Courts must not let their own mistakes hurt litigants: High Court

Reaffirming the fundamental rule that no litigant should suffer because of an inadvertent error in a judicial order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has invoked two-time honoured legal doctrines—Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit (the act of the court shall prejudice no one) and Nunc Pro Tunc (now for then)—to recall an earlier order after an unintentional mistake was brought to its notice by the court staff.

Justice Sumeet Goel asserted the need to carry out the correction was necessitated because the July 23 order had inadvertently directed that the case be relegated to the Sessions Court, a course of action that the Bench would not have adopted had the correct facts been placed before it.

Justice Goel asserted: “The need to pass the instant order has occasioned, on account of an error that has crept into the order dated July 23, which has been brought to my notice by the Court staff.”

Invoking the principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit, the court held that this was a cardinal jurisprudential rule which not only authorized, but obligated the court to rectify a mistake.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings, Justice Goel asserted: “There is no higher principle for the guidance of the courts than the one that no act of courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the courts to see if a person is harmed by a mistake of the court, then he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake.”

The court asserted that the principle is “founded upon justice and good sense” and served as a “safe and certain guide” for the administration of both law and justice. Justice Goel also invoked the doctrine of Nunc Pro Tunc, which allowed the courts to issue present orders that corrected past errors with retrospective effect. While acknowledging that this principle had a limited application, the court described it as an indispensable jurisprudential tool aimed at correcting inadvertent judicial errors.

It further observed: “The principle of Nunc Pro Tunc essentially means that a present order by court is directing for past changes in the present times… serving the salutary objective of administration of justice in entirety and also serves as remedial measure(s) towards the inadvertent error committed.”

Justice Goel clarified that both doctrines operated together where a self-evident mistake of the court had caused prejudice. The Bench asserted such correction was permissible only when the error was apparent on the face of the record and did not involve “any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.”

Applying this to the case before it, the court found that there was no occasion to have relegated the matter to the Sessions Court, and that the direction in the July 23 order was inadvertent.

“In the factual milieu of the case in hand as also in the interest of justice and equity, it appears that there arises no occasion for this court to relegate the instant case to the Sessions Court concerned, as has been inadvertently directed for vide order dated July 23. The order is hereby recalled. The Registry is directed to restore the instant case to its original position and number.”