Court Judgments Always Retrospective In Nature Unless Judgment Itself Specifies Its Prospective Operation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that it will operate prospectively.

"Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpretated by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively," observed a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

"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 bench added.

The bench made these observations while holding that the 2015 judgment in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs State of Uttar Pradesh would apply prospectively. The said judgment mandated that complaints filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for initiating police investigation must be accompanied by the affidavit by the complainant. The said direction was issued to check the trend of frivolous complaints.

"Such a step could only be prospective in nature, and this is clearly reflected from the very language used by the Learned Judges in Priyanka Srivastava (supra)," the Court observed. The language of the judgment conveyed that what the Court intended was that from now onwards it would be necessary that an application would be accompanied by an affidavit. Hence, the Court held that a complaint filed before the date of the said judgment could not be rejected on the ground of not having an accompanying affidavit.

Case : Kaniskh Sinha v State of West Bengal

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Click here to read the judgment