A judicial record of court proceedings cannot be contradicted by a subsequent affidavit.

The CBI’s revision petition challenged the discharge of 23 accused persons, including Vijay S. Nair, in a corruption case.

In an order dated 8 May 2026, the Court recorded that the respondents had no objection to maintainability applications being heard along with the revision petition.

Nair sought recall or modification of that direction, contending that the recorded statement was inaccurate and that his objection to the authority of the advocates who instituted the revision should be decided as a preliminary issue.

The CBI opposed the application as belated; the Court noted that no correction had been sought during the intervening proceedings over five months.

1. Whether the order recording that the respondents had no objection to hearing the maintainability applications with the revision petition should be modified on the basis of counsel’s later assertion that no such statement was made.

2. Whether the maintainability objection should be directed to be heard and decided as a preliminary issue before the revision petition is considered on merits.

In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, the Supreme Court held that a court’s record of what transpired before it is conclusive and cannot ordinarily be contradicted by a party’s later statement or affidavit.

If a party considers the record inaccurate, it must promptly bring the matter to the attention of the judges who made it while the proceedings remain fresh. A party may not later dispute the very fact of a concession as recorded by the court.

The Court treated the 8 May order as a judicial record made in open court and signed by the judge. No objection was raised when it was dictated, and no correction was sought during the five months in which the matter came before the Roster Bench on several occasions.

Applying Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, the Court held that counsel’s later affidavit and assertion could not displace the recorded statement. It did not decide whether the maintainability objection itself should succeed; it left that plea open for consideration by the Roster Bench.

The Court did not determine the merits of the preliminary maintainability objections and left the Roster Bench at liberty to consider any plea raised before it.