TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may graciously be pleased to: a) Allow the present application clarifying that the Order as it was dictated in the open Court on 27.01.2026 is final and binding and the one uploaded on 12.02.2026, does not have any force of law and cannot be acted upon and an order be corrected accordingly; b) Pass such order or further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.' 2. The Civil Appeal No. 536 of 2026 arose out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14440 of 2024 challenging the interim order dated 05.07.2024 in WPPIL No. 17/2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "High Court"). By the said interim order, the High Court had directed the State to carry out the process of resumption of land from the Respondents as per the State of Gujarat's resolution dated 04.07.2024. The said resolution was passed by the State without hearing the Respondent, based on the oral instructions of the Court. While issuing notice on 10.07.2024, this Court had stayed the impugned interim order dated 05.07.2024 and noted as follows: "1. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id proceedings and they assert that the said transcript of the dictation is correct and final in the matter. 6. The Applicants would contend that the dictation given in Court on 27.01.2026 is the final pronouncement in the matter and even prior to correction and signing, the transcript of the words uttered during dictation as transcribed by the Applicants from a video of the proceedings uploaded on YouTube shall form the binding order in the matter. 7. The Applicants have made a reference to Article 145(4) of the Constitution of India which provides as follows: "Article 145 ... (4) No judgement shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save in open Court, and no report shall be made under article 143 save in accordance with an opinion also delivered in open Court." 8. Article 145(4) of the Constitution of India is incorporated in Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules, Rule 1 and 3 whereof has been relied upon by the Applicants. They are also relevant, and are therefore reproduced: "1. The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or on some future day, of which due notice shall be given to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... J. spoke in this judgment to impress upon everyone that pronouncement of a judgment in court whether immediately after the hearing or after reserving the same to be delivered later should ordinarily be considered as the final act of the court with reference to the case. Bose, J. emphasised the feature that as soon as the judgment is delivered that becomes the operative pronouncement of the court. That would mean that the judgment to be operative does not await signing thereof by the court. There may be exceptions to the rule, for instance, soon after the judgment is dictated in open court, a feature which had not been placed for consideration of the court is brought to its notice by counsel of any of the parties or the court discovers some new facts from the record. In such a case the court may give direction that the judgment which has just been delivered would not be effective and the case shall be further heard. There may also be cases - though their number would be few and far between - where when the Judgment is placed for signature the court notices a feature which should have been taken into account. In such a situation the matter may be placed for further consideration upo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Judge wishes to make any material changes in the order dictated in open court, then the least that is expected is that he should get the matter once again listed in Court and clearly tell the parties the reasons for which he wishes to reconsider the matter, to hear the parties in the case again and then pass the final order that may be at variance with the earlier order dictated in Court. In case an order dictated in open court is later changed behind the back of the parties, it is bound to give rise to unhealthy suspicion and doubts in the mind of the litigant adversely affected by the changes introduced in the order and this would create very wrong impression in regard to the functioning of the Court. This should never happen." 12. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the Respondent has placed reliance of the judgment of three judges of this Court in Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit v. State of Gujarat (2014) 9 SCC 124, where it was held in the context of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") that until the judgment of the Court is signed and sealed after it has been delivered in Court, it is not a judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indicated, it is frequently the practice to send a draft, sometimes a signed draft, to a Brother Judge who also heard the case. This may be merely for his information, or for consideration and criticism. The mere signing of the draft does not necessarily indicate a closed mind. We feel it would be against public policy to leave the door open for an investigation whether a draft sent by a Judge was intended to embody his final and unalterable opinion or was only intended to be a tentative draft sent with an unwritten understanding that he is free to change his mind should fresh light dawn upon him before the delivery of judgment." 12. Thus, from the above, it is evident that a Judge's responsibility is very heavy, particularly, in a case where a man's life and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture. Therefore, one cannot assume, that the Judge would not have changed his mind before the judgment became final. 13. In Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. State of Maharashtra [(1975) 3 SCC 140 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 764 : AIR 1974 SC 1880], the judgment in Surendra Singh [Surendra Singh v. State of U.P., (1953) 2 SCC 468 : AIR 1954 SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order, neither is the order itself under challenge. This Court is not sitting in review over its order and it will suffice to say that the digitally signed order dated 27.01.2026 which was uploaded on 12.02.2026 remains the only final order passed by the Court in this case. As such, in these proceedings, the Court is not going to examine the validity of the signed order dated 27.01.2026. 16. At the outset, the present miscellaneous application is not maintainable in law. It is in the nature of a review petition, seeking to rewrite the order of the Court. The prayer made in the miscellaneous application is to declare the dictation given in Court to the Court-master to be final and binding and the signed order to be declared as not having any force of law. Such a prayer in the first place is thoroughly misconceived. This Court, recently in Ajay Kumar Jain (Supra) has relied upon a similar observation in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Supra) and held as follows: "17. Thus, this Court made it abundantly clear that a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings would be maintainable only for the purpose of correcting any clerical or arithmetical error. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted to be listed without compliance of the above. 19. The Applicants herein are not merely seeking correction of any clerical error or arithmetical correction in the signed order, but rather, they claim that the signed order 'does not have any force of law'. Such a prayer is prima facie erroneous and after the closing of proceedings in the matter, making such a prayer by filing of a miscellaneous application is completely misplaced, it is a gross abuse of process of law and cannot be permitted. Further, it has been pleaded in the miscellaneous application at paragraph 11 that the 'error appears to have crept due to inadvertence, as the law does not permit the order to be changed on material aspect, after it has been dictated / pronounced in open Court'. A distinction must be made between an error which may have crept into an order by inadvertence and an error in application of the law itself, making the order have no 'force of law'. Here, the Applicants appear to be contending the latter, in the garb of the former. The pleadings in the miscellaneous application, in our view, are nothing but a misconceived attempt to undermine the dignity of the Court and browbeat its authority.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd. It was in that context that this Court acknowledged that a judgment dictated in open Court can be modified or altered until it is signed by the Judge, but such occasion should arise very rarely and if material changes are to be made in the order, the parties to the case must be heard again prior to passing the order which is materially changed. Further, this Court observed in that judgment that if an order dictated in open Court is changed behind the back of the parties, it may give rise to unhealthy suspicion and doubts in the mind of the litigant who is adversely affected by the changes introduced in the order and it would create a wrong impression about the functioning of the Court. 22. On facts, the judgment of Vinod Kumar Singh (Supra) does not apply to the instant case. The instant disposed of appeal has not been listed for re-hearing after the signed order was uploaded, nor is any other bench seized of the matter which has been disposed of and also, this is not a situation where there are two orders of the Court in the matter. For the same reason, the situation which arose in UP Housing (Supra) was also quite different, where also, two orders were signed and uploaded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s today shall be maintained but no such direction to maintain status quo is reflected in the signed order. In this regard, at the very outset, prior to dictation being given to the Court-master on 27.01.2026, on a request being made by the counsel appearing for the Respondents (Applicants herein) for status quo, it was clarified by the Court that whatever order has been passed by this Court, shall continue. Even during dictation, the Court first dictated 'stay of the impugned order', since that was the stay order passed by this Court while issuing notice on 10.07.2024, but later it was uttered 'status quo as it exists today shall be maintained'. Grant of status quo or non-grant thereof is an ancillary direction and it cannot be said to be a material change in the draft order which could not have been made prior to signing of the order without re-hearing. In the main appeal, what was under challenge was an interim order to implement a resolution for resumption of land which was passed without hearing the Respondent. The fact that the resolution was passed without giving due hearing to the Respondent, merely on the oral directions of the High Court was admitted by the State before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its correction of errors arising from accidental slip or omission. Even if it is assumed that the dictation of the draft order to the Court-master is sufficient for the purpose of 'pronouncement' of the judgment, grant of status quo over the land in question would be an error in law and correction of the dictation by the Court in chambers, prior to signing, cannot be said to be a material change which required further hearing. 26. In view of the aforesaid, there is no material change which has crept into the signed order. Differences between the dictation and the signed order are a result of correction and enhancement of the dictated draft order. The Respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit (Supra) which although in the context of Section 362 of the CrPC, does recognize that a judge may change their mind prior to signing of the dictated order. 27. Another aspect of the matter is the question of practice and practicality of making corrections in the draft prior to signing, without making any material changes. The dictation given to the Court-master on 27.01.2026 was a rough draft at best, since there were multiple interruptions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tely after a hearing is over. On the other hand, if in any given case the judgment could justifiably be reserved after hearing of extensive arguments, it would not be proper to criticize a learned Judge if he dictates the judgment in open court notwithstanding the length of time to be taken therefor. As per the ordainment of Order XX, the learned Judge would be perfectly justified in doing so. In such cases, it could roughly take any time between 20 minutes to a couple of/few hours or even more spilling over to the next day (in rare cases) to accomplish the task. This approach could result in the board (if it is heavy) getting choked and the remaining cases on the board having slim chances of being considered. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. The necessity to strike a balance, in turn, has led to an innovative approach (many a times followed even by this Court) which, though not strictly in tune with Order XX, has transitioned into a regular practice by passage of time. This contemplates a rough assessment made by a learned Judge of the time to be taken for dictating a judgment after hearing in a matter is concluded and if, in such assessment, it is likely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eads to a shift to rely on the written notes of arguments. However, if only written notes were enough, there would be no need of oral hearing in court. Additionally, drawing from our experience on the bench, we can safely say that inclination of learned Judges to reserve judgments is invariably the course adopted where cases involving complex and intricate points of law do call upon learned Judges to craft well-researched and well-reasoned judgments. That apart, there are cases arising from recent enactments involving questions of law not having arisen hitherto and consequently such questions have never been answered. Such categories of cases demand the high courts to lay down the law in clear terms for comprehension of all concerned. Obviously, this process is time consuming and the time limit for delivering judgments by the high courts as laid down in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, at times, is breached. We have full trust and confidence in the learned Judges of the high courts since they are well-equipped to tackle any kind of pressure situation. However, while it would be prudent to leave it to the learned Judges to pick any one of the three options [(i) dictation of the judgment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n if it is assumed that such dictation were to be tantamount to 'pronouncement'. The distinction between a draft and the judgment of the Court was clarified by Vivian Bose, J in the judgment of Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. (1953) 2 SCC 468, which in fact was the basis of this Court's judgment in Vinod Kumar Singh (Supra). He observed as follows: "10. In our opinion, a judgment within the meaning of these sections is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal "pronouncement" or "delivery" in open court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. Small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of the thing must be there : that can neither be blurred nor left to inference and conjecture nor can it be vague. All the rest-the manner in which it is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated, the signing and the sealing, all the rules designed to secure certainty about its content and matter-can be cured; but not the hard core, namely, the formal intimation of the decision and its contents formally declared in a judicial way in open....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge of mind on his part. If he hands in a draft and signs it and indicates that he intends that to be the final expository of his views it can be assumed that those are still his views at the moment of delivery if he is alive and in a position to change his mind but takes no steps to arrest delivery. But one cannot assume that he would not have changed his mind if he is no longer in a position to do so. A Judge's responsibility is heavy and when a man's life and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture; also, a question of public policy is involved. As we have indicated, it is frequently the practice to send a draft, sometimes a signed draft, to a brother Judge who also heard the case. This may be merely for his information, or for consideration and criticism. The mere signing of the draft does not necessarily indicate a closed mind. We feel it would be against public policy to leave the door open for an investigation whether a draft sent by a Judge was intended to embody his final and unalterable opinion or was only intended to be a tentative draft sent with an unwritten understanding that he is free to change his mind should fresh....