Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy:  VERDICTUM

Context:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the invocation of the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling or the Attribution of Prospectivity to a decision must not be resorted to in a routine manner.

About Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

The doctrine of prospective overruling first emerged in American jurisprudence as a practical solution to the problems posed by strict compliance to the declaratory theory of law.  

In India, the doctrine was formally introduced in the case of I.C. Golaknath v/ State of Punjab (1967) 

The Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend the Constitution to abridge fundamental rights. Recognizing that applying this decision retrospectively would invalidate numerous constitutional amendments and create legal chaos, the Court invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling.

The Chief Justice stated: "We propose to make it clear that this judgment will not affect the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. This marked the formal adoption of the doctrine of prospective overruling into Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

The doctrine has been refined and applied in numerous cases by the Supreme Court:

• Waman Rao v/ Union of India (1981): The Court applied the doctrine when examining the validity of certain constitutional amendments related to property rights.
• Atam Prakash v/s State of Haryana (1986): The Court clarified that prospective overruling could be applied selectively to avoid injustice.
• Ashok Kumar Gupta v/s State of U.P. (1997): The Court emphasized that prospective overruling was an exception rather than a rule, to be used judiciously.
• Harsha Dhingra v/s State of Haryana (2001): The Court held that the doctrine should be applied only when retrospective application would cause substantial inconvenience or injustice.
• Indra Sawhney v/s Union of India (1992): When dealing with reservations in promotions, the Court applied its ruling prospectively to avoid disruption in services.

Guidelines for Invoking the Doctrine

Over the years, the Supreme Court has developed certain guidelines for the application of prospective overruling:

• Constitutional Matters: The doctrine is applied in constitutional cases.
• Exclusive Jurisdiction: The power to apply prospective overruling is generally reserved for the Supreme Court, though High Courts may also apply it in certain circumstances.
• Selective Application: The Court can decide to make its ruling prospective for all cases or only for certain categories of cases.
• Specified Date: The Court may specify a particular date from which the new interpretation will take effect.
• Exceptional Nature: The doctrine should not be invoked routinely but rather as an exceptional measure when circumstances warrant it.

Significance

• To avoid reopening settled issues and prevent multiplicity of proceedings
• To protect actions taken in good faith under the previously accepted interpretation of law
• To maintain stability in the legal system while allowing for necessary evolution
• To prevent hardship that might result from sudden changes in legal interpretation
• To minimize administrative and judicial burdens that might arise from retrospective application

Source: 

VERDICTUM