Most people in India meet the law at the worst possible moment.
Stopped at a checkpoint at night. Handed an eviction notice. Refused admission for a child. Asked for money by someone across a desk who has the stamp you need. Told at a hospital counter that the scheme does not apply to you.
At that moment the question is narrow, urgent, and practical: what am I actually entitled to here, and what do I do next?
The information exists. It is public. It is also spread across hundreds of statutes, written in English legalese, and organised for people who went to law school. The barrier was never secrecy. It is language, structure, and time — and the person standing at that desk has none of the three.
That gap is the whole reason this was built.
The thing that makes it hard
You could point a chatbot at Indian law and ship it in a weekend. That product would be worse than nothing, for two reasons.
A confident wrong answer. The person asking cannot tell. That is the entire point — if they could evaluate the answer they would not have needed to ask. So they act on it. They sign the thing. They don't file within the limitation period. They accept a refusal that was unlawful.
An answer with no source. Legal information you cannot check is legal information you cannot use. You cannot stand in an office and say "an AI told me." You can say "Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita says you must tell me why I am being arrested" — and that sentence changes the room.
Almost every design decision here follows from those two sentences.
What we built
Every answer names the provision it came from. Section, article, or scheme field. Not a link to a homepage — the actual provision. You can look it up, print it, quote it.
It refuses when it doesn't know. If the corpus has nothing relevant, it says so and points you at legal aid. On our evaluation set it declines 100% of the questions it should decline. A refusal is a worse product experience and a better legal one.
It never restates a number from memory. Fines, deadlines, limitation periods, age thresholds — copied from the statute or not stated. Also measured at 100%, and the one I would least like to be wrong about, because a wrong deadline is a lost right.
What the law requires and what is merely sensible are never merged. Every answer that carries practical advice keeps it in a separate column from the citations. "Photograph the notice before anything moves" is good advice. It is not a legal right, and presenting it as one teaches people to trust the wrong things.
It answers in the language you asked in. English, Hindi, Gujarati — typed or spoken, in your own script or in Roman letters. mera makan malik bina notice nikal raha hai works.
Nothing leaves the machine. No third-party model API. Your question about a police station does not become training data for a company in another country.
And for the worst moments, it does not generate at all. Being held past twenty-four hours. A child refused school admission. A bribe demanded. Eviction from forest land. For these, the service returns fixed, pre-checked text — the forum to approach and the provision behind it — with no model in the loop. It is identical every time and it works when everything else is degraded. Because the moment you most need this is the moment you can least afford a creative answer.
How to get the most out of it
Ask the specific thing, not the general thing. "What are my rights?" gets you a summary. "The police have held my brother since yesterday evening and have not taken him to a magistrate" gets you Article 22, Section 58, and the words habeas corpus.
Say where you are. Tenancy, prohibition, and land law vary enormously by state. Naming Gujarat or Bihar changes the answer, and it should.
Read the citation, not just the answer. The citation is the part we are most confident about. The wording around it is where mistakes live — especially in Hindi and Gujarati, where we have found answers that cited the correct section and still chose the wrong word.
Ask it what to do, not what to think. It is better at "who do I complain to and under what section" than at "will I win."
If it refuses, that is information. It means the law you need is not in the corpus yet. Tell us — that is how the corpus grows.
And tell us when it is wrong. A rating on a wrong answer is worth more to us than ten on right ones. We cannot find these by marking our own homework; we have tried, and the failures that matter most are invisible to every metric we have.
The part that matters more than the software
Here is what we want anyone using this to take away, whether they ever open the tool again or not.
Article 14 of the Constitution: the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Any person. Not any citizen of means, not any person with a lawyer, not any person the officer decides to be reasonable with today.
Article 15: no discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Article 21: no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Procedure established by law — not procedure decided at a desk, not procedure invented because you seemed like you would not argue.
And Article 32, which Ambedkar called the heart and soul of the Constitution: the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce these is itself a fundamental right. The protection and the means of enforcing it were written together, on purpose.
These are not policy that shifts with a government. Under the basic structure doctrine, the essential features of the Constitution — fundamental rights among them — cannot be amended away even by Parliament. They were placed beyond the reach of an ordinary majority precisely so that they would still be there on the day someone inconvenient needed them.
So: do not be intimidated. Not by a uniform, not by a desk, not by a raised voice, not by someone who says a rule exists without showing it to you. If you have broken no law, you are not obliged to agree to something you are not obliged to agree to. Stay calm. Ask for the officer's name. Ask for the reason in writing. Say clearly that you do not consent.
And do not resist physically — that is a separate offence, and it hands away a case that was otherwise yours. Being unafraid is not the same as being unwise.
Equally: do not intimidate anyone else. The same Articles protect the person across the desk from you, the tenant, the domestic worker, the man from another state, the woman filing the complaint. A right you would assert for yourself and deny to someone else is not a right you have understood. The Constitution does not contain a version for people you like.
The law was written to protect you and to punish an authority that oversteps. It only does that for people who know it exists.
That is the actual product. The software is just how we hand it to you.
Try it
dashboard.aiondashboard.site/models/know-your-rights/demo
Free, no signup. Three questions, then rate one and keep going.
It is a pilot, not a finished thing. Coverage is incomplete — labour, family and disability law are thin, and state law is deepest for Gujarat. Hindi and Gujarati are weaker than English. We publish the gaps rather than hide them, because a legal service that hides its gaps is the exact failure it exists to prevent.
We especially want to hear from:
- Practising advocates willing to review twenty answers in one domain and tell us which are wrong. This is what gates a wider release — not a better score.
- Native Hindi and Gujarati speakers, to judge whether answers read properly and say the right thing, not merely whether they cite the right section.
- Legal aid organisations and NGOs who would put this in front of the people they serve.
aionanalytics@tutamail.com — or the client, API contract and docs are on GitHub.
This provides legal information, not legal advice. It is not a substitute for a qualified lawyer or a legal aid service, and it does not pretend to be one. If you are in immediate danger, call 112.
Top comments (0)