9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1396 - SC - Indian LawsScope of Review - the review petitions were ordered to be heard by a Five-Judge Bench - HELD THAT - After giving our thoughtful and due consideration we are of the view that the judgment delivered in Christian Medical College 2013 (10) TMI 432 - SUPREME COURT 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. 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. Review petition allowed - the judgment dated 18th July 2013 recalled and the matters are directed to be heard afresh.
Issues:
1. Review of judgment dated 18th July, 2013 in Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2. Consideration of various judgments on the scope of review. 3. Need for reconsideration of the judgment. 4. Lack of detailed reasons for reconsideration. 5. Decision to recall the judgment and hear the matters afresh. Detailed Analysis: 1. The review petitions were filed against the judgment dated 18th July, 2013 in Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. The review petitions were initially placed before a Three-Judge Bench, but later, due to the reference of Civil Appeal No.4060/2009 and connected matters to a Five-Judge Bench, the review petitions were ordered to be heard by a Five-Judge Bench on 21st January, 2016. 2. The Court heard the counsel on both sides extensively and considered various judgments cited by them, including those on the scope of review such as 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. 3. After careful consideration, the Court concluded that the judgment in Christian Medical College case needed reconsideration. The Court refrained from providing detailed reasons at that stage to avoid prejudicing the hearing of the matters. The Court referred to observations from the Constitution Bench judgment in Sheonandan Paswan case regarding the challenges of giving reasons in review judgments. 4. The Court noted that the majority view did not consider some binding precedents, and there was a lack of discussion among the Bench members before the judgment was pronounced. Due to these reasons, the Court decided to allow the review petitions, recall the judgment dated 18th July, 2013, and directed that the matters be heard afresh. The review petitions were disposed of by allowing them. In conclusion, the Supreme Court, after a detailed examination and consideration of various judgments, decided to recall the judgment in the Christian Medical College case for reconsideration due to the lack of detailed reasons and the failure to consider binding precedents. The Court's decision to hear the matters afresh underscores the importance of a thorough review process in maintaining the integrity of legal judgments.
|
