Access to justice · India
Equalaw closes that gap from both ends at once. Citizens get their situation named, dated and routed in their own language. Advocates get matters that are already structured, in the jurisdictions they actually practise in.
The product, not a mockup
A voice-first intake app that needs no account, no legal vocabulary and no reading — and the caseworker console that receives the same intake as a checkable brief, with the machine's confidence score and a hard gate before any advice reaches a person.
A legal marketplace only works if both sides show up. So both sides are being opened together, state by state — never demand without the supply to answer it.
Free, private, and in your language. You will be told what your situation is called, who holds it, how long you have, and what the next concrete step is.
You set the jurisdiction, the forums and the matter types. What reaches you arrives with facts, limitation position and documents attached — and both aid and paid work builds one verifiable record.
India does not lack legal rights. It lacks a working path from a person's actual problem to the right that covers it. The statute is public. The forum is public. The limitation period is public. None of that helps if nobody ever told you which one applies to you.
Meanwhile there is no shortage of advocates. There is a shortage of matters that reach them in a usable state — and of any mechanism that credits an advocate for the aid work they already do.
One side has a problem it cannot name. The other has capacity it cannot find. That is not a charity gap. That is a matching problem, and matching problems are solved by markets.
A person knows something went wrong. They do not know it has a name, a forum, or a deadline. So they do nothing, and the deadline passes.
An advocate has capacity and would take the matter. It never reaches them, because there is no channel between a village and a district court list.
Legal-aid authorities and NGOs sit between the two, doing the routing on paper, at the speed of paper.
The layer that does that routing at software speed — and, critically, keeps a record on both sides so the matching gets better with every matter.
Citizens never pay. The platform is funded on the supply side — empanelment, verified practice records, and institutional deployments with legal-aid authorities and CSR programmes that need the routing and the reporting anyway.
8 district legal services authorities and 15 NGOs, working rural land disputes and domestic violence matters.
Localised across 12 states with compliance frameworks that update as the legislation does.
Demoed at the Young Leadership Summit, RightsCon 2025, Taipei. Written up as a NASSCOM-backed case study.