Corrigendum

## Report on Corrigendum to Notification Regarding Appointment of Judge in Delhi **1. Executive Summary:** This report analyzes a corrigendum issued by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, regarding a notification pertaining to the name of a Judge in the Hindi version of the notification. The corrigendum serves to correct a minor error in the spelling of the Judge's name within the Hindi translation of the original notification. The key finding is that this is a minor administrative correction to ensure accuracy in official records. **2. Introduction:** This report aims to provide an informative overview of a corrigendum issued by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, based solely on the provided text. The analysis focuses on understanding the nature of the correction, its likely rationale, and its potential implications. **3. Policy Overview:** * This document is an **Amendment** (specifically, a corrigendum). * Core Objective(s): To correct a typographical error in the Hindi version of a prior notification concerning the appointment (or name) of a Judge. The inferred objective is maintaining accuracy and consistency in official government documents. **4. Background and Rationale:** The document is a corrigendum, indicating that an error was found in a previously issued notification. The specific rationale for this *specific* amendment is to correct a spelling mistake in the Hindi version of the notification related to the name of a Judge. The text indicates that the original notification (No. F. 6152016 U;k;Suptlaw515518 dated 10.03.2022) contained an error in the Hindi transliteration of the Judge's name. **5. Key Provisions / Changes:** This is an Amendment (Corrigendum). Therefore, this section will focus specifically on the *changes* introduced. * **Specific Part of Original Policy Being Changed:** The Hindi version of notification No. F. 6152016 U;k;Suptlaw515518 dated 10.03.2022, which pertains to the name of a Judge. * **New Rule/Provision:** The corrigendum instructs that the name "ekuuuh; U;k;kfkifr lqJh uhuk caly ".k" may be read as "ekuuuh; U;k;kfkifr lqJh uhuk caly ".kk". * **Difference/Effect of Change:** The change corrects a slight difference in the spelling of the Judge's name (uhuk caly ".k to uhuk caly ".kk") within the Hindi translation. The effect is to ensure that the official record accurately reflects the Judge's name in Hindi. **6. Target Audience and Stakeholders:** Based on the provided text, the target audience and stakeholders likely include: * The Judge whose name is being corrected. * The Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. * Government officials responsible for maintaining and referencing official notifications and legal records. * Courts and legal professionals who consult these notifications. **7. Implementation Aspects (Inferred):** * Responsible agency/bodies: The Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs is responsible for issuing and implementing the corrigendum. The Principal Secretary of Law, Justice, and Legislative Affairs, Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, is named as the issuing authority. The Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press and the Controller of Publications are responsible for publishing the corrigendum. * Timelines or procedures specified: The corrigendum was issued on March 14, 2022, addressing a notification dated March 10, 2022. This suggests a relatively quick response to correct the error. No specific procedures are outlined in the provided text, but the instruction to "may be read as" suggests that existing records should be interpreted and updated accordingly. **8. Expected Outcomes / Impact of Changes:** The intended outcome of this specific change (the correction of the spelling) is to ensure accuracy and consistency in official government records pertaining to the Judge's name. The impact of the amendment itself is primarily administrative, aiming to prevent confusion or misidentification due to the typographical error. It reinforces the importance of accuracy in official documentation. **9. Conclusion:** The corrigendum to the notification regarding the Judge’s name represents a minor but important administrative correction. It highlights the government's attention to detail in maintaining accurate records and ensuring clarity in official communications. The correction is specific to the Hindi version of the notification and addresses a simple typographical error. The significance lies in upholding the integrity of official documents and avoiding potential confusion or misinterpretation in legal and administrative contexts.

Key Entities Referenced