Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless the statute itself specifically states otherwise regarding its retrospective operation. However, the reverse is true for the law laid down by a constitutional court or as 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," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

The court explained that the prospective operation of a judgment is usually adopted to avoid unnecessary burdens on individuals or to prevent undue hardship for those who had acted bona fide under the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant time. Furthermore, it is done to prevent unsettling long-established legal positions, as such disruptions could cause injustice to many.

In the matter at hand, the apex court upheld the Calcutta High Court's judgment, which declared that the Supreme Court's ruling in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) stated that a private complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC for lodging an FIR must be accompanied by an affidavit.

Appellant Kanishk Sinha and his wife challenged the validity of the high court's order, which had rejected their plea that the magistrate's order for lodging the FIR violated the Supreme Court's ruling.

The single judge of the high court held that the Supreme Court’s directions could only operate prospectively, would not have any retrospective application, and, therefore, would not apply to the complaint lodged against the appellants in 2010–2011.

The appellants contended that all judgments of the Supreme Court are retrospective in nature and that the ruling in Priyanka Srivastava could not be treated as an exception, particularly since the judgment did not explicitly state that it would operate prospectively.

"Now the law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely clear," the bench said.

The court pointed out that in Priyanka Srivastava, the Supreme Court had dealt with the issue of frivolous complaints being filed before magistrates to harass individuals. To curb this practice, it directed that all applications under Section 156(3) of the CrPC must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant seeking to invoke the magistrate's jurisdiction.

"Such a step could only be prospective in nature, and this is clearly reflected from the very language used by the judges in Priyanka Srivastava," the bench said.

The bench further noted that in that case, the Supreme Court had also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to all the Chief Justices of the high courts, who, in turn, would circulate it among all magistrates to ensure they remain “more vigilant and diligent while exercising the power under Section 156(3) CrPC.”

"It is necessary to mark the words in paragraph 30 that ‘...a stage has come in this country…’, and thus, the directions could only be prospective. This signifies that the court intended that, from that point onward, an application under Section 156(3) must be accompanied by an affidavit," the bench said.

The court opined that the high court was correct in holding that the requirement for a complaint to be accompanied by an affidavit would be prospective in nature.

"We thus find no merit in these appeals, and hence, the appeals stand dismissed," the bench said.

The court also noted that charge sheets had been filed in both cases related to offences of cheating, forgery, and others.

In case charges have not yet been framed by the court, the appellants would be at liberty to file an application for discharge, which shall be considered in accordance with the law, the court clarified.