Doctrine of Prospective overruling

Q. Discuss the importance of the 'Doctrine of Prospective overruling'. [20 marks - 2022]

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

The doctrine of Prospective Overruling originated in the American Judicial System. It dictates that a decision made in a particular case would have operation only in the future and will not carry any retrospective effect on any past decisions. This doctrine was first invoked in India in the case of Golak Nath v. the State of Punjab by Chief justice Kokka Subba Rao.

• It has been characterized as a departure from the Blackstonian perspective of law, which holds that judges should follow the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in courts and that a judge's power is limited to declaring law rather than making it. 
• The fundamental goal of courts in applying this Doctrine has been to achieve justice, as the principle of retrospective operation deprived an individual of a fair trial and outcome. 
• The Doctrine establishes the parameters within which a court judgment must function. In plain English, it states that transactions undertaken before a judicial decision would not be considered illegitimate after the law changes. 
• Non-application of the Doctrine, according to Justice Cardozo, would result in great injustice and would negate the dynamic nature of law. This Doctrine is a vital tool for adapting to the changing requirements of society and ensuring fair justice. 
• Justice Subba Rao was a strong supporter of the concept, stating that its acceptance lays the groundwork for future transactions to recognize new and better norms.

Importance of Prospective Overruling

The doctrine of prospective overruling is important because it helps maintain the dynamic nature of law while still administering justice. It states that a court decision only applies to future cases and does not affect past decisions. This allows the court to overrule a precedent without affecting the rights of parties who already have vested rights in a past judicial decision.

Case references

I.C Golaknath v. the State of Punjab

Both the petitioners and their families were the owners of over 500 acres of land situated in Jalandhar, Punjab. However, after the enactment of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953, the Government issued a notice to them stating that they could only keep possession of 30 acres of land each and had to give up the rest of the land. The land that was to be given up would be deemed as surplus land. Due to this, the constitutional validity of the enactment was challenged on the grounds of violations of the following fundamental rights: Article 19 (1)(f), Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

• The Supreme Court initially propounded three essential conditions that were necessary for invoking the doctrine of prospective overruling. The conditions have been enumerated below:
• The doctrine of prospective overruling can be invoked only in cases that arise regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
• The doctrine of prospective overruling can be applied only by the Supreme Court.
• The Court may modify the aspects of prospective application of its ruling in accordance with the justice of the cause or matter before it.

Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. Karunakar (1993)

In this case, Article 311 of the Constitution was amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act. Under this new amendment, a delinquent had lost his right to obtain a copy of the enquiry report of his disciplinary proceedings. A government emoloyee was dismissed from service without any cause or proceedings against him. The dismissal was challenged on the ground of violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It was held that when the doctrine of prospective overruling is applied in a case, the most important factor to be considered is that there should be no injury/disparity caused to the previous transactions that occurred under the old regime.