The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recalled its earlier order imposing costs of ₹5,000 on the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mewat, after it discovered that the costs had been imposed because of an error in the Court's own recording of facts. Justice Sumeet Goel held that a litigant or public officer cannot be made to suffer because of an inadvertent mistake committed by the Court itself. Invoking the established legal principle Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit, meaning that an act of the Court shall prejudice no one, the High Court corrected its earlier order and removed the financial penalty imposed upon the police officer.
The matter arose in Vijay Sharma v. State of Haryana, where the Court had earlier issued directions to the State concerning the filing of a reply. By an order dated August 18, 2026, the Court directed the State counsel to file the reply before the next date of hearing and provide an advance copy to the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The order further provided that if the reply was not filed within the stipulated time, the SP, Mewat, would be liable to pay costs of ₹25,000. The direction was intended to ensure compliance with the Court's procedural requirements and to prevent further delay in the proceedings.
When the matter came up on September 7, 2026, the State sought permission to place its reply on record belatedly. At that stage, the Court declined the request and proceeded on the understanding that the State had failed to file the reply as required. On that basis, costs were imposed upon the SP, Mewat. The Court also directed the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) to deduct the amount from the SP's salary and deposit it with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority. Thus, the earlier order had both a financial consequence for the police officer and a specific direction for recovery of the amount from his salary.
The position, however, subsequently turned out to be different from what had been recorded in the September 7 order. The Court's own staff brought the factual discrepancy to its attention. It emerged that the State had, in fact, attempted to place its reply on record on September 7 itself. Therefore, the factual basis on which the Court had proceeded to impose the costs was inaccurate. The State had not simply remained inactive or failed altogether to take steps towards filing its reply; rather, an attempt to file the reply had been made on the very date when the Court passed the costs order. This discovery prompted the Court to reconsider the earlier direction.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the mistake was attributable to an inaccurate recording of the facts and not to any deliberate attempt by the SP or the State authorities to disregard the Court's directions. The Court therefore considered it necessary to correct the consequence of its own mistake. The issue before the High Court was not merely whether the earlier order could technically be recalled, but whether the administration of justice required the Court to ensure that an innocent party did not suffer because of an error in the judicial record.
For this purpose, the High Court invoked the cardinal jurisprudential principle Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit. The Latin maxim literally means that an act of the Court shall prejudice no one. The principle is founded on the basic requirement of fairness in judicial proceedings. Courts have a duty to ensure that their own procedural mistakes, omissions or incorrect recording of facts do not result in an unjust disadvantage to a litigant or any person affected by the Court's order. The High Court observed that this principle is founded upon “justice and good sense” and serves as a reliable guide for the administration of law and justice.
The Court emphasised that the principle applies with even greater force when it is clear that the Court would never have passed the particular direction had the correct facts been brought to its notice. In the present case, the cost order against the SP was based upon the understanding that the State had failed to file its reply. Once it became clear that the State had actually attempted to place the reply on record on the relevant date, the factual foundation of the penalty disappeared. Continuing to enforce the costs despite this discovery would have meant allowing a person to suffer for an error that was not attributable to him.
The High Court also relied upon another legal principle, Nunc Pro Tunc. The expression broadly refers to the power to make a present order that corrects or gives effect to what should have been recorded at an earlier point in time. The Court described this principle as having a limited but important role in jurisprudence because it enables courts to correct inadvertent errors and ensure that the ultimate administration of justice is not defeated by a procedural or recording mistake.
Justice Goel explained that Nunc Pro Tunc is an indispensable jurisprudential principle because it provides a remedial mechanism for correcting inadvertent judicial errors. The purpose is not to permit courts to routinely reopen concluded matters or change their decisions merely because they have subsequently reconsidered the merits. Instead, the principle operates in limited circumstances where a genuine error has occurred and correction is necessary to ensure that the record accurately reflects what happened and that no party is unfairly prejudiced.
The High Court referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court while examining these principles. These included Jang Singh v. Brij Lal (1966), Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb (1999), Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd. (2023) and the three-Judge Bench decision in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni (2024). These authorities recognise that courts possess inherent powers to correct their own mistakes in appropriate circumstances and to restore a party to the position that it would have occupied had the judicial error not occurred.
The Court reiterated that the power to recall or correct an order is not unlimited. Courts cannot use such powers as a means of routinely reviewing their own judgments under the guise of correcting an error. However, where the mistake is apparent and self-evident, and where establishing the error does not require an elaborate or extended process of reasoning, the Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to correct the situation. This limitation is important because it preserves the distinction between a genuine correction of an accidental judicial error and an impermissible review of the merits of a decision.
In the present case, the High Court found that the error satisfied this test. The factual position regarding the filing of the State's reply was capable of being established from the record. There was no need for a lengthy evidentiary exercise or complicated legal analysis. The Court's own staff had identified the discrepancy, and it became apparent that the earlier order had proceeded upon an inaccurate recording of what had happened on September 7. Consequently, the Court considered it appropriate to exercise its inherent power to correct the resulting prejudice.
The judgment is particularly significant because the person affected by the earlier order was the SP, Mewat, even though the issue concerned the filing of a reply by the State counsel. The earlier order had contemplated deduction of the costs directly from the SP's salary. Once the Court found that the factual premise for the penalty was incorrect, allowing the salary deduction to continue would have caused a direct financial prejudice to a public officer for circumstances that were not correctly recorded. The Court therefore concluded that the consequential direction also had to be withdrawn along with the costs order.
The High Court consequently recalled the direction imposing ₹5,000 costs upon the SP, Mewat and also recalled the consequential direction requiring the amount to be deducted from his salary. The Court clarified that the present corrective order would form part of the judicial record and would be read in continuation of the earlier order dated September 7, 2026. In this manner, the Court ensured that the record accurately reflected the correction while preserving the continuity of the proceedings. The application seeking correction was thereafter disposed of.
The decision reinforces an important principle concerning the relationship between judicial authority and procedural fairness. Courts possess extensive powers to enforce compliance with their directions, including the power to impose costs when parties or officials fail to comply. However, such powers must necessarily operate on an accurate factual foundation. If a penalty is imposed because the Court has itself misunderstood or incorrectly recorded what occurred, the Court has both the authority and the responsibility to correct that error.
The ruling also demonstrates that judicial discipline does not prevent a Court from acknowledging and correcting its own mistake. On the contrary, the willingness of the Court to revisit an order after discovering an obvious factual error strengthens the principle that judicial proceedings must ultimately serve the cause of justice. The Court did not allow the earlier order to stand merely because it had already been pronounced. Instead, it examined the record, recognised the error and took corrective action to prevent an unjust consequence.
The principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit has broader significance beyond the facts of this particular case. It ensures that litigants should not be placed in a worse position because of something done or omitted by the judicial institution itself. If a court's administrative or procedural mistake causes prejudice, the legal system must contain a mechanism through which that prejudice can be removed. Otherwise, the very process intended to secure justice could become the source of injustice.
Similarly, the application of Nunc Pro Tunc reflects the importance of maintaining accurate judicial records. Court orders are relied upon by litigants, lawyers, government authorities and other institutions. An incorrect factual recording can have significant consequences, particularly where the order imposes financial penalties, affects rights or directs administrative action. The ability to correct such errors therefore serves both individual fairness and the integrity of the judicial record.
Ultimately, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision is a reminder that no person should suffer because of an inadvertent mistake of the Court. The earlier costs imposed upon the SP, Mewat, were based on an inaccurate understanding that the State had failed to file its reply, whereas the record subsequently showed that an attempt had been made to file it on the same date. Applying Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit and Nunc Pro Tunc, the High Court recalled the ₹5,000 costs and the consequential salary-deduction direction. The ruling therefore highlights the Court's inherent power and duty to rectify an obvious judicial error when allowing the error to stand would cause prejudice to a person who was not responsible for it.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.