Delhi HC Sends NCDRC Order-Alteration Dispute Back for Fresh Inquiry, Cites Conclusiveness of Judicial Record
The Delhi High Court directed the NCDRC to re-examine a petitioner's claim that an order passed on 3 October 2024 was surreptitiously deleted and replaced with a different one, holding that the consumer commission had not conducted any real inquiry into the allegation.
A writ petition filed by Neerja before the High Court of Delhi raised an unusual grievance: that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had, in execution proceedings, quietly removed an order it had uploaded on 3 October 2024 and substituted a different one in its place. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, sitting singly, disposed of the petition on 20 May 2026 with a direction that the NCDRC reconsider the petitioner's application and record specific findings on whether the original order was in fact uploaded on that date and subsequently altered. The court drew on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, to explain that when a party disputes what a court has recorded, the remedy lies before that very court — not elsewhere.
The Allegation of a Substituted Order
According to the petitioner, the NCDRC passed an order on 3 October 2024 in execution proceedings, which was uploaded to the commission's system as Annexure P-1. The petitioner's case is that this order was surreptitiously deleted and a different order, Annexure P-2, was uploaded in its place.
When the petitioner moved the NCDRC by way of an application (Annexure P-6) to address this discrepancy, the commission passed an order on 25 March 2026 directing its Registry to hand over a certified copy of the signed order to the petitioner. The petitioner received Annexure P-2 pursuant to that direction but contended that this was not the same order that had originally appeared on the NCDRC's portal on 3 October 2024.
The petitioner placed before the Delhi High Court various pieces of evidence to support the claim that the uploaded order and the certified copy handed over were different documents. The Union of India and the NCDRC were arrayed as respondents, with Ms. Gauri Goburdhun appearing as Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.
Why the NCDRC's Own Response Was Insufficient
The High Court found that the NCDRC's order of 25 March 2026 — which merely directed its Registry to hand over a certified copy — did not amount to a proper consideration of the petitioner's application. The court observed that no inquiry appeared to have been conducted into the central factual question: whether the order the petitioner relied upon was actually uploaded on 3 October 2024, or whether no such order existed on that date.
Without a finding on that question, the court held, the petitioner's grievance could not be fully addressed. The direction to hand over a certified copy sidestepped the allegation rather than resolving it.
The Legal Position on Correcting a Court's Own Record
Justice Kaurav set out the governing legal principle before remitting the matter. A party who believes that proceedings have been incorrectly recorded or uploaded must approach the very court that made the record. That court has the authority to correct it. The principle, the court noted, has been reiterated by the Supreme Court across several pronouncements.
The court extracted at length from State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463. In that case the Supreme Court had explained that matters of judicial record are unquestionable and not open to doubt. Statements of fact as to what transpired at a hearing, as recorded in a judgment, are conclusive and cannot be contradicted by affidavit, statements at the Bar, or other evidence.
The Supreme Court in that case had also laid down the correct procedure: if a party believes the record is wrong, it must raise the matter promptly, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges who made the record, and seek rectification or review before those very judges. As the court in Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak put it, “that is the only way to have the record corrected.”
The Supreme Court had further quoted Martin B. in R v. Mellor to the effect that “we must consider the statement of the learned Judge as absolute verity.” It had also cited Sir Asutosh Mookerjee's observation in Sarat Chandra Maiti v. Bibhabati Debi that where a litigant feels aggrieved by a statement in a judgment, the most convenient course is to apply to the judge without delay and seek rectification or review.
The Delhi High Court applied this framework to the present facts. The appropriate forum to examine whether the NCDRC's own order was altered or substituted is the NCDRC itself. The writ court was not the place to conduct that inquiry.
Scope of the Remand
The court was specific about what the NCDRC must now do. It directed that the petitioner's application (Annexure P-6) be reconsidered and that the NCDRC render specific findings on the allegations made in that application. The core factual question — whether the order uploaded on 3 October 2024 was different from the one subsequently handed over — must be addressed directly.
The petitioner was also granted liberty to produce additional documents before the NCDRC in support of the claim.
Order
The High Court disposed of W.P.(C) 7059/2026 on 20 May 2026. The NCDRC was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application and record specific findings on the allegation that the order of 3 October 2024 was deleted and replaced. The petitioner was granted liberty to place additional documents before the NCDRC. No further directions were issued.