Doctrine of Prospective Overruling :

Evolution & its Implications

Name: Sushma Roll No.: 10287
 Structure/Contents
 Introduction
 The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling –
Origin and Meaning
 Historical Background
 Development of Doctrine of Prospective
Overruling in India – Application in India
and Aftermath of the decision.
 Evolution through case laws
 Constitutional Provisions regarding the
applicability of the Doctrine
 Critical Analysis of the Doctrine
 Conclusion
 Introduction
The Doctrine of Prospective overruling was originated from the American legal system which
states that 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. The basic objective of prospective
overruling is to overrule a precedent without having a retrospective effect to administer the
justice. This doctrine plays an important role in maintaining the dynamic nature of law. The
basic notion of law is providing justice to the aggrieved. Therefore, it is essential that the past
judicial decision which has vested rights with parties can be overruled for future cases, and not
affecting the rights already vested with the parties. Now, The concept of prospective overruling
is an integral part of legal systems of most of the nations including India. This doctrine has for
the first time applied in the I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab case 1976.
 ORIGIN AND MEANING
2021
IGNORING THE PAST
 The doctrine of Prospective overruling consists of two terms- “Prospective” and “Overruling” The literal meaning of the
term Prospective is being termed as any event which has future operation while the term Overruling means is to set aside the
already established rule. Therefore, the entire phrase would be read as “The setting aside of past decision of the court but
confined it with the future operation and thereby it will not affect the past decision”. It simply means that passing a decision
which would have effect to override the previous decision based on the same matter, but it would not have a binding effect to
the parties of the original suit or to the cases decided based on that judgment, and yet changing the law, applying it only
prospectively to the future cases. 
 The intention of the court in applying this doctrine is to serve the justice to the society. This doctrine has laid down a scope
of the past rule in the ever-changing society which always wants the rule in favor of their needs. The basic idea of this
doctrine is not to invalidate the judicial decision which was passed in the past according to the situation merely on the ground
of subsequent change in law. This Doctrine serves as an important tool in catering to the changing needs of the society and
offering fair justice.
 Historical Background
It was for the first time laid down in the American Judicial System by Justice Cardozo in the famous case of Great Northern Railway
vs. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co. In this case, Justice Cardozo saw the choice between retrospective and prospective as a function of
the juristic philosophy of the judges of the legal system. He observed:

“A state in defining the limits of adherence to precedent may make a choice for itself between the principle of forwarding operation
and that of relation backwards. It may say that decisions of its highest court, though later overruled, are law none the less for
intermediate transactions. Indeed, cases are intimating, too broadly, that it must give them that effect; but never has doubt been
expressed that it may so treat them if it pleases, whenever injustice or hardship will thereby be averted.”

Since Sunburst's case, there has been lively debate as to the merits as well as limits of the doctrine of prospective overruling.
 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING IN INDIA

APPLICATION IN INDIA AFTERMATH OF THE DECISION

In Indian legal system, the traditional jurisprudence was the basis of the development which did not give recognition to the doctrine of prospective
overruling. The doctrine has been recognized in Indian Jurisprudence for the very first time in the I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab in 1967. Justice
Subba Rao has put forth the view in his opinion that the doctrine of Prospective overruling must be recognized in the Indian Legal System as well to meet
the ends of justice. the Chief Justice laid down the following principles of guidelines regarding the applicability of prospective overruling:"As this court
for the first time has been called upon to apply the doctrine evolved in a different country under different circumstances, we would like to move warily in
the beginning. We would lay down the following propositions:

 the doctrine of prospective overruling can be invoked only in matters arising under our Constitution;

 it can be applied only by the highest court of the country, i.e., the Supreme Court, as it has the Constitutional jurisdiction to declare law binding on all
the courts in India;

 the precise version of retrospective to be imposed is to be a matter of the Court’s discretion, “to be moulded in accordance with the justice of the cause
or matter before it.
 Naryanan Nair v. State of Kerala 1971 Ker 98 - Justice Mathew explains the thrust of the doctrine by observing that it had been
not meant to exchange the Blackstonian doctrine but was essentially meant to protect the interests of the litigants when judicial
overruling of a precedent entailed a change within the law. In effect, the doctrine lays down the scope of the pronouncement in a
particular case and mentions about its applicability to future cases and disputes. And the primary interest behind the courts
applying this doctrine is to render justice. The nature of prospective overruling is that the Supreme Court lays down the
parameters within which a law laid down during a case that overrules a previous judgment has got to operate with the purpose to
avoid reopening of settled issues. Simply meaning, all actions before the declaration do not stand invalidated.

 Baburam v. C.C. Jacob (1999) 3 SCC 362 - It was laid that all the subordinate courts are strictly bound to apply the law to future
cases only. Furthermore, there can also be instances where the Supreme Court may specify the date when the declaration shall
inherit effect thereby not disturbing the previous decisions to such date. All this takes place during the process of invalidating a
law or overruling a decision.
 Evolution of the Doctrine

The doctrine was used by the courts in the following cases after the Golak Nath’s Decision :

 Waman Rao Vs. Union of India , AIR 1981 SC 271

 L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, 1997 (2) SCR 1186

 Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India , 1992

 Relevancy of Doctrine in Non-Constitutional Context

• Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. The State of Rajasthan (2001) 6 SCC 89 AIR 2001 SC 2616 - the Supreme Court
categorically stated that the application of the scope of the doctrine of prospective overruling was not limited to matters
arising out of the Constitution, as held in Golak Nath case but extended to the interpretation of ordinary statutes as well.

• The Supreme Court again elaborated on the relevance of the doctrine of prospective overruling in Kailash Chand Sharma
v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 6 SCC 562: AIR 2002 SC 2877. The petitioner, in this case, had challenged the
constitutionality of recruitment of teachers in Panchayat Schools, where a provision in State Government Circular was
made for awarding bonus marks to residents of the district concerned and rural areas thereof. It was held to be
discriminatory. There was no guidance in the circular for identification of residents of the candidates which was also held
to be another factor for rendering the circular ultra vires Article 14.However, given the peculiar circumstances of the case
and the need to balance the competing claims of the parties, the Supreme Court directing the High Court's decision
rendered it to be effective prospectively with effect from the date of that decision and confining the relief only to the
petitioners who had approached the High Court.

• The doctrine was also invoked in The State of Kerala v. Alassery Mohd 1978 AIR 933. In this case, a larger bench was
constituted to reconsider the correctness of the interpretation of Rule 22 of the Food Adulteration Rules.
 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION REGARDING THE DOCTRINE

In India, there are no specified provisions or rules to govern the applicability of the doctrine of Prospective Overruling. The doctrine is entirely
dependent upon the discretion of the court. Therefore, it can be said that precisely Apex court has the power to apply this doctrine in the cases
refer to the court and the Apex court derives this power from the constitution of India itself. There are constitutional provisions which entitle
the Supreme court of India to adopt or disregard the legal doctrines to ensure the administration of justice. These constitutional provisions
constitute Article 32, 141 and 142 which are subject to wide interpretation. The law laid down by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all
courts within the territory of India.  Every court is under an obligation to follow the precedent laid down by a court superior to itself. Therefore,
the supreme court being a superior court is under an obligation to lay down a law which is to be followed by the court's inferior to it. It has
been laid down by the court that there are no statutory provisions which are against the applicability of the Doctrine. In furtherance of that, the
court had found it as an efficient tool to apply the doctrine to do justice. The doctrine of prospective overruling is a device innovated to -

 avoid reopening of settled issues,

 prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and to

 avoid uncertainty and

There shall be no prospective overruling, unless it is so indicated in a particular decision. The law as declared applies to future cases.
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTRINE

The application of the doctrine of prospective overruling remains uncertain in India. It is relevant to note that though the Supreme court had
applied this doctrine but applied it in very restrictive sense. At that time, it had been applied in an extremely narrow area, i.e.in the case of
invalidity of constitutional amendments which had been in force for a long time. But the court had applied it in another area also such as the
court declares a statute unconstitutional, it may make the ruling operational in future from the date of the decision without affecting the
validity of the past transactions. It may be noted that this doctrine initially made applicable to the matters arising under the constitution but
then the same has been made applicable to the matters arising under the statutes as well.  Precisely, the doctrine recognises the discretion of
the Court to prescribe the limits of retroactivity of the law declared by it. It is a great harmonizing principle equipping the Court with the
power to mould the relief to meet the ends of justice. Ordinarily the doctrine has a limited application and applies where a statute is
declared ultra vires and not in a case where the decree or order is passed by a Court/tribunal in respect whereof it had no jurisdiction. The
doctrine of Prospective overruling had witnessed criticism also other than the appreciation by various jurist including Renowned Jurist Mr.
H.M. Seervai. It has been pointed out that the doctrine was applied initially to overrule the past decisions regarding the Constitution
Amendment but with the future effect. The doctrine held the Constitutional Amendment which violated the fundamental rights as
unconstitutional but applied it prospectively. This application was against the view of the jurist that the Constitutional amendment which
abridges fundamental rights must be void ab initio. Another point was that the doctrine was come under the ambit of judicial discretion.
Therefore, the applicability of this doctrine for socio-economic setup of Indian legal jurisprudence is a dynamic nature of law.  
 Conclusion
Overall, the attempt made by the Indian judiciary to apply the doctrine of Prospective overruling in Indian context, was the
productive one to attain justice. The doctrine though finds its roots in the American Jurisprudence, but the doctrine had
finally secured its place in the Indian Jurisprudence by the landmark judgment of the Apex court. The Supreme Court finally
found it important to apply the doctrine of overruling through which the Apex court had not only overruled the previous
decisions on the same matter but also kept the future effect of judgment. It simply means that the court had of the view that
whatever had already been done by virtue of these constitutional Amendments should not be affected because the
retrospective application would have created complications as far as agrarian field is concerned. Therefore, by this case the
doctrine had become an important tool in the hand of judiciary to overrule the previous judicial decision but with
prospective application. Precisely, the application of this doctrine is entirely based upon the discretion of the court.