Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (C)NOS.2159-2268 OF 2013
AND
REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS.2048-2157 OF 2013
IN
TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NOS.98-105, 107-108,110-139,
142, 144-145 OF 2012 & 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73,
75-76 & 107-108 OF 2013
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ... PETITIONER(S)
VS.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
R.P.(C) NO.1956 OF 2013 IN T.C.(C) NO.101 OF 2012
O R D E R
These review petitions have been filed against the
th
judgment of this Court dated 18 July, 2013 passed in
Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 305. The review
JUDGMENT
petitions were placed before a Three-Judge Bench and
rd
notices were issued on 23 October, 2013 and thereafter,
it was brought to the notice of the Bench that Civil
Appeal No.4060/2009 and connected matters involving an
identical issue, had been referred to a Five-Judge Bench.
st
Accordingly, on 21 January, 2016, these review petitions
were ordered to be heard by a Five-Judge Bench.
1
Page 1
st
On 21 January, 2016, notice was ordered to be
served through substituted service and in pursuance of
the said order, necessary publication was made in two
th
newspapers and proof thereof was filed on 15 February,
2016. Thereafter, we have heard the matters.
Civil Appeal No.4060/2009 and its connected matters
th
have been heard and order has been reserved on 16 March,
2016.
We have heard the counsel on either side at great
length and also considered the various judgments cited by
them, which include judgments cited by the non-applicants
on the scope of review in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and
Others (2013) 8 SCC 320, Union of India vs. Namit Sharma
(2013) 10 SCC 359 and Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of
Bihar and others (1987) 1 SCC 288.
After giving our thoughtful and due consideration,
we are of the view that the judgment delivered in
JUDGMENT
Christian Medical College (supra) needs reconsideration.
We do not propose to state reasons in detail at this
stage so as to see that it may not prejudicially affect
the hearing of the matters. For this purpose we have
kept in mind the following observations appearing in the
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Sheonandan
Paswan (supra) as under:
2
Page 2
“.... If the Review Bench of the apex
court were required to give reasons, the
Review Bench would have to discuss the case
fully and elaborately and expose what
according to it constitutes an error in the
reasoning of the Original Bench and this would
inevitably result in pre-judgment of the case
and prejudice its re-hearing. A reasoned
order allowing a review petition and setting
aside the order sought to be reviewed would,
even before the re-hearing of the case,
dictate the direction of the re-hearing and
such direction, whether of binding or of
persuasive value, would conceivably in most
cases adversely affect the losing party at the
re-hearing of the case. We are therefore of
the view that the Review Bench in the present
case could not be faulted for not giving
reasons for allowing the Review Petition and
directing re-hearing of the appeal. It is
significant to note that all the three Judges
of the Review Bench were unanimous in taking
the view that “any decision of the facts and
circumstances which … constitutes errors
apparent on the face of record and my reasons
for the findings that these facts and
circumstances constitute errors apparent on
the face of record resulting in the success of
the review petition, may have the possibility
of prejudicing the appeal which as a result of
my decision has to be re-heard....”
Suffice it is to mention that the majority view has
JUDGMENT
not taken into consideration some binding precedents and
more particularly, we find that there was no discussion
among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of
the judgment.
3
Page 3
We, therefore, allow these review petitions and
th
recall the judgment dated 18 July, 2013 and direct that
the matters be heard afresh. The review petitions stand
disposed of as allowed.
..............J.
[ANIL R. DAVE]
.............J.
[A.K. SIKRI]
..............J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
...................J.
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]
.............J.
[R.BANUMATHI]
New Delhi;
April 11, 2016.
JUDGMENT
4
Page 4