Salve reads out from Shanti Conductors (2019) -
"Thus, a statute is not retrospective merely because it affects existing rights; nor is it retrospective merely because a part of the requisite for its action is drawn from a time and antecedents to its passing."
Salve: This is the principle. Halsbury says it and Your Lordships cite it with approval.
Salve: Let me argue on retrospectivity. There's one case that explains it well. A retrospective legislation is one that impairs past rights. Rights are between citizens and upon citizens. Between State and citizens, even a substantive law is considered to be retrospective if it confers new rights. A classic example is Probation of Offenders Act.
Rohatgi: These are the thoughts of the judge...
Salve interjects: Now you've taken 18 mins.
Rohatgi: Not time-bound.
Salve: You may not be, Mr Rohatgi, but I am.
Rohatgi quickly concludes.
Rohatgi: Not only will it not constitute any binding precedent since these are observations...But also the answer arrived at by the learned judge is wrong. Section 17A cannot be a bar when investigation is ordered by this court, but the learned judge held that even SC is helpless.
Rohatgi: Third judge (Joseph J) ultimately agrees with dismissal of Rafale review. I submit that this will have no binding precedence value because it was neither raised in first instance nor commented on by the other two [judges]. Besides this, on merits, it's wrong in my respectful submission.
Rohatgi continues arguing in Naidu's plea seeking quashing of FIR in skill development scam case -
Rohatgi: I want to make a comment of judgment of Justice (Retd) KM Joseph in Rafale case...
Luthra: Another petition is pending after this.
Salve: Half an hour is fine. I want to leave 30 mins for Luthra to argue the other matter.
Trivedi J: We'll have to take it up some other day.
Bose J: Let's finish this, we'll post the other matter (FiberNet scam case) on Friday. We'll pass an order.
Luthra: With same understanding?
Bose J: Yes.
Pronounces, "Hearing (in anticipatory bail plea) adjourned until Friday."
Sr Adv Harish Salve interjects: At some point, my learned friend ought to finish. It's 3 PM.
Rohatgi: The court will sit till 4 PM.
Salve: Will he take till 4? It's not fair.
Rohatgi: I'll take another 10 mins.
Rohatgi: What was not there in 2015-16 will not apply because S 17A has been held to not be purely procedure. There are elements of substantive right. Therefore, it will run prospectively and will not apply.
Rohatgi: When the offence was committed, S17A did not exist on statute book. Would be a juxtaposition, since S 13(1)(c) and (d) are invoked (which have subsequently been repealed)...
Bose J: You are narrowing your argument here: So far as S 13(1)(c) and (d) are concerned, because S 17A was not there, it will not apply.