Think Like LiquidText: Turning Case Files into Proof Maps with Perplexity, Copilot and Meta AI

 How LiquidText’s active-reading method can be approximated with Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot and Meta AI—without surrendering judicial reasoning, confidentiality or source verification.

The basic idea

LiquidText is not merely a PDF reader. It places several source documents beside an expandable workspace, permits the reader to pull out excerpts, arrange them into groups, draw live “Ink Links,” compare distant passages and return from every note to its original context. It can import multiple documents into one project, display remote portions together and link notes or excerpts back to their sources.

Print Page

The Digital Bench: A Judge’s Guide to Mastering iPad & LiquidText

 

In the traditional courtroom, the "Bench" is often buried under physical mountains—bulky paper books, fragile charge sheets, and loose-leaf precedents. For a Session Judge handling serious criminal trials or complex bail applications, the cognitive load of physically managing these files often competes with the intellectual task of deciding them.

Enter the combination of an iPad and LiquidText. This is not merely a digital upgrade; it is a fundamental shift from reading a file to interacting with it.

This guide explores how judicial officers can leverage this specific hardware-software duo to create a "Digital Workspace" that is faster, lighter, and smarter than any physical file.

Print Page

From Record to Reasons: How LiquidText on Ipad Helps Judges to decide complex and complicated cases Better?

A practical guide to reading, marshalling and deciding a criminal record on the digital bench (updated October 2026)

Why This Matters on the Sessions Bench

A Sessions Judge handles some of the heaviest files in the district judiciary: murder trials, NDPS and POCSO cases, sessions appeals, criminal revisions, and a steady stream of bail applications. Each file brings a charge-sheet, the FIR, statements under Section 180 BNSS (old Section 161 CrPC), the spot and seizure panchanamas, medical and post-mortem reports, the FSL report, depositions and the arguments of both sides.

The real work lies not in reading these papers but in connecting them. You compare what PW-3 said in the witness box with what he told the police, set the post-mortem injuries against the eyewitness account, and check the seizure date against the chain of custody of the sample. On paper this means flags, slips and constant flipping between pages. LiquidText, a reading and annotation app for iPad (and also for Mac, Windows and iPhone), is built for exactly this kind of cross-document comparison.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Claimant is not entitled to get compensation in motor accident if he fails to prove identity of offending vehicle in the accident

 5.3 All the above evidence, circumstances and

considerations reinforce that the factum of involvement of

the offending vehicle as claimed and asserted by the

claimants was not proved. The claimants failed to

discharge their obligation on this count which was to be

the primary step. Given the above strong evidentiary

considerations, even on the principle of the

preponderance of probabilities, the involvement of Tata

Magic vehicle with registration number MH-13-B-2719

could not be concluded and was not established.

5.4 It was correct on the part of the High Court to

conclude that mere mentioning of Tata Magic by name in

the inquest Panchnama or in the FIR would not be

sufficient to hold that it was the same Tata Magic

belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with

respondent No.2 in absence of its clear identification.

6. It is a settled position of law that in a motor- accident

claim petition, the initial burden to prove the factum of

accident and involvement of offending vehicle lie on the

claimants. It is the claimants who have to discharge this

primary burden by establishing the occurrence of the

accident and the involvement as well as identity of the

vehicle at least on prima facie basis. Only then the onus to

disprove shifts to the other side.

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6794 of 2025

VANITA & ORS. Vs M/S SHRIRAM INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. 

Author: N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1077

Dated: SEPTEMBER 04, 2025.

Print Page