Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors.
ORDER
I. These review petitions have been filed against the 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 petitions were placed before a Three-Judge Bench and 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. Accordingly, on 21" January, 2016, these review petitions were
C ordered to be heard by a Five-Judge Bench.
2. 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 newspapers and proof thereof was filed on
15" February, 2016. Thereafter, we have heard the matters.
3. Civil Appeal No.4060/2009 and its connected matters have been
heard and order has been reserved on 16'' March, 2016.
4. We have heard the counsel on either side at great length and
also considered the various judgments cited by them, which include
E judgments cited by the non-applicants on the scope of review in Kamlesh
Verma vs. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320, Union oflndia vs.
Namit Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 359 and Sheonandan Paswan vs. State
ofBihar and others (1987) 1 SCC 288.
5. After giving our thoughtful and due consideration, we are of the
F 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 th is Court
G in She6nandan 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
MEDICAL COUNCIL OJ; INDIA v. CHRISTIAN MEDICAL 875
COLLEGE VELLORE
reasoned order allowing a review petition and setting aside the
order sought lobe 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-heari~g 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 ofrecord 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 .... "
6. 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.
7 .. We, therefore, allow these review petitions and recall the E
judgment dated l 8•h July, 2013 and direct that the matters be heard afresh.
The review petitions stand disposed of as al lowed.
Devika Gujral Revie'" di'sposed of