Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India recently reaffirmed the principle that court judgments are presumed to have a retrospective effect, unless explicitly stated otherwise. This ruling came in the case of Kanishk Sinha & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr., where the Court upheld a Calcutta High Court order regarding the retrospective application of judicial decisions.

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah clarified that, unlike legislations that are generally prospective in their application, judicial interpretations and rulings of constitutional courts are considered retrospective, unless the judgment specifically mentions prospective applicability.

This decision holds immense significance, as it reinforces the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments and their applicability to past and future cases, unless expressly limited.

Case Background and Key Issues

The case arose from a dispute concerning the requirement of an affidavit with complaints under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This requirement was introduced by the Supreme Court in 2015 in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The key question before the Court was:

• Should the Priyanka Srivastava ruling (which mandated affidavits for complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC) apply retrospectively to complaints filed before the judgment, or should it apply only prospectively to future cases?

The appellants argued that all Supreme Court judgments should apply retrospectively, meaning that the Priyanka Srivastava ruling should also govern complaints filed before its pronouncement in 2015.

The Calcutta High Court, however, held that the Priyanka Srivastava judgment should operate only prospectively, thereby saving complaints filed before 2015 from being invalidated for non-compliance with the affidavit requirement.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Observations

In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court made the following critical observations:

1. General Rule: Judicial Decisions Are Retrospective Unless Stated Otherwise

The Court reaffirmed that judgments of courts, particularly constitutional courts, are presumed to apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. This principle is based on the idea that courts interpret laws rather than make new ones, meaning that the interpretation clarifies what the law has always meant.

2. Exception: When Courts Decide to Apply Rulings Prospectively

While reaffirming the general rule of retrospectivity, the Court also acknowledged that in certain situations, courts may choose to apply a ruling prospectively. This is often done to:

• Prevent undue hardship to individuals who acted in good faith based on the previous interpretation of the law.
• Avoid unsettling past transactions or legal proceedings that were undertaken with a legitimate expectation of the law at that time.
• Ensure that the new interpretation does not create an unreasonable burden on litigants.

In the present case, the Court observed that the Priyanka Srivastava ruling explicitly indicated its future application by directing its circulation among Chief Justices of High Courts and magistrates. This, the Court noted, signified an intention to enforce the ruling prospectively rather than retrospectively.

3. Clarification on Prospective vs. Retrospective Operation of Judgments

The Court further explained that while retrospective application is the default rule, prospective operation is sometimes necessary to uphold the principles of fairness and justice. The Court stated:

“The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively.”

The Court emphasized that prospective rulings are often adopted to prevent injustice, especially in cases where past actions were carried out in good faith.

4. Impact on the Present Case: Prospective Application of Priyanka Srivastava Ruling

Since the Priyanka Srivastava judgment imposed a new procedural requirement for complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Court agreed with the Calcutta High Court that it should not apply retrospectively.

Thus, complaints filed before 2015—without an accompanying affidavit—would not be rendered invalid. However, going forward, all complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC must comply with the affidavit requirement.

Legal and Practical Implications

This ruling has several important implications for the legal community and litigants:

1. Strengthening the Principle of Judicial Retrospectivity

By reaffirming that court rulings are presumed to be retrospective, the judgment reinforces the idea that courts do not create new laws but clarify existing laws. This ensures consistency and prevents arbitrary interpretations in legal disputes.

2. Guidance on When Courts May Choose Prospective Application

The ruling provides valuable guidance on when courts might deviate from retrospective application. Future litigants and courts can use this precedent to argue for prospective application in cases where a retrospective ruling may cause undue hardship or disrupt settled expectations.

3. Impact on Criminal Procedure and Complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC

The judgment confirms that:

• Before 2015: Complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC without an affidavit will remain valid.
• After 2015: Complaints must comply with the affidavit requirement, as mandated by Priyanka Srivastava.

This ensures that pre-2015 complaints are not unfairly dismissed while upholding procedural integrity for future cases.

4. Reinforcing Legal Certainty and Fairness

By allowing prospective application in certain cases, the judgment strikes a balance between legal certainty and fairness. It prevents litigants from facing unjust consequences due to retrospective changes in judicial interpretation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kanishk Sinha & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. is a landmark decision that reaffirms the fundamental principle that judicial rulings are presumed to have retrospective effect unless expressly stated otherwise.

However, the Court also acknowledged that prospective application may be necessary in specific cases to prevent undue hardship and maintain legal stability. By upholding the Calcutta High Court’s interpretation of Priyanka Srivastava, the ruling provides clarity on how procedural changes should be applied in criminal complaints.

This decision not only strengthens the doctrine of precedent but also serves as a vital reference for legal practitioners, scholars, and courts in determining the scope and applicability of judicial pronouncements in future cases.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this ruling will play a crucial role in shaping the retrospective and prospective application of judicial decisions, ensuring justice and fairness in legal interpretation.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I