LexChronos: An Agentic Framework for Structured Event Timeline Extraction in Indian Jurisprudence
Organizations: TCS Research
Abstract
Understanding and predicting judicial outcomes demands nuanced analysis of legal documents. Traditional approaches treat judgments and proceedings as unstructured text, limiting the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) in tasks such as summarization, argument generation, and judgment prediction. We propose LexChronos, an agentic framework that iteratively extracts structured event timelines from Supreme Court of India judgments. LexChronos employs a dual-agent architecture: a LoRA-instruct-tuned extraction agent identifies candidate events, while a pre-trained feedback agent scores and refines them through a confidence-driven loop. To address the scarcity of Indian legal event datasets, we construct a synthetic corpus of 2000 samples using reverse-engineering techniques with DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-4, generating gold-standard event annotations. Our pipeline achieves a BERT-based F1 score of 0.8751 against this synthetic ground truth. In downstream evaluations on legal text summarization, GPT-4 preferred structured timelines over unstructured baselines in 75% of cases, demonstrating improved comprehension and reasoning in Indian jurisprudence. This work lays a foundation for future legal AI applications in the Indian context, such as precedent mapping, argument synthesis, and predictive judgment modelling, by harnessing structured representations of legal events.
Figures & tables
| Judgment Component | LES Coverage | Justification of Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Facts | Timestamp, Event | Factual elements are encoded as Events with corresponding Timestamps establishing the case chronology. |
| Issues | Event | The framing of issues is a critical procedural Event which dictates the focus of the subsequent legal analysis. |
| Petitioner’s Arguments | Event, Precedent | Arguments constitute procedural Events ; their basis relies heavily on Precedent or statutory references. |
| Respondent’s Arguments | Event, Precedent | Similar to petitioner’s claims, these are timed procedural Events grounded in Precedent . |
| Analysis of the Law | Event, Precedent | The application of law is a judicial Event and is intrinsically linked to the Precedent being discussed. |
| Precedent Analysis | Event, Precedent, Judge | This analytical Event explicitly involves the cited Precedent and the authoritative Judge performing the analysis. |
| Model | Avg Length of Judgments | Avg Events per Case | Avg Precedents per Case | Unique Vocab Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-R1 | 1010.96 | 27 | 6 | 34623 |
| GPT-4 | 552.92 | 19 | 3 | 17080 |
| Core Judgment Component with Judgment text |
|---|
| Facts |
| “The genesis of the dispute traces back to January 2020, when Proxima Inc. acquired a substantial stake in Zenith Corp, leading to disputes concerning corporate governance and the rights of minority shareholders.” |
| Issues |
| “..the principal issues discussed revolved around corporate governance, the rights of minority shareholders, and the extent of judicial oversight permissible over corporate decisions.” |
| Petitioner’s Arguments |
| “In February 2020, the minority shareholders of Zenith Corp alleged oppression and mismanagement by the board members of Proxima Inc., leading to the filing of a complaint…” |
| LLM | Bert Precision | Bert Recall | Bert F1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | 0.8450 | 0.8336 | 0.8390 |
| Gemma 3 1B IT | 0.8237 | 0.7992 | 0.8113 |
| Gemma 2 2B IT | 0.7809 | 0.7957 | 0.7880 |
| Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | 0.6058 | 0.6054 | 0.6052 |
| DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B | 0.5548 | 0.5135 | 0.5276 |
| Qwen 2.5 3B | 0.5628 | 0.4467 | 0.4752 |
| Feedback Configuration | Bert Precision | Bert Recall | Bert F1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self Feedback | 0.8681 | 0.8371 | 0.8523 |
| Gemma 2 2B IT | 0.8918 | 0.8590 | 0.8751 |
| Gemma 3 1B IT | 0.8664 | 0.8348 | 0.8502 |
| Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | 0.8665 | 0.8351 | 0.8505 |
| Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | 0.8661 | 0.8344 | 0.8499 |
| LLM | ||
|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.1 8B Instruct | 55 | 145 |
| Gemma 2 9B IT | 50 | 150 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Case Categories | |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | Civil Law |
| Banking and Finance Law | Education Law |
| Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) | Taxation Law |
| Labor and Employment Law | Family Law |
| Consumer Protection Law | Cyber Law |
| Real Estate and Property Law | Criminal Law |
Legal NLP
Legal natural language processing (NLP) develops methods for analyzing and generating statutes, cases, contracts, and legal advice.
See all 102 papers