How we handle errors.

1. What counts as a correction

We distinguish four categories:

• Factual correction — a citation that was wrong, a date that was off, a party name misspelled, or a head-note misread. These are corrected as soon as verified and the article's "last reviewed" date is updated.
• Legal-update correction — a statute has since been amended, a judgment overruled, or a position of the Hon'ble Court has shifted. The article is revised to reflect the current law and the "last reviewed" date updated. Where the change is material, a note is added at the top of the article identifying the change.
• Substantive revision — the article's reasoning was misjudged, a relevant authority was missed, or the conclusion needs reframing. These are handled the same as a legal-update correction, with a more visible note explaining what changed and why.
• Clarification (not a correction) — wording that was unclear is rephrased, formatting is improved, or a missing citation is added that reinforces (but does not change) the existing conclusion. These are not separately disclosed; the article's "last reviewed" date is updated.

2. How to report an error

If you believe an article contains a factual or legal error — including a citation that does not match the underlying authority — please write to us at me@sudhirrao.com with:

• The article title or URL;
• The specific sentence or paragraph you believe is incorrect;
• The authority (statute / judgment / source) you believe is the correct position;
• Your name (so we can credit you in the correction note, if you wish).

We aim to acknowledge correction reports within two working days and act on substantive ones within five.

3. How corrections are made

Once verified, a correction is made directly in the article. The article's "last reviewed" date is updated, and — for legal-update or substantive corrections — a short italicised note is added at the top of the article in the form:

Updated [date]: [what changed and why].

We do not silently rewrite history. A reader returning to an article should be able to see that it has been corrected, when, and (in broad strokes) what changed.

4. Cases we will not "correct"

We will not change an article merely because the reader disagrees with its analysis, prefers a different reading of an authority, or has been advised differently in their own matter. Disagreement is not error. Where a reader's view has merit, we may publish a follow-up note or article; we will not pretend the original article said something it did not.

5. Legal review cycle

Independent of reader-reported errors, every article is on a periodic review cycle keyed to the practice area: once every twelve months at minimum, and immediately upon a known statute amendment or a relevant decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The author and the reviewer (see /editorial-policy §3) are jointly responsible for this cycle.

6. Removed content

An article is removed from the website only in three circumstances: (a) the article has been superseded by a successor article that consolidates and replaces it; (b) the article relied on an authority that has been wholly overruled and the article's framing is no longer salvageable; or (c) the article was published in error. Where an article is removed, the URL returns a clear 404 page; we do not redirect removed articles to unrelated content.

This corrections policy is itself reviewed periodically. Last reviewed: 7 July 2026.