Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja and Orsv.Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd and Ors

Legal Analysis: Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja and Ors. vs. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd. and Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 483
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (Division Bench)
Date of Decision: May 12, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Order on Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification/correction of a final order in a disposed civil appeal.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The applicants (who were respondents in a disposed civil appeal) filed a miscellaneous application claiming that the order dictated in open court on 27.01.2026 (as captured in a YouTube video and media reports) was different from the final signed order uploaded on 12.02.2026. They sought a declaration that the dictated version was final and binding and that the signed order had no force of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the application as not maintainable, holding that the signed order is the only final order of the Court. The Court clarified that dictation to the Court‑master is a rough draft subject to correction and enhancement before signing. Any material change would require re‑hearing, but no material change was found here. The Court also noted the non‑compliance of the Circular dated 03.01.2025 (requiring an affidavit for miscellaneous applications in disposed matters) and imposed costs of ₹2,000 each on the applicants for frivolous pleadings attempting to undermine the Court’s authority.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja and Ors. vs. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd. and Ors.

• Miscellaneous Application No.: 1276 of 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 536 of 2026

• Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (Division Bench)

• Date of Decision: May 12, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 483

• Nature of Proceedings: Miscellaneous application seeking clarification/correction of a final order passed in a disposed civil appeal.

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 145(4) (judgments to be delivered in open Court)

• Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Order XII Rules 1 and 3 (pronouncement of judgment, correction of clerical/arithmetical mistakes or errors from accidental slip or omission)

• Circular F. No. 01/Judl./2025 dated 03.01.2025: Issued by the Registry of the Supreme Court requiring that any miscellaneous application in a disposed proceeding must contain a specific averment on oath that the order is executory in nature and its implementation has become impossible due to subsequent events or developments.

Key Precedents Cited

1. Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University (2006) 13 SCC 560 – A judgment pronounced in open court becomes operative and does not need to await signing; however, the case involved two conflicting orders by different benches. Distinguished on facts.

2. U.P. Housing & Development Board & Ors. v. M/s Fast Builders, Lucknow and Anr. (unreported) – A judgment dictated in open court can be modified until signed, but material changes require re‑hearing after notice to parties.

3. Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit v. State of Gujarat (2013) 6 SCC 38 – A judge may change their mind before signing a judgment; until signed, it is not final.

4. Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. (1953) 2 SCC 468 – A judgment is the final decision intimated to parties and the world by formal pronouncement in open court; a draft signed beforehand is nothing but a draft until formally delivered.

5. Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2023) – Miscellaneous applications in disposed proceedings are maintainable only for correcting clerical/arithmetical errors or where the order is executory and has become impossible to implement.

6. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Anr. – Same principle.

7. Ratali Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2025) – Recognised the practice of dictating a skeletal draft in open court and enhancing it in chambers due to docket explosion; distinguished Vinod Kumar Singh on practical grounds.

3. Relevant Facts

• Background Civil Appeal (No. 536 of 2026): The appeal arose from an interim order of the Gujarat High Court dated 05.07.2024 in WPPIL No. 17/2011, which had directed the State to resume land as per a resolution dated 04.07.2024 passed without hearing the respondent. The Supreme Court stayed that order on 10.07.2024.

• Disposal of Civil Appeal (27.01.2026): The Court, after hearing, dictated an order in open court to the Court‑master. The final signed order was uploaded on 12.02.2026. The signed order set aside the High Court’s interim order and the resolution, granted liberty to the State to pass a fresh order after hearing all parties, and directed that the writ petition before the High Court be treated as disposed of, with liberty to the parties to take recourse as permissible after the fresh order.

• Applicants’ grievance: The applicants (who were respondents in the appeal) claimed that the dictation in open court included (i) a direction for status quo over the subject land, and (ii) a direction that the High Court shall proceed independently with the writ petition. They alleged that the signed order omitted the status quo direction and directed disposal of the writ petition, which they claimed was a material change.

• Evidence relied upon by applicants: Media reports, a letter by the respondent company to stock exchanges, a YouTube video of the proceedings, and a self‑prepared transcript of the dictation.

• Registry’s Circular compliance: The applicants did not file an affidavit as required by the Circular dated 03.01.2025 for miscellaneous applications in disposed matters.

• Response of respondent (Adani Ports): Argued that the application was not maintainable, that the signed order is final, and that any changes were not material but corrections/refinements.

4. Issues

1. Whether the miscellaneous application seeking to declare the dictation in open court as final and binding and to declare the signed order as having no force of law is maintainable under the Supreme Court Rules and the Circular dated 03.01.2025.

2. Whether there was any material change between the dictation and the signed order that would require the Court to re‑hear the matter or declare the signed order invalid.

3. Whether the applicants are liable for costs for filing a frivolous application attempting to undermine the authority of the Court.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Miscellaneous application not maintainable (Paras 15-19, 30):

The Court held that the application was in the nature of a review petition, seeking to rewrite the final order. Under the settled law (Ajay Kumar Jain, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam), miscellaneous applications in disposed proceedings are maintainable only for (i) correction of clerical or arithmetical errors, or (ii) where the order is executory and its implementation has become impossible due to subsequent events. The applicants’ prayer – to declare the signed order as having no force of law – falls outside these categories. Moreover, the applicants did not file the required affidavit under the Circular dated 03.01.2025, which itself rendered the application defective.

B. Dictation in open court is a rough draft; signed order is final (Paras 23-29):

The Court distinguished Vinod Kumar Singh and U.P. Housing on facts. In those cases, there were two conflicting orders or the order was altered behind the parties’ backs. Here, there is only one signed order. The dictation to the Court‑master is a skeletal draft, subject to correction, refinement, and enhancement in chambers before signing. This practice is necessitated by the heavy docket and is recognised in Ratali Jhaverbhai Parmar. As held in Surendra Singh, a judgment is the final decision formally intimated to the parties; a draft, even if signed, is not the judgment until delivered. The signed order embodies the final unalterable opinion of the Court.

C. No material change – only correction/refinement (Paras 23-26):

The Court examined the alleged differences:

• Status quo: The Court noted that no interim order of status quo had ever been passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court during the pendency of the matter. The dictation’s reference to status quo was an ancillary direction, and its omission in the signed order was not a material change. Moreover, the Court clarified that the matter was about replenishment of gauchar land, not title over a specific parcel.

• Disposal of writ petition: The signed order directed that the writ petition be treated as disposed of, while the dictation allegedly said the High Court shall proceed independently. The Court held that this was not a material change because the signed order granted liberty to the parties to take recourse after the fresh order of the State. Effectively, the writ petition was disposed of to allow a fresh administrative order, but parties could approach the court if aggrieved by that order. This was a refinement, not a substantive alteration.

Thus, no re‑hearing was required.

D. Costs imposed for frivolous application (Para 31):

The Court found the application to be a “misconceived attempt to undermine the dignity of the Court and browbeat its authority.” The applicants relied on a YouTube video and self‑prepared transcript to challenge a final signed order. This amounted to an abuse of process. Symbolic costs of ₹2,000 each were imposed on the applicants, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Dictation in open court to the Court‑master is not the final judgment; it is a rough draft subject to correction, refinement, and enhancement in chambers before signing. The signed order is the only binding and operative order of the Court.

• A miscellaneous application in a disposed proceeding is not maintainable to declare a signed order as having no force of law based on a comparison with an alleged dictation. Such an application is in the nature of a review petition and must meet the strict grounds under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules or the executory‑order impossibility exception under the Circular dated 03.01.2025.

• The practice of dictating a skeletal order in court and later enhancing it is valid and necessary given the heavy docket, as long as no material change is made without re‑hearing. Changes that are ancillary or refinements (e.g., clarifying the effect of disposal) are permissible.

• A party cannot rely on a YouTube video or media reports of court proceedings to question the correctness of a signed order. The signed order is the authoritative record.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the applicant’s claim. It first noted the procedural defect: the application did not comply with the Circular dated 03.01.2025, which requires an affidavit stating that the order is executory and impossible to implement. The Court directed the Registrar to explain why the application was listed without such compliance.

The Court then distinguished Vinod Kumar Singh. In that case, a division bench pronounced a judgment in open court, but another division bench later passed a contrary order. The Court held that the first pronouncement was the final judgment. Here, there was no second order; only a draft dictation and a final signed order. The Court clarified that the dictation is not a “judgment” until it is signed and delivered as the final act.

The Court relied on Surendra Singh, where Vivian Bose, J., explained that a judge has locus poenitentiae (the right to change one’s mind) until the judgment is formally delivered. Even a signed draft is not a judgment until delivered. Therefore, corrections and refinements are permissible.

The Court also noted the practical realities of judicial work (docket explosion) and the practice of dictating short operative parts with reasons to follow. This practice was recognised in Ratali Jhaverbhai Parmar. The Court held that the dictation in this case was a skeletal draft that was refined in chambers. The differences pointed out by the applicants were either not material (status quo) or were clarifications (disposal of writ petition). The Court also noted that the applicants had themselves suggested some wording after the dictation, which was incorporated.

Finally, the Court imposed costs, observing that the application was an attempt to browbeat the Court and undermine its authority.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment provides a clear and practical framework for understanding the status of dictated orders versus signed orders. It balances the need for finality of judicial decisions with the practical realities of heavy court dockets. The distinction between “material change” (which requires re‑hearing) and “correction/refinement” (which does not) is well articulated. The rejection of the applicants’ reliance on a YouTube video and media reports reinforces that the signed order is the authoritative record. The imposition of costs serves as a deterrent against frivolous applications.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly define what constitutes a “material change.” In borderline cases, this could lead to disputes. However, the Court held that on the facts, the changes were not material. The judgment also does not address the situation where the dictation is detailed and the signed order deviates substantially without re‑hearing – but that is not this case.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited to oppose miscellaneous applications that seek to overturn final orders based on alleged discrepancies between dictation and signed order. It will also guide the Registry in insisting on compliance with the Circular dated 03.01.2025. Judges may feel more secure in dictating rough drafts and refining them later, as long as they do not make material changes without re‑hearing. Litigants will be cautioned against using unofficial recordings (e.g., YouTube videos) to challenge court orders.

9. Final Outcome

• Miscellaneous Application No. 1276 of 2026 is dismissed as not maintainable and on merits.

• The signed order dated 27.01.2026 (uploaded on 12.02.2026) remains the final and binding order of the Court.

• The applicants are directed to pay costs of ₹2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand) each to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

• The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to submit an explanation within one week as to why the application was listed without compliance of the Circular dated 03.01.2025.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• For litigants/advocates: If you believe that the final signed order of the Court differs substantially from what was dictated in open court, you cannot merely file a miscellaneous application relying on a video or transcript. You must demonstrate that there was a material change that affects the rights of the parties, and you must also show that the order is executory and has become impossible to implement (as per the Circular). In most cases, the signed order will prevail as the final word.

• For the Registry: When a miscellaneous application is filed in a disposed matter, strictly enforce the requirement of an affidavit under the Circular dated 03.01.2025. Do not list the application unless the applicant avers on oath that the order is executory and its implementation has become impossible due to subsequent events.

• For courts: When an application alleges discrepancy between dictation and signed order, examine whether the changes are material (affecting the substantive rights) or merely clerical/refinements. If material, direct re‑hearing; if not, dismiss the application. Also, caution parties against using unofficial recordings to challenge orders.

11. Court Lines

“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.” (Para 15)

“The dictation given to the Court‑master on 27.01.2026 was a rough draft at best, since there were multiple interruptions and corrections made in the dictation itself. It was subject to correction and further enhancement in chambers.” (Para 27)

“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.” (Para 27)

“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.” (Para 19)

“In light of the frivolity of the application, the nature of pleadings made and the attempt to undermine the authority of this Court, symbolic and exemplary cost of ₹2000 each is imposed on the Applicants.” (Para 31)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

• For the applicant (who lost in the main appeal): Before filing a miscellaneous application alleging discrepancy between dictation and signed order, first obtain a certified copy of the order sheet and the final signed order. Compare them. If the changes are material and affect your rights, consider filing a review petition under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, not a miscellaneous application. Also, ensure you comply with the Circular dated 03.01.2025 by filing an affidavit stating why the application is necessary (executory order impossible to implement). Do not rely on unofficial videos or media reports.

• For the respondent (successful party): When such an application is filed, immediately object to its maintainability. Point out that the signed order is final and that the applicant has not complied with the Circular. Also argue that any differences are not material and that the dictation was only a rough draft. Seek costs for frivolous litigation.

• For the Registry: When a miscellaneous application is filed without the required affidavit under the Circular, return it as defective. Do not list it. If listed, bring the defect to the Court’s attention at the threshold.