The Supreme Court recently reiterated that judicial decisions are presumed to have retrospective application unless explicitly mentioned otherwise [Kanishk Sinha & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.]..A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah clarified that while laws enacted by the legislature are generally prospective, judicial interpretations and constitutional court rulings are presumed to be retrospective unless the judgment specifically states that it will have only prospective application..The ruling came while upholding a Calcutta High Court order, which held that the requirement of submitting an affidavit with complaints under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)—as mandated by the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh—would apply only prospectively and not to complaints filed before the judgment..The appellants had argued that the Priyanka Srivastava judgement should be applied retrospectively, contending that all Supreme Court rulings, unless specified otherwise, should apply to past and future cases alike. However, the Court disagreed, noting that the language in Priyanka Srivastava clearly indicated that its directions were meant for future compliance. The Court further clarified that while the nature of a judgement is generally retrospective in nature unless expressly stated otherwise, prospective operation may be adopted to prevent unnecessary hardships and to avoid unsettling past transactions undertaken in good faith. “The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bona fidely done something with the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant point of time. Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many,” the Court noted..The Bench also pointed out that the Supreme Court had directed the Priyanka Srivastava judgement to be circulated among Chief Justices of High Courts and subordinate magistrates, reinforcing the fact that it was intended to be followed prospectively rather than applied retrospectively to past complaints..Hence, the top court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's conclusion that complaints filed before the 2015 judgment could not be invalidated for lacking an affidavit. It, however, granted the appellants liberty to seek discharge if charges have not yet been framed against them..[Read Judgement]
