentaries, creating an overall legal authority that is not just made up of individual documents (Manupatra, n.d.-a).

One of the important aspects of the development of Manupatra is its ability to conduct searches based on both context and concepts. With traditional keyword searches, the results will often be fragmented as a result of differences in the way that legal concepts are stated in decisions. The Manupatra search interface allows users to search for cases based on the relevant legal issues, subject matter classifications and their relationship to doctrine, thus providing searches based on principles of natural language processing (NLP) and semantic searches. This enables users to search through cases for conceptually similar authorities rather than relying strictly on a word-for-word match, which is especially beneficial in India because of the different ways that similar cases are decided in multiple High Courts, but still, discuss similar concepts (Manupatra, n.d.-b).

Manupatra has another fundamental feature – Case Linking and Citation Tracking. This feature is based on the network analysis principles of AI. All of the judgments in Manupatra are linked via way of positive, negative or neutral citations, which can assist the user in determining the weight of precedential authority and how subsequent courts have treated that particular case. This function is similar to citation intelligence from an AI perspective, where you visually and structurally map the development of legal authority over time. Several recent Indian legal research studies have highlighted that citation tracking is important in systems where the precedential value of a case depends not only on its hierarchy but also on whether the case continues to be regularly adhered to or distinguished from (Sengupta, 2019).

Manupatra’s subject classification and taxonomy organization support AI-based information retrieval by limiting information noise for AI. Legal subjects and sub-subjects are curated according to Indian statutory and doctrinal categories. As a result, users can quickly find relevant materials, without needing to build elaborate query strings, by relying on the subject classification. This structured subject classification is useful for students conducting legal research, as it helps them approach their research thematically, as opposed to looking at particular cases (Tripathi, 2017).

Judicial trend mapping is one of the latest AI-aligned functionalities of Manupatra, enabling users to observe patterns of judicial decisions over time, by different courts, and for different topics. The tool gives researchers an aggregated view of similar types of decisions through theme and citation-based organization, as well as insight into how legal points of view have changed or remained steady. Indian research in judicial analytics suggests that trend-based tools can aid with strategic litigation planning and doctrinal analysis, especially within areas such as constitutional law and commercial law, where interpretive trends are important (Chandra, 2020).

Manupatra’s strategy: globally identifiable trend towards the use of AI in the preparation of legal documents. However, the majority of international companies using these technologies often focus on predictive analysis and predicting the outcome of litigation, whereas Manupatra’s focus has been more on the use of contextual authority mapping and doctrinal navigation, which align more closely with the Indian judicial culture/reality. Manupatra’s proprietary design includes substantial concerns due to the fact that the algorithms used to determine ranking and relevance of materials have not been disclosed to users; if users do not know how a particular authority is ranked as relevant or created an authority list, then it may significantly impact the individual’s research &/or arguments constructed from it. Consequently, legal scholars using Indian legal information technology have expressed concern over the effect that this type of absence may have on research outcomes and the types of authorities that are most visible to the user, as these will dictate argument construction and akademisch or academically interpreted (Sengupta, 2019).

Another major issue related to limited public access is the fact that Manupatra uses a subscription-based model and therefore, its advanced research capacity is limited to paying institutions and practitioners. This raises questions about equitable access for students at small institutions, independent researchers and self-represented litigants. Research on digital justice in India has found that while proprietary legal databases provide greater efficiency, they also risk creating even larger divisions in access to legal information unless other initiatives provide accessible and free public legal information (Chandra, 2020).

Although there are some concerns about its impact, Manupatra plays an important role in the way legal education, preparation of documents for use in court, how judges use the law, and research is done in the country. All of India’s law schools use it in their teaching of case analysis and statutory interpretation. Also, attorneys use it to provide a brief in connection with a case and identify relevant authority in an expeditious manner and judges and law clerks frequently reference it for ease of access to the appropriate authorative source. Additionally, researchers in academia benefit from having integrated access to the decisions of the court and the corresponding commentary, and in turn, this integration influences the way that legal knowledge is developed, cited, and issued in relation to the research conducted in the area of law in India (Tripathi, 2017).

Table 2: AI Features Integrated within Manupatra

Feature	Functional Description	Research Impact
Contextual Search	Concept-based retrieval aligned with legal issues	Improved relevance and precision
Case Linking	Citation-based interconnection of judgments	Better assessment of precedential value
Citation Tracking	Positive/negative treatment analysis	Informed authority evaluation
Subject Classification	Taxonomy-driven organization	Structured thematic research
Judicial Trend Mapping	Pattern identification across cases	Strategic and doctrinal insights

Manupatra’s use of Artificial Intelligence technology has improved the accuracy of legal research results and made access to relevant case law more contextually related. However, reliance on proprietary algorithms can create concerns about the neutrality of how lawyers and judges interpret legal information or use the information found in legal documents. Manupatra is a good example of how Artificial Intelligence can enhance efficiency and coherence in legal research inside of the Indian legal system while highlighting the need for transparency, accountability and ethical oversight in Artificial Intelligence assisted legal research tools.

4. ETHICAL, ACCESS, AND GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES IN AI-BASED LEGAL DATABASES

AI’s increasing presence in legal research databases is changing how legal knowledge is created, organized, and consumed. AI-enabled systems offer the ability to retrieve information faster, understand legal text in context, and analyze data more intelligently, but there are also severe ethical challenges posed by AI-based legal databases, particularly related to access and governance, which are crucial in jurisdictions like India where access to justice, judicial pluralism, and equality under the Constitution are the basis of the legal system.

AI powered legal databases raise ethical issues such as algorithmic bias. Algorithmic systems are trained on historical legal datasets such as case law, citation practices, and patterns of legal practice. These datasets are not neutral and instead reflect social hierarchies, institutional power, and dominant legal histories. Barocas & Selbst (2016) provide examples of how algorithmic systems developed using biased training datasets can perpetuate and exaggerate existing inequalities, even without any intentional bias by an algorithmic designer.  This applies to legal research databases as AI relevance ranking has the potential to favor frequently cited cases or judgments that come from institutions and status, and leave behind lower/infrequently cited cases, led to references for marginalized groups; as well as cases that refer to jurisdictional-specific types of law contrary to the claim made by the relevant party to the decision made by the legal system, or cases associated with unique situations associated to their geographic area. In determining this in an Indian context (where High Courts issue significantly different decisions with respect to the same legal issues) will ultimately materially impact the outcome of legal research.

An additional consideration in algorithmic bias relates to the exclusion/marginalization of dissenting judgment opinions. These legal opinions are significant in the legal system’s development, especially in constitutional democracies. In India particularly, many of the significant doctrines that have changed the legal framework were influenced by older dissenting opinions; but, when using AI-based citation and recommendation systems to compile legal research information, the majority opinions are often ranked the highest (because they are cited more frequently) and viewed as authoritative. As described by Ashley (2019), many of the characteristics needed to build a machine-learning model that identify relevance often rely on citation frequency and acceptance by other judges as relevance measures which, in turn, results in creative disagreement among judges legally, meaning that over time, these data-driven methods may continue to narrow the diversity of style through restricted interpretations and continue to suffice the creative use of law by judges. An additional difficulty has to do with how subscription-type services for AI lawyer databases divide up access (Some lawyers depend on being able to pay for AI databases in order to use them). Although these databases improve efficiency and accuracy, they are typically located in proprietary systems which are available only to people who have paid for access (Pasquale, 2015). This concentration of power has been stated by Pasquale as an example of how the concentration of the information on AI lawyer databases creates asymmetry, leading to less democratic accountability. In India, many lawyers are independent of each other (i.e. solo practitioners) and many people rely on lawyers for help getting legal representation. Many people depend on legal aid; therefore, if AI databases are not readily available to many people because of subscription services, this could lead to a disparity in the level of legal representation received by those seeking legal aid. The result is an inherent tension between improving technological advances and ensuring equal protection under the constitution of access to justice.

The issues around access to data were compounded by the monopolization of data. All legal judgments and statutes are public documents created by constitutional institutions, but when AI (Artificial Intelligence)- based legal databases aggregate, arrange and monetize public legal documents, they do so using proprietary analyses. This phenomenon, as described by Pasquale (2015), contributes to a wider “black box” society where only private entities may have access to algorithmic systems; this limits transparency, public oversight and adds to the problem of monopoly power of these technology companies. It also means that AI-enabled legal databases create extensive dependence on only a few sources of information (i.e. an AI-enabled legal database) thereby concentrating epistemic power (or authority), which in turn influences (or delivers) what the relevant law is within a community through opaque computational processes.

To fully appreciate the lack of governance attached to these AI-based legal databases is to understand their risks. One consistent critical issue around these AI systems is algorithmic opacity. Legal reasoning relies on being able to determine the explainability and justifiability of the authority relied upon; however, AI systems typically do not disclose the way relevance scores, recommendation algorithms and trend analyses are generated. Barocas and Selbst (2016) explain that because they lack transparency with respect to the data upon which AI systems make decisions, accountability cannot exist, as it would require identifying and challenging or correcting output from an AI system that has been developed and maintained by private entities for their financial return. Legal professionals in India are guided by their ethical duties to independently verify the sources of data they rely upon, and thus if they are unable to identify the underlying data used by AI systems to develop ‘algorithmically curated’ results, there is a significant and valid concern that lawyers will inappropriately rely on the AI-generated result as an independent source of verifying the law.

Concerns regarding standardization of legal reasoning arise with the use of AI-driven legal databases. When lawyers and judges utilize an AI-based legal database, they receive repeated exposure to the authorities that have been prioritized algorithmically; thus, these authorities may in turn influence the framing of arguments. According to Ashley (2019), AI-driven legal databases may direct users along the dominant doctrinal path and discourage exploration into authorities that are rarely cited but are nonetheless relevant to the context. In a plural legal system, such as India, where constitutional, statutory, and socio-customary norms overlap, this standardization effect will inhibit doctrinal innovation and limit the maintenance of alternative interpretative methods.

From the perspective of governance, the issues of ownership and regulatory oversight of legal AI database tools remain unresolved. There are no public governance arrangements for most AI-based legal research platforms; therefore there is a lack of transparency and little or no external auditing function for AI-based legal research platforms. Pasquale (2015) suggests that there should be stronger regulations for sectors that affect fundamental rights to maintain accountability and enhance public trust. Because there is no sectoral regulation for legal AI tools in India, the ethical responsibility for their use is relegated to the platform providers and end-user, compromising systemic safeguards.

Ethical challenges, access issues, and governance issues have a significant impact on the Indian legal system when using AI-based legal databases to support legal education, litigating practice, and judicial research through the development of these databases. The design choices made about these databases impact how legal knowledge is created and will therefore influence whether AI-based legal databases will create more equitable access to legal information rather than creating greater structural inequities due to the lack of ethical protection against bad faith, poor access policies, and lack of governance.

Table 3: Key Challenges of AI-Based Legal Databases

Dimension	Key Challenge	Implications
Ethical	Algorithmic bias	Reinforcement of historical inequalities
Interpretative	Marginalization of dissents	Reduced legal pluralism
Access	Subscription barriers	Unequal access to justice
Governance	Algorithmic opacity	Weak accountability
Structural	Data concentration	Dependence on private platforms

The above table shows that although AI increases the speed and ability to analyze legal research, there are still unresolved ethical and governance concerns that may result in decreased fairness, inclusivity, and diversity of interpretation in India’s legal system. Therefore, without ethical oversight or regulatory clarity, AI-based legal research databases could perpetuate the existing structural inequalities found in the justice system instead of creating equal access to legal information.

5. CONCLUSION

The research found that Manupatra has developed a notable junction between artificial intelligence (AI) and legal information systems within the backdrop of Indian legal research. The research also found that by incorporating AI-enhanced tools into its legal databases, Manupatra had vastly improved research speed, accuracy, and depth through the ability to perform contextual searching, intelligent case-linking, and structured navigation of large volumes of judicial and statutory material, which address many of the issues created by the rapid growth of legal information and limitations of traditional keyword-based research techniques.

The research also showed that the application of AI technology within legal research tools raises important issues that cannot be ignored. Among the central issues includes transparency of algorithms, disparity in access to proprietary information, and ethical governance; thus, it is clear that while AI-enhanced research tools can lead to more informed reasoning about the law, the opaque nature of their operations and concentration on subscription-based platforms has the potential to reinforce information inequality within the legal profession. In addition, relying on algorithmic rankings and recommendations has raised concerns regarding the neutrality of legal interpretation, marginalizing alternative judicial opinions, and the homogenisation of legal reasoning.

The findings of the research show how Manupatra has grown to indicate both the potential of artificial intelligence in legal research as well as the existing friction to using AI for legal research. AI has not only changed the way that legal research has been done from simply finding information to also interpreting and analyzing information, bei ng both a retrieval process as well as an interpretive and analytical process. However, the current lack of strong ethical safeguards and governance mechanisms around the use of AI may potentially undermine fundamental concepts of constitutional rights such as fairness, equality of access to justice, and pluralism. Therefore, the conclusion is that technological advancements alone are not enough; AI must also be developed in an ethical manner, maintained with accountability, and offer equal access to all users within the technology to accomplish their similar respective roles in providing justice.

Recommendations

Through the completion of the study on possible ethical and institutional foundations of Artificial Intelligence (AI) utilization within Legal Research Platforms, the following recommendations were made to enhance the establishment of ethical and institutional foundations for all types of legal research platforms enabled by AI technology. 

The creation of “transparent” AI explanation mechanisms in all legal database systems will provide the user with an understanding of how their relevance rankings, recommendations, and trend analyses were developed so that they can utilize those results more effectively, while holding themselves accountable as professionals.

The establishment of regulatory frameworks governing ethical access to use of AI technology in legal databases was identified as a necessity. Clear and standard regulations defining what constitutes an appropriate method to mitigate bias, explain capabilities, & provide accountability will create a collective standard by which all companies supplying legal research platforms can operate, thereby limiting each company’s reliance upon self-regulatory discretion to provide those solutions.

The establishment of hybrid access models (i.e.: providing both fee-based and limited-fee access for public and academic users of AI technology through legal research platforms) would provide greater access for the general public and the academic community to legal information thereby removing some types of informational inequality.

The stakeholders recommended that efforts be made to educate legal professionals about how to use AI appropriately through both training programs and by integrating AI into the law school curricula. This will provide lawyers, judges, and law students the ability to evaluate AI tools in a critical way instead of uncritically relying upon those tools.

Lastly, periodic audits of AI algorithms were recommended to ensure that they are neutral, inclusive, and consistently aligned with constitutional values. Periodic evaluations will allow for bias to be identified and corrected, and will help maintain public confidence in AI-enabled legal research systems.

References

• Ashley, K. D. (2019). Automatically extracting meaning from legal texts: Opportunities and challenges. Georgia State University Law Review, 35(4), 903–941.
• Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.
• Berring, R. C. (1986). Full-text databases and legal research: Backing into the future. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 1(1), 27–60.
• Berring, R. C. (1987). Legal research and legal concepts: Where form molds substance. California Law Review, 75(1), 15–49.
• Chandra, A. (2020). Legal analytics and access to justice in India: Promise and perils of technology. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 16(1), 1–26.
• Hellyer, P. (2005). Assessing the influence of computer-assisted legal research: A study of Westlaw and Lexis. Law Library Journal, 97(2), 185–204.
• Manupatra. (n.d.-a). About Manupatra: India’s legal research platform. Retrieved from https://www.manupatra.com/AboutUs.aspx
• Manupatra. (n.d.-a). Legal research on Manupatra: Training manual (PDF). Retrieved from https://www.manupatrafast.com/defaults/manupatra-online-legal-research-training-manual-guide.pdf
• Manupatra. (n.d.-b). Legal research features and tools. Retrieved from https://www.manupatrafast.com/
• Manupatra. (n.d.-b). Legal research made simple, relevant & fast (Brochure PDF). Retrieved from https://www.manupatrafast.com/pers/brochure.pdf
• Manupatra. (n.d.-c). Manupatra legal tech suite – AI-powered research, case management, compliance, contracts, IPR, analytics, and workflow automation. Retrieved from https://www.manupatra.ai/
• Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society and the rise of algorithmic accountability. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 28(2), 529–573.
• Sengupta, S. (2019). Citation practices and precedent in Indian courts. National Law School of India Review, 31(2), 45–67.
• Surden, H. (2019). Artificial intelligence and law: An overview. Georgia State University Law Review, 35(4), 1305–1337.
• The Guardian. (2025). WA lawyer referred to regulator after preparing documents with AI-generated citations for nonexistent cases. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/aug/20/wa-lawyer-referred-to-regulator-after-preparing-documents-with-ai-generated-case-citations-that-did-not-exist-ntwnfb
• Tripathi, A. (2017). Digital legal research and legal education in India. Journal of Indian Law Institute, 59(3), 375–392.
• Walters, E. (2019). The model rules of autonomous conduct: Ethical responsibilities of lawyers and artificial intelligence. Georgia State University Law Review, 35(4), 1073–1124.