Register Login

Home > Legal Articles

Back to List

What is the Doctrine of Prospective

Overruling - Jurisprudence
25 July, 2022

Share on:    

When America's legal system changed away from the age-old Blackstonian idea
in the early 1900s, the doctrine of prospective overruling was first recognized.
The concept took time to evolve in America, but it was quickly embraced by
English jurists and courts. The Supreme Court of India recognized and
acknowledged it for the first time in the case of I.C Golaknath vs. the State of
Punjab (1967).

In this case, the Supreme Court established a number of criteria for applying the
doctrine. These principles became precedent, and the doctrine was used by the
Supreme Court several times over the years. Let us now look at how this doctrine
has varied over time.

Also Read: What Are Writs And Different Types of Writs In India.

The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

The doctrine of prospective overruling is a decision made in a particular case
would have operation only in the future and will not carry any retrospective effect
on any past decisions.

According to the literal meaning of this language, "prospective" refers to

something that only operates in the future, while "overrule" refers to
overturning a precedent or ruling.
It has been characterized as a departure from the Blackstonian perspective
of law, which holds that judges should follow the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in
courts and that a judge's power is limited to declaring law rather than making
it. This viewpoint certainly verifies the precedent's retrospective rule.
The fundamental goal of courts in applying this Doctrine has been to achieve
justice, as the principle of retrospective operation deprived an individual of a
fair trial and outcome.
The Doctrine establishes the parameters within which a court judgment
must function. In plain English, it states that transactions undertaken before
a judicial decision would not be considered illegitimate after the law
changes.
 Non-application of the Doctrine, according to Justice Cardozo, would result
in great injustice and would negate the dynamic nature of law. This Doctrine
is a vital tool for adapting to the changing requirements of society and
ensuring fair justice.
Justice Subba Rao was a strong supporter of the concept, stating that its
acceptance lays the groundwork for future transactions to recognize new
and better norms.

The doctrine of prospective overruling in

American jurisprudence
The doctrine of prospective overruling can be traced back to American
jurisprudence. The Blackstonian idea was followed by the American court
system before this doctrine was adopted and followed. Courts, according to
this notion, did not have the authority to establish new laws, but only had the
authority to follow, interpret, and expound existing laws. However, numerous
American jurists were opposed to this notion, and their disagreement cleared
the way for the doctrine of prospective overruling to be adopted.
According to American jurist George F. Canfield, it is the obligation of a court
to recognize and promulgate a new rule if the old rule has become unsound
or has lost its usefulness in today's legal system.
For the first time, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted the
doctrine of prospective overruling in Great Northern Railway vs. Sunburst Oil
and Refinery Co. (1932). The Court stated that by overturning a previous
statute or judgment, it has the authority to give its decision prospective
effect. The Court's argument for adopting this doctrine is that no party
should suffer as a result of the Court's change in legislation or posture, i.e., if
a judgment is granted retrospective effect, all transactions that took place
under the prior law would be void. To avoid such an impact on previous
transactions, a court's orders must be given prospective effect.
The United States Court at Hughes held in Chicot County Drainage District
vs. Baxter State Bank (1940) that actions/transactions that took place under
legislation that had been found unconstitutional should not be affected by
such unconstitutionality. By issuing a new judicial ruling in this regard, the
previous transactions cannot be modified or erased.
In Griffin vs. Illinois (1956), the Supreme Court of the United States declared
that while deciding the constitutional legitimacy of a case, the court is not
required to use a "either/or" approach. They have the option of approaching
the matter in whatever way they see fit and issuing a judgment that will have
an effect in the future.

Also Read: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India.

The doctrine of prospective overruling in

English jurisprudence
English jurists such as Bentham and Austin criticized the Blackstonian view
that was followed in England. According to Austin, the idea that law is
created by a court and then miraculously exists is purely imaginary. Judges
in courts of law have made law in the past and will continue to do so in the
future.
 The Blackstonian idea does not stand the test of time, according to the
House of Lords in Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) (1966), and the
Courts are empowered to amend and diverge from existing laws and rulings
as they see right. In Milangas vs.
George Textiles Limited (1976), the House of Lords decided that applying the
doctrine of prospective overruling to a claim for liquidated damages would
not affect any prior transactions, but only future transactions from the date
of the judgment.

The doctrine of prospective overruling cases

Let's look at some cases which happened in past related to doctrine of
prospective overruling.

I.C. Golaknath vs. the State of Punjab

In this case, the Supreme Court recognized and established the doctrine of
prospective overruling for the first time in India. Let's take a closer look at this
case:

Facts:

Both the petitioners and their families owned land in Jalandhar, Punjab, totaling
over 500 acres. However, once the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953
was passed, the government sent them a letter indicating that they could only
maintain 30 acres of land each and had to give up the rest. Surplus land would be
defined as the land that was to be given up. As a result, the enactment's
constitutional legality was questioned on the basis of infringement of the
following fundamental rights:

Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution guarantees the right to acquire and hold
property.
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees the right to equality and equal
protection under the law.
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees the right to perform any
profession.

Issues Related

Is it true that the Parliament has the authority to legislate and change the
fundamental rights given to Indian citizens by the Constitution? Let's look below.

Objections to the doctrine of prospective overruling have been raised.

There is no evidence that the doctrine of prospective overruling has been

applied to cases involving ordinary law modifications. This doctrine can only
apply to decisions involving constitutional law amendments.
In India, jurisprudence is based on precedent. It would be unwise to abandon
this strategy in favour of an international doctrine.
Any law that violates basic rights is ruled void to the degree of the violation,
according to Article 13 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court declared in
Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) that any law that breaches the
Constitution's fundamental liberties is a still-born statute. As a result, any
 statute that has been found unconstitutional should be regarded void from
the moment it is enacted, and the doctrine of prospective overruling would
be in violation of the Constitution's Article 13 guideline.

Observations on how the doctrine of prospective overruling is applied

The Supreme Court initially proposed three requirements that had to be met
before the doctrine of prospective overruling could be used. The following
conditions have been listed:
Only in circumstances involving the interpretation of the Constitution
can the doctrine of prospective overruling be used.
Only the Supreme Court has the authority to apply the doctrine of
prospective overruling.
In accordance with the fairness of the cause or subject before it, the
Court may amend the aspects of the prospective implementation of its
judgment.

By using the aforementioned criteria, the Court came to the conclusion that
implementing the principle of retrospective overruling would result in
anarchy and have an impact on various transactions that took place under
the previous regime. As a result, the doctrine of prospective overruling will
apply in this case.
The existing constitutional amendments would not be altered by the Court's
judgment. Only future changes would be required to reflect the Court's ratio
in this case.

Also Read: Freedom of Press and Media Laws in India

Prospective Overruling, As Defined by the

Courts
The Court also defined prospective overruling in the case of Sarwan Kumar v.
Madan Lal Aggarwal [6].

"Under the doctrine of "prospective overruling," the law declared by the Court
applies only to future cases, and its applicability to cases that have reached
finality is preserved because repeal would otherwise cause hardship to those
who had relied on it."

Furthermore, the apex court has established that the prospective declaration of
law is a technique devised by the court to avoid reopening of previously resolved
problems and to avoid duplication of processes. It's also a strategy for avoiding
unnecessary litigation and uncertainty. All activities committed in violation of the
prospective declaration of law prior to the date of declaration are judged legal by
the very object of the declaration of law. This is done for the greater good of the
public. As a result, the subordinate forums that are legally obligated to apply this
Court's declaration of law are also obligated to apply such matters that will only
emerge in the future. [7]

The Doctrine's Applications

It's worth noting that in Golak Nath's case, the Supreme Court decided that this
doctrine can only be applied in situations arising under the Constitution, and that
it can only be used by the Supreme Court in its discretion to shape the justice of
the cause or matter before it.

However, it has recently been decided that the doctrine of prospective overruling
can now be applied to the interpretation of regular statutes as well. [8] The tactic
of prospective overruling was used in the cases of Waman Rao v. Union of India
[9], Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana [10], Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa
[11], Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [12], and Managing Director, ECIL v. B.
Karunakar [13].

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [14], commonly known as the Mandal

Commission Case, the doctrine of prospective overruling is mentioned. In this
instance, Justice Jeevan Reddy ordered that the decision will take effect five
years from the date of the decision. As a result, the Court postponed the ruling's
implementation for five years from the date of the verdict. This case finds not
only a broadening of the doctrine's application but also a lengthening of the
timeframe during which the ruling will be effective.

Furthermore, the Honourable Supreme Court declared in the case of Harsha

Dhingra v. State of Haryana [15] that while it is undisputed that a court can
overrule a judgement, there is no valid reason why it should not be limited to the
future and not the past. Prospective overruling is both an element of
constitutional policy and an extension of stare decisis, rather than judicial
legislation.

In Narayani Bai v. State of Maharashtra [16], it was noted that "even the Judges
for whom Subba Rao CJ spoke did not accept the doctrine of prospective
overruling in all its implications as understood by the American Courts."

Final Words:
Incorporating this Doctrine into India's common law system has proven to be a
successful accomplishment in its entirety. Though the application of this doctrine
has given the Indian judiciary more leeway in exercising its discretion, prudence
is required when using it. Extending the application of this doctrine to the High
Courts is sometimes necessary to ensure that the goal of protecting rights and
justice is not jeopardized. An in-depth grasp of all parts of this Doctrine has a
positive socio-economic impact because it aids in sweeping away the turmoil
and uncertainty that can be caused by the retrospective norm at times. J. Subba
Rao's initiative in proposing this Doctrine has proven to be fascinating since it
clarifies the rule of overruling and has had significant implications for the Indian
legal system.

FAQs