retrospective effect of an amendment in any act
suren
(Expert) 21 December 2009
Yes, it is binding unless and untill it is declared void by Court of LAW
Theja
(Expert) 21 December 2009
It depends upon the language of the provision in the act which provides for the effectivness of the act.
Binod Kumar Mishra
(Expert) 21 December 2009
Dear Dutt jee,
it is very difficult to comments on your issue till we know the background of the case or query.
ususally retrospective amendment of an act is not possible and if possible it depends upon circumstances. there is a lot of scope for discussion on the issue you have started. please write in details.
A V Vishal
(Expert) 21 December 2009
The paramount object of law is the welfare of the society. The law that misses its aim cannot permanently justify its existence. The statutes may be prospective or retrospective in their operation. However, there is a constitutional prohibition against criminal legislations applied retrospectively under Article 20 (1) of Constitution of India. It is only retrospective criminal legislation that is prohibited and not the imposition of civil liability retrospectively. If the statute fixes criminal liability for contravention of the prohibition or command which is made applicable to transactions which have taken place before the date of its enactment, the provisions of Article 20 (1) will be attracted. The right secured by Article 20 (1) corresponds to the provisions against ex-post facto laws of the American Constitution which declares that no ex-post facto laws shall be passed. This is obvious because the laws which retrospectively create offences and punish them are bad as being highly inequitable and unjust.
Civil laws can be made applicable retrospectively if it is provided in the statute itself. But what happens when a statute is silent about its operation or makes its commencement effective from a particular date but the language of the statute reflects otherwise?
The dictionary meaning of the word prospective with reference to statutes shows that it is concerned with or applying the laws in future or atleast from the date of commencement of the statute. Whereas the word retrospective when used with reference to an enactment may mean:
a) affecting an existing contract, or
b) re-opening up of the past, closed and completed transactions, or
c) affecting accrued rights and remedies, or
d) affecting procedure.
The retrospective operation of an enactment may mean one thing and its affecting the rights of parties another. Normally, an enactment is prospective in nature. It does not affect that which has gone, or completed and closed up already. Ordinarily, the presumption with respect to an enactment is that, unless there is something in it to show that it means otherwise, it deals with future contingencies, and does not annul or affect existing rights and liabilities or vested rights, or obligations already acquired under some provision of law although its effect is that it does not affect an existing right as well. If an enactment expressly provides that it should be deemed to have come into effect from a past date, it is retrospective in nature. It then operates to affect existing rights and obligations, and is construed to take away, impair or curtail, a vested right which had been acquired under some existing law.
If an enactment is intended to be retrospective in operation, and also in effect, the legislature must expressly, and in clear and unequivocal language, say so, in the enactment itself. A retrospective operation is not given to a statute, so as to impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matters of procedure unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in a language which is capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed prospectively.
In Young v. Adams, it was observed that retrospective operation ought not to be given to a statute, unless an intention to that effect is expressed in plain and unambiguous language. However, it does not seem probable that the legislature should intent to extinguish by means of a retrospective enactment, rights and interests which might already have vested. The retrospective operation should not be favoured, unless the legislature clearly and distinctly authorizes the doing of something which is physically inconsistent with the existence of an existing right and a statute is not construed to have a greater retrospective operation than what its language renders it necessary, because it may be that the retrospective operation may be partial and not full at some places in the enactment.
