judgment_id string | text string | metadata dict | classification dict | extractions dict | statutory_transitions list | provenance dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IN-HC-ALL-2006-CR-E12315 | Allahabad High Court
Jaipal Singh Mittal S/O Late Mangal Jain vs State Of U.P. And Arvind S/O Sri Om ... on 1 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)DMC697
Author:
Vinod Prasad
Bench:
Vinod Prasad
JUDGMENT
Vinod Prasad, J.
1. This bail cancellation application under
Section 439(2)
Cr.P.C. has been preferred... | {
"court": "Allahabad High Court",
"court_level": "HC",
"decision_date": "2006-12-01T00:00:00",
"case_number": "Bail Application No. 7787 of 2006",
"jurisdiction": "India",
"petitioner": "Jaipal Singh Mittal S/O Late Mangal Jain",
"respondent": "State Of U.P. And Arvind S/O Sri Om ...",
"bench": []
} | {
"domain": "criminal",
"confidence": "high",
"signals": {
"criminal": [
"CrPC",
"IPC",
"accused",
"bail",
"custody",
"issue:bail",
"issue:sentencing",
"offence",
"prosecution"
],
"civil": [
"defendant"
],
"service": [],
"writ_sup... | {
"citations": {
"total": 0,
"by_type": {},
"details": []
},
"sections": {
"total": 9,
"by_act": {
"IPC": [
"498A",
"304B",
"323"
],
"CrPC": [
"439(2)",
"437",
"439",
"437(1)"
],
"Evidence Act": [
"11... | [
{
"ipc": "498A",
"bns": null,
"source": "pre_bns_background",
"validated": false,
"risk": "none",
"confidence": "low",
"note": "Pre-BNS judgment. IPC section recorded as background only."
},
{
"ipc": "304B",
"bns": null,
"source": "pre_bns_background",
"validated": fa... | {
"pipeline_version": "2.0",
"processed_date": "2026-03-23T23:00:38.038410",
"processing_steps": [
"ingestion",
"metadata_extraction",
"issue_extraction",
"classification",
"statutory_transitions",
"citation_extraction",
"consolidation"
]
} |
IN-HC-ALL-2006-MX-E0B4E7 | "Allahabad High Court\n\nAnjani Kumar Misra Son Of Sudarshan ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary,(...TRUNCATED) | {"court":"Allahabad High Court","court_level":"HC","decision_date":"2006-11-03T00:00:00","case_numbe(...TRUNCATED) | {"domain":"mixed","confidence":"medium","signals":{"criminal":["issue:quashing"],"civil":["decree","(...TRUNCATED) | {"citations":{"total":43,"by_type":{"reporter":2,"case_name":41},"details":[{"type":"reporter","repo(...TRUNCATED) | [] | {"pipeline_version":"2.0","processed_date":"2026-03-23T23:00:39.289310","processing_steps":["ingesti(...TRUNCATED) |
IN-HC-ALL-2006-SV-121D60 | "Allahabad High Court\n\nRam Pratap Shukla Son Of Late Kewala ... vs State Of U.P. Through Its Secre(...TRUNCATED) | {"court":"Allahabad High Court","court_level":"HC","decision_date":"2006-03-27T00:00:00","case_numbe(...TRUNCATED) | {"domain":"service","confidence":"high","signals":{"criminal":[],"civil":["contract"],"service":["Fu(...TRUNCATED) | {"citations":{"total":1,"by_type":{"case_name":1},"details":[{"type":"case_name","petitioner":"Yashw(...TRUNCATED) | [] | {"pipeline_version":"2.0","processed_date":"2026-03-23T23:00:39.224899","processing_steps":["ingesti(...TRUNCATED) |
IN-HC-ALL-2007-CR-25B3AC | "Allahabad High Court\n\nSmt. Radha Wife Of Late Sri Karuna ... vs State Of U.P. And Arvind Kumar S/(...TRUNCATED) | {"court":"Allahabad High Court","court_level":"HC","decision_date":"2007-12-11T00:00:00","case_numbe(...TRUNCATED) | {"domain":"criminal","confidence":"high","signals":{"criminal":["CrPC","IPC","accused","bail","fir",(...TRUNCATED) | {"citations":{"total":0,"by_type":{},"details":[]},"sections":{"total":7,"by_act":{"IPC":["498-A","3(...TRUNCATED) | [{"ipc":"498-A","bns":null,"source":"pre_bns_background","validated":false,"risk":"none","confidence(...TRUNCATED) | {"pipeline_version":"2.0","processed_date":"2026-03-23T23:00:38.739617","processing_steps":["ingesti(...TRUNCATED) |
IN-HC-ALL-2007-SV-C323C8 | "Allahabad High Court\n\nLife Insurance Corporation Of India ... vs Kailash Nath Son Of Sri Mata Pra(...TRUNCATED) | {"court":"Allahabad High Court","court_level":"HC","decision_date":"2007-12-06T00:00:00","case_numbe(...TRUNCATED) | {"domain":"service","confidence":"medium","signals":{"criminal":[],"civil":["issue:limitation","issu(...TRUNCATED) | {"citations":{"total":0,"by_type":{},"details":[]},"sections":{"total":0,"by_act":{},"details":[]},"(...TRUNCATED) | [] | {"pipeline_version":"2.0","processed_date":"2026-03-23T23:00:39.621672","processing_steps":["ingesti(...TRUNCATED) |
IN-HC-ALL-2010-CV-6A606F | "NAGARATHNA, J.\n\n1. Bird’s Eye View of the Controversy: ........................................(...TRUNCATED) | {"court":"Allahabad High Court","court_level":"HC","decision_date":"2010-10-25T00:00:00","case_numbe(...TRUNCATED) | {"domain":"civil","confidence":"medium","signals":{"criminal":[],"civil":["contract","issue:limitati(...TRUNCATED) | {"citations":{"total":18,"by_type":{"reporter":4,"case_name":14},"details":[{"type":"reporter","repo(...TRUNCATED) | [] | {"pipeline_version":"2.0","processed_date":"2026-03-23T23:00:37.430049","processing_steps":["ingesti(...TRUNCATED) |
IN-HC-ALL-2010-MX-8D4CBF | "Allahabad High Court\n\nPrabhuji & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Appointment & 40 ... on 16 Dece(...TRUNCATED) | {"court":"Allahabad High Court","court_level":"HC","decision_date":"2010-12-16T00:00:00","case_numbe(...TRUNCATED) | {"domain":"mixed","confidence":"medium","signals":{"criminal":["issue:quashing","offence","sentence"(...TRUNCATED) | {"citations":{"total":28,"by_type":{"reporter":27,"case_name":1},"details":[{"type":"reporter","repo(...TRUNCATED) | [] | {"pipeline_version":"2.0","processed_date":"2026-03-23T23:00:37.463343","processing_steps":["ingesti(...TRUNCATED) |
IN-HC-ALL-2011-CR-BEF97B | "Allahabad High Court\n\nRe: In The Matter Of Matrimonial ... vs State Of U.P. & Others on 30 Septem(...TRUNCATED) | {"court":"Allahabad High Court","court_level":"HC","decision_date":"2011-09-30T00:00:00","case_numbe(...TRUNCATED) | {"domain":"criminal","confidence":"high","signals":{"criminal":["Code of Criminal Procedure","CrPC",(...TRUNCATED) | {"citations":{"total":11,"by_type":{"reporter":6,"case_name":5},"details":[{"type":"reporter","repor(...TRUNCATED) | [{"ipc":"498-A","bns":null,"source":"pre_bns_background","validated":false,"risk":"none","confidence(...TRUNCATED) | {"pipeline_version":"2.0","processed_date":"2026-03-23T23:00:40.642204","processing_steps":["ingesti(...TRUNCATED) |
IN-HC-ALL-2011-MX-BD7C5F | "Allahabad High Court\n\nPrem Kumar Singh & 11 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. ... on 4 Janua(...TRUNCATED) | {"court":"Allahabad High Court","court_level":"HC","decision_date":"2011-01-04T00:00:00","case_numbe(...TRUNCATED) | {"domain":"mixed","confidence":"medium","signals":{"criminal":["CrPC","NDPS","issue:quashing","offen(...TRUNCATED) | {"citations":{"total":7,"by_type":{"reporter":2,"case_name":5},"details":[{"type":"reporter","report(...TRUNCATED) | [] | {"pipeline_version":"2.0","processed_date":"2026-03-23T23:00:39.380175","processing_steps":["ingesti(...TRUNCATED) |
IN-HC-ALL-2011-SV-AB5E10 | "Allahabad High Court\n\nSmt. Madhulika Pathak vs State Of U.P. And Others on 29 January, 2011\n\nBe(...TRUNCATED) | {"court":"Allahabad High Court","court_level":"HC","decision_date":"2011-01-29T00:00:00","case_numbe(...TRUNCATED) | {"domain":"service","confidence":"high","signals":{"criminal":["accused"],"civil":["issue:specific_p(...TRUNCATED) | {"citations":{"total":3,"by_type":{"reporter":2,"case_name":1},"details":[{"type":"reporter","report(...TRUNCATED) | [] | {"pipeline_version":"2.0","processed_date":"2026-03-23T23:00:38.920504","processing_steps":["ingesti(...TRUNCATED) |
JITS Legal Dataset
A production-ready, deterministic pipeline for processing Indian legal judgments into structured, high-quality legal datasets — with comprehensive extraction, self-citation exclusion, and multi-act statutory section detection.
Overview
Disclaimer: This dataset is independently created for research and engineering use. It is not an official government or judicial release and does not constitute legal advice.
The JITS Legal Dataset currently contains 3008 processed judgments in the full corpus,
with 2215 rows in the current public train.jsonl release export,
processed into machine-readable JSON with:
Coverage includes Supreme Court, High Court, and tribunal (CAT) decisions.
- Clean text extraction with artifact removal (Phase 1)
- Citation extraction with self-citation exclusion (Phase 2)
- Multi-act section extraction supporting 9+ statutory acts (Phase 3)
- IPC→BNS transition mapping with temporal validation (Phase 4)
- Comprehensive processing of 3008 judgments (current full-corpus build)
All outputs are reproducible, auditable, and traceable to explicit rules.
Intended Use
This dataset is designed to support multiple use cases:
- Research: Legal NLP benchmarking without label noise from ML
- Engineering: Structured legal data for analytics and downstream systems
- Hackathons: Ready-to-use dataset requiring no preprocessing
- Legal & GovTech: Explainable, audit-friendly legal data artifacts
This dataset is not intended to provide legal advice.
Limitations: A full-corpus deterministic audit (n=3008) verifies metadata and structural quality (court/date/case completeness, ID validity, date normalization, and referential integrity), currently reporting 69.0% metadata completeness (2077/3008), 0 non-ISO dates, 0 duplicate IDs, and 0 referential-integrity errors. This is an extraction-quality audit, not formal legal adjudication or institutional validation.
Dataset Metrics
| Metric | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Full Corpus (Processed Judgments) | 3008 | Consolidated deterministic corpus |
Release Export Rows (train.jsonl) |
2215 | UNKNOWN-court and unknown-year IDs excluded |
| Metadata Completeness | 69.0% (2077/3008) | Audit metric (court + decision_date present) |
| Missing Court (Full Corpus) | 738 | Remaining UNKNOWN-court records |
| Missing Decision Date (Full Corpus) | 384 | Full-corpus missing dates |
| Missing Case Number (Full Corpus) | 1068 | Full-corpus missing case numbers |
| Unknown-Year IDs (Full Corpus) | 165 | IDs with unresolved year |
| Release Missing Dates | 138 | Missing dates in exported train.jsonl |
| Release Missing Case Numbers | 597 | Missing case numbers in exported train.jsonl |
| Similarity Edges | 802,552 | Rebuilt deterministic graph |
| Refined Clusters | 77 | Post-rebuild domain-pure clusters |
| Non-ISO Dates | 0 | Date normalization verified |
| Duplicate IDs | 0 | Uniqueness verified |
| Referential Integrity Errors | 0 | Referential checks passed |
Quality Improvements
- ✅ Self-citation exclusion: No false positive citations
- ✅ Complete section extraction: Hyphenated sections (498-A, 304-B) now captured
- ✅ Section-act context: All sections linked to correct parent act
- ✅ Temporal transition guardrails: Pre-
2024-07-01judgments do not receive inferred BNS mappings - ✅ Canonical court codes: HC/SC/TR levels with real court identifiers (ALL, DEL, BOM...)
- ✅ Tribunal separation: CAT records correctly typed as TR, not HC
- ✅ Comprehensive testing: Validated extraction modules
Data Generation
The dataset was generated using a deterministic pipeline that performs:
- Text normalization and stable ID generation
- Rule-based metadata and domain classification
- Statutory transition mapping for legacy cases
- Issue, citation, and landmark extraction
- Deterministic similarity graph construction
The full preprocessing, audit logic, and schemas are available in the associated GitHub repository:
👉 https://github.com/Viverun/jits-data-pipeline
Reproducibility & Provenance
Quick Verification
To reproduce the dataset generation locally:
git clone https://github.com/Viverun/jits-data-pipeline.git
cd jits-data-pipeline
pip install -e .
legal-ai pipeline && legal-ai audit --type quality
- No randomness or probabilistic models are used
- Identical inputs produce identical outputs
- Each dataset version corresponds deterministically to a specific pipeline commit
Note on Dataset Size: Earlier snapshots in this repository may show lower counts. The current deterministic corpus build contains 3008 processed judgments, while the current release export contains 2181 rows after UNKNOWN-court and unknown-year exclusion.
Changelog
v1.8 (2026-03-23)
- Added targeted CWP court fallback (
Haryanamarker with Himachal exclusion) when court isUNKNOWN. - Re-ran pipeline through
consolidateand regeneratedtrain.jsonl. - Full-corpus quality now: metadata
69.0%(2077/3008), missing court738, missing date384, missing case number1068, unknown-year IDs165, non-ISO dates0, duplicate IDs0. - Release quality now:
2215rows, missing dates138, missing case numbers597, unknown-year IDs excluded from export. - Verification green: metadata tests
63/63.
v1.7 (2026-03-22)
- Added strict release gate to block unknown-year (
0000) IDs in export/upload. - Deepened decision-date fallback and year recovery in metadata/ID regeneration.
- Fixed metadata case-number regex backtracking stalls and restored stable throughput.
- Re-ran pipeline from metadata through consolidate.
- Rebuilt similarity graph (
802,552edges) and refined clusters (77). - Referential integrity re-validated with
0errors after graph rebuild. - Full-corpus quality now: metadata completeness
67.4%(2027/3008), missing court753, missing date527, missing case number1108, unknown-year IDs238, non-ISO dates0, duplicate IDs0. - Release quality now:
2181rows, missing dates154, missing case numbers607, unknown-year IDs0, non-ISO dates0.
v1.6 (2026-03-22)
- Rebuilt corpus through
consolidateand regeneratedtrain.jsonl. - Added deeper-header fallback recovery in metadata extraction.
- Added Delhi QR/order-portal detection, Orissa signed-location recovery, and Andhra Amaravati proceedings-sheet recovery.
- Added safer embedded high-court caption matching.
- Broadened case-tag support (
MA,First Appeal,C.Misc.,CR. WJC). - Full-corpus quality:
66.3%metadata completeness (1995/3008), missing court631, unknown-year IDs321, non-ISO dates0, duplicate IDs0, referential integrity errors0. - Release quality (
train.jsonl):2377rows, unknown-ID cases excluded631, missing dates382, missing case numbers635, non-ISO dates0. - Verification green: metadata tests
63/63, normalize-dataset tests3/3, pipeline-runner tests2/2.
v1.5 (2026-03-19)
Breaking: 744 judgment IDs changed from v1.4.
- Court codes corrected across all IDs.
- Tribunal records (CAT, AFT) separated from High Court records.
- Metadata court extraction tightened; overmatched court phrases removed.
- 23 refined clusters (was 25), with 90,924 similarity edges unchanged.
v1.4 (2026-03-19)
- Regenerated all 846 records from the rebuilt raw text corpus and reran the full deterministic pipeline end-to-end.
- Fixed similarity signal extraction so statutory section overlap is populated from actual transition/section fields.
- Normalized decision dates and enforced temporal safeguards so judgments dated before
2024-07-01do not receive inferred BNS mappings. - Switched the pipeline to the strengthened zero-ML classifier with explicit service-domain handling and removed the prior writ-petition overclassification path.
- Wrote
statutory_transitionsconsistently at the record top level in consolidated outputs. - Corrected analytics compatibility for v2 extraction fields and removed the duplicate
audit_landmarksmethod definition. - v1.4 breaking change:
397judgment IDs changed because domain classification was corrected. IDs containing-CV-,-CR-, or-SV-segments may differ from v1.3. If you stored v1.3 IDs externally, re-map using thejudgment_idfield in the new export.
Core quality metrics are computed using audit logic in:
legal_ai_toolkit/analytics/audit.py::DataAuditor.audit_quality()
Dataset Structure
Each record contains:
judgment_id: Stable unique identifiertext: Full judgment textmetadata: Court, date, case identifiersextractions: Structured citations, sections, issues, landmarks, and transition summariesclassification: Rule-based domain classificationstatutory_transitions: IPC / CrPC → BNS / BNSS mappingsprovenance: Pipeline versioning and processing metadata
Schema Overview
The dataset schema is designed for clarity and ease of use:
- text (
string): Raw source text of the judgment, cleaned of HTML artifacts. - metadata (
dict): Core legal metadata including court, date, and case identifiers. - extractions (
dict): Structured legal entities extracted from the text (citations, sections). - classification (
dict): Rule-based domain classification (e.g., Civil vs Criminal) with confidence scores and signal keywords. - statutory_transitions (
list): Mappings of legacy IPC/CrPC sections to new BNS/BNSS equivalents. - provenance (
dict): detailed pipeline versioning and processing timestamp for full auditability.
Note: The field
annotationsin the raw data is a logical grouping that acts as a container for extracted entities like citations, issues, and similarity metadata, which are detailed above underextractionsandclassification.
JSON Record Example
Here is a simplified example of a single record:
{
"judgment_id": "IN-HC-ALL-2007-CR-25B3AC",
"text": "Allahabad High Court...",
"metadata": {
"court": "Allahabad High Court",
"court_level": "HC",
"decision_date": "2007-12-11",
"case_number": "CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 7936",
"jurisdiction": "India"
},
"classification": {
"domain": "criminal",
"confidence": "high",
"signals": {
"criminal": ["CrPC", "IPC", "accused", "bail", "fir"]
}
},
"statutory_transitions": [
{
"ipc": "498-A",
"bns": null,
"source": "pre_bns_background"
}
],
"provenance": {
"pipeline_version": "2.0",
"processed_date": "2026-03-19T19:35:17"
}
}
Source Code
The complete data processing pipeline, schemas, and audit tools are available at:
👉 https://github.com/Viverun/jits-data-pipeline
Citation
If you use this dataset, please cite:
Viverun (2026). JITS Legal Dataset (v1.8). Hugging Face.
License
This dataset is licensed under Apache-2.0.
Community & Feedback
If you discover any noise, discrepancies, or have suggestions for improvements, please report them via the GitHub Issues page. Your feedback is crucial for refining this dataset.
Similarly, if you encounter any bugs in the processing pipeline, please contact us or open an issue on the repository. Contributions are welcome and highly appreciated!
Note by Viverun
- Downloads last month
- 12