'Oral Dictation Not Final' : Supreme Court Slams Party Who Alleged Signed Order Favouring Adani Ports Was Not Same As Oral Order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 12) held that an order/judgment dictated in an open court cannot be deemed as final, as it may be open to alteration or modification by the bench post-dictation. The Court said that only a signed order remains enforceable and binding.

“The Court might dictate a draft to keep the facts fresh in the mind and the draft so dictated then becomes final only after signing, subject to corrections and alterations which do not amount to a material change in the order. The signed order is what embodies the final unalterable opinion of the Court, it is the only version of the Court's order which is reached after multiple rounds of correction after dictation in Court.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation while dismissing a miscellaneous application filed in a dispute connected to land resumption proceedings in favour of the Appellants-landowners, against which the Adani Ports appealed to the Supreme Court.

The controversy arose from a public interest litigation pending before the Gujarat High Court concerning land allotted to entities connected with Adani Ports. During the pendency of the matter, the Gujarat High Court, by an interim order dated July 5, 2024, directed the State Government to proceed with resumption of the land in terms of a State resolution dated July 4, 2024 in favour of the Appellants.

Adani Ports challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court, contending that the State resolution directing resumption of land had been passed without granting it an opportunity of hearing and solely on oral instructions of the High Court.

On July 10, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's interim order. Later, while finally disposing of the civil appeal on January 27, 2026, the Supreme Court set aside both the High Court's interim order and the State Government's resolution, while granting liberty to the State to pass a fresh order after hearing all affected parties.

However, a controversy subsequently emerged over what was allegedly dictated in open court on January 27, 2026.

The applicants contended that while dictating the order, the bench had orally directed that “status quo as it exists today shall be maintained” and had also indicated that the writ petition before the Gujarat High Court would continue independently. They argued that these directions were omitted from the signed order uploaded on February 12, 2026.

Relying on media reports, a YouTube recording of the court proceedings, and a transcript prepared by themselves, the applicants sought a declaration that the oral dictation constituted the real final order and that the digitally signed order “had no force of law”, as it altered or modified the order on material aspects.

Rejecting the plea, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari held that the signed order alone represented the final and binding decision of the Court.

The Court said that it would not have been occasioned to pass an order directing the 'status quo' without hearing the Respondents.

“When the order directing resumption of the land in question was found to be illegal due to want of hearing, on the admission of the State, there was no occasion for this Court to direct maintenance of status quo over the land since it would be an unreasonable restraint over the rights of the Respondent in respect of the land which was resumed.”, the court observed.

The Court effectively ruled that the absence of a grant of status quo in the signed order would not have amounted to a material change in an order dictated in open court.

“Grant of status quo or non-grant thereof is an ancillary direction and it cannot be said to be a material change in the draft order which could not have been made prior to signing of the order without re-hearing.”, the court observed, emphasizing that “the intent of the judge while making the dictation, therefore, becomes material. The Court might dictate a draft to keep the facts fresh in the mind and the draft so dictated then becomes final only after signing, subject to corrections and alterations which do not amount to a material change in the order. The signed order is what embodies the final unalterable opinion of the Court, it is the only version of the Court's order which is reached after multiple rounds of correction after dictation in Court.”

In terms of the aforesaid, the Miscellaneous Application was dismissed imposing costs of ₹2,000 each on the applicants, holding that the application amounted to a “gross abuse of process of law” and an attempt to “undermine the dignity of the Court and browbeat its authority.”

Cause Title: FAKIR MAMAD SULEMAN SAMEJA AND ORS. VERSUS ADANI PORTS AND SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES LTD. AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 490

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Applicant(s) : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Rani Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Sri, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR