Allegations of Incorrectly Recorded or Altered Judicial Records Must Be Addressed by the Same Court

The petitioner alleged that a specific order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in execution proceedings was surreptitiously deleted from the portal and replaced with a different order (Annexure P-2).

When the petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-6) regarding this discrepancy, the NCDRC directed the Registry on 25.03.2026 to provide a certified copy of the signed order, which turned out to be the contested Annexure P-2.

The petitioner approached the High Court claiming to have evidence that the originally uploaded order was altered.

1. Whether the NCDRC failed to adequately address the petitioner’s grievance regarding the alleged deletion or alteration of a judicial order.

2. Whether the appropriate remedy for a party disputing the accuracy of a court record lies before the court that passed the order or a superior court.

The court relied on the established principle that matters of judicial record are unquestionable and conclusive of the facts stated therein.

If a party believes court proceedings were wrongly recorded, they must move the very judge who made the record for rectification while the matter is fresh in their mind (State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982)).

The court also cited Somasundaram Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty regarding the sanctity of judgments and Sarat Chandra Maiti v. Bibhabati Debi regarding the procedure for review or rectification of such records.

The NCDRC merely directed the Registry to provide a certified copy without conducting an inquiry into whether a different version of the order was originally uploaded on 03.10.2024.

Applying the rule from Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, the Court reasoned that the NCDRC is the only authority empowered to investigate its own records to ensure they reflect the "absolute verity" of the proceedings.

The High Court determined that until a specific finding is rendered by the NCDRC on the validity of the petitioner’s allegations, the grievance remains unmitigated.

The NCDRC is ordered to conduct an inquiry and render specific findings regarding the allegations of order deletion/alteration; petitioner was granted liberty to produce additional documents before the NCDRC to substantiate their claims.