The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recalled its earlier order imposing a cost of ₹5,000 on the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mewat, after finding that the penalty had been imposed due to a factual error made by the Court itself.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, “it is inexorable posit that this principle (Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit) is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law as also justice. It would apply with greater force regarding the acts for which it can be unequivocally held that the Court wouldn't have ever so acted had accurate/correct facts been brought to its notice.”

Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit means an act of the court shall prejudice no one.

The Court also relied on the principle of Nunc Pro Tunc, which essentially means a present order rectifying a past error.

"This principle, undoubtedly, has very limited application but it is an indispensable principle of jurisprudence serving the salutary objective of administration of justice in entirety and also serves as remedial measure(s) towards the inadvertent error committed," the Court said added.

By an order dated 18.08.2026, the Court had directed the State counsel to file a reply with an advance copy to the petitioner's counsel before the next hearing, failing which the SP, Mewat would be liable to pay costs of 25,000.

On 07.09.2026, when the reply had still not been filed, the Court declined the State's request to file it belatedly and imposed the costs on the SP, directing the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) to deduct the amount from his salary and deposit it with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority.

However, it later came to light, flagged by the Court's own staff - that the order recording this position contained an error, the State had in fact sought to place its reply on record on 07.09.2026 itself, a fact not accurately reflected when the costs order was passed.

Justice Goel invoked two "cardinal jurisprudential principles" to correct the anomaly: Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) and Nunc Pro Tunc (a present order rectifying a past error).

Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in 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), the Court reiterated that where a litigant is prejudiced by a court's own mistake, it is the court's duty to restore the party to the position it would have occupied but for that error. It noted that courts possess inherent power to recall such orders, provided the error is self-evident and doesn't require an extended process of reasoning to establish.

In the light of the above , the Court held that the cost order dated 07.09.2026 had been passed on an inaccurate recording of facts — since the State had attempted to file its reply on that very date — and that the resulting penalty on the SP could not be sustained.

The Court recalled the direction imposing costs of ₹5,000 on the SP, Mewat, along with the consequential direction for salary deduction, clarifying that the present order would form part of the record and be read in continuation of the 07.09.2026 order. The application was accordingly disposed of.

Click here to read order