Page 1

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.

1

Page 2

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:

2

Page 3

“.... 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.   

3

Page 4

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.

4