DR. SAURABH CHOUDHARY AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 17-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DR. SAURABH CHOUDHARY AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 17, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRA WAL, ASHOK BHAN, S.B. SINHA 
AND DR. AR LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
0 
Constitution of India, 19 50 : 
A 
B 
Articles 141, 142 and 144-Judgment-Prospective operation of- C 
Medical admissions-Saurabh Chaudri's case directing All India quota of 
50% of PG seats to be filled up by common entrance test-IA. by Union 
of India seeking clarification that Saurabh Chaudri's case to be applied 
prospectively since admission process for 2004 PG courses had alrea_dy 
started prior to the said judgment-Held, allotment of seats under All India D 
quota, process as to which had already commenced shall remain confined 
to 25% only-Education/Educational Institutions-Medical admissions. 
Per majority (Lahoti, Agrawal, Ashok Bhan and Dr. Lakshmanan, 
JJ.) 
E 
1.1. 
It would be appropriate to hold and direct the decision 
in Dr. Saurabh Chaudri's case being made applicable only prospectively 
and thus to exclude from the operation thereof the process of admission 
which had already commenced and was nearing finalisation when the F 
judgment came to be pronounced. (615-E-F] 
1.2. 
It is directed that the allotment of seats under AU-India 
quota, the process as to which had commenced pursuant to the 
advertisement dated September 16, 2003 shall remain confined to 25% 
only. (615-F] 
G 
Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2003] 11 SCC 
146, (2003) 9 SCALE 272, clarified. 
Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. Etc., H 
611 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A (1984) 3 sec 654 and AJIMS Students Union v. A/IMS, (2002) 1 sec 
428, referred to. 
B 
Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, 
Allahabad &Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 727, stands overruled. 
Per Sinha, J. (Dissenting) 
• 
The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution 
of must be applied at the time of rendition of the judgment and not 
C thereafter. After a judgment is rendered the Court can only exercise its 
power ofreview, ifit intends to take a different view from the one rendered 
in the main judgmi;.nt. Review of the judgment cannot be granted in the 
garb of a clarification. It is not the case of the Union of India that the 
judgment in Saurabh Chaudri's case cannot be given effect to even at 
this stage. If it can be given effectto the court should not issue a direction 
D which would run contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in the 
main judgment, particularly when the examinations had been held much 
after the rendition of the judgment. Asking the court to apply the 
judgment of this Court with prospective effect would amount to asking 
for a review, and thus, the same cannot be permitted to be achieved by 
E filing an application for clarification. Application for clarification/ 
modification filed by Union oflndia is based on wholly wrong premise. A 
judgment, as is well-known, must be read as a whole. So read it is evident 
that declaration of law has clearly been made therein. There does not 
exist any ambiguity clarification. (625-D-E; 626-A-C) 
F 
Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 
296; Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 
146 = (2003) 9 SCALE 272; Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. Etc. v. Union of 
India and Ors. Etc., (1984) 3 sec 654; Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (II) 
v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad & Ors., [1986) 3 SCC 727; 
G Magan Mehrotra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 3 SCALE 
101; T.MA. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 
(2002) 8 SCC 481; Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of 
Karnataka and Ors., JT(2003) 7 SC 1; Union of India v. Naveen Jindal 
and Anr., [20041 2 SCC 510; Prafulla Kumar Das and Ors. Etc. v. State 
H of Orissa and Ors., Etc., (2003) 11 sec 614; S.S. Bola and Ors. v. B.D. 
SAURABH CHOUDHARY v. U.0.1. 
613 
Sardana and Ors., (1997) 8 sec 522 and Commissioner of Customs, A 
Calcutta and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Anr,. [2004) 3 SCC 488, 
referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 6-7 and 8, 9-14. 
IN 
B 
Writ Petition (C) No. 29 of 2003. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar, C 
Gopal Subramanium, K. Radhakrishnan, P.P. Malhotra, S.K. Dholakia, Sr. 
Advs., M.C. Dhingra, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Shankar 
Divate, Parmanand Gaur, Ms. Sunita Sharma, 0.S. Mahra, Divjy
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.