Supreme Court clarifies that, the Legislative laws are prospective in nature unless expressly stated to have retrospective application, whereas Judicial pronouncements are retrospective by default unless the judgment specifies its prospective effect.
The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that judicial rulings are generally retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. This principle was highlighted in a recent decision by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Key Legal Principle
The Court emphasized the distinction between laws enacted by the legislature and judicial decisions:
- Legislative laws are prospective in nature unless expressly stated to have retrospective application.
- Judicial pronouncements, on the other hand, are retrospective by default unless the judgment specifies its prospective effect.
“A judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless it is specifically stated that it will operate prospectively,” the bench observed.
Rationale Behind Prospective Application
The Supreme Court clarified that certain judgments are made prospective to prevent unnecessary hardship or disruption. The prospective application is adopted:
- To protect individuals who acted in good faith under the existing legal framework.
- To avoid unsettling established legal positions that have long been relied upon.
Application in Priyanka Srivastava Case
The Court applied this principle in the case of Kaniskh Sinha v. State of West Bengal [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 259], particularly in reference to the 2015 ruling in Priyanka Srivastava Vs State of Uttar Pradesh.
In Priyanka Srivastava, the Supreme Court mandated that complaints under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must include an affidavit to prevent frivolous filings. The Court noted that the language of the judgment implied a forward-looking approach. Hence, complaints filed before the 2015 ruling could not be dismissed solely for lacking an accompanying affidavit.
Conclusion
The ruling reinforces the general legal principle that Supreme Court judgments have retrospective applicability unless explicitly mentioned otherwise. This ensures legal consistency while also allowing exceptions to prevent undue hardship. The decision in Kaniskh Sinha v. State of West Bengal further clarifies how courts interpret the prospective application of legal pronouncements in specific cases.
Stay updated with the latest Supreme Court judgments and legal developments. Subscribe for more insights!
READ MORE