IOS

DAY 3
• Exceptions to prospective operation of statutes
• Exceptions to prospective operation of Statutes
• Procedural statutes are also known as adjunctival Statutes. They do
not confer any rights or create anynew rights.
• Statutes dealing with procedural matters are presumed to have
retrospective operation. Retrospective operation of Statutes means, a
Statutes will have effect on the matters prior to the date on which the Act
has come into force. Retrospective means, it will be effective from date
previous to the date on which the Statutes come into force. A Statute
may be expressly declared retrospective or it may be implied by the Court
as retrospective.
• When the Statute explains or supplies an omission in an
earlier enactment, it is presumed to be retrospective. A retrospective
operation should not be given to an Act, that will impair an existing right
or an obligation. If an enactment gives two interpretations, one
retrospective and the other prospective, then it must be construed as
prospective only.
• This rule is based on the presumption that the legislature
never intended what is unjust. Every new Act should
affect only the future and not the past. There is a
presumption that a Statute applies to acts or circumstances
which came in existence after the Act came into existence,
unless the legislature intended to apply it retrospectively.
• The general rule of interpretation is against the retrospective
operation of the Statute. This is not a rigid rule. This rule is to
be applied taking into consideration the language of the
Statute and the subject matter with which the Statute is
dealing. A Statute which takes away any vested right, which is
acquired under the existing law is a retrospective Statute.
• The retrospective Statute creates a new obligation or
imposes a new duty or attaches a new disability for the
transactions which have already past.
• Generally, retrospective operation is not given to a
Statute which would impose new duties or attach new disabilities
for the transaction which have already past. Retrospective operation is
not given to a Statute which would interfere with the obligations under
a contract or with the vested rights or which will give rise to the
question of legality of past transactions.
• If a case is pending before the Court, and during the pendency,
the substantive law is changed, the Court will give the decision on the
basis of the law which was existing at the time when the case was
commenced. But, if the Statute unambiguously provides for the change
in the earlier intention of the legislature, the case may be decided on
the basis of the new amended law.
• When the amended law provides for the change in the right of
the parties in clear and unambiguous language, during the pendency of
the case, then the case may be decided on the basis of the amended
law, if the amended law is silent on the point of pending cases.
• The Act dealing with the procedural aspect of the law is given
retrospective operation, the litigants do not have vested rights
in procedural law. Law relating to forum and limitation
is retrospective in nature. Certain provisions in tenancy
Statutes and Land Reform Statutes have retrospective effect.
• A Taxing Statute cannot be given retrospective effect by
interpretation. It should have been expressed in clear
words by the Act itself.
• The basis of principle that the procedural statutes are
retrospective is that, the procedural matters do not
affect the vested rights. It hardly matters if the amended
procedure replaces the old procedure. Since the existing rights
will not change by changing the procedure, retrospective
operation can be given to the procedural law.
• When the procedural law is amended, the amendment has
a retrospective effect. A declaratory Act is given a
retrospective operation, because, a declaratory Act
removes the doubts as to the meaning and effect of the
Statute. The intention behind passing the declaratory Act,
is to set aside the judicial error. The rule that, generally the
Statutes will not be given a retrospective operation, is a
rebuttablepresumption. It can be rebutted with a strong
contrary evidence. A Statute should not be given
greaterretrospective operation than what is intended by
the legislature in the words of the Statute.
• If a Court declares an Act as void, then the Parliament can
pass the validating Act havingretrospective effect to revive
the void Act. Retrospective operation of penal law is
prohibited. It has to beprohibited expressly by Article 20
• Balumor Jamnadas Batra vs. State of Maharashtra -
• Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, dealt with burden of proof. The
Supreme Court held that Section 123 deals with matter of procedure, and
therefore, it will have retrospective operation
• Reliance Jute and Industries limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- The
Supreme Court held that, while the Taxing Statute is interpreted, the law
in force in the relevant assessment year, has to be applied, unless there is
an express contrary provision or contrary intention appears from
necessary implications.
• Collector of Central Excise, Ahemdabad vs. Ashoka Mills Limited-
• The Supreme Court held that, the date on which the goods are cleared,
the rate at which the exciseduty is prevalent on that date, is to be applied.
If after the goods are cleared, there is any change in the rate of excise
duty, then the changed rate of excise duty cannot be applied to the goods
which have been already cleared i.e. it will not have retrospective effect.
The Supreme Court held that, if in any Statute, the meaning of an existing
provisions is already implied, and such implied meaning is subsequently
clarified by the legislature by amending the Statute,