Doctrine of Retrospective Operation of Interpretation of Statutes
Retrospective means looking back in the past for similar facts or events.
When a existing law is changed or altered, fully or partially, it does not
remain the same. But it might still have an influence on the past incidents.
For example lets say a person committed an action in the past which was not
an offence at that point of time. But due to change in the law, the action
becomes a criminal offence. Under this new or changed law, the person could
be held liable for the act even though this was not a crime at the time of
committing the act.
Examples of Retrospective Laws
1. Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) Act, 1978,
2. Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Revival of Operation, Amendment, and
Validation) Act, 2019,
General principles of retrospective operation of interpretation of statutes
Legislation cannot be implemented retrospectively to affect pre-existing
rights unless expressly stated otherwise or by necessary implication.
It entirely depends on
the legislative intent.
While considering the question of the statute's retrospective application,
the nature of the affected right takes priority. An amendment will be viewed as prospective in order
to protect the existing vested right.
In Arjan Singh v. State of Punjab, Justice Hegde stated "It is a
well-established rule of construction that no provision in a statute
should be given retrospective effect unless the Legislature has made it
retrospective by express terms or by necessary implication, and that where
a provision has been made retrospective, care should be taken not to
extend its retrospective effect beyond what was intended”.
Power to make retrospective laws
The Union Parliament and State
Legislatures has the rights for enacting both prospective and retrospective laws. Subject to the limitation imposed by Article 20(1), which states that a
legislature cannot pass retrospective penal laws, the power to make a law
includes the power to give it retrospective effect.
The ability to enact laws retrospectively is frequently used to uphold
earlier legislative and executive Acts. This rectifies the flaws that
rendered the earlier Acts and laws invalid.
Substantive Laws
The statutes that deal with substantive rights are deemed to
be prospective only. They
must not be interpreted retrospectively, unless the intention is made explicit through express
words or necessary implication.
Procedural Laws
Statutes addressing
merely procedural issues are generally presumed to be retrospective unless
unless specifically prohibited.
Generally, a procedural statute should not be applied
retrospectively if doing so would result in the creation of new
limitations or obligations or the imposition of new obligations with
regard to transactions that have already been accomplished.
In Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, the Supreme Court stated "No person has a
vested right in any course of the procedure. He only has the right to
prosecute or defend in the way currently prescribed by or for the court
where the case is pending, and if by an Act of Parliament, the mode of
procedure is altered, he has no other right but to proceed in accordance
with the altered mode”.
In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra, it was decided that if a
new Act mandates that certain types of original proceedings be brought
before a special tribunal instead of civil courts, then all such
proceedings, regardless of whether they are based on previous or new
causes of action, must be brought before that tribunal.
Limitations on enacting retrospective laws
Retrospective operation is generally only limited to the extent that it
has been explicitly stated as such or necessary implications have been
made. However, there is no set method for retrospectively expressing the
legislative intent.
In the National Agricultural Coop. Mktg. Federation of India Ltd. v. Union
of India limitations were laid out on the legislature's power to enact new
laws or amend existing ones retrospectively.
Conclusion
It is now settled that a statute should not be given retrospective effect
in order to alter or impair an existing right, create a new obligation, or
impose a new liability other than as it relates to procedural matters
unless the terms of the statute expressly provide for it or necessarily
require it. This is the general rule for all statutes other than those
that are merely declaratory or that only deal with matters of procedure or
evidence.