5. The computer implemented method as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the method further comprises: receiving at least one software requirement; deconstructing the at least one software requirement based on at least one of a regulatory rule model and Minsky's frames; identifying rule intents contained in the at least one software requirement based on rule intent patterns contained in at least one software requirement; comparing the rule intents contained in the at least one software requirement with the rule intents contained in the legal regulations within the computer interpretable regulation repository; and tracing at least one legal regulation from amongst the computer interpretable regulation repository to the at least one software requirement based on the comparing.
5. The computer implemented method as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the method further comprises: receiving at least one software requirement; deconstructing the at least one software requirement based on at least one of a regulatory rule model and Minsky's frames; identifying rule intents contained in the at least one software requirement based on rule intent patterns contained in at least one software requirement; comparing the rule intents contained in the at least one software requirement with the rule intents contained in the legal regulations within the computer interpretable regulation repository; and tracing at least one legal regulation from amongst the computer interpretable regulation repository to the at least one software requirement based on the comparing. 6. The computer implemented method as claimed in claim 5 , wherein the comparing generates similarity scores, and wherein each similarity score is indicative of commonality of rule intents between each of the at least one software requirement and each legal regulation within the computer interpretable regulation repository.