Back to all projects
RAG SystemsCase Study

AndhaKaanun

Jurisdiction-aware AI legal reasoning platform using Indian-law retrieval.

RAGPineconeGroqLlama-3.3-70bIndian LawFastAPI
RAG Systems

A

AndhaKaanun

Case study visual placeholder

Architecture flow

3 layers
API & Services
Retrieval & Data
AI Orchestration
Vector retrieval over Indian-law context
Separate prosecution and defense reasoning paths
Follow-up question loop for missing legal facts

Problem

Most legal AI tools give broad answers without jurisdictional grounding, explicit opposing arguments, or enough context to refine weak legal claims.

My Role

Designed the RAG flow, legal context framing, dual-perspective output structure, and missing-facts interaction model.

Solution

A RAG pipeline retrieves Indian-law context, passes it into an LLM reasoning flow, and asks follow-up questions when facts are missing.

Stack

RAGPineconeGroqLlama-3.3-70bIndian LawFastAPI

Case study

Problem

Most legal AI tools give broad answers without jurisdictional grounding, explicit opposing arguments, or enough context to refine weak legal claims.

Proof signal

Indian law RAG · IPC grounding · Pinecone · Groq/Llama-3.3-70b

My Role

Designed the RAG flow, legal context framing, dual-perspective output structure, and missing-facts interaction model.

Core product work

  • Incident intake
  • Citation-aware retrieval context
  • Dual argument generation
  • Missing fact prompts

Solution

A RAG pipeline retrieves Indian-law context, passes it into an LLM reasoning flow, and asks follow-up questions when facts are missing.

Incident descriptions enter a RAG pipeline backed by Pinecone. Retrieved Indian-law context is passed to Groq/Llama-3.3-70b to produce prosecution and defense reasoning, followed by an interactive engine that asks for missing legal facts.

Architecture Highlights

Vector retrieval over Indian-law context

Separate prosecution and defense reasoning paths

Follow-up question loop for missing legal facts

Challenges and Tradeoffs

  • Avoiding broad legal claims without enough retrieval context.
  • Separating legal reasoning support from legal advice.

Impact / Outcome

  • Built a case-study-ready RAG architecture for jurisdiction-aware legal reasoning.
  • Improved output usefulness by forcing both sides of the argument to be represented.

Learnings

  • RAG systems need domain-specific guardrails and uncertainty handling.
  • Opposing-perspective generation can expose weak or missing assumptions.