Alterations can't be made in judgements after pronouncement: HC

Any addition, deletion or modification of the contents of a judgement will tantamount to its alteration

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-133683230/stock-photo-scales-of-justice-gavel-and-books.html" target="_blank">Gavel</a> image via Shutterstock
Press Trust of India Madurai
Last Updated : Jul 08 2014 | 2:39 PM IST

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

The Madras High Court has ruled that judges are not entitled to make alterations in their judgements after signing and pronouncing it and "any addition, deletion or modification of the contents of a judgement" will tantamount to its alteration.

A division bench comprising justices V Ramasubramanian and V M Velumani gave the ruling on a writ appeal filed by former DMK minister N Suresh Rajan, who had challenged administrative instruction issued by the high court's Registrar to speed up framing of charges in a disproportionate assets case against him.

The instruction was issued on the basis of "docket orders" passed by a single judge after disposing of Rajan's criminal revision petition in open court on July 10, 2013. Rajan had pleaded against interim attachment of his properties.

"Every word, every letter and every punctuation mark in a judgement is of significance. In the Tamil epic Silapathikaram, the legendary Pandia king committed phonetical mistake, resulting in the execution of Kovalan," the court pointed out.

"An alteration may be a material alteration or an immaterial alteration or insignificant alteration. But nevertheless, an alteration in relation to a judgement is always significant," the bench held.

"The very fact that the insignificant and immaterial changes are expressly allowed by law to be carried out would show that the general rule is that every material or immaterial change will tantamount to alteration of a judgement.Therefore, even an addition to a judgement would tantamount to alteration."

The bench said, "Directions issued on the administrative side in a manner that is likely to instill any psychosis, fear or otherwise, on the part of the trial Judge or administrative directions that may give room for an impression that the High Court is monitoring the progress of the case, cannot be issued behind the back of the parties.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jul 08 2014 | 2:17 PM IST

Next Story