An order pronounced in open court cannot be altered except in an open court hearing

Speaking to the minutes of the order dated 3rd September, 2025, conducted through VC

1. The popular concept among litigants, lawyers and even judges is that what constitutes an order or judgment which binds the party before the court is the order which is signed by the judge and authenticated and made available to the litigant and the public at large, by means of certified copies or as uploaded on the website. However, this is an unfortunate misconception which has calamitous consequences. Instant is the classic example.

2. The bench consisting of their lordships MS Karnik and NR Borkar in their lordships’ order pronounced in the open court, concluded the order by stating “We make it clear that this court had passed and interim order. If the Petitioner…(inaudible)… which obviously shall be considered on its own merits by the regular court. The interim protection granted earlier to continue for a period of two weeks”.

3. To the utter shock and dismay of the Petitioner, the order which was dictated in open court as above, when it was uploaded on the website of the court on 4.9.2025 which the Petitioner downloaded on 5.9.2025 is substantially, if not entirely, different from the one which was dictated in the open court. In the course of the hearing, the Petitioner’s counsel insisted that he be protected till he could move the regular bench as fallen from the Hon’ble Court. The said plea was opposed by the counsel for the Respondents and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to protect the Petitioner for a period of two weeks. The words which were pronounced in open court “We make it clear that this court had passed and interim order (full stop) If the Petitioner…(inaudible)… which obviously shall be considered on its own merits by the regular court. The interim protection granted earlier to continue for a period of two weeks”. The video recordings of the proceedings would certainly be available with the court and the same is also available with the Petitioner. Therefore, there would be no difficulty to verify the veracity of the assertion made by the Petitioner on oath.

4. It is undeniable that the order which was pronounced in the open court and the one which was uploaded are entirely different in the sense that in the order which was pronounced in the open court, this Court was pleased to protect the Petitioner and in the order that came to be uploaded on the website, namely, the one which was signed by the Hon’ble Judges and thus is the official, written record of the court, this Court has expressly declined the continuation of the interim relief by saying “it is not possible for us to continue the interim relief in a motion made by the learned Counsel for speaking to the minutes.

5. The issue before this Court, which is a pure question of law, is between what is pronounced in open court, extending interim protection for two weeks and the one which was signed, authenticated and uploaded declining the same, which is legal, authoritative and binding. The answer to the said question, a pure question of law, is absolutely certain, crystal clear. What binds the parties to a cause is the pronouncement of the order made in open court. An order which is pronounced in open court, no matter whether it is typed, signed/authenticated, is the order of the court, authoritative and binding. Signing, sealing or authentication are only evidence of the order which is pronounced in the open court.

6. A court which has pronounced an order in open court is free to vary, modify, recall, or completely cancel its order. However, it cannot be done in the chambers, behind the back of the parties to the cause. The court is duty bound to issue notice to the parties, list the matter in open court, hear both parties and thereafter is modify, recall, vary or completely abrogate the order. This Court, as stated above, was pleased to substantially vary the order and to cancel the interim protection of two weeks granted in open court. It was done entirely behind the back of the Petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 3.9.2025 as uploaded on the website is liable to be set aside and the original order granting protection is liable to be restored. The Petitioners assert so in all humility because no proceedings were instituted by the Respondents to modify, vary, cancel or set aside the order which was pronounced in open court.

7. That all judicial proceedings have to be transacted in open court, except those by the very nature of which can only be conducted in-camera, is a fundamental principle of law of universal application, be it in common law countries or civil law countries, all without exception. These principles find adumbration in Order XX CPC and Section 353 of the CrPC, so too, by the Supreme Court in Surender Singh’s case (1954 SCR 330).

Prayer

a) To recall/rescind the order dated 3.9.2025 as uploaded on the website and restore the order which was pronounced in open court extending the interim protection by a period of two weeks to enable the Petitioner to move the regular bench for appropriate reliefs;