This Editorial Policy sets out how LitigationLawyer.in produces, reviews, and publishes its content. It applies to every article across our eight verticals — news, analysis, and educational content alike — and it is the standard against which readers can hold our journalism to account. It should be read together with our Ethics Policy, Fact-Checking Policy, AI Content Policy, and BCI Compliance Notice.
Our mission
LitigationLawyer.in exists to report the Indian legal landscape accurately and to explain it clearly. We serve legal professionals, students, journalists, and members of the public who want reliable, well-sourced information about the courts, legislation, the legal profession, and the concepts that shape Indian law. Everything in this policy flows from that mission and from a single conviction: legal content is only worth publishing if it is accurate, honestly framed, and accountable.
Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently of any commercial relationship. Advertisers, sponsors, and partners do not preview, approve, or influence our coverage, and no commercial consideration buys favourable treatment or the suppression of a story. We do not publish promotional coverage of law firms or advocates, we do not accept content that solicits clients, and we keep any sponsored content clearly labelled and separate from editorial, as described in our Sponsored Content Policy. Our independence is not for sale.
Sourcing
Every factual claim we publish should be traceable to an authoritative source. In practice:
- Judgment reports cite the judgment itself, read from authoritative sources such as the Supreme Court and High Court websites and official reporting, rather than from second-hand summaries.
- Legislation coverage cites the gazette and the text of the law, and distinguishes what a provision says from how it might be interpreted.
- Explanations of legal concepts cite the relevant statute or established commentary.
Where the subject allows, articles carry at least three authoritative sources, and we prefer primary material — court and government records — over secondary reporting. We distinguish clearly between what is established, what is contested, and what is our own editorial assessment.
Named bylines and authorship
Every article carries a named human byline. We do not publish under “admin” or pseudonymous bylines, and we do not present AI-generated text as journalism. Where an article is produced by the editorial desk rather than a single named writer, it appears under the LitigationLawyer.in Editorial byline, and a person on the desk remains accountable for it. We do not attach invented names or credentials to our work. Signed opinion and analysis carry the author’s name and professional background, and make clear that the views expressed are the author’s own.
Educational content versus advice
Our content is educational and journalistic; it is never personalised legal advice. Educational and guide content carries a clear disclaimer to that effect, and judgment and practice-area coverage carries a note that it does not advise on how a development applies to a reader’s specific situation. This distinction is not a formality — it reflects the reality that only a qualified advocate who knows the facts of your case can advise you, and that general content, however careful, cannot.
The review workflow
No article is published without passing through a defined process. An idea is researched against primary sources; a draft is written; an editor reviews it for accuracy, structure, clarity, fairness, and honest framing; facts are checked; and, where content refers to advocates or firms, a compliance check confirms it does not stray into solicitation or promotion. Judgment coverage is not published without a verified case name, bench, citation, and date, and without a Case Facts box summarising the essentials. Each piece carries publication and, where relevant, last-updated dates.
Fairness and balance
We report fairly, represent the positions of courts, parties, and public figures accurately, and give context where a matter is contested or ongoing. Where reasonable people — including qualified lawyers — disagree, we present the disagreement rather than pretending to a false certainty. We are mindful of the reputational stakes for individuals named in proceedings and of the principles that govern reporting on matters that are still before the courts.
Updates and corrections
Time-sensitive coverage shows a last-updated date and is revisited when the position changes — for example when a judgment is appealed, stayed, or modified, or when a law is amended or notified. Errors are corrected promptly and transparently, and logged publicly at /corrections/. When we change the substance of a published piece to fix an error, we note what changed rather than editing silently.
Reader engagement and comments
Where comments or submissions are enabled, they are moderated. We welcome informed, civil discussion and considered disagreement, and we may edit or remove content that is unlawful, abusive, misleading, or that seeks to use our platform to solicit legal work. Readers who want to respond to our coverage, correct an error, or suggest a story can write to editorial@litigationlawyer.in.
Use of AI tools
AI tools may assist our team with narrow, verifiable tasks such as citation lookup and grammar, but they are never used to generate judgment analysis, legal opinion, case commentary, or the body prose of our articles. Legal content requires human judgment, legal and cultural context, and editorial responsibility that automated tools cannot carry. Our full approach is set out in our AI Content Policy.
Accountability
Every article has someone responsible for it, and this policy is a public commitment that readers can hold us to. If you believe we have fallen short of the standards described here, please tell us at editorial@litigationlawyer.in. Reader feedback is one of the main ways this publication improves.
Anonymous sources and attribution
We prefer on-the-record information and named attribution, because they let readers weigh a claim for themselves. Where we rely on information from a source who cannot be named — for example because they would face professional or personal harm — we do so only after weighing the source’s reliability and motive, and we corroborate against documents or other sources wherever possible. We are transparent with readers about the basis of what we report, distinguishing confirmed fact from what a source has told us and from our own assessment.
Headlines and standfirsts
A headline should tell the reader accurately what the article establishes, not overstate it for effect. We write headlines and standfirsts that reflect the substance of the piece, and we avoid framing that would mislead a reader who reads only the headline. In legal coverage this matters especially: a judgment that decides a narrow question should not be headlined as if it settled a broad one.
Handling legal risk responsibly
Reporting on live proceedings and on named individuals carries legal and ethical risk. We report on the basis of the record, are mindful of the presumption of innocence and of the considerations that govern reporting on matters still before the courts, and we take care with allegations that have not been proven. Where a story raises a serious risk to a person’s reputation, fairness may require seeking and reflecting their side.