Supreme Court: In a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of civil appeal seeking clarification and correction of the order dictated in open court vis-à-vis the digitally signed order subsequently uploaded, a Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., dismissed the application as wholly misconceived and not maintainable, holding that the applicants were in substance seeking a review and rewriting of the final signed order of the Court.
The Court reiterated that the digitally signed order alone constitutes the final and binding expression of the Court’s opinion and that corrections, refinements and enhancements made to a dictated draft order before signing are permissible so long as they do not result in material changes requiring rehearing of parties. Distinguishing earlier decisions in Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University, (1988) 1 SCC 80, the Court clarified that no conflict arose between the oral dictation and the signed order in the present case, and the alterations complained of were merely corrective and clarificatory in nature. The Court further held that a miscellaneous application in disposed proceedings is maintainable only for correction of clerical or arithmetic errors or where implementation of the order has become impossible due to subsequent events, and cannot be used as a device to challenge the legality or correctness of a final signed order.
Background
The dispute arose from interim proceedings in WPPIL No. 17 of 2011 before the Gujarat High Court concerning resumption of land allotted to the respondents. On 4 July 2024, the State of Gujarat issued a resolution directing resumption of the land allegedly on the basis of oral observations made by the High Court and without granting an opportunity of hearing to the affected respondents. Relying upon the said resolution, the High Court, by interim order dated 5 July 2024, directed the State authorities to proceed with the process of resumption of land from the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14440 of 2024, in which notice was issued on 10 July 2024 and the operation of the High Court’s interim order 5 July 2024 was stayed.
Subsequently, the matter came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 536 of 2026. By order dated 27 January 2026, the Supreme Court set aside both the High Court’s interim order dated 5 July 2024 and the State Government’s resolution dated 4 July 2024, observing that the resolution had been passed without hearing the affected parties. The Court granted liberty to the State Government to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. The Court further directed that the writ petition pending before the High Court shall stand disposed of, while reserving liberty to the parties to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law against the fresh order, with all contentions kept open. Thereafter, Respondents 7 to 10 and 12 to 17 filed the present miscellaneous application seeking clarification and correction in respect of the order dictated in open court on 27 January 2026 and the uploaded order dated 12 February 2026.
Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the miscellaneous application filed by Respondents 7 to 10 and 12 to 17 was wholly misconceived and not maintainable in law, observing that the applicants were in substance seeking a review and rewriting of the final signed order dated 27 January 2026 uploaded on 12 February 2026. The Court clarified that it was neither sitting in review over its earlier order nor called upon to justify the same, and reiterated that the digitally signed order alone constituted the final and binding order of the Court. The prayer seeking declaration that the oral dictation made in open court should prevail over the signed order and that the signed order had “no force of law” was held to be prima facie erroneous, grossly misplaced and an abuse of the process of law.
Relying upon Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3677, and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., (2024) 19 SCC 353 , the Court observed that a miscellaneous application in disposed matters is maintainable only where the order is executory in nature and has become impossible to implement due to subsequent events, or where clerical or arithmetic mistakes require correction. Referring to Circular F. No. 01/Judl./2025 dated 3 January 2025 issued by the Registry pursuant to Ajay Kumar Jain (supra), the Court noted that such applications must contain a specific affidavit explaining the necessity of filing the miscellaneous application. Since no such affidavit had been filed and the applicants were not seeking correction of any clerical or arithmetic error, the Registry ought to have raised a defect. Accordingly, the Registrar concerned was directed to furnish an explanation in chambers within 1 week as to how the application was listed without compliance of the Circular.
The Court further held that the applicants had attempted to portray an alleged “error in law” as an “inadvertent error”, whereas the pleadings clearly sought to undermine the authority and dignity of the Court. Distinguishing Vinod Kumar Singh (supra), the Court observed that the case involved situations where 2 separate orders existed or where a matter was reheard by another Bench after pronouncement. In the present case, there were no conflicting orders, no rehearing after disposal and no adjudication by another Bench. The Court reiterated the settled proposition that while a materially altered order after pronouncement may require rehearing of parties, corrections, refinements and enhancements in the dictated draft before signing are permissible provided they do not amount to material changes.
On facts, the Court held that treating the writ petition before the High Court as disposed of after permitting the State Government to pass a fresh order did not constitute a “material change” from the oral dictation made in Court. The signed order merely refined and clarified the intended direction that after a fresh order by the State Government, parties would be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law while keeping all contentions open. Similarly, deletion of the phrase “status quo as it exists today shall be maintained” from the final signed order was held not to amount to a material alteration requiring rehearing. The Court observed that grant or refusal of status quo was merely an ancillary direction and that there was never any order of status quo passed either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court during the proceedings. Since the State itself had admitted that the resolution dated 4 July 2024 resuming the land was passed without hearing the respondents and only on oral directions of the High Court, the very basis of resumption was illegal. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Court to continue a status quo order over the land.
The Court also examined the practical and procedural distinction between dictation of a draft order and pronouncement of a final judgment. It observed that dictation to the Court Master is often only a skeletal draft meant to preserve facts and the broad framework of the decision, which remains subject to corrections, enhancement and removal of accidental omissions or inclusions before signing. Referring to Order XII Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules, the Court held that accidental slips and omissions may always be corrected before signing and that such practice is necessitated by heavy court dockets and practical realities of judicial functioning.
The Court observed that dictation of a draft order to the Court Master is only a skeletal and rough exercise, intended to record facts and assist recall, and is distinct from pronouncement of judgment. It held that such draft orders are subject to correction and enhancement in chambers prior to signing, provided no material changes are introduced. Rejecting reliance on an incomplete YouTube video and its transcript, the Court further observed that this well-settled practice is necessary for effective docket management, especially on miscellaneous days with heavy cause lists, as was the position on 27 January 2026.
Reliance was also placed on Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2985, and Surendra Singh v. State of U.P., (1953) 2 SCC 468, wherein it was recognised that a Judge may alter or refine a dictated order before signing, so long as no material change affecting the substance of the judgment is introduced without rehearing the parties. The Court emphasised that the signed order alone embodies the final and unalterable opinion of the Court.
Decision
Holding that no material change had crept into the signed order and that the differences between the oral dictation and signed order were merely corrective and clarificatory in nature, the Court dismissed the miscellaneous application both as not maintainable and on merits. Considering the frivolous nature of the application and the attempt to browbeat and undermine the authority of the Court, exemplary costs of Rs 2000 each were imposed upon the applicants, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within 4 weeks.
[Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd., Miscellaneous Application No. 1276 of 2026, decided on 12-5-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice J.K. Maheshwari