The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed a fundamental legal principle: court judgments are inherently retrospective unless the judgment explicitly states that it will operate prospectively. This clarification came during a recent ruling in the case of Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, where the Court examined the retrospective application of its 2015 judgment in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, explained the distinction between retrospective and prospective judgments.

"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 interpreted 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."

The bench further elaborated that the prospective operation of a judgment is typically intended to prevent undue hardship or unnecessary burdens on individuals who acted in good faith based on the law as it existed at the time. It also aims to avoid unsettling long-established legal principles, which could lead to widespread injustice.

Read Also:- Supreme Court: Disputed Questions of Fact Do Not Bar High Court from Granting Relief Under Article 226

Case Background

The 2015 judgment in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh introduced a significant procedural requirement: complaints filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be accompanied by an affidavit from the complainant. This directive was aimed at curbing the filing of frivolous complaints, which were often used to harass individuals.

In the Kanishk Sinha case, the appellants argued that the Priyanka Srivastava judgment should apply retrospectively, meaning that complaints filed before 2015 should also be dismissed if they lacked an accompanying affidavit. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the Priyanka Srivastava ruling was intended to operate prospectively.

The Court noted that the language used in the Priyanka Srivastava judgment clearly indicated its prospective nature.

"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 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."

Read Also:- Delhi BJP Government Drops AAP's Supreme Court Plea on PM-ABHIM MoU

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Retrospective Application of Judgments: Court judgments are presumed to be retrospective unless the judgment explicitly states otherwise. This principle ensures that judicial interpretations of the law apply uniformly across all cases, past and present.
2. Prospective Operation to Prevent Hardship: When a judgment is intended to operate prospectively, it is often to avoid imposing undue burdens on individuals who acted in accordance with the law as it existed at the time.
3. Frivolous Complaints and Affidavit Requirement: The Priyanka Srivastava judgment's requirement for an affidavit under Section 156(3) CrPC was designed to address the misuse of legal procedures for harassment. However, this requirement applies only to complaints filed after the judgment was delivered.

Case : Kaniskh Sinha v State of West Bengal