Research Abstract: Prevailing norms of modernization and secularization tend to uncritically endorse the digitization of law and legal records without troubling to investigate potentially harmful effects on marginalized communities, especially in the Global South, where historic forms of discrimination can compound practices of inequality. I explore legal pluralism in “secular” modern state courts and “Islamic” non-state courts (shalish) in Bangladesh to compare how cases are represented in legal research software, which generate digital archives that are used for research by lawyers, academics, and researchers in various fields and professions. Digital technologies are generally treated as abstract and outside human biases; I problematize this view. I conceptualize the term ‘neocolonial digitality’ to demonstrate how the digitization process of law and legal records and the data retrieval tools to find relevant cases in legal research software are not neutral; rather, they are closely tied to preexisting social structures and biases generated in elite settings. Using 14-months ethnographic fieldwork, archival research, and interviews, I study the non-state legal system – shalish –to demonstrate how the databases and data retrieval tools of legal research software rely primarily on the modern rule of law, and exclude alternate legal systems that hold more weight on the ground. My research shows how legal research software can prejudice against marginalized communities such as rural women in Bangladesh and distort or erase their socio-legal realities and standpoints. Hence, the digital archives of research software produce, disseminate, and re-produce knowledge that can have ideological and material consequences, which deepen subaltern women’s marginality in unexpected ways, especially in postcolonial states in the Global South.