Supreme Court of India

RE: VIJAY KURLE & ORS.versus.

Citation: 2022 INSC 1298
Decided: 21 March 2022
Disposal: Case Allowed
Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARIANIRUDDHA BOSE

Holding

The Supreme Court may correct clerical or typographical errors in its judgments under its inherent jurisdiction to reflect the true intention of the order.

Summary

In a Suo Motu Contempt Petition (CRL.) No. 2 of 2019, the Supreme Court observed a typographical error in paragraph 7 of its judgment dated 27-04-2020, where it incorrectly quoted "92) of Article 142" instead of the correct "(2) of Article 142". A miscellaneous application (M.A. No. 486 of 2022) was filed seeking a corrigendum to rectify this clerical mistake. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to correct clerical and typographical errors in its own orders so as to reflect the true intention of the judgment. It held that such correction does not alter the substantive content of the judgment but merely aligns the text with the intended provision. Consequently, the Court ordered that the judgment be corrected to read "(2) of Article 142" and allowed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can, under its inherent jurisdiction, correct a typographical error in a previously delivered judgment without affecting the substantive outcome.

Subjects

typographical errorcorrigenduminherent jurisdictionSupreme CourtArticle 142contempt petitionjudgment correction

Judgment

                           [2022] 2 S.C.R. 819                                    819



                      RE: VIJAY KURLE & ORS.                                      A
              (Miscellaneous Application No. 486 of 2022)
                                     In
         (Suo Motu Contempt Petition (CRL.) No. 2 of 2019)
                            MARCH 21, 2022                                        B

       Judgment/Order – Correction of typographical error – In paragraph
no.7, ‘92) of Article 142’ to be read as ‘(2) of Article 142’ – Miscellaneous
application allowed.
      INHERENT JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application No. 486                    C
of 2022 In Suo Moto Contempt Petition (CRL.) No. 2 of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2020 in SMC (Crl)
No.2 of 2019 of this Court.
       Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Nitin Saluja, Nilesh C. Ojha, Prem Sunder
Jha, Ishwarlal S. Agarwal, Ms. Dipali N. Ojha, Pratik Jain Saklecha,              D
Abhishek Mishra, Ms. Siddhi A. Dhamnaskar, Ms. Snehal S. Surve, Ms.
Poonam P. Rajbhar, Ms. Deepika G. Jaiswal, Mangesh B. Dongre, Sohan
R. Agate, Pritam Bishwas, Anant Misra Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The following Order of the Court was passed:
                                 ORDER                                            E

       In terms of the office report, the suggested corrigendum, as stated
infra, be carried out in the judgment delivered on 27-04-2020:-


                                                                                  F




      M.A. No. 486 of 2022 stands allowed.
                                                                                  G

Ankit Gyan                                                    Petition allowed.




                                                                                  H
                                    819

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "typographical error"Sign in to search