Home case law Doctrine of prospective overruling

Doctrine of prospective overruling

October 10, 2024

11684

This article is written by Akash Krishnan, and further updated by Shreya Patel. This article discusses the origin, meaning, scope and advantages of the doctrine of prospective overruling. The key principles of application of the doctrine was also discussed to get a better understanding. The article also explores the cases where the doctrine was used in India. The article also delves into the doctrine’s development in national and international legal regimes, along with criticisms faced by it.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Did you know the rulings made by the court don’t just apply to that particular case, they also apply to all future cases that are similar to the present case. When judges make any decision in the cases they are not solving the issue for that particular case only, they are paving the way and shaping how future similar cases can be judged.

A judicial pronouncement applies to the particular case wherein it was pronounced, as well as to other cases that occur in future. This is the central aspect of the notion of precedents. When the law is pronounced by the court, it is both descriptive and prescriptive. Being prescriptive means that the law will also be used in future cases by the judges. Precedents are one of the major sources of laws and are set at a higher pedestal as well. They are both constitutive and declaratory of law. Conventionally, the accepted standard is that the rule is retrospective. When a decision is made by a court, it is usually believed that such decisions will affect past cases too.

This is how the concept of legal precedents works. Legal precedents act as the guide for forthcoming cases and are already considered as laws. It automatically applies to the cases that took place before the decision was passed. The principle of Blackstonian states that the judges are not the ones who make the law, they only declare the law. The declaratory theory advocates the retroactive effect of the precedent. Hence, when a law is considered invalid, it is usually considered invalid from the date on which the law came into existence or was enacted.

Origin of the doctrine of prospective overruling

The doctrine of prospective overruling was first recognised in America, in the early 1900s, when the legal jurisprudence in the country shifted from the age-old Blackstonian theory. The doctrine slowly developed in America and was soon accepted by English jurists and English courts. It is widely believed in English law, that the judiciary is responsible for creating judicial precedents that will impact both retroactive and prospective cases, while the legislature makes laws that only shape and affect the forthcoming cases. The notion of prospective overruling is developed by some courts as an exception to the same idea, to ensure a fair judgement in terms of cases where following the established norms would lead to unfair resolution.

Origin of the doctrine of prospective overruling in India

This doctrine was recognised and adopted in India for the first time, by the Supreme Court, in the case of I.C. Golaknath & Ors vs. the State of Punjab & Anrs (With Connected Petitions) (1967). The Supreme Court in this case, laid down multiple guidelines for using this doctrine. These guidelines were followed as a precedent and the doctrine has been applied by the Supreme Court multiple times over the years.

Let us now look into the meaning of this doctrine and how it is beneficial to us.

What is the doctrine of prospective overruling

The word ‘prospective’ refers to something that will happen in the future and the word ‘overrule’ means to overturn. The doctrine of prospective overruling basically allows the court to overturn a precedent and introduce a new law, but this new law would only be applied to future cases and not to any past cases. This action will not have a retrospective effect on any of the decisions which were taken in the past. The main aim behind the utilisation of this doctrine is to attain justice. The retrospective operation sometimes leads to deprivation of the right to a fair trial.

According to Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, if this doctrine is not applied, it would lead to injustice. The laws keep changing as time evolves, and with the doctrine of prospective overruling, adapting to these new changes becomes easy and it also ensures justice in the society.

One of the strongest supporters of this doctrine was Justice K. Subba Rao, who stated that accepting this doctrine would help in laying the groundwork for upcoming cases. The application will help in recognising better and new norms. The doctrine will help the courts to attain justice and ensure that the trial is fair.

For example, if one principle X is introduced in the case of abc vs. xyz. After some time the courts disagreed with the same principle and introduced a new one in its place. This doctrine will help and ensure that the decision made in the case abc vs. xyz is not affected by the same and the new principle that is introduced will only be applied to future cases.

Now let’s discuss some of the key principles for the application of this doctrine.

Key principles for application of the doctrine of prospective overruling

The doctrine of prospective overruling can only be invoked in constitutional matters.
One of the other principles for applying this doctrine is to validate the past decisions taken by the court which are now overruled.
The doctrine of prospective overruling can only be applied by the Supreme Court. The reason for the same is that only the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to declare law which is binding to all courts in India.
The doctrine of prospective overruling also helps in providing time to the entities and institutions which are affected by the overruling of a law. During this time they can make appropriate changes to adapt to the new legal position.
The doctrine of prospective overruling is also very helpful as it avoids the need to reopen all the cases which were already decided in the past and prevents multiple proceedings.
The court has the power to decide retroactive cooperation. The courts can decide how the same is to be applied, ensuring that it is fair and just for all the parties involved.

Adoption of the doctrine of prospective overruling in India and the tests relating to its applicability

The doctrine of prospective overruling is applied in cases wherein the court believes that if a retrospective ruling is made, it would cause confusion and disturb the matters which have already been decided. The court has the authority to decide to what extent the new laws and rules will apply, so that justice is maintained. It was perceived that the doctrine of prospective overruling is not in line with the legal system in India, as well as the idea of laws being void ab initio. Laws that are announced as unconstitutional, are treated as if they were invalid from the start.

Hence, all actions taken under these laws would be counted as invalid, which might cause disruptions, since the society has been following these same laws for a long time. The doctrine allows the court to declare certain laws as unconstitutional from the day such a ruling was made and prohibits any retrospective effect of the same. Hence, the doctrine of prospective overruling is applied in the cases where changes are absolutely required.

The doctrine is often only applied in matters that would affect the rights of the public. In India, this doctrine can only be applied by the Supreme Court. The doctrine is applied in constitutional matters where the overruling case might have an effect on past cases and the society.

The Supreme Court of India recognised and adopted the doctrine of prospective overruling for the first time, in this case.

I.C Golaknath & Ors. vs. the State of Punjab & Anrs (With Connected Petitions) (1967)

Historical background of the case

Many changes were made in different Articles of the Constitution as a part of the First Constituent Amendment (1951). In the case of Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India And State Of Bihar (And Other Cases) (1951) this amendment was challenged. The main issue in the case was whether the fundamental rights can be amended or not and whether the same comes under Article 13 or violates the same. This case led to the start of a scuffle between the judiciary and the Parliament. In 1978, the issue finally ended with the decision of Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs.State of Kerala and Anr (1973).

Similarly we had one more case similar to the Sankari Prasad case which was Sajjan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (With Connected Petitions) (1964). Here also the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 was challenged. In this case Justice Hidayatullah J expressed the view that there can be no amendments made to the fundamental rights which became the precedent. The case of I.C Golaknath & Ors vs. State of Punjab & Anrs.(1967) was based on the same view.

Facts

Both the petitioners and their families were the owners of over 500 acres of land situated in Jalandhar, Punjab. However, after the enactment of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953, the government issued a notice to them, stating that they could only keep possession of 30 acres of land each and had to give up the rest of the land. The land that was to be given up would be deemed as surplus land. Due to this, the constitutional validity of the enactment was challenged on the grounds of violations of the following fundamental rights:

Right to acquire and hold property, under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Right to equality and equal protection before the law, under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Right to practise any profession, under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Issue

Whether the Parliament had the power to legislate upon and amend the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India under the Constitution?

Objections raised against the doctrine of prospective overruling

For a better understanding, the following objections raised against the doctrine of prospective overruling must be looked into, before delving into the judgement passed by the court:

There is no evidence regarding the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling to amendments of ordinary laws. Only decisions regarding constitutional law amendments can be subject to this doctrine.
Indian jurisprudence follows a precedent-based system. It would not be advisable to shift from this approach and adopt an international doctrine.
According to Article 13 of the Constitution, if any law violates the fundamental rights, it would be deemed to be void to the extent of the violation. In Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959), the Supreme Court held that any law which violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution is a still-born law. Thus, any law that has been declared unconstitutional should be deemed void from the moment of its enactment and therefore, the doctrine of prospective overruling would be against the guideline set under Article 13 of the Constitution.

Judgement

The Supreme Court propounded three essential conditions that were necessary for invoking the doctrine of prospective overruling. The conditions have been enumerated below:

The doctrine of prospective overruling can be invoked only in cases regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
The doctrine of prospective overruling can be applied only by the Supreme Court.
The court may modify the aspects of prospective application of its ruling in accordance with the cause or matter before it.

By applying the aforesaid conditions, the court came to the conclusion that if it follows the principle of retrospective overruling, it would create chaos and would affect several transactions that were carried out under the old regime. Thus, the doctrine of prospective overruling would be applicable in the present case.

The present case overruled the decision made in Sajjan Singh vs. State Of Rajasthan (With Connected Petitions) (1964) and Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India and State Of Bihar (And Other Cases) (1951). It was also stated that there is no violation in Article 13 and the Constitutional Amendment was law as per Article 12.The constitutional amendments already in place would not be affected by the decision of the court. Only future amendments would have to follow the ratio laid down by the court in this case.

This case also had dissenting views from many judges. It was held by Justice Bachawat that Article 368 gives power as well as procedure for Constitution amendments which also include the fundamental rights as well. The power is given to the Parliament to amend the Constitution. There are certain parts like freedom principle, secularism principle, the core and main structure of the Constitution which cannot be amended in any circumstances and the power to do the same should also not be given to the Parliament

It was ruled in the case of Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs.State of Kerala and Anr (1973) that despite giving the power to amend the Constitution to the Parliament, this power is not in any means unlimited. Justice Wanchoo also stated that the nature of the amendments that are made under the Article 368 is different from that in the other ordinary laws. According to Justice Wanchoo, there is a special power in the hands of the Parliament, which is referred to as ‘constituent power’. This power allows making changes in the Constitution which also includes the fundamental rights.

Aftermath of the case

After the judgement was passed, the 24th Constitution Amendment in 1971 was enacted, and the judgement was overturned. Amendments were made in Article 368, where the word power and Article 13(4) was added. The Golaknath case stated that the Parliament cannot amend the Constitution because only the process for the same is mentioned in the Article 368 and the power is not given. With the introduction of the 24th Constitution Amendment, the Parliament could abridge or take away the fundamental rights using the amendments made in the Constitution.

Let’s discuss a recent judgement where the doctrine was applied as it affected the rights of many parties involved and overruling the same might have an effect on the past cases which were already decided by the courts.

Mineral Area Development Authority Etc vs. M/S Steel Authority Of India (2024)

This case was one of the oldest cases pending since 9044 days. The Union government in 1957 enacted the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘the Mines Act’). A royalty had to be paid by the mining lease holders as per Section 9 of the Mines Act whenever any mineral was either consumed or removed from the area which was under the lease.

The Government of Tamil Nadu in 1963 granted a lease for mining to India Cement Ltd. A royalty was fixed on the same on which a local cess was also to be paid under the Madras Panchayat Act, 1958. The public limited company challenged that the state did not have power to levy a cess on the royalty. The single judge bench held that the government can levy such a charge as it was a tax on the land. Not satisfied with the decision made by the single judge bench, India Cement Ltd appealed in the Supreme Court. The seven judge bench in the case of India Cement Ltd vs. State of Tamil Nadu Etc (1989) held that the royalty which is being paid is indirectly related to minerals.

The Mineral Area Development Authority was also facing the same issue related to royalty on mining in Bihar. Now this issue had escalated into a series of legal disputes where over eighty matters were linked to this case. The three judge bench stated that the conflict was prima facie in nature in the decision of India Cement Ltd and the same was referred to a bench of nine judges.

In the present case the doctrine is applied as the then Chief Justice of India K. Subba Rao had noted that it would create chaos if the decision’s retrospective application is allowed and the stability of the court will be disturbed. He suggested that making the ruling only apply to future cases was a wise way by which tricky situations can be handled.

Now, the 9 judge bench headed by DY Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India in the present judgement has observed the below seven key principles, which help in the application of the doctrine.

The main aim of the doctrine is to protect the actions taken in the past in public interest, but this does not entail that legal principles which were invalid will be considered valid. Only a future date is set for the principle to take effect.
The ability of the Supreme Court to shape relief in the cases derived from Article 142 of the Constitution.
The application of the doctrine is to be done only when past precedents are overturned and there is any ruling on the new issues.
The institutions and parties are given time to adjust to the new legal principles with the application of this doctrine, which further helps in avoiding economic and social disruption.
With the application of this doctrine the reopening of the issues which are settled in the past is prevented. It also restricts the necessity for refunds for the laws that are invalid and helps in avoiding multiplicity of litigation.
The doctrine also helps in a smooth transition when the laws are changed and ensures that people are not affected unfairly by following the old rules.
The cases which are resolved fully, will not be reopened to prevent complexity and hardships.

Judicial application of the doctrine of prospective overruling

In the case of Waman Rao And Ors vs. Union of India (Uoi) And Ors. (1981), the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 imposed certain ceilings on agricultural holdings of the people in the State of Maharashtra. The Act was a part of the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Over 2000 petitions were filed, challenging the validity of the Act in the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that the provisions of the Act cannot be challenged on the ground that the Act was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

The court stated that the laws were added under the Ninth Schedule before the judgement of the Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs.State of Kerala and Anr (1973) case. The court drew a line between the judgements made post and prior to the judgement. It was stated by the Supreme Court that all the cases decided before the judgement cannot be challenged stating that they violate the fundamental rights. Only the cases decided post the judgement can be raised in court.

The previous laws were enacted with the goal of reducing social inequality along with promoting the development of the nation. Hence, only the prior cases will not be legally challenged. Although the rules before the Act were declared unconstitutional, the previous transactions under the Act would remain valid due to the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling.

In the case of Union of India And Ors vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1990), Article 311 of the Constitution was amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act. Under this new amendment, a delinquent had lost his right to obtain a copy of the enquiry report of his disciplinary proceedings. A delinquent could now be dismissed without showing the cause for dismissal. The amendment was challenged on the grounds of violation of Article 14 and the principles of natural justice.

The court, while applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, held that from the date of this judgement, no order could be issued by any body, without providing reasons for the punishment that had been provided under the order. The court provided the employees with the relief. The three judge bench held that every person holds the right to know the reason due to which the person has been suspended/fired from an assigned post. Passing an order without stating the reason, is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The validity of the principle which was formed in this case was examined by the court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar And Ors (1993). A government employee was dismissed from his service without being given appropriate reasons for such dismissal and the enquiry report was also not provided to him. This dismissal was challenged on the grounds of violation of Article 14 and the violations of principles of natural justice.

When the doctrine of prospective overruling was applied in this case, the most important factor which was considered is that there should be no injury/disparity caused to the previous transactions that occurred under the old regime. The doctrine of prospective overruling clearly means that the decision of the court would only have a prospective operation.

Since the government employee in the present case was dismissed before the ruling of the court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohamad Ramzan Khan (1990), the dismissal was not affected by the ruling of that case due to its prospective operation. However, the employee could challenge the order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and demand fresh proceedings in the matter. Hence the doctrine of prospective overruling was not applied as the dismissal happened before the decision took place in the case of Union of India vs. Mohamad Ramzan Khan (1990) and any proceeding that took place before the decision will not be considered as there was no such rule, law or principle at that time.

In the case of Orissa Cement Limited vs. State of Orissa (1991), the applicant-assessee had challenged before the Supreme Court, the constitutional validity of the levy of a cess, based on the royalty derived from mining lands, by the States of Bihar, Orissa & Madhya Pradesh, on the ground that it was beyond the legislative competence of the state legislatures. Further, a claim for a refund of the cess/royalties that was collected was made. The laws in question were the Orissa Cess Act, 1962 and the rules thereunder, the Bengal Cess Act, 1880, the Madhya Pradesh Upkar Adhiniyam 1981, and the Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyam 1982,

It was observed that in India Cement Ltd. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (1989), the Supreme Court had held that if an Act is declared as unconstitutional and certain amounts were collected under the provisions of the said Act prior to it being declared unconstitutional, the state is not liable to refund the same.

The doctrine of prospective overruling expressly indicates that the ruling of the court should be given a prospective effect and not a retrospective effect. Since the enactment had been declared unconstitutional, only the cess/royalties that would be levied from the date of this order would be subject to refund. The cess/royalties levied by the state prior to the Act being declared unconstitutional were not subject to refund.

The Indra Sawhney Etc. vs. Union Of India And Others (1992) case, famously known as the Mandal Commission case, revolves around the reservation issues. The Mandal Commission recommended a 27% reservation for other backward classes (OBC) and a 10% additional reservation for socially and educationally/economically backward classes (SEBC). People argued that giving reservation solely on the basis of caste was a violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination. It was argued by Indra Sawhney and her supporters, that the reservation should be on the basis of economic criteria only and not the person’s caste.

The ruling of Rangachari was overturned in this case. The Supreme Court believed that instead of considering the ruling fully invalid, there can be some minor changes made and use of the judicial creativity was done to bring in an frictionless change as many people and their rights were involved in the case. As a result the doctrine of prospective overruling was used so that it would not affect the prior transactions.

The final bench deciding on this matter, consisted of nine judges, who reached a decision with a 6:3 vote. They laid down a set of landmark guidelines regarding reservation. It was held that the effect of this decision would take place only after 5 years from the day on which the ruling was made. The doctrine of prospective overruling was implemented and it was ensured that this judgement would not impact past matters.

In Harsh Dhingra vs. the State of Haryana & Ors. (2001), Section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 was challenged in the present case. Absolute power was bestowed on the Chief Minister of Haryana to allow plots at his own discretion. This discretion was to be free from any form of judicial scrutiny. This law was challenged on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

By applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the court attempted to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It also helps to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. However, it is pertinent to note that all actions/transactions that take place prior to the declaration of law as unconstitutional, are validated under this doctrine in the larger public interest.

Subordinate courts are duty-bound to apply the prospective operation of law, as established by superior courts, in any matter that is at their disposal in the future. Prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy, but also an extended facet of stare decisis (to stand by things decided) and not judicial legislation.

American jurisprudence on the doctrine of prospective overruling

The doctrine of prospective overruling finds its roots in American jurisprudence. Before this doctrine was applied and followed, the American judicial system followed the Blackstonian theory. According to this theory, courts did not have the power to create new laws. It stated that the duty of the courts was to merely interpret and provide clarifications regarding the laws that were already in existence. However, several American jurists were against this theory and this opposition paved the way for the adoption of the doctrine of prospective overruling. American jurist George F. Canfield had stated that it is the duty of the court to recognise and propose a new rule if the court deems that the old rule has become unsound or has lost its effectiveness in the modern-day legal regime.

The main person behind the origin of the doctrine of prospective overruling, was Justice Cardozo. He was the one who introduced the doctrine, in the case of Great Northern Railway vs. Sunburst Oil and Refining Co. (1932). The Supreme Court of the United States of America in this case, adopted the doctrine of prospective overruling for the first time. The court observed that while overruling a previous law/decision, the court is empowered to give its ruling a prospective effect. The reasoning given by the court for adopting this doctrine, was that no party should suffer because of a change in law or stance of the court, that is, if a ruling is being given retrospective effect, all the transactions that occurred under the old law would be deemed to be void. Therefore, to avoid such an effect on the earlier transactions, it is necessary that the rulings of a court should only be given a prospective effect.

In this case he declined to apply the ruling retroactively. The objective of the doctrine of prospective overruling is to revoke the precedent without perturbing the judgments made in the past. If the doctrine of prospective overruling is not implemented then the evolving nature of law will be diminished and it will be against judicial activism.

It was also believed by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, that the laws should be evolving so they can be adapted to all the changes that take place in the society with changing times and if they remain static it would not be of any use. If the laws in the country are outdated while the society has changed and developed then it will lead to injustice. The laws should be changed as per the current needs of the people in the society; if the same does not happen then people will face injustice. Hence the doctrine of prospective overruling acts as a tool which helps in providing the citizens with timely and fair solutions.

In Chicot County Drainage District vs. Baxter State Bank (1940), the court at Hughes held that past actions/transactions that had taken place under a legislation which had now been declared unconstitutional, should not be affected by such unconstitutionality. The transactions in the past cannot be affected or erased by pronouncing a new judicial ruling in that regard.

In Griffin vs. Illinois (1956), the Supreme Court of America held that the court is not bound to follow the “either/or” approach while determining the constitutional validity of a case. They can choose to approach the case in a manner they deem fit and pronounce a ruling with a prospective effect.

English jurisprudence on the doctrine of prospective overruling

The Blackstonian theory that was followed in America, was criticised by English jurists like Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Austin stated that the mere ideology that a law is not made by a court and just miraculously exists, is nothing but fictional. Law has been and will be in the future, made by the judges in courts of law, from time to time.

The House of Lords in Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) (1966), observed that the Blackstonian theory does not pass the test of time and the courts are empowered to modify and depart from existing laws and decisions if it deems fit to do so. In Milangas vs. George Textiles Limited (1976) AC 433, the House of Lords, while dealing with a claim for liquidated damages, held that the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling would not affect any past transactions, but would only affect any future transactions from the date of the judgement.

Advantages of the doctrine of prospective overruling

The doctrine of prospective overruling offers many advantages, which is one of the reasons why this doctrine has been in use for many years, not only in India, but around the world as well.

One of the significant advantages of the doctrine of prospective overruling, is that it helps in preventing injustice. For instance, if the courts act retrospectively, then when a new law comes into existence, the judgements made prior to this law would be considered invalid, which is not right and is detrimental to the rights of the parties involved. It would be unfair to the parties who had adhered to the laws that were valid at that point of time. Hence, with the doctrine of prospective overruling, a smooth transition can be ascertained.

The next advantage of the doctrine of prospective overruling, is that it encourages judicial innovation. With such a doctrine in practice, the laws and other rules can be very easily amended in accordance with the need of the hour. The doctrine of prospective overruling helps prevent the instability and chaos which comes with a landmark judgement that changes the current legal principles by overruling the precedents.

The doctrine of prospective overruling also gives ample time to the parties involved, to adapt to the newly introduced laws without causing any disruption. The hardship of reopening all the old cases is also prevented. The doctrine ensures that all the rights of the parties are protected and are not unduly affected by the newly introduced rules or laws.

Criticism of the doctrine of prospective overruling

The doctrine of prospective overruling is often criticised, despite its use around the world. The primary point of concern is that according to the doctrine, a law which is declared unconstitutional, will not apply to any future cases, but will still apply to the ongoing cases. The parties involved in such cases might definitely find this to be unfair. It also creates instability and inconsistency. Additionally, since such laws only apply to the future cases, the process of its adaptation could be very slow and further create confusion and hinder justice.

Conclusion

The doctrine of prospective overruling simply means that the decision of a court will have a prospective operation and will not affect any transactions that occurred before the judgement was passed by the court. The essential conditions that have to be followed while applying this doctrine, are-

It should be invoked only in cases regarding the interpretation of the Constitution
It should be applied only by the Supreme Court
The court may modify the aspects of prospective application of its ruling, in accordance with the justice of the cause or matter before it.

This doctrine is an important part of the jurisprudence in India and it ensures that the public interest is not affected by invalidating past transactions under laws that have been declared unconstitutional. The landmark cases like I.C Golaknath & Ors vs. the State of Punjab & Anrs (With Connected Petitions) (1967) lay down the clarity on how the doctrine is applied and to what extent in India.

We can also see that the doctrine helps in shaping the Indian Constitution. With the application of this doctrine, the balance between evolution taking place in the country and fairness. This doctrine has played an important part in constitutional jurisprudence and has helped in avoiding discrepancies when any new law is introduced.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How is the doctrine applied?

The doctrine of prospective overruling is applied when the constitutional courts overrule a precedent and introduce a novel law, which will be applied in all the future cases. The new law that is applied will be used for all the future cases, while the establishment of the new laws will not affect the past cases where the judgments have been already given.

Which country first introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling?

The United States of America was the first country to introduce the doctrine of prospective overruling, in the case of Great Northern Railway vs. Sunburst Oil and Refining Co. (1932).

When can the doctrine of prospective overruling be applied?

The doctrine of prospective overruling can be applied only in constitutional matters.

How is the doctrine of prospective overruling beneficial?

The doctrine of prospective overruling helps in avoiding the multiple case proceeding after a new law has been introduced. The doctrine is also beneficial as it avoids reopening of the cases which are already settled in the past.

What are the key rules of the doctrine of prospective overruling?

The key rules for the doctrine of prospective overruling are that they can only be used in constitutional matters and only by the Apex Court of the country. The courts can also use this doctrine to decide till what time in the past the new rules and regulations should be applied.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity