The Patna High Court passed a brief but important oral order clarifying that typographical mistakes in court orders can—and should—be corrected so the record reflects the correct factual position. In a pending writ petition (CWJC No. 10351 of 2020), the Court noted that the name of one of the private respondents (respondent no. 8) and his father’s name had been omitted or wrongly recorded in an earlier order dated 01.11.2022 due to a typographical error. On 20.12.2022, the Court directed that the respondent’s correct particulars be depicted in the order to be uploaded the same day.
Although the order is succinct, it raises an everyday but significant procedural point: courts possess the power—and responsibility—to correct clerical errors, accidental slips, and omissions that occur while drafting, typing, or uploading orders. Such corrections do not change the substance of the adjudication; they only ensure that the order accurately records what the Court intended or what the record actually shows.
In practical terms, a typographical misdescription of a party can create confusion in service, appellate proceedings, and the execution of subsequent directions by administrative authorities. If a respondent is wrongly named, the State machinery or lower authorities may find it difficult to implement a direction, or a private party might claim that the order does not bind them. By rectifying the name, the Court safeguards due process and prevents avoidable satellite litigation.
Here, the High Court expressly recorded that the error related to the identity of respondent no. 8 and his father’s name in the order dated 01.11.2022. Recognising this as a typographical mistake, the Court ordered the correction and instructed that the uploaded order reflect the accurate name of the concerned respondent. This is a classic example of a “correction order” or “speaking to the minutes” approach by which courts correct clerical inaccuracies without reopening the merits. The order also underlines that such rectifications can be made even in writ proceedings, reinforcing that procedural fairness and accuracy apply across jurisdictions.
Why does this matter? Because in the Indian justice system, where multiple authorities—Appellate, Revisional, District, and Sub-Divisional—act on High Court directions, an error in the recorded name or description of a party can hamper implementation. Land revenue cases, mutation or survey records, and administrative appeals often involve several parties with similar surnames in the same village or police station area. A small mistake in initials or parentage can lead to orders being applied to the wrong individual or not applied at all. The High Court’s intervention ensures that executive authorities act on accurate documentation, which is essential to rule of law.
From a legal policy perspective, the order demonstrates three important points:
- Accuracy over formality: Courts prioritise the accuracy of the judicial record over rigid adherence to technicalities. A correction order, though brief, is a procedural safeguard that supports substantive justice.
- Judicial efficiency: By promptly correcting errors, courts avoid future disputes over identity, service, or enforceability—saving time for both litigants and the justice system.
- Administrative clarity: Correct entries enable government departments to implement directions without hesitation or misapplication.
Counsel participation is also valuable context: the order lists the appearances for both sides—counsel for the petitioner and the State’s Advocate General for the respondents—reflecting that the matter was addressed in the presence of counsel, lending transparency and adversarial balance even to a short procedural order.
Finally, the order date—20.12.2022—matters from a compliance standpoint: it tells subordinate authorities and parties when the corrected description became part of the judicial record, which version of the order must be followed, and from when the corrected record is authoritative. When a writ record is later transmitted to administrative bodies or cited before appellate forums, the corrected order is what governs.
In summary, this Patna High Court order is a reminder that maintaining a clean and accurate judicial record is not a mere formality; it is foundational to fairness and enforceability. Even a one-line correction can prevent months of confusion on the ground.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
• For the general public: The order confirms that if an order wrongly records a party’s name, a correction can be sought. This protects citizens from being misidentified and ensures that orders bind the right persons.
• For government authorities: Departments should promptly implement corrected descriptions and consider the latest uploaded order as controlling. Accurate identification reduces the risk of executing directions against the wrong person.
• For lawyers and litigants: Always verify names, parentage, and designations before orders are uploaded. If an error slips through, move the Court for immediate correction to avoid complications in service, compliance, or appeal.
• For the justice system: Such corrections strengthen procedural integrity without affecting the merits, reflecting the courts’ inherent power to rectify clerical mistakes efficiently.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
• Whether a typographical/clerical error in a previously passed writ order regarding the description of a respondent can be corrected by the High Court.
— Decision: Yes. The Court directed that the correct name and father’s name of respondent no. 8 be depicted in the order to be uploaded, thus rectifying the earlier typographical error. The reasoning, though concise, reflects the well-settled principle that courts may correct accidental slips or clerical mistakes to ensure the record matches the Court’s intent and the factual matrix.
• Effective date and scope of correction.
— Decision: The correction was ordered on 20.12.2022 with reference to the earlier order dated 01.11.2022. Once directed, the corrected version controls for all practical purposes, guiding subordinate authorities and parties on the accurate identity of respondent no. 8.
Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations) — Skip (none mentioned in the order).
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations) — Skip (none mentioned in the order).
Case Title
Petitioner v. State of Bihar & Ors. (names anonymised as per editorial policy)
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10351 of 2020.
Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 819
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah.
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
• For the petitioner: Mr. Sumit Shekhar Pandey.
• For the respondents/State: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General.
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTAzNTEjMjAyMCMzI04=-5–am1–5vpvRk–ak1—-am1–I=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
