Supreme Court slaps costs on litigants who said oral order in Adani Ports land case differed from signed order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea alleging that its final signed order in favour of Adani Ports in the gauchar land dispute materially differed from the order orally dictated in open court earlier this year [Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja vs. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd.]. .The case arose from an order passed by a Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar on January 27 in Adani Ports’ appeal against Gujarat High Court proceedings concerning Gauchar (grazing) land in Navinal village in Kutch district.According to the applicants, the Bench while dictating the order in open court had directed maintenance of status quo over the land and permitted the Gujarat High Court to continue hearing a pending public interest litigation (PIL) relating to the land independently. However, the final signed order uploaded on February 12 omitted the status quo direction and instead disposed of the High Court PIL altogether while permitting the Gujarat government to pass a fresh order after hearing all parties.The applicants - parties connected to the long-running gauchar land dispute - argued that the oral dictation effectively protected the land in question, whereas the final uploaded order diluted those protections and operated in favour of Adani Ports..The Justice Maheshwari-led bench today rejected this contention and imposed costs of ₹2,000 each on the applicants, holding that the application questioning the Court's order amounted to a “gross abuse of process of law” and an attempt to “undermine the dignity of the Court and browbeat its authority.”It held that the signed order uploaded by the Court represents its final opinion since it is issued after multiple rounds of corrections to the oral dictation made in court.“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 Bench said.It further said the dictations given to court masters during hearings are often only a “rough draft” or “skeletal framework” which remain subject to corrections, refinement and enhancement in chambers before signing."The intent behind dictating a draft to the court-master is to put the facts on record and lay down the skeletal framework for the order, which may help the judge recall the matter when the corrections and enhancement in the order is made at a later stage," the Court said. The Bench added that the practice was necessary given the heavy docket burden before constitutional courts and helps judges utilise court time more efficiently while hearing large numbers of matters each day.“For all practical purposes, the practice of dictating a skeletal draft order and enhancing it in chambers with corrections and reasoning, prior to signing, which is quite prevalent in this Court, has its own benefit in saving the time of the Court, especially when the Court has a heavy docket,” it observed..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.Supreme Court.The dispute dates back to 2005 when around 231 hectares of gauchar land in Navinal village was allotted to Mundra Port, which later became Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. Villagers had challenged the allotment before the Gujarat High Court through a PIL seeking restoration of grazing land or allotment of alternative land.In July 2024, the Gujarat government passed an order resuming over 108 hectares of the land from Adani Ports pursuant to proceedings before the High Court. The High Court subsequently directed the State to proceed with recovery of the land.Adani Ports challenged the move before the Supreme Court, arguing that neither the State nor the High Court had granted it a hearing before directing resumption of the land. On July 10, 2024, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan stayed the Gujarat High Court’s order directing resumption of the land.The matter was eventually heard by a Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar.According to the applicants in the present proceedings, the Justice Maheshwari-led bench while orally dictating its January 27 order had directed continuation of the status quo in terms of the top court's July 2024 order and had also allowed the Gujarat High Court to continue hearing the PIL.However, the final signed order uploaded later omitted the status quo direction and disposed of the PIL pending before High Court, while allowing the State to pass a fresh order after hearing all parties..Rejecting the applicants’ reliance on media reports, stock exchange disclosures and a YouTube recording of the hearing, the Court said the applicants were attempting to rely on an incomplete video recording to challenge the final signed order.“The Applicants have placed reliance on a YouTube video, which itself does not appear to be complete and it cuts out while the Court is giving further directions to the Court-master in respect of the dictation given,” the Bench noted..The Court held that no “material change” had been made between the dictated draft and the signed order.“This, in our opinion, is not a material change, it is a correction and refinement of the dictation,” the Court said..Referring to the "practical realities" of judicial functioning, the Court noted that as many as 71 matters had been listed before the Bench on the day the appeal was heard.It said judges often dictate short draft orders in open court and later refine them in chambers before signing the final version so that judicial time can be effectively utilised and more matters can be heard during the day..[Read Judgement]