M

Manupatra

Artificial intelligence is a substantial, named, shipped layer on a research platform that existed for twenty-five years without it, which is the B band rather than the A. What ships is specific and dated. Manupatra AI Search launched in December 2025, is described by the vendor as powered by semantic AI and large language models, and retrieves judgments by legal concept rather than keyword; AI Summary generates judgment summaries; AI Compare sets judgments side by side.

The separately branded ManuWorks toolkit adds OCR, summarisation, translation, document question-answering, case timeline generation, document comparison and AI-assisted drafting, each with its own published credit rate. The product page carries the HTML title 'Powered by AI' and the headline 'India's trusted Legal Research partner, Powered by AI', and the features link states the platform uses NLP, AI and ML for information retrieval.

What holds it off A is that the vendor itself positions the AI as one retrieval mode among several rather than as the product. Its own guidance directs users to MANU SEARCH, LEGAL SEARCH and CITATION SEARCH for precise, literal or Boolean queries and reserves AI Search for meaning-based ones, and the AI is metered separately from the content subscription through a credit wallet, so a subscriber can hold the platform without holding the AI.

The underlying asset is the editorially enriched corpus and the citation and treatment apparatus, which predate the models and would survive their removal. Verified 13 September 2026.

Grounding is real, documented and architecturally specific, and no accuracy figure is published, which is the B band precisely. The grounding is described in the vendor's own AI brochure and is more than an assertion: AI Search runs against a proprietary, editorially enriched corpus rather than public web data, results are returned as the ten most relevant judgments organised into Facts, Issues, Arguments, Reasoning, Ratio and Summary, hovering Reference confirms the case source, clicking Citation opens the full judgment, and the vendor states that every insight is explainable and traceable to verified legal sources.

The platform also surfaces judicial treatment directly, detecting overruled, distinguished and conflicting judgments and marking currency with blue, yellow and red flags, so the citation-status limb of the A band is satisfied even though the band overall is not. R40 governs the hallucination claim rather than the D limb: the brochure states that the editorial foundation ensures the AI operates strictly within the legal framework, significantly reducing inaccuracies and eliminating AI hallucinations, and that claim stands alongside real controls rather than in place of them, so 'bare' does not apply.

The failure-modes limb of the A band is satisfied, and it is the most substantive thing this vendor publishes about the limits of its own AI. The brochure carries a section headed 'Guidance on Using AI Search' with an express 'When NOT to Use AI Search' list, telling users to avoid AI Search for precise or literal queries, party names, case citations, exact statutory phrases and verbatim quotations, stating that it does not follow Boolean logic, and routing those queries by name to MANU SEARCH, LEGAL SEARCH and CITATION SEARCH.

A further page contrasts well-framed and poorly framed queries across nine worked examples. Very few records in this corpus publish where their own retrieval is weak, and this one does it in the vendor's own voice and in specific terms. What keeps the row at B is the limb the band leads on: no measured accuracy is published for AI Search, AI Summary or AI Compare, no test set is described, no error rate or evaluation exists, and nothing quantifies the elimination claim, which is an absolute assertion of the kind this axis exists to test.

The remaining A limb also fails: nothing states that the system reports finding no support, and on a product that always returns a ranked ten, whether the tenth result is relevant or merely nearest is unanswered. The agreement pulls the other way and is recorded because it is the vendor's own instrument: clause 11.12 states that judgment text on the site is computer generated and that authenticity, correctness and preciseness must be verified from the certified copy, and clauses 15.1 to 15.3 disclaim any warranty of accuracy and place verification checkpoints on the user.

Verified 13 September 2026. Note amended 13 September 2026 under R125(3) to credit the published limitation disclosure on the failure-modes limb, the grade being unchanged; the disclosure was first recorded on Autonomy and Oversight, where R124(2) correctly declined to credit it.

Substantive published material on how the tool is meant to be used and where it should not be relied on, short of the A band's thresholds and review surfaces. The strongest item is unusual enough to name in full. The vendor's AI brochure carries a section headed 'Guidance on Using AI Search' with an express 'When NOT to Use AI Search' list, telling users to avoid AI Search for precise or literal queries, party names, case citations, exact statutory phrases and verbatim quotations, stating that AI Search does not follow Boolean logic, and routing those queries to the named non-AI modes MANU SEARCH, LEGAL SEARCH and CITATION SEARCH.

That is a published negative boundary attaching to a named mode, and it is rarer in this corpus than a confidence score. Around it sit real verification affordances: Reference hover to confirm the source, Citation click to open the full judgment, and a follow-up chatbot for narrowing rather than for acting. The agreement reinforces it, clause 15.3 placing responsibility for sufficient procedures and checkpoints on the user and clause 11.12 requiring verification against the certified copy.

What is absent is what A asks for. No confidence score, no threshold, no statement of what the system does with a query it cannot answer well, no review surface before output, and nothing at all on oversight of the ManuWorks AI Drafter, which generates legal drafts at 50 credits per query with no described review step. R124(2) is the reason this is B and not A: the constraint published here attaches to a named mode but describes which queries the mode suits rather than what its output may not be used for, which is the limb the Verbit tier constraint satisfied. Recorded against parking item 2 as the closest instance in this lane. Verified 13 September 2026.

Scale is claimed at length and no customer is named and no outcome is measured, which is the C band. What is published is substantial as usage evidence: more than 150,000 active users, more than 10 million legal documents and judgments indexed, twenty-five years of operation, a team of more than 175, and offices across India and Bangladesh. The About page's 'Who We Serve' section enumerates five clientele categories, being legal professionals and law firms, in-house legal departments in corporations and banks, academic institutions, government bodies and regulatory agencies, and law students and researchers across Asia.

Categories are not customers. Not one law firm, company, court, tribunal or university is named anywhere on the surfaces read, there is no client wall, no case study, no testimonial and no logo strip, which is a marked contrast with the penetration disclosure typical of vendors at this scale in the corpus. Nor is any outcome quantified: nothing states time saved, research hours displaced, accuracy improved or matters affected, and the AI brochure's benefit claims are functional descriptions rather than measurements.

The 150,000 figure is itself unattributed and undated, appearing as a counter on the product page and in the About page metadata. The seed recorded 100,000 users, which the vendor's own current pages contradict; the figure written here is the vendor's. Verified 13 September 2026.

Substantive published commitments across every limb this axis tests except the one R33 makes decisive, which is what holds an otherwise exceptional record at B. The commitments sit in the published customer agreement rather than a policy page, and they are unusually precise. Clause 4.1 defines Confidential Information to include documents, data, personal data, case files, names, facts, legal strategies and client information uploaded through the website, the AI tools or any related service.

Clause 4.2 requires that it be treated as strictly confidential, used solely for the limited purpose of providing the specific service requested, and not copied, stored, retained, archived, analysed, mined, disclosed or shared for any other purpose, with access restricted to need-to-know personnel under equivalent confidentiality obligations. Clause 4.3 bars disclosure to any third party including affiliates, subcontractors, AI engines and cloud providers without prior express written consent.

Clause 4.7 requires permanent deletion of all Confidential Information and any copies, backups, AI memory, logs, caches or traces immediately after the request is fulfilled and in no event later than 24 hours, with written certification of deletion available on request. Clause 5.8 bars employee viewing of Subscriber Content or AI outputs except to resolve a specific technical issue the Subscriber has raised, with such access logged and minimised.

Clause 4.8 makes these obligations survive termination indefinitely. Training is consent-gated and graded separately. The limb that fails is privilege and work product, and it fails as a matter of language rather than of substance: neither privilege, professional secrecy, work product nor any equivalent is named anywhere, and nothing addresses what happens to privileged material if disclosure is compelled. Clause 4.1's enumeration of case files and legal strategies is the closest the corpus has come outside Verbit's express work-product clause, and it is not the same thing. Verified 13 September 2026.

Substantive published commitments short of alignment with any conduct rule, which is the B band. The agreement addresses the question head on rather than by implication. Clause 16.1, headed 'No Legal Advice', states that material contained on or made available through the site is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and does not in any manner establish a client-advocate relationship. The disclaimer published on the legal page repeats that the company does not warrant any form it provides and is not creating a lawyer-client relationship by providing forms, and adds that forms should be used as a guide and modified to suit requirements and laws, at the user's own risk.

Clause 15.3 places on the user the responsibility for implementing sufficient procedures and checkpoints to satisfy accuracy requirements for input and output. Clause 11.12 goes further than most records in this corpus by requiring that the authenticity, correctness and preciseness of judgment text be verified from the certified copy of the judgment, which is a verification duty rather than a disclaimer. Taken together that is a real posture on who is answerable for the output.

What is absent is any engagement with the professional rules themselves. No conduct rule of any jurisdiction is named, the Bar Council of India is not mentioned, and no clause requires the subscriber to use the product consistently with professional obligations. The gap is sharper than usual on this record and is named rather than passed over: the Supreme Court of India held in July 2026 that citing unverified AI-generated precedent is professional misconduct and directed the Bar Council of India to frame norms, and this vendor publishes that ruling as editorial content on its own updates service while publishing nothing about what its own AI features mean for that duty. Verified 13 September 2026.

Something is published and it is a paragraph, which is the C band rather than the D. The legal page carries a section headed 'Use of AI' reading, in full, that the vendor is committed to using artificial intelligence responsibly and prioritises data privacy, bias mitigation, transparency, human oversight, accountability, user consent, and collaboration with regulations, with the stated aim of maximising AI's benefits while ensuring ethical practices and minimising potential risks.

That is a list of the right words and it is the whole of it. Nothing behind any of the seven named priorities is published: no framework is adopted or certified, no accountable owner or committee is named, no governance process is described, no bias testing is described and no results of any kind are disclosed, and nothing states how human oversight is exercised in a product where the oversight the vendor actually documents is guidance to the user rather than a control in the system.

Bias in particular is asserted as a priority and never returned to, on a product whose AI ranks and summarises judicial authority and surfaces judicial treatment, where a systematic tilt in which precedents surface would be invisible to the researcher. Recorded and not credited as governance, because they are commercial or contractual rather than governance instruments: the agreement's AI section is a strong commitment and is graded on the confidentiality and training rows, and the responsible-AI paragraph is not tied to it.

The Grievance Redressal Officer named on the same page is a statutory Indian IT Act appointment for complaints handling, not an AI accountability owner, and is recorded as such. Verified 13 September 2026.

Substantive published policy covering most of the ground, missing the named subprocessor list, which is the B band and the single limb it names. What is published is contractual rather than promotional and it is specific. Clause 4.4 requires industry-standard technical and organisational security measures. Clause 4.5 commits to notifying the Subscriber in writing within 24 hours of becoming aware of any actual or suspected unauthorised access, disclosure, loss, corruption or breach, to providing full details and impact, to containing, investigating and remediating at its own cost, and to cooperating in legal, regulatory or remedial action.

A named notification window with a stated content requirement is the limb most records in this corpus lack entirely. Clause 4.6 accepts the role of data processor with the Subscriber as data fiduciary under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and commits to the Information Technology Act 2000. Clause 4.7 requires deletion within 24 hours with written certification. Clause 5.3 requires that any storage be temporary, encrypted and automatically deleted after use.

The privacy policy adds encryption technologies, secure servers and firewalls, access control mechanisms, employee confidentiality agreements and training, and states these are regularly reviewed, and records compliance with the SPDI Rules 2011. What is missing is the subprocessor limb and it is missing in an interesting way. No processor is named anywhere, and clause 4.3 explains why the vendor might think none needs naming, since it bars disclosure to any third party including subcontractors, AI engines and cloud providers without express written consent.

The privacy policy nonetheless discloses that third parties perform payment processing, email delivery and hosting, and that the products may integrate cloud storage services including Dropbox and Google Drive, so processors exist and none is identified. No certification supports any of it. Verified 13 September 2026.

A published agreement addresses three of the four limbs with real specificity and the overall allocation is heavily one-sided, which is B rather than A. Warranty is addressed by exclusion: clauses 25.1 and 25.2 provide the information on an 'As Is' basis and disclaim all warranties including merchantability, fitness for purpose and non-infringement, and clauses 15.1 and 15.2 disclaim any representation that the service will be correct, accurate, reliable, uninterrupted or timely.

Liability is addressed and largely excluded: clauses 25.3 and 25.4 exclude liability in contract or tort for any loss howsoever arising in connection with the service, expressly including where caused by the vendor's own negligence, and clause 25.5(i) is the provision that matters most on this axis, excluding liability for any claim relating to the subscriber's inability or failure to perform legal research work properly or completely, or to any decision made or action taken in reliance on the Data.

A cap exists at clause 26.1, limited to the aggregate charges paid during the subscription period, though it is drafted as applying to claims relating to copyright in the data rather than as a general cap, which is a real gap named here rather than smoothed over. What lifts this above the floor is that the agreement also runs the other way, which is uncommon in this corpus. Clauses 21.2 and 26.3 require the vendor to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Subscriber, its clients, employees and affiliates against claims, losses, damages, liabilities, penalties and legal costs arising from any breach of confidentiality or misuse of Subscriber Content, any unauthorised access or data breach, any negligence, wilful misconduct or violation of law by the vendor or its personnel, and any infringement of intellectual property rights.

Clause 5.9 adds immediate termination, indemnification and injunctive relief without proof of special damages for misuse of Subscriber Content, and clause 12.1 a prorated refund. Insurance is not addressed anywhere. Verified 13 September 2026.

Integrations are claimed and some host applications are named, with no documented catalogue and no configuration detail, which is the C band. What is named is thin and scattered rather than gathered on an integrations page, and no integrations page exists in the navigation, which is itself a page-inventory finding under R20. The research platform publishes a 'Plug In' item in both the Subscription and Research menus, resolving to ManupatraAlert, an alerting plug-in on the manupatrafast.com property.

The privacy policy discloses that the products may integrate or offer third-party services including data visualisation services and cloud storage solutions, naming Dropbox and Google Drive, for uploading, storing or sharing documents. The wider suite implies internal connection between the research platform and the Mykase practice and case management product, Manucomply and Manucontract, but each sells on its own domain with its own login and nothing published describes data moving between them.

What is absent is everything the higher bands ask for. No practice management system, document management system or CRM used by Indian firms is named as supported, so a buyer cannot establish whether its own system connects. No public API reference, developer documentation, connector register or authentication model was located. No direction of flow, prerequisite or configuration step is described for any connection, including the plug-in.

Nothing states whether AI Search or the ManuWorks toolkit can be reached from inside another application or only from the vendor's own interface. Verified 13 September 2026.

Cloud delivery with a published residency commitment and no tenancy model stated, which under R38 is B because tenancy and region are co-equal limbs and publishing either clears C. Residency is answered in unusually committal terms for this corpus. The privacy policy carries a section headed 'Data Localization' stating that all personal information is stored and processed on servers located within the user's country of residence, that for users in jurisdictions requiring data localisation the vendor ensures personal data is stored and processed on servers physically within that country's territorial boundaries, and that it does not transfer such data outside the country unless in accordance with applicable law and with appropriate safeguards.

The About page describes the company as a cloud-first platform, and the AI brochure states that the models are trained on Indian data and built in India, which speaks to where the processing sits even though it is written as a provenance claim. The limits are real and are named rather than left to inference. The localisation commitment is written about personal information, and the material this axis most concerns on an AI product is Subscriber Content uploaded to the AI tools, which the agreement governs on confidentiality terms without stating where it is processed; the two are not the same category and nothing joins them.

No tenancy model is described anywhere, so a buyer cannot establish whether a firm's uploaded documents sit in a shared or isolated environment. No data centre, region, availability zone or cloud provider is named, no on-premises or private deployment is offered or refused, and nothing distinguishes storage from processing for the AI features specifically. Verified 13 September 2026.

No certification and no trust centre were located on any surface, which is the D band, and the absence is the vendor's rather than this index's. The page inventory was taken from the navigation and footer under R20 and there is no security page, no trust page, no compliance page and no certification badge anywhere on the estate: the footer's Company column runs About, Contact, Careers and Legal, and the Legal page's six tabs are Corporate, Copyright, Privacy Policy, Disclaimer, IT Compliance and Public Record.

No ISO 27001, ISO 27701, SOC 2, StarAudit, CERT-In empanelment, PCI DSS or any other standard is claimed, no auditor is named, no report period is given, and no certificate, attestation or penetration test summary is offered for download or on request. A targeted search for certification claims returned nothing attributable to the vendor. What exists instead is a description of controls without external validation, and it is recorded so the grade is read as a disclosure finding rather than as a claim about the vendor's actual security: the privacy policy lists encryption technologies, secure servers and firewalls, access control mechanisms, and employee confidentiality agreements and training, stated to be regularly reviewed and updated, and the agreement commits at clause 4.4 to industry-standard technical and organisational measures.

The statutory position is disclosed, being compliance with the Information Technology Act 2000, the SPDI Rules 2011 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, with a named Grievance Redressal Officer, but a statutory compliance assertion is not an independent attestation and is not credited here. Verified 13 September 2026.

The supply chain is partly disclosed, which is the B band's territory on partiality but falls to C because what is disclosed is the technology class and the build location rather than anything about the models themselves. What the vendor does say is more than silence and is recorded precisely. The AI brochure and the December 2025 launch material both state that Manupatra AI Search is powered by semantic AI and large language models.

The brochure states that the system is trained on Indian data and built in India, and that it runs on a proprietary, editorially enriched legal knowledge ecosystem developed over decades rather than on generic AI systems trained on public or non-curated data. That answers what the models were pointed at and where the work was done. It does not answer the questions this axis asks. No model is named, no version is given, and no provider is identified, so a buyer cannot establish whether the large language models are the vendor's own, licensed, or accessed as a third-party service, and the phrase 'built in India' describes the product rather than the model.

Nothing states where inference runs. No commitment to notify subscribers of a model change was located. There is no subprocessor list that would answer the question by another route. One provision cuts against the silence and is noted because a careful reader will find it: clause 5.5 of the agreement bars the vendor from making Subscriber Content available to third parties including, expressly, AI vendors and cloud providers without prior express written consent, which contemplates that such vendors exist in the stack while naming none of them. Verified 13 September 2026.

Figures, units, structure and the governing commercial terms are all published and a buyer can plan against them without a sales conversation, which is the A band. The AI Solutions page publishes an ungated price table. Unlimited AI Summary access is 5,000 rupees a year for Supreme Court judgments, 5,000 rupees a year for High Court judgments and 10,000 rupees a year for both, all stated exclusive of GST. AI wallet plans covering AI Search, AI Compare and AI Summary are published at 1,000 credits for 6,000 rupees, 1,500 credits for 9,000 rupees and 2,000 credits for 12,000 rupees.

The unit of charge is not only stated but decomposed: the ManuWorks toolkit publishes per-feature consumption at 15 credits per page for OCR, 3 per page for summarisation, 20 per page for translation, 5 per query for question-answering, 8 per page for timeline generation, 15 per document for comparison and 50 per query for AI drafting, with credit value fixed at 1 credit to 1.25 rupees, a 10,000 rupee minimum first purchase and a 5,000 rupee minimum top-up.

Activation is stated to be pro-rated and a credit dashboard showing top-ups, usage and balance is described. So a buyer can model the cost of a specific workload in advance, which almost nothing else in this corpus permits. The commercial terms behind the price are published too, in the agreement: advance payment, non-refundability, renewal and deactivation mechanics, the vendor's right to modify charges with effect from the next renewal term, a seven-day window to dispute transactional charges, and taxes payable in addition.

Two limits are named rather than glossed. The content subscription itself, as opposed to the AI add-ons, routes to a subscription plans page and the agreement states that the product price card is available on request, so the platform's own base price is less exposed than its AI pricing. And clause 3.9's transactional pricing statement implies a usage-metered tier whose rate card is not published. Verified 13 September 2026.

Coverage is documented with real substance across jurisdiction, content type and buyer role, short of the stated limits the A band requires. Jurisdictional coverage is the strongest part and is specific: Indian case law from the Supreme Court, all High Courts and all tribunals, together with legislative, regulatory and procedural material, notifications, reports, commentaries and secondary sources across all Indian jurisdictions and Commonwealth countries, with a dedicated content coverage page, more than 10 million indexed documents, and daily addition of new laws, notifications and judgments.

A separate Bangladesh database, BDlex, is sold alongside. Buyer roles are addressed explicitly and across the range: the AI pricing page names students, lawyers, law firms and corporate legal teams as the audiences for the credit model, and the About page enumerates legal professionals and individual practitioners, in-house legal departments in corporations and banks, academic and educational institutions, government bodies, regulatory agencies and policy makers, and law students, researchers and educators across Asia.

Practice coverage is addressed through the content rather than through practice-area packaging, which suits a general research database, and R15 governs that limb: a horizontal case-law platform does not vary by practice area and is neither credited nor penalised for the absence of practice-specific editions. What holds it off A is that no limit is stated anywhere. Nothing identifies a jurisdiction, court level, tribunal or content type that is out of scope, nothing states the earliest coverage date or any gap in the historical record, nothing says which Commonwealth jurisdictions are included and which are not, and nothing states whether the AI features cover the whole corpus or only parts of it, which matters because AI Search is described in terms of judgments while the database also holds statutes, rules and commentary. Verified 13 September 2026.