Can a judgment be modified by an application styled as one for clarification?

No. Applications for clarification, modification or recall which are in substance review applications deserve to be rejected straight away, because the attempt is to bypass the circulation procedure for review and obtain a hearing in open court. By describing an application as one for clarification a party cannot circumvent that procedure — what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.

Army Act 1950 — s.45 — s.63 — s.69 — Constitution of India — Art.33 — Indian Penal Code 1860 — s.497 — Clarification of a judgment — Miscellaneous application in the guise of review — Indian Penal Code 1860 — s.497 — Army Act 1950 — s.45 — s.63 — Scope of Joseph Shine clarified — Held: Joseph Shine struck down Section 497 of the Penal Code and Section 198(2) of the Code as offending Articles 14, 15 and 21, and had no occasion to consider the Acts governing the Armed Forces; it did not pronounce on Sections 45 and 63 of the Army Act 1950 or their counterparts. (¶24) Practice and procedure — Application for clarification or modification which is in substance a review — Held further: An application styled as one for clarification, modification or recall which is in substance a review deserves to be rejected, since what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (¶18) Practice and procedure — Finality of a judicial pronouncement — Held further: A judicial pronouncement cannot be modified once delivered by filing a miscellaneous application; the practice reduces litigation to a gambit and must be firmly discouraged. Position clarified; application disposed of. (¶19, 25)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Joseph Shine v. Union of India — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India