Many populous countries including India are burdened with a considerable backlog of legal cases. Development of automated systems that could process legal documents and augment legal practitioners can mitigate this. However, there is a dearth of high-quality corpora that is needed to develop such data-driven systems. The problem gets even more pronounced in the case of low resource languages such as Hindi. In this resource paper, we introduce the Hindi Legal Documents Corpus (HLDC), a corpus of more than 900K legal documents in Hindi. Documents are cleaned and structured to enable the development of downstream applications. Further, as a use-case for the corpus, we introduce the task of bail prediction. We experiment with a battery of models and propose a Multi-Task Learning (MTL) based model for the same. MTL models use summarization as an auxiliary task along with bail prediction as the main task. Experiments with different models are indicative of the need for further research in this area.

An automated system that could assist a judge in predicting the outcome of a case would help expedite the judicial process. For such a system to be practically useful, predictions by the system should be explainable. To promote research in developing such a system, we introduce ILDC (Indian Legal Documents Corpus). ILDC is a large corpus of 35k Indian Supreme Court cases annotated with original court decisions. A portion of the corpus (a separate test set) is annotated with gold standard explanations by legal experts. Based on ILDC, we propose the task of Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation (CJPE). The task requires an automated system to predict an explainable outcome of a case. We experiment with a battery of baseline models for case predictions and propose a hierarchical occlusion based model for explainability. Our best prediction model has an accuracy of 78% versus 94% for human legal experts, pointing towards the complexity of the prediction task. The analysis of explanations by the proposed algorithm reveals a significant difference in the point of view of the algorithm and legal experts for explaining the judgments, pointing towards scope for future research.