Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1994 SC 2623
In this case the Court laid down the ambit and scope of an amending Act and its retrospective operation as follows:
1. A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary implication, whereas a statute which merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is textually impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its application, should be given an extended meaning and should be strictly confined to its clearly defined limits
2. Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right to action and right to appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature.
3. Every litigant has vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law.
4. A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties of transactions already accomplished.
5. A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------In criminal cases, the injustice is extreme because a retrospective criminal law may seek to punish a person for doing an act when that act was not forbidden. Therefore, Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits retrospective criminal laws. Therefore power of legislatures to enact laws is subject to Article 20 of the Constitution.
Similarly, the retrospective effect of the legislation infringes the Fundamental Rights of the people affected by such legislation. Then also, the legislation may be unconstitutional. Otherwise the legislatures have every power to legislate retrospectively.
2. Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right to action and right to appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature.
3. Every litigant has vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law.
4. A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties of transactions already accomplished.
5. A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------In criminal cases, the injustice is extreme because a retrospective criminal law may seek to punish a person for doing an act when that act was not forbidden. Therefore, Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits retrospective criminal laws. Therefore power of legislatures to enact laws is subject to Article 20 of the Constitution.
Similarly, the retrospective effect of the legislation infringes the Fundamental Rights of the people affected by such legislation. Then also, the legislation may be unconstitutional. Otherwise the legislatures have every power to legislate retrospectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment