Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd 2026 INSC 483 - Dictated Order - Alteration
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Practice and Procedure - An order dictated in open Court can be altered and changed so long as no material changes are being made in the order, at which stage re-hearing would be required -The draft order dictated in Court has to be subject to corrections and enhancement, removal of any accidental inclusions or exclusions due to inadvertence, prior to signing, if not anything else, but out of practical requirements. Subject, of course, to further hearing, in case material changes are being made in the draft order. The intent of the judge while making the dictation, therefore, becomes material. The Court might dictate a draft to keep the facts fresh in the mind and the draft so dictated then becomes final only after signing, subject to corrections and alterations which do not amount to a material change in the order. The signed order is what embodies the final unalterable opinion of the Court, it is the only version of the Court’s order which is reached after multiple rounds of correction after dictation in Court. There is a distinction which must necessarily be drawn between dictation of a draft order to the Court-master and pronouncement of judgment in the matter. Dictation given to the Court-master must be subject to correction and enhancement by the Court in chambers. The intent behind dictating a draft to the Court-master is to put the facts on record and lay down the skeletal framework for the order, which may help the judge recall the matter when the corrections and enhancement in the order is made at a later stage. For all practical purposes, the practice of dictating a skeletal draft order and enhancing it in chambers with corrections and reasoning, prior to signing, which is quite prevalent in this Court, has its own benefit in saving the time of the Court (Para 27-29)
Case Info
Case name:Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja and Ors. v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd. and Ors.
Neutral citation:2026 INSC 483
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. MaheshwariHon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Judgment date:12 May 2026 (order signed and dated; uploaded on 12.02.2026 but the order itself is dated 27.01.2026 and this miscellaneous application order is dated 12.05.2026 at New Delhi)
Case laws and citations referred:
- Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University, (1988) 1 SCC 80
- U.P. Housing & Development Board & Ors. v. M/s Fast Builders, Lucknow & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 9127 of 2012, judgment dated 10.12.2012 (unreported, but cited)
- Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 9 SCC 124
- Surendra Singh v. State of U.P., (1953) 2 SCC 468 : AIR 1954 SC 194 : 1954 Cri LJ 475
- Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 3 SCC 140 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 764 : AIR 1974 SC 1880
- Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Assn., (2023) 10 SCC 817
- Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2241
- Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 313
- Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., M.A. Diary No. 39665 of 2024 in M.A. Diary No. 14381/2024 in M.A. No. 714 of 2022 in W.P.(C) 429 of 2020
- Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2985(plus internal reliance on earlier Supreme Court Rules and Circulars)
Statutes / laws / rules referred:
- Constitution of India, Article 145(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 362
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013:
- Order XII Rules 1 and 3
- Order XLVII (referred in context of Rule 3)
- SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, Regulation 30(11)
- Supreme Court of India Registry Circular F. No. 01/Judl./2025 dated 03.01.2025 (re: maintainability of miscellaneous applications in disposed matters)
Three‑sentence brief summary
A miscellaneous application was filed by respondents in a disposed civil appeal seeking a declaration that the oral dictation given in open court on 27.01.2026, as transcribed from a YouTube video, was the binding order and that the digitally signed order dated 27.01.2026 uploaded on 12.02.2026 had no force of law. The Supreme Court held that such a miscellaneous application is not maintainable because it is in substance an impermissible review/rewriting of a final order, does not satisfy the limited grounds recognized for post‑disposal applications under its precedents and Circular dated 03.01.2025, and that the digitally signed order alone represents the Court’s final, operative decision, with differences from the oral dictation being only corrections/refinements and not material changes. Emphasising the distinction between draft dictation and formal judgment and condemning the attempt to undermine the Court’s authority, the Court dismissed the application with symbolic costs of ₹2,000 on each applicant payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.