Government of India & Anr. Vs Devraj Urs Medical College (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court: Judgments Operate Retrospectively Unless Expressly Made Prospective; Medical Colleges Cannot Claim Subvention Beyond T.M.A. Pai
In a significant ruling on the doctrine of prospective versus retrospective operation of judicial decisions, the Supreme Court held that judgments of the Supreme Court are retrospective unless the Court expressly declares them to operate prospectively. Applying this principle, the Court ruled that the 11-Judge Constitution Bench decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, which declared the Unni Krishnan admission scheme unconstitutional, immediately brought an end to the Government’s subvention scheme from 31 October 2002.
The respondent medical college argued that students admitted during the academic year 2002-03 had acquired a vested right to receive Government subvention for the entire five-year course and relied on a subsequent clarificatory order of the Supreme Court to contend that the Constitution Bench judgment operated prospectively. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, observing that the clarificatory order merely directed pending matters to be reconsidered in accordance with the Constitution Bench judgment and did not state that the judgment would apply only prospectively.
Reaffirming the settled legal position, the Court relied on P.V. George v. State of Kerala and held that the law declared by the Supreme Court has retrospective effect unless the Court specifically directs otherwise. Therefore, once the Constitution Bench declared the underlying scheme unconstitutional on 31 October 2002, the subvention scheme ceased to exist and could not continue merely because students had been admitted earlier.
The Court further explained that the Government’s obligation under the interim subvention scheme was an annual payment obligation, not an irrevocable commitment to fund the entire five-year medical course. Consequently, the Karnataka High Court erred in directing payment of subvention for the remaining years of students admitted in 2002-03. The Supreme Court set aside that direction and held that no subvention was payable beyond the academic year 2002-03.
Cases Discussed
- V. George v. State of Kerala (SC)
- State of Karnataka vs. TMA Pai Foundation and Ors. (SC)
- TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (SC)
- Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc. (SC)
- Bharat Singh and Others. vs. State of Haryana and Others (SC)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
