Verification is built into how LitigationLawyer.in works, not bolted on at the end. Legal content is only useful if it is accurate, so we check before we publish. This policy explains what we verify, how we verify it, which sources we treat as authoritative, and what happens when we get something wrong. It complements our Editorial Policy and Ethics Policy.
Why fact-checking matters here
In legal journalism, a small error can mislead in a serious way: a wrong citation sends a reader to the wrong case, a misstated bench misattributes a decision, and an inaccurate account of a holding can leave a reader with a false understanding of the law. Because our audience includes professionals and students who may rely on our coverage, we treat verification as a core editorial function rather than a final formality.
What we verify
The specific checks depend on the kind of content:
- Judgment coverage. Before publication we verify the case name, the court, the composition of the bench, the citation, and the date of judgment against authoritative sources. We also read the judgment closely enough to report accurately what the court held, distinguishing the binding reasoning from passing observations.
- Legislation coverage. We verify the name of the Act or amendment, the date it was passed or notified, the gazette reference, and its effective date, and we take care to describe what a provision actually says.
- Educational content. We verify statutory references, section numbers, definitions, and the general propositions we state, against the text of the law and established commentary. Where the law has recently changed — as with the transition from the CrPC to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, or the IPC to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — we take particular care with references, because section numbers and terminology have changed.
How we verify
We work from primary sources wherever they exist — the Supreme Court and High Court websites, official reporting, and government gazettes — rather than second-hand summaries. Where a figure, date, or holding is central to a story, we re-derive it from the source rather than trusting a secondary account. When a claim cannot be substantiated to our satisfaction, we cut it rather than hedge it. We are also careful to distinguish, for the reader, between what a source establishes as fact, what is a matter of professional interpretation, and what is our own editorial assessment.
Sources we treat as authoritative
For legal content, we rely first on primary and official sources:
- Supreme Court of India and High Court judgments, in their official texts and reports.
- Statutes, rules, and notifications as published in official gazettes and on official government portals such as the India Code.
- Publications of the Bar Council of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice, and of the relevant regulatory authorities.
- Peer-reviewed legal academic writing, for analysis and context.
We do not treat Wikipedia, advocate marketing material, or anonymous legal blogs as primary sources, although they may sometimes point us towards primary material that we then verify directly.
Editorial signoff
No article is published without an editorial signoff confirming that citations, dates, and names have been checked and that the piece meets our standards. Judgment coverage additionally requires confirmation that the holding has been read against the judgment itself, not against a summary of it, and that the Case Facts box accurately captures the essentials. Where content refers to advocates or firms, a compliance check confirms it does not stray into solicitation or promotion.
Updating for a changing landscape
Verification does not end at publication. Judgments may be appealed, stayed, or overruled, and legislation may be amended or notified on different timelines. We revisit time-sensitive coverage when the position changes, and we show a last-updated date so readers can see how current a piece is. Educational content is reviewed periodically to ensure it still reflects the law.
When we get it wrong
Despite our care, mistakes can happen. When they do, we correct them promptly and transparently and log them at /corrections/. If you spot an error in our coverage — a wrong citation, an incorrect bench, a misstated holding, or any factual slip — please tell us at corrections@litigationlawyer.in with the article link and, where possible, the authoritative source that supports the correction. We review every substantive report and value the readers who help us keep the record accurate.
Our commitment
Fact-checking is a promise to our readers that what we publish has been checked against sources they could check themselves. We regard that promise as central to being a legal publication worth reading, and we hold our work to it.
Names, numbers, and dates
Certain categories of fact cause the most errors if not checked carefully, and we give them particular attention. Names — of parties, judges, statutes, and courts — are checked against the source, because a small misspelling can mislead or misattribute. Numbers — section numbers, citations, sums, and statistics — are re-checked against the source rather than copied from memory or from a secondary report. Dates — of judgment, notification, or commencement — are confirmed, since a wrong date can change the legal meaning of a report entirely, especially where the law has recently changed.
Handling developing stories
Some legal developments unfold quickly, and early reports are sometimes incomplete or provisional. When we cover a developing story, we report what has been reliably confirmed, attribute clearly, avoid speculation dressed up as fact, and update the piece as more becomes known, reflecting changes in the last-updated date. We would rather be accurate and a little slower than fast and wrong, particularly on legal matters where a premature or mistaken report can mislead.
Reader corrections in practice
Readers are an important line of defence against error, and we treat their reports seriously. When a reader flags a possible mistake, we check it against authoritative sources; if it is confirmed, we correct the article promptly and log the correction; if it is not, we explain why the original stands. Either way, we respond. This feedback loop — careful pre-publication checking, plus openness to correction afterwards — is how we keep the record accurate over time.