(Before Anil R. Dave, Chockalingam Nagappan and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
RPs (C) Nos. 2159-268 of 2013 and RPs (C) Nos. 2048-157 of 2013 in TCs (C) Nos. 98-105, 107-108, 110-139, 142, 144-145 of 2012, 1-5, 7-25, 30, 53, 58-62, 72-73, 75-76, 28-29, 31-49, 63-71, 107 and 108 of 2013 with RP (C) No. 1956 of 2013 in TC (C) No. 101 of 2012
1. Upon hearing the learned counsel and looking at the importance of the matters, we feel that it would be better that these petitions are placed before a larger Bench. We are further told that Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009, involving similar issue is already pending before a larger Bench and therefore, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India so that all the matters can be heard by one particular Bench at the earliest so that admissions for the ensuing academic session can be governed by the order that may be passed by this Court.
IAs Nos. 221-330 & 331-440 of 2016 in RPs (C) Nos. 2048-157 of 2013 in TC No. 98 of 2012, etc.
2. Since application for substituted service is filed, the office objection is waived and the prayer for restoration of review petition is allowed. The review petitions are restored to their original numbers.
3. IAs Nos. 221-330 & 331-440 of 2016 are allowed.
4. The order is to be published in two leading newspapers having countrywide circulation, as mentioned in the application within two weeks from today.
Order dated 11-4-2016
(Before Anil R. Dave, Dr A.K Sikri, R.K Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
RPs (C) Nos. 2159-268 of 2013 and RPs (C) Nos. 2048-157 of 2013 in TCs (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 with RP (C) No. 1956 of 2013 in TC (C) No. 101 of 2012
5. These review petitions have been filed against the judgment of this Court dated 18-7-2013 passed in Christian Medical College v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 305 , 6 SCEC 407 . The review petitions were placed before a three-Judge Bench and notices were issued on 23-10-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 392 , 6 SCEC 622 and thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 and connected matters involving an identical issue, had been referred (2016) 4 SCC 346. Orders dated 26-3-2010 and 16-3-2016 published together to a five-Judge Bench. Accordingly, on 21-1-2016 Set out in paras 1 to 4, above , these review petitions were ordered to be heard by a five-Judge Bench.
6. On 21-1-2016 Set out in paras 1 to 4, above , 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 15-2-2016. Thereafter, we have heard the matters.
7. Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 and its connected matters have been heard and order has been reserved on 16-3-2016 (2016) 4 SCC 346. Orders dated 26-3-2010 and 16-3-2016 published together .
8. 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 v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320 , (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 782 , (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 265 , (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 96 , Union of India v. Namit Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 359 and Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288 , 1987 SCC (Cri) 82 .
9. After giving our thoughtful and due consideration, we are of the view that the judgment delivered in Christian Medical College (2014) 2 SCC 305 , 6 SCEC 407 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 (1987) 1 SCC 288 , 1987 SCC (Cri) 82 as under:
“13. … 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 rehearing. A reasoned order allowing a review petition and setting aside the order sought to be reviewed would, even before the rehearing of the case, dictate the direction of the rehearing and such direction, whether of binding or of persuasive value, would conceivably in most cases adversely affect the losing party at the rehearing 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 rehearing 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 finding 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’.”
10. Suffice it 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.
11. We, therefore, allow these review petitions and recall the judgment dated 18-7-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 305 , 6 SCEC 407 and direct that the matters be heard afresh. The review petitions stand disposed of as allowed.