Court reiterates that judicial records are conclusive and cannot be contradicted by subsequent affidavits; stresses prompt objection to incorrect recording during hearing
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court, through Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, firmly rejected an application seeking to modify an earlier order related to a high-profile criminal revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The case, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kuldeep Singh and Others, revolves around the maintainability of the CBI's revision petition challenging the discharge of 23 accused persons by a Special Judge in a corruption case.
The applicant, Vijay S. Nair, moved to recall a direction recorded in an order dated May 8, 2026, which stated that certain respondents had no objection to the maintainability applications being heard along with the main revision petition. The applicant contended that this recording was incorrect as he had not consented to such a course and argued that the objection concerning the maintainability of the revision petition raised a preliminary issue that ought to be decided first, before addressing the merits of the revision.
However, the Court observed that the application was belated, having been filed after a lapse of five months. The Court underscored the principle that judicial records, which document what transpired during hearings, hold the status of conclusive evidence. The judgment referenced the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982), emphasizing that statements recorded in judicial orders cannot be contradicted by affidavits or subsequent assertions.
The Court noted that no objection was raised at the time the order was pronounced in open Court and that no steps were taken promptly by the applicant to seek correction or modification of the order. The Court held that once the order was uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, five months elapsed without any challenge, thus rendering the belated application unmeritorious.
Justice Sharma pointed out that if any party believes that the judicial record inaccurately reflects what transpired, it is incumbent on that party to immediately bring it to the attention of the Court while the matter is still fresh. Failure to do so results in the judicial record being final and unquestionable.
Importantly, the Court clarified that its present order dismissing the recall application would not preclude the concerned Roster Bench from considering any other preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the revision petition. This aspect ensures that the substantive issues can still be adjudicated on merits in due course.
The judgment reinforces the sanctity of judicial records and the necessity for promptness in raising objections about the Court's recording of proceedings. It serves as a stern reminder to litigants and counsel that the integrity of court records must be preserved and cannot be undermined by delayed attempts to alter them.
Bottom Line:
Judicial record is conclusive as to what transpired in Court and cannot be contradicted by subsequent affidavit or statement at the Bar; objection to incorrect recording must be raised promptly before the same Court while matter is still fresh.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 18, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kuldeep Singh, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994093
