apex court held that
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Order XII Rules 1 & 3 — Constitution of India — Article 145(4) — Difference between dictated draft order and signed order — Signed order alone is final and binding.
The Supreme Court held that the digitally signed and uploaded order alone constitutes the final operative order of the Court. Dictation given in open Court to the Court Master is merely a draft order subject to correction, refinement, enhancement and removal of accidental omissions or inclusions before signing. Unless material changes affecting substantive rights are introduced, no rehearing is necessary prior to signing of the final order.
— Paras 15, 23 to 30.
Practice and Procedure — Miscellaneous Application in disposed matters — Maintainability — Scope extremely limited.
The Court reiterated that miscellaneous applications in disposed matters are maintainable only for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or where executory directions have become impossible to implement due to subsequent events. A miscellaneous application seeking to rewrite or nullify a final signed order is not maintainable and amounts to abuse of process of Court.
— Paras 16 to 19.
Judgment — Pronouncement in open Court — Whether oral dictation/transcript/video recording prevails over signed order — Held, No.
The Court rejected the contention that transcript of oral dictation in Court, allegedly recorded from YouTube video proceedings, constituted the binding order. It was held that draft dictation remains subject to judicial correction and refinement before signing and uploading. The signed order embodies the final unalterable expression of the Court’s opinion.
— Paras 5, 6, 27 to 29.
Judicial Orders — Material change vis-à-vis correction/refinement — Test explained.
The Court held that changes between oral dictation and final signed order regarding disposal of writ petition and omission of “status quo” direction were merely corrections and refinements and not material changes altering the substantive outcome of the case. Therefore, rehearing of parties was unnecessary.
— Paras 23 to 25.
Court Practice — Dictation in open Court — Practical necessity due to docket explosion — Judicial observations.
The Court recognised the practical necessity of dictating skeletal draft orders in open Court and later refining them in chambers because of heavy judicial workload and docket pressure. Such practice was held permissible so long as substantive/material alterations are not introduced without rehearing.
— Paras 27 to 29.
Review/Clarification Application — Misconceived attempt to challenge final order under guise of clarification — Deprecated.
The Court held that an application seeking declaration that signed order “has no force of law” was thoroughly misconceived and amounted to an attempt to undermine dignity and authority of the Court. Filing of such miscellaneous applications in disposed matters was strongly deprecated.
— Paras 18, 19 & 30.
Costs — Frivolous and abusive miscellaneous application — Exemplary costs imposed.
Finding the application frivolous and abusive, the Court imposed symbolic exemplary costs of ₹2,000 each on applicants payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
— Para 31.
