VINOD KUMAR SINGH versus BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY & OTHERS

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 11-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'"! 
VINOD KUMAR SINGH 
A 
v. 
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY & OTHERS 
NOVEMBER 11, 1987 
1 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.) 
B 
Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code-Whether a judgment 
' 
once pronounced in open Court becomes operative even without the 
~-
signatures of the Judges and any alteration therein whether permissible. 
The appellant passed the Bachelor's examination in law with 54.5 c 
per cent marks. He applied for admission to the Master's Course in law. 
The university had prescribed a minimum of 55 per cent marks for admi•-
sion to the course. The appellant claimed weightage on certain grounds 
on the strength of a precedent. The admission was, however, refused. 
The appellant filed a writ petition. A Division Bench of the High Court 
heard the writ petition and dictated the judgment in the open court, D 
allowing the petition and directing the university to admit the appellant, 
but soon thereafter, before the judgment was signed, the appellant's 
matter was again put in the hearing list to be heard afresh. The Division 
.·.-1 
Bench, which had allowed the writ petition, released the case from its 
list and directed the same to be listed before another Division Bench. 
On the matter being so listed, the Second Division Bench dismissed the 
E 
petition. The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave against 
the order of dismissal passed by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal and directing the university to admit the 
appellant, the Court, 
y-· 
F 
HELD: The provisions of Order 20, rule 3 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure give power to the Court to make alterations/additions in a 
judgment so long as the judgment has not been signed, but that power 
should be exercised judicially, sparingly and for adequate reasons. 
When a judgment is pronouqced in the open court, the parties act upon 
it and conduct their affairs on the basis that it is in judgment of the G 
court and that the signing of the judgment is a formality to follow. A 
"( 
judgment to be operative does not await the signing thereof by the 
court. If what is pronounced in the court is not acted upon, the litigants 
would be prejudiced; their confidence in the judicial process would he 
shaken. A judgment pronounced in the open court should be acted upon 
unless there be some exceptional feature, like, soon after the judgment H 
941 
A 
B 
c 
D 
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] 1 S.C.R. 
is declared in the open court, a feature, not placed for consideration 
before the court earlier, is brought to its notice by either party to the 
cause, or the court discovers some new facts from the record or the 
court notices a feature, which should be taken into account, or a review 
is asked for, which is granted. In such a situation the court may take up 
the matter again for further consideration, and it bas to give good 
reasons if the judgment delivered by it is not to be operative. (946B, l)..H; 947 A] 
Since the writ petition of the appellant had first been allowed 
by pronouncement of the judgment in the open court, and there is 
nothing on record to justify why it was not acted upon, the appeal 
succeeds. [947E-F] 
Surender Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1954] 5 
S.C.R. 330, relied upon. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2976 
of 1987. 
From the Jtidgment and Order dated 23.3.1987 of the Allahabad 
High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 4397 of 1986. 
S.N. Singh and T.N. Singh for the Appellant. 
E 
L.N. Sinha and L.R. Singh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
F 
Special leave granted. 
---'">;· 
Appellant passed Bachelor's examination in law from the 
Banaras Hindu University securing 54.4% marks and was placed in the 
second division. He applied for admission in the Master's Course in 
Law in the academic session 1979'80. The University had prescribed a 
G 
minimum of 55% marks on the average of three years of the degree 
course as the qualifying requirement. Appellant claimed weightage on 
the basis that members of his family had donated lands and houses to 
'f 
the University and cited the case of Shri Anant Narain Singh as a 
precedent. As he failed to secure admission, he again applied for 
taking admission in the academic session 1983-84 but was not granted 
H 
admission. Ultimately he filed a writ petition before the Allahabad 
VINOD KUMAR v. BANARAS HINDU 'UNIVERSl'IY 
943 
High Court. On 28. 7 .1986 the said writ petition was taken up for 
hearing by a Divisi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.