A Comparative Study of Word Processors for Automatic Spell and Grammar Correction in Indian Languages

The increasing use of digital content in Indian languages has created a growing demand for reliable word processors capable of providing accurate spell and grammar correction. Although several commercial and open-source word processors offer multilingual writing assistance, their effectiveness across Indian languages varies significantly due to differences in linguistic resources, Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) based correction mechanisms. This study presents a comparative evaluation of seven widely used word processors Microsoft Word, Google Docs, LibreOffice Writer, Zoho Writer, Indic WP, WPS Writer, and Notepad++ with respect to their support for Indian languages, spell checking, grammar correction, multilingual compatibility, and underlying technologies.
The comparison was conducted using a structured evaluation framework based on language coverage, spell-check availability, grammar-check support, correction mechanisms, platform type, and usability. The collected information was analyzed through comparative tables and graphical visualization to identify the strengths and limitations of each platform for multilingual writing. The findings indicate that cloud-based platforms, particularly Google Docs and Zoho Writer, provide context-aware AI-assisted writing support, whereas Microsoft Word demonstrates strong multilingual spell-checking capabilities through NLP-based techniques. LibreOffice offers effective offline spell-checking using the Hunspell engine, while Indic WP focuses on phonetic typing and Indic script support. However, reliable grammar correction remains limited for several Indian languages, especially Gujarati and other regional languages.
The study highlights the need for advanced transformer-based multilingual language models and larger annotated datasets to improve automatic spell and grammar correction for Indian languages. The findings may assist researchers, software developers, and multilingual users in selecting appropriate word processors and identifying future research directions for Indian language writing assistance.

Indian Languages, Word Processors, Spell Checking, Grammar Correction, Natural Language Processing, Artificial Intelligence, Multilingual Computing.

1. Srivastava, R., etal. (2025). Unicode 16.0 and the Future of Indic Scripts. Journal of Software Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bhashini Mission (2025). Annual Report on Digital Inclusion, Ministry of Electronics and IT, India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Microsoft (2026). Documentation for MS Editor: Multilingual API. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. The Document Foundation (2024). Libreoffice 24.2 Release Notes: Localization Improvement. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Zoho Corp (2026). Training Zia for Regional Contextual Analysis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Indic WP Team (2024). Optimizing PHP for Real-time Phonetic Conversion. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Nielsen India (2025). User Preference survey: Word processing in Local Language. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bhatia, R. (2024). The impact of LLMs on Multilingual Word Processing. Journal of Computation..al Linguistics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Khanuja, S., et al. (2021). MuRIL: Multilingual Representation of Indian Languages. Google Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Devi, S.L., & Rao, P. K. (2025). Contextual Correction in Brahmic Scripts. India AI Summit Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Shah, Panchal (2025). Hybrid Context Aware Gujarti Spell Correcgitn Using Norving Algorithm, GRU and IndicBERT. Informatica [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Macwan, S. J., & Vyas, A. N. (2015, August). Classification of offline Gujarati handwritten characters. In 2015 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI) (pp. 1535-1541). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Pareek, J., Singhania, D., Kumari, R.R. and Purohit, S., 2020. Gujarati handwritten character recognition from text images. Procedia Computer Science, 171, pp.514-523. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Patil, B.H.B.V.P.S.A.: A comprehensive analysis of stemmers available for Indic languages. Int. J. Nat. Lang. Comput. 5, 45–55 (2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Patel, C.D., Patel, J.M.: GUJSTER: A rule based stemmer using dictionary approach. In: 2017 International Conference on Inventive Communication and Computational Technologies (ICICCT)(2017) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. B. S. Bhatt, C. K. Bhensdadia, P. Bhattacharyya, D. Chauhan, and K. Patel, “Gujarati WordNet: A profile of the IndoWordNet,” in The WordNet in Indian Languages, N. Dash, P. Bhattacharyya, and J. Pawar, Eds. Singapore: Springer, 2017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. C. K. Bhensdadia, B. Bhatt, and P. Bhattacharyya, “Introduction to Gujarati wordnet,” in Third national workshop on indowordnet Proceedings, vol. 494, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. J. M. Varghese and S. S. Hande. “text-to-speech System for Gujarati Language.”, Int. J. Adv. Comput. Electron. Technol. (IJACET), vol. 2, no. 4, pp-78–81, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Amita Jain, Minni Jain, Goonjan Jain, and Devendra K. Tayal. 2018. “UTTAM”: An Efficient Spelling Correction System for Hindi Language Based on Supervised Learning. ACM Trans. Asian Low-Resour. Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Process. 18, 1, Article 8 (November 2018), 26 pages. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Er. Sumreet Kaur Randhawa, Er.Charanjiv Singh Saroa. Study of spell checking techniques and available spell checkers in regional Languages: A survey. International Journal for Technological Research In Engineering Volume 2, Issue 3, November-2014 ISSN (Online): 2347 - 4718. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet