The Supreme Court of India, while disposing of a Special Leave Petition, reaffirmed the legal principle that the record of proceedings in a High Court is conclusive and cannot be contradicted by parties in an appeal. The Court held that the proper remedy for a party claiming their counsel made an “unauthorised” concession is to file an appropriate application before the High Court itself, not to challenge the record in the Supreme Court.
The matter, Savita v. Satyabhan Dixit, was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice N.V. Anjaria on November 7, 2025.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Savita, filed a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31322/2025 challenging a final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on September 15, 2025.
According to the Supreme Court’s order, the Allahabad High Court, in its impugned judgment, had “set aside the order of the First Appellate Court and granted temporary injunction.” This decision by the High Court was passed “on the basis of concession/statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner.”
Petitioner’s Argument
Before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the concession recorded by the High Court was made without authorization. The order notes the petitioner’s stance: “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the statement/concession made by the petitioner/defendant’s counsel was wholly unauthorised and contrary to her instructions.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court bench declined to entertain the petition challenging the veracity of the High Court’s record. The bench cited established precedent on the sanctity of court records.
“This Court has repeatedly held that the High Courts in India are the Courts of record and what is recorded in the Courts are correct and cannot be contradicted by the counsel for the parties,” the bench observed in its order.
The Court explicitly referred to the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. (1982) 2 SCC 463 to support this principle.
Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner’s challenge was not maintainable through a Special Leave Petition. The Court, however, granted the petitioner an alternative remedy.
“Consequently, the present Special Leave Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the High Court,” the Supreme Court directed.
The pending interlocutory application (IA No. 276382/2025) was also disposed of.
