Risk & compliance
Criminal Court Record
Searches civil and criminal court records across every jurisdiction a candidate has lived in, with an advocate reviewing every potential match against corroborating identifiers before it's ever shown as a flag.
- 3–10 daystypical turnaround
- 4sources checked
- 4signals the engine watches for
Court & Tribunal Sources
We cross-reference every major court database, tribunal record, and e-courts platform in real time.
Supreme Court
Appeals and writs that have moved beyond a High Court, searched separately.
High Courts
Matters escalated beyond the district court, searched across every jurisdiction lived in.
District Courts
Case-type and party-name search across every address in the lookback period.
Tribunals
Consumer, labour and other tribunal matters outside the ordinary court hierarchy.
NCRB Data
National Crime Records Bureau cross-referenced against the candidate's identity.
ICJS Data
Inter-operable Criminal Justice System integrated search across police and courts.
Police records
An optional in-person station confirmation beyond what's digitised on eCourts.
Rigorous criminal background screening
We cover every jurisdiction a candidate has lived in, backed by meticulous identity corroboration.
Jurisdiction coverage
Every address the candidate has lived at is a jurisdiction the search has to cover, not just the current city.
Where the answers come from
Our process interrogates primary court records across all levels of the judiciary.
NCRB & Police Records
Cross-referenced directly against National Crime Records Bureau datasets and local police records for FIRs.
ICJS Data
Deep search within the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System connecting FIRs, court proceedings, and prison records.
District and sessions courts
Case-type and party-name search across every jurisdiction the candidate has lived in.
High Court records
Appeals, writs and matters that have moved beyond the district court, searched separately.
Police station verification
A local station confirms no locally held record beyond what's digitised on eCourts.
eCourts index
The national case-tracking index used to decide where to search further.
Watch each court source answer, one at a time
An index search produces name hits that mean nothing until an identifier rules them in or out. Pick a source to watch that specific search run.
From consent to a routed decision
Our process ensures false positives are removed by our expert advocate review team.
- eCourts index searched for every declared and prior address
- District, sessions and High Court records covered separately
- Police-station verification added where the client requires it
- Name matches scored against corroborating identifiers
- Case status pulled fresh, not from a cached index
- Non-digitised jurisdictions flagged for a manual visit
- Relevance to the role assessed case by case
- Client's risk policy applied to what's disqualifying
- Case listing and review note attached as evidence
Touring all 3 — pick a step to hold it
What a discrepancy looks like — next to what a clean pass looks like
Most cases close like the record on the right. The one on the left is a real, corroborated match, documented exactly as an adjudicator would see it.
Pending case, corroborated match
- Declared history
- No pending or prior criminal cases
- 1 pending case — Section 138 NI Act, cheque dishonour
- Corroborating identifiers
- —
- Father's name and address match the case filing
- Case status
- —
- Pending, next hearing 14 Oct 2026
- Jurisdiction
- 3 addresses declared
- 4th jurisdiction (previous address, 2018–2020) searched — case originated there
Escalated
Advocate-reviewed before the flag was ever shown — a name-only match is never surfaced without corroboration, and here every identifier lined up. Routed to the client's own risk policy: role relevance and the nature of the matter determine whether it's treated as disqualifying or simply noted.
- Method
- eCourts case-type and party-name search across every declared and previously-resident jurisdiction, corroborated against father's name, date of birth and address before being surfaced to the adjudicator.
- Source
- District & Sessions Court, previous city of residence · eCourts index
- Captured
- 17 Aug 2026, 09:50 IST
- Retention
- Case listing and advocate review note retained 7 years
No matching record across four jurisdictions
- Jurisdictions searched
- 3 declared addresses
- 4 searched — includes 1 undeclared prior address
- Cases found
- None declared
- None found
- Corroboration
- —
- No name matches required corroboration
- Case relevance review
- —
- N/A — no matters found
Closed
Closed clean — every jurisdiction the candidate lived in came back with no matching case, so the file never reached advocate review.
- Method
- eCourts case-type and party-name search across every declared and previously-resident jurisdiction.
- Source
- eCourts index + District & Sessions Courts, all four jurisdictions
- Captured
- 17 Aug 2026, 09:15 IST
- Retention
- Search log retained 7 years as adjudication evidence.
TAT by scenario
Turnaround time depends heavily on the level of digitisation across searched jurisdictions.
Single jurisdiction, digitized on eCourts, High Court, Supreme Court
digitisedMultiple jurisdictions (candidate has lived in 2+ cities)
digitisedPolice station verification requested in addition
non-digitisedJurisdiction with no digitised court records
non-digitised- Global sanctions & PEPWatchlists, sanctions regimes and adverse media in one search.
- Credit & financial checkFinancial exposure for roles that handle money.
- Address verificationDigital confirmation or a geo-tagged field visit.
- Browse all checksThe full catalogue, with a package builder.
- PricingPer-check rates, volume tiers and the savings calculator.
Questions HR and risk teams actually ask
It doesn't get flagged. An advocate reviews every potential match and requires corroboration — father's name, date of birth or address — before it's ever surfaced. A name-only hit against a common name is discarded at this stage, not shown to the client.
Every address the candidate has lived at over the defined lookback period, typically seven years — not just the current city. Undeclared prior addresses that surface during the address check are added to the search.
The search flags it and routes to a manual court clerk visit, which extends the turnaround for that specific case — usually into the 10–15 day range instead of the standard 3–10 days.
No — it depends on the state and the role's risk tier. Some clients require it in addition to the eCourts search as standard policy; for most roles, the digital court search alone is sufficient.
Case status is pulled fresh from the court record at the time of the check, not cached from an earlier search. A matter that's been disposed or acquitted doesn't generate a flag — only pending or convicted matters relevant to the role do.
Get started
Check criminal backgrounds with absolute certainty
Ensure workplace safety with our comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional criminal record checks.