The Supreme Court rejected allegations that its signed order in a dispute involving Adani Ports differed from the oral dictation in open court, observing that only the signed and uploaded order constitutes the final judicial record.
The Supreme Court has strongly rejected allegations that a signed judicial order differed from what was orally dictated in open court.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that oral observations or oral dictation during a hearing do not form the final binding order of the Court. The Court said only the signed and uploaded order carries legal authority.
The observations came while the Bench dealt with an application concerning proceedings related to Adani Ports.
Allegations Raised Against Uploaded Order
The dispute arose after a party claimed that the order uploaded by the Supreme Court was materially different from what the Court had allegedly dictated during the hearing.
The applicant suggested that changes were later made in the signed order in a manner that favoured Adani Ports.
The Court took serious note of the allegation. It also examined the procedure followed for preparing, correcting and finalising judicial orders.
Signed Order Is The Final Judicial Order
The Supreme Court rejected the allegation.
The Bench made it clear that oral remarks, courtroom exchanges and oral dictation do not become the operative order unless they are reflected in the final signed order.
The Court observed:
“What is binding and enforceable is the signed order/judgment and not the oral observations or oral dictation in Court.”
The Bench also said that judges can make corrections, additions, deletions and modifications before signing an order.
According to the Court, the judicial decision-making process continues until the judge signs and releases the final order. Therefore, the Court found no basis to rely on incomplete oral dictation to allege impropriety.
Court Criticises Allegations Against Judicial Process
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the nature of the allegations.
It said that claims suggesting manipulation or alteration of judicial orders affect the institutional integrity of the Court.
The Bench added that litigants and lawyers must act with restraint before making allegations about the functioning of constitutional courts.
The Court also clarified that any transcript-style record of oral proceedings cannot override the official judicial record.
Application Dismissed
The Supreme Court found no merit in the application.
It dismissed the plea challenging the authenticity of the signed order.
