Pakistan Case Law MCP Server

Fetch one judgment by id. section='summary' (default) returns metadata + the AI headnote (plain-language summary, the laws/provisions referred, and keyword tags) — read this first to judge relevance cheaply. section='full' additionally returns the judgment body text (capped at ~40,000 chars; the response flags body_truncated/body_chars_total when longer).

Walk the citation graph FORWARD: list the in-corpus cases that THIS judgment cites (the precedents it relied on). Combine with caselaw_get_cited_by to traverse precedent backward and forward until a research question is resolved. Most useful on RECENT judgments: a 2024-25 case usually has nobody citing it yet, but its own citation list is a curated map of the established authority on the point.

Walk the citation graph BACKWARD: list later cases that cite THIS judgment (how it was subsequently treated — followed, distinguished, relied upon). Returns newest first. Most useful on OLDER or landmark judgments: it shows whether the case is still followed and where the principle has been applied since. A leading case can have hundreds of citing cases.

Find the judgment(s) at an exact law-report citation. Example: journal='PLD', year=1995, page=34 → PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34. Omit page to list everything reported in that journal+year. Returns the same case shape as caselaw_search.

List the most-cited (landmark) judgments in the corpus, ranked by how many other cases cite them. A good entry point for the leading authorities on Pakistani law.

Full-text search of 230,000+ Pakistani judgments (Supreme Court & High Courts, 1970–2025). Ranking follows how lawyers research: nearness to the legal point decides which cases are returned; among comparably-near cases, more senior court > larger bench > more recent > more cited. Use sort='newest' when you need the current state of the law (later judgments supersede as statutes are amended), or sort='court' for the most authoritative first. Returns ranked cases with id, title, citation, court, year, a snippet, and the public URL. For an exact report citation use caselaw_lookup_citation. To read a case, pass its id to caselaw_get_case.

Find judgments by the QUESTION they settle, rather than by words they contain. Every AI summary on this corpus records the questions that judgment actually decides — e.g. "Does delay in lodging the FIR by itself entitle the accused to bail?" This searches those questions, so it matches the shape a legal problem arrives in rather than the vocabulary a 1987 bench happened to use. COVERAGE IS PARTIAL: only some judgments have an AI summary with questions yet (the response's `coverage_note` gives the current live ratio, which keeps growing). An empty result means no *summarised* judgment matched — it does NOT mean no such judgment exists. Fall back to caselaw_search, which covers the whole corpus. The questions are written by an AI reading the judgment. They are a finding aid, not a holding: cite the judgment, never the question. Pass an id to caselaw_get_case to read it.