LitigationLawyer.in corrects errors promptly and in the open. This page explains our approach to corrections and updates, the different ways we handle different kinds of changes, how to request a correction, and it serves as our public corrections log. A transparent corrections practice is one of the clearest signals of a publication’s good faith, and it matters most on legal content, where accuracy has real consequences.
Why we log corrections publicly
Everyone makes mistakes; what distinguishes a trustworthy publication is what it does about them. Rather than quietly editing a page and hoping no one noticed, we correct errors openly and, for substantive changes, record what changed. This lets readers see that we take accuracy seriously, and it holds us accountable to the standards set out in our Editorial Policy and Fact-Checking Policy.
The kinds of changes we make
Not every change to an article is a correction. We distinguish between:
- Corrections. When we change the substance of a published article to fix an error — a wrong citation, an incorrect bench, a misstated holding, a wrong date, or another factual mistake — we treat it as a correction, fix it promptly, and note what changed.
- Clarifications. Where the original was not wrong but could be misread, we may clarify the wording and, where the change is significant, note that we have done so.
- Updates. For time-sensitive coverage, we add developments as they happen — for example when a judgment is appealed, stayed, or modified, or when a law is amended or notified — and we reflect the change in the article’s last-updated date. Judgment coverage in particular is revisited when the position moves.
- Minor edits. Small fixes such as a typo, a broken link, or a formatting adjustment are made without a formal note, as they do not affect the substance.
How we handle a correction
When an error is identified — whether by our team or by a reader — we check it against authoritative sources, and if it is confirmed we correct the article as soon as we reasonably can. For substantive corrections, we record that a correction was made. Where an error was significant enough to have misled readers, we are candid about it rather than minimising it. Our aim is that the corrected article should be accurate, and that the record should reflect that a change was made.
How to request a correction
If you believe something we have published is inaccurate, please tell us. Email corrections@litigationlawyer.in (or use our contact page) with:
- the URL of the article;
- the specific point you believe is wrong; and
- where possible, the authoritative source — the judgment, statute, or official notification — that supports the correction.
We review every substantive correction request and respond. Providing a source helps us verify and act quickly. We welcome these reports: readers who take the time to flag an error are helping us do our job better.
What we will not do
We will not remove or alter accurate coverage simply because someone dislikes it, and a request to “correct” a report will not succeed unless the report is actually inaccurate. Nor will we quietly delete an article to make an inconvenient but accurate fact disappear. Disagreement with our analysis or opinion is not the same as an error of fact; considered responses to our coverage are welcome as letters or, where appropriate, as signed contributions through Write for Us.
Corrections log
Corrections will be recorded here as they are made, with the date and a short description of what changed, so that the record is public and durable. As a newly relaunched publication, our log currently has no entries. When we make a correction, it will appear here.
No corrections logged yet.
Our commitment
A correction is not a failure of journalism; concealing one is. We are committed to correcting our mistakes openly, to updating our coverage as the law changes, and to treating the accuracy of the public record as part of our responsibility to readers.
How quickly we act
How urgently we act on a correction depends on the seriousness of the error. A mistake that could materially mislead readers — a wrong holding, an incorrect legal proposition, a misattributed decision — is treated as a priority and corrected as soon as we have verified the correct position. Less serious errors are fixed in the ordinary course. In every case, our aim is that the version of an article on the site should be accurate, and that significant changes should be visible rather than hidden.
Right of reply
Where our coverage concerns a named person or organisation and they believe it is inaccurate or unfair, we consider requests for a right of reply on their merits. This may take the form of a correction, a clarification, an added statement of their position, or, where appropriate, a signed response published through Write for Us. A right of reply is about fairness and accuracy; it is not a mechanism for removing accurate but unwelcome reporting.
The permanence of the record
We treat the published record as something to be corrected and updated rather than erased. Except where the law requires removal, or where there is a compelling reason such as a serious risk of harm, we do not simply delete articles to make accurate information disappear. Correcting an error, adding context, or noting a later development serves readers better than removing a piece and pretending it never existed.
Contacting us about a correction
To report an error, email corrections@litigationlawyer.in or use our contact page, with the article link, the specific point, and a supporting source where possible. We acknowledge substantive reports and tell you the outcome. We are grateful to the readers who help us keep our coverage accurate; flagging an error is a contribution to the reliability of the public record, and we treat it as such.
Why this matters for a legal publication
For a publication that covers the law, the credibility of the corrections process is inseparable from the credibility of the journalism itself. Readers — especially professionals and students — need to know that when we learn we were wrong, we say so and fix it, rather than leaving an inaccurate account of a judgment or a statute standing. That is why we log corrections in public, distinguish corrections from routine edits, and invite readers to hold us to account. A publication that corrects openly is one you can rely on precisely because it does not pretend to be infallible.