Two Orders In Same Case; Different Version Uploaded On Website: Supreme Court Asks Madras HC To Take Corrective Measures
In a strange case where the order uploaded in the website of the Madras High Court was found to be different from the order which was initially pronounced, the Supreme Court has asked the High Court to take necessary corrective measures.In September 2022, when this discrepancy was brought to notice, the Supreme Court had called for a report from the Madras High Court Registry, after terming...
In a strange case where the order uploaded in the website of the Madras High Court was found to be different from the order which was initially pronounced, the Supreme Court has asked the High Court to take necessary corrective measures.
In September 2022, when this discrepancy was brought to notice, the Supreme Court had called for a report from the Madras High Court Registry, after terming the situation "unusual".
Following that, the Registrar-General of the High Court submitted a report before the Supreme Court in a sealed cover. On January 23, a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi recorded satisfaction with the justification provided. The bench did not record the details in the order, except stating as follows ;
"In compliance of the order of this Court, the Registrar General of the High Court has submitted his report dated 10.11.2022 in a sealed cover which is placed for our perusal. We have gone through the report and record our satisfaction with the justification tendered in passing of the order on 01.09.2022 of which reference has been made in our order dated 23.09.2022 and leave it for the High Court to take appropriate necessary course corrective measures which are required in the interest of justice".
The counsel for the petitioners had produced before the Supreme Court two different versions of the same order passed by the division bench in the same case. During the hearing held on September 23, 2022, Senior Advocate K. Subramanian, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, alleged that the initial order was later deleted, and a modified order was uploaded in its place. The operative portion, containing a direction issued to the respondent to deposit Rs 115 crores in Indian Bank Annanagar, Chennai trust, was deleted, the lawyer had submitted.
The Bench was confounded by the development. "This is very strange...in our 40 years of experience, we have not seen anything like this", Justice Rastogi had commented then.
The Top Court now set aside the order and asked the High Court to take a fresh decision, while maintaining an earlier status-quo order passed in the matter.
Case Title : J. Mohammed Nazir v. Mahasemam Trust | SLP(c) 16303/2022