The Supreme Court emphasised that judges, being human, can commit mistakes and that courts must not shy away from acknowledging such errors and rectifying them when they occur. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the long-established maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” — meaning the act of the court shall prejudice no one — must guide judicial action to ensure no party suffers because of a court’s error, delay or inadvertence.
The remark reflects the apex court’s renewed commitment to the principle that courts themselves must not cause prejudice to litigants by virtue of mistakes in procedure or decision-making. The doctrine has been discussed in several judgments, including one on 23 September 2024 where the Court allowed the Enforcement Directorate’s plea to recall an order in a money-laundering case, stating higher-level judges too are fallible and must recognise errors that may have crept into their judicial orders.
In the current observation, the bench reiterated that the maxim applies not only to factual or clerical errors but also to any action of the court which, if properly apprised of the facts and law, the court would not have taken. The doctrine obliges courts to restore litigants to the position they would have occupied had the mis-order not been made. Academic commentary notes the maxim is “founded upon justice and good sense” and serves as a safe, certain guide for the administration of law.
The statement follows a growing trend of judicial acknowledgement of fallibility. For instance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court invoked the maxim along with the doctrine of nunc pro tunc to recall an earlier order after court-staff identified a factual mistake that had prejudiced a litigant. The High Court held that its obligation was to correct errors by the court itself when they were apparent and caused prejudice.
Legal scholars say the recent pronouncements strengthen procedural fairness by underscoring that courts are not immune from oversight of their own actions. The maxim thereby acts as a check on potential injustice arising from court-made errors, such as mis-directing a matter or incorrectly stating facts, and ensures the focus remains on litigant rights rather than procedural technicalities.
However, the principle does not give a carte blanche for all errors to be reopened. The Court has consistently held that correction is permissible only where the error is “apparent on the face of the record” and does not involve a lengthy process of reasoning on contested points of law. It cautioned that finality of judgments remains crucial, and only where the individual facts warrant intervention should a disposed case be reopened for clarification or modification.
Mahagathbandhan candidates pull back in Bihar seats 