caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Medical Council Of India vs Christian Medical College … on 11 April, 2016Author: …………..J.
Bench: Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi
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 judgment of this Court
dated 18th July, 2013 passed in Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 305. The review
petitions were placed before a Three-Judge Bench and notices were issued on
23rd 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. Accordingly, on
21st January, 2016, these review petitions were ordered to be heard by a
Five-Judge Bench.
On 21st January, 2016, notice was ordered to be served through substituted
service and in pursuance of the said order, necessary publication was made
in two newspapers and proof thereof was filed on 15th February, 2016.
Thereafter, we have heard the matters.
Civil Appeal No.4060/2009 and its connected matters have been heard and
order has been reserved on 16th 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 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:
“…. 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 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.
We, therefore, allow these review petitions and recall the judgment dated
18th 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.
Comments