We are not replacing CCTNS, CIS or e-Prisons. They already exchange data through ICJS under "one data, once entry." What's missing is a layer that stitches those federated pieces into a single case story, adds the participants and branches the official pillars leave out, and reads it all against the new criminal codes. This walks the case department by department — marking, at every step, what is live today, what we add, and the law that anchors it.
ICJS doesn't mint a single case identity — it lets each pillar keep its own key and searches across them. Our addition is an entity-resolution layer that binds those keys into one persistent ID, so the same matter is one object from FIR to apex court. Biometric keys (NAFIS 10-digit NFN, prison biometric ID) make the resolution far more reliable than name/mobile alone. No pillar gives up its system of record.
ICJS already joins on these identifiers for national search. We persist that resolution as a durable case identity and assemble a read-only timeline over the federated stores — the data stays owned by its origin pillar.
The rail on the left is the whole journey; the active stop tracks as you scroll. Each station shows its workflow steps — tap any step for detail — tagged Live, Add or Law, the data it exchanges, and the AI that assists there, with the human decision it always hands back.
e-FIR · case diary · AV seizure & statements · arrest data · charge sheet
court orders · summons/warrant status · custody & prison data
Human gate: whether to register, FIR vs NCR for the record, and whom to arrest — the officer decides; AI only drafts and proposes.
exhibit registration · forensic reports with custody references
case linkage · sealed exhibits · examination directions
Human gate: the scientific finding — the match, the cause of death — is the expert’s, never the model’s.
prosecutor case tracking · trial-readiness status · applications
court schedule · charge-sheet & evidence data
Human gate: charging strategy — what to press, what to withdraw — is the prosecutor’s judgment.
cognizance · orders · summons/warrants · case status · CNR
FIR & charge-sheet metadata + PDFs · custody history · applications
Human gate: accepting/returning a filing and final listing priority are registry/judicial orders — AI prepares only.
prisoner ID · custody records · biometrics · e-Mulaqat logs
production warrants · remand / bail orders
Human gate: release, custody and visit decisions follow the court order & jail authority — AI flags and schedules only.
charge · depositions · accused statement · judgment · sentence
entire record — documents, forensics, testimony, custody, applications
Hard wall: no AI surface recommends conviction, acquittal, bail or sentence. The copilot fetches and organises; the judge reasons and decides.
appeal/revision orders · interim relief · confirmation · remand
trial record via CIS/NJDG · custody timeline · order ledger
Hard wall: the appellate outcome — affirm, modify, acquit, remand — is the bench’s. AI assembles and researches only.
SLP outcome · final judgment · binding precedent
complete lifecycle record — FIR to HC order
Hard wall: the merits are the Court’s alone. AI never proposes how a matter should be decided.
legal-aid case data · applications · vakalatnama · documents (scoped)
case status · orders · cause list · supplied charge-sheet
Human gate: defence strategy and what to file are counsel’s decisions — AI explains, retrieves and drafts only.
Every AI touchpoint inline above is one of five modes, in rising order of risk. The matrix maps where each vertical uses them. The sixth mode — deciding the merits — is barred everywhere.
Speech-to-text, entity/event extraction, structuring a narration or document into fields.
Semantic search over precedent, prior orders, antecedents and the case record.
Condensing files, judgments, depositions; translating across Indian languages.
Drafting register entries, notices, lists, order skeletons — always human-approved.
Categorisation, defect detection, anomaly & deadline flagging. Advisory signals only.
| Vertical | Extract | Retrieve | Summarise | Generate | Classify | Decide merits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Police | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ✕ |
| Forensics | – | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | ✕ |
| Prosecution | – | 1 | 1 | – | 2 | ✕ |
| Magistrate | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 3 | ✕ |
| Prison | – | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | ✕ |
| Trial | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ✕ |
| High Court | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | ✕ |
| Supreme Court | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ✕ |
| Defence | – | 1 | 2 | 1 | – | ✕ |
| Unified / cross-cutting | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 2 | ✕ |
Hard wall: no outcome prediction or risk score that could shape a bail, sentence or verdict. Analytics inform administration, never the merits.
The left column is the live ICJS handshake between police and court. The right is the thin layer we add on top — assembling, resolving and tracking — without touching the pillars' systems of record.
What CIS does today to pull police data — a federated, cursor-based exchange.
A read/orchestrate layer that sits over the same APIs — no new system of record.
Interim applications, collateral remedies and offence-specific overlays don't sit in the linear flow — they reference the UCID and surface wherever relevant. This is squarely our layer, built over the live order & case data.
Filed and decided mid-stream; each resolves to an order on the live ledger and can flip custody state at once.
Parallel challenges that can pause or end the matter from outside the main flow.
Rules that switch on extra obligations & protections automatically from the metadata.
Everything on the left is already running and statutorily mandated. Everything on the right is the application layer we add over it — buildable without changing any pillar's infrastructure.
The new codes don't just permit this workflow — they specify the evidence objects it must capture and the integrity it must prove.
This is intentionally not folded into the workflow above. The AI hooks are a later, optional layer, and they sit under a hard legal boundary that shapes what they are allowed to be. Treat this box as the governing constraint on everything tagged "AI" elsewhere.
The Supreme Court's first AI framework permits AI for assistive tasks only and bars it outright from the decisional core — adjudication, bail and sentencing. For this system that draws a clean line down the middle of the AI layer: assistance is allowed, decision-making is not.