License the Indian court record, not a summary of it.
Primary records from the Supreme Court, all High Courts, District Courts and tribunals, as an API or a feed, for platforms that need grounding they can cite. Not a reported judgment archive, and not a summary layer between you and the record.
Two buyers, two problems
Built for grounding, and for screening
The same corpus answers two different commercial questions. Pick the card that matches what you are building, or read both if you are not sure yet.
Legal AI platforms
Ground a retrieval layer on primary records
Your model is only as trustworthy as the record behind it. Licensing primary Indian court records gives your retrieval layer something a lawyer can actually check, and gives you a citation with a deep link rather than a paraphrase.
The differentiator is the docket layer: District Court filings, live case status, order sheet timelines and party level litigation history, none of which a reported judgment publisher carries, because reported judgment publishers work from decided appellate opinions, not from the case as it moves through the trial court.
Why this is clean to license
In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that raw judgments are in the public domain, while a publisher's copy edited text, headnotes, footnotes and paragraph numbering are protected as that publisher's own work. CourtMesh licenses primary records sourced from official court portals and does not ingest another publisher's headnotes or paragraph numbering.
Counsel review pending on this paragraph.
Verification and risk platforms
Screen parties at volume, with confidence bands
Party litigation screening at the volume a KYC, BGV or credit underwriting pipeline actually needs, returned with a confidence band rather than a bare match or no match, so your own risk logic decides what a weak match is worth.
A nightly change feed for watched parties is in development and is not available yet. Nothing on this page should be read as a live feed offering; when it ships it will be announced on this site and priced as its own product.
Wholesale unit economics
- From ₹0.06 per credit, down to ₹0.04 per credit above 20 lakh credits a month.
- ₹6 per matched litigation check.
- ₹1.20 per genuine no match check.
- ₹15,000 per month Enterprise floor.
Deal shape
The terms we open with
Read this as a term sheet, not marketing copy. This is what we propose before a conversation adjusts it to your specifics.
- Exclusivity
- Non exclusive by default. Field limited exclusivity, for example within one named buyer category for a fixed term, is available at a premium and carved narrowly. We do not sign blanket exclusivity.
- Term
- Two year initial term, auto renewing unless either side gives notice.
- Fees
- An annual access fee for the grounding right, plus metered usage above an included allowance, tiered down by volume as your monthly call count grows.
- Rights granted
- Retrieval and display only. Training and fine tuning on the licensed records is a separately priced right under a separate signature, not bundled into the retrieval licence.
- Attribution
- A named source selector inside your product, citation level deep links back to the underlying CourtMesh record, and a joint announcement at signing if both sides want one.
- Redistribution
- Retrieval only, no bulk export of the corpus. A defined cache window rather than indefinite storage. Ownership of derived data, embeddings, summaries and extracted metadata, spelled out in the agreement. Deletion of cached and embedded content on termination.
- Warranty
- We warrant lawful collection of the records and our right to licence them. We do not offer uncapped third party indemnity, and we do not warrant editorial content we did not create, such as another publisher's headnotes.
Start with a paid pilot
We offer a paid pilot running 60 to 90 days. You design the coverage and recall test: bring your own case list, and we agree the acceptance criteria in the pilot order form before it starts, not after. It converts the usual coverage argument into an experiment you control.
If you proceed to a full licence, the pilot fee is credited against year one. A pilot also runs under a lighter security review than a production licence, so it is a faster route to a real answer while a fuller vendor review proceeds separately.
Security posture
Where we stand today, stated plainly
We would rather tell you what is missing than let a claim stand unchallenged until due diligence finds it.
Not yet in place
- SOC 2 Type II attestation
- ISO 27001 certification
- A published uptime or freshness SLA
Neither certification has a target date scoped yet.
In place today
- India hosting, with data residency in India
- Per account audit log
- API key hashing, keys shown once and never stored in the clear
- A live case removal and de-indexing pipeline running in production
A data processing agreement is available on request, and we will complete a CAIQ or SIG style vendor questionnaire and sign a security addendum with incident response terms as part of a licensing conversation.
For the same posture stated against the API specifically, retention windows, breach process and our subprocessor list, see API security.
Legal basis
What lets us license this
Judgments and orders of Indian courts are public records. Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act, 1957 places the reproduction of judicial pronouncements outside copyright infringement. In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court confirmed raw judgments are in the public domain, while a publisher's copy edited text, headnotes and paragraph numbering are separately protected. We ingest from official court portals and do not resell or reproduce another publisher's editorial layer.
Counsel review pending on this paragraph.
On AI use of copyrighted text, the Delhi High Court, in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI, decided 24 July 2026, held prima facie that temporary storage during training was protected as fair dealing. These are provisional interim findings made for the purpose of temporary relief only, and the suit continues, so we cite the order as helpful context, not as settled law.
On personal data, court records carry information about real litigants, and we treat that as a DPDP question with a working answer rather than a promise. CourtMesh runs a published case removal and takedown route, described in full on the case removal policy. We honour the Delhi High Court's order of 29 May 2026 in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, 2026:DHC:4891, directing de-indexing of specified records from name based search, as at 18 September 2026.
API terms and data licence
What a plain API key grants, in plain terms
This is the licence that comes with any CourtMesh API key, self serve or Enterprise, separate from the bespoke terms above for a bulk or platform level licensing deal.
Retrieval and display only. An API key lets you fetch records and show them to your own users. It does not grant a right to train or fine tune a model on the corpus; that is a separate right, priced and signed separately from API access.
Cache window. You may cache a raw record (the case document, its metadata as CourtMesh returns it) for up to 30 days. Derived metadata, anything your own system computes from a record such as an extracted field, a classification or an embedding, may be kept for as long as you need it, since it is your own output rather than a copy of ours.
No bulk redistribution. Retrieval through the API is for your own use and your own product's users, not for republishing the corpus, or a substantial part of it, as a competing data product or feed.
Attribution. Where you display data retrieved via the API in a public application, attribute the source as Source: CourtMesh linking back to courtmesh.ai, unless a separate agreement waives this.
Counsel review pending on this paragraph.
FAQ
Data licensing questions
Talk to licensing
Tell us which side you are on and we will come back with terms, not a generic deck.