There should also be a prompt, narrow procedure to flag a material omission or misrecording. The application should go to the same bench where possible and be time-bound. It should not become a disguised review, but only correct the record of what was said, undertaken, conceded, or expressly left open. This would give practical content to the Ramdas principle rather than leaving counsel to discover months later that the only remedy was one they did not know they needed.
For undertakings, concessions and admissions affecting substantive rights, the standard should be stricter. If an undertaking is the price for avoiding an interim injunction, it should be recorded with care. If counsel says a point is not pressed, the order should say whether it is abandoned, left open, or unnecessary. If a party gives a factual statement on instructions, the order should identify it as such. These small drafting acts can prevent large arguments later.
Official audio recording and certified transcription can be introduced gradually. Constitution Bench matters, final hearings, high-value commercial matters, long interim hearings with continuing consequences, contempt matters based on undertakings and cases where the court directs recording are obvious starting points. The written order can remain authoritative while the hearing record serves as institutional memory.
The lawyer in the opening should not have to rely on “I remember saying it.” Nor should the judge write an essay after every motion. Between those extremes lies a simple idea, legally important events in open court should be remembered institutionally. “My Lords may kindly record” begins as an anxious request. It ought to become a plea that the court’s memory, like its authority, should be institutional rather than anecdotal.