Pakistan Case Law

Pakistan Case Law gives your AI direct access to more than 250,000 reported judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Federal Shariat Court, the High Courts and tribunals, from 1970 to the present, with new judgments added daily.

Instead of answering from memory and risking hallucinated citations, your AI searches the real corpus and cites what it finds. Every result carries its law-report citation (PLD, SCMR, CLC, YLR, MLD, PCrLJ, PLC, PTD and others) and a link to the full judgment, so each answer can be checked against the source.

What you can ask

Research a Pakistani legal proposition end-to-end using the citation graph
Example path

MCP connector

Server URL: https://pakistancaselaw.com/mcp
Login: None
Protocol: MCP 2025-11-25
Instructions: Pakistan Case Law — 231,000+ reported judgments (Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court, High Courts and tribunals, 1970 onward) across every subject: criminal, family, property, civil procedure, tax, service, constitutional. Each judgment is linked by a full citation graph.
Only four things you cannot work out from the tools themselves — the rest is your judgement, and adapting as you see results beats following any fixed recipe:
HOW THIS SEARCH RANKS (counter-intuitive). It is precision-first: it prefers judgments containing ALL your terms. So a bare legal principle or a bare Latin maxim is the WEAKEST query possible — it matches thousands of unrelated judgments across every subject. Anchor the principle to its CONTEXT (the body, office, statute, procedural stage or fact pattern): weak : "approbate and reprobate" -> 730 hits, none on point strong: "approbate and reprobate candidate unsuccessful challenge recruitment" Too few results: drop a context word. Thousands: add one. For a legal QUESTION ("does delay in lodging the FIR entitle the accused to bail?") also try : it matches the question a judgment settles, not its words. Ordering is NEARNESS first, then senior court > larger bench > more recent > more cited. sort='newest' for the current state of the law (amendments supersede); sort='court' for authority — but some subjects live almost entirely in the High Courts, so never discard on-point High Court authority.
ONE SEARCH IS NEVER ENOUGH. Re-phrase and search again, and follow the citation graph from what you have found (see the get_citations / get_cited_by tools) — it routinely surfaces authority that no search phrasing reaches. Go where the material leads; ask the user first only if a further round would be genuinely large or slow. You MAY, between rounds, put questions to the user — to narrow the issue, settle a fact that changes which line of authority applies, or offer a promising direction the material has opened up. This is a capability to use when it will sharpen the research, not a step you owe on every round; if the question is already clear, just carry on.
REPORT THE OUTCOME OF EACH CASE. Every judgment carries the court's own recorded disposition ("result": e.g. Appeal dismissed / Appeal allowed / Bail granted / Leave refused / Case remanded). Always state it alongside the citation, because a judgment can lay down the very principle you rely on while the applicant still LOST on the facts — and the reader must know which. Report it neutrally as a fact about the case; it is not a comment on the judgment's correctness or weight.
HEADNOTE COVERAGE IS PARTIAL and growing. (section='summary') returns a headnote for some judgments — the cheapest way to judge relevance. Its ABSENCE says nothing about a case's importance. Use section='full' only for cases you will actually rely on. For a LONG judgment read in this order: the summary, then section='outline' (a map of it: the judge's paragraph numbers, each separate opinion, the order), then only the paragraphs you need - paras='41-55' (the judge's own numbers; when several judges wrote separate opinions that each number their paragraphs from 1, the outline says so and paras='2:3-5' means opinion 2, paragraphs 3-5) or find='words' (the paragraphs of that one judgment that match). They return the court's exact words, so quote and cite them by paragraph number.
JUDGE vs AUTHOR. judge finds every case a judge SAT on; author only the ones that judge WROTE (the author is shown on each case when known). For "what has Justice X personally held on ...", use author.
REPORT HONESTLY. Quote the passage relied on; give the citation AND the /case/ URL so it can be checked. List authority that cuts AGAINST the user's position as well as for it. If the corpus does not support a proposition, say so rather than stretching a weak case. This is research assistance, not legal advice — the user must verify against the official report (PLD, SCMR, CLC, YLR, PLC, MLD...) before relying on anything.

Tools

Reads data7

Skills

None in the store listings or on the server

MCP connector

Server URL

https://pakistancaselaw.com/mcp

None

Protocol

MCP 2025-11-25

Instructions

Pakistan Case Law — 231,000+ reported judgments (Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court, High Courts and tribunals, 1970 onward) across every subject: criminal, family, property, civil procedure, tax, service, constitutional. Each judgment is linked by a full citation graph.

Only four things you cannot work out from the tools themselves — the rest is your judgement, and adapting as you see results beats following any fixed recipe:

HOW THIS SEARCH RANKS (counter-intuitive). It is precision-first: it prefers judgments containing ALL your terms. So a bare legal principle or a bare Latin maxim is the WEAKEST query possible — it matches thousands of unrelated judgments across every subject. Anchor the principle to its CONTEXT (the body, office, statute, procedural stage or fact pattern): weak : "approbate and reprobate" -> 730 hits, none on point strong: "approbate and reprobate candidate unsuccessful challenge recruitment" Too few results: drop a context word. Thousands: add one. For a legal QUESTION ("does delay in lodging the FIR entitle the accused to bail?") also try : it matches the question a judgment settles, not its words. Ordering is NEARNESS first, then senior court > larger bench > more recent > more cited. sort='newest' for the current state of the law (amendments supersede); sort='court' for authority — but some subjects live almost entirely in the High Courts, so never discard on-point High Court authority.

ONE SEARCH IS NEVER ENOUGH. Re-phrase and search again, and follow the citation graph from what you have found (see the get_citations / get_cited_by tools) — it routinely surfaces authority that no search phrasing reaches. Go where the material leads; ask the user first only if a further round would be genuinely large or slow. You MAY, between rounds, put questions to the user — to narrow the issue, settle a fact that changes which line of authority applies, or offer a promising direction the material has opened up. This is a capability to use when it will sharpen the research, not a step you owe on every round; if the question is already clear, just carry on.

REPORT THE OUTCOME OF EACH CASE. Every judgment carries the court's own recorded disposition ("result": e.g. Appeal dismissed / Appeal allowed / Bail granted / Leave refused / Case remanded). Always state it alongside the citation, because a judgment can lay down the very principle you rely on while the applicant still LOST on the facts — and the reader must know which. Report it neutrally as a fact about the case; it is not a comment on the judgment's correctness or weight.

HEADNOTE COVERAGE IS PARTIAL and growing. (section='summary') returns a headnote for some judgments — the cheapest way to judge relevance. Its ABSENCE says nothing about a case's importance. Use section='full' only for cases you will actually rely on. For a LONG judgment read in this order: the summary, then section='outline' (a map of it: the judge's paragraph numbers, each separate opinion, the order), then only the paragraphs you need - paras='41-55' (the judge's own numbers; when several judges wrote separate opinions that each number their paragraphs from 1, the outline says so and paras='2:3-5' means opinion 2, paragraphs 3-5) or find='words' (the paragraphs of that one judgment that match). They return the court's exact words, so quote and cite them by paragraph number.

JUDGE vs AUTHOR. judge finds every case a judge SAT on; author only the ones that judge WROTE (the author is shown on each case when known). For "what has Justice X personally held on ...", use author.

REPORT HONESTLY. Quote the passage relied on; give the citation AND the /case/ URL so it can be checked. List authority that cuts AGAINST the user's position as well as for it. If the corpus does not support a proposition, say so rather than stretching a weak case. This is research assistance, not legal advice — the user must verify against the official report (PLD, SCMR, CLC, YLR, PLC, MLD...) before relying on anything.