BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has said that legislative clarity may substantially reduce conflicting judicial opinions. The HC said it would be desirable for the legislature while introducing an amendment to indicate in clear terms whether the law or the amended provision is prospective, retrospective or retroactive. The legislature may also indicate how the amended provision is intended to apply to transactions and events that occurred prior to the amendment, to pending proceedings, and to future transactions, said the court.
The court said there are instances where even the apex court has, in different contexts, examined whether a particular amendment operates prospectively or retrospectively. The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by Act of 39 of 2005, is one such illustration.
“The importance of illustrations found in several enactments, such as the IPC, 1860, Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the BNS, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the like, in capturing the true import of a provision is well known.
However, perhaps knowingly or unintentionally, such a practice has been forgotten. It is high time it should be revived. After all, the law is meant for common man and should be drafted in the simplest possible way. It should never be a puzzle,” the court observed.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde made these observations while deciding a dispute between Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private and the official liquidator of M/s BPL Engineering Limited and the Commercial Tax Department.
The court noted that experience also shows that the characterisation of an amendment as prospective or retrospective frequently depends upon the manner in which the amendment is introduced. An amendment effected by substitution is often regarded as retrospective, though that is not an inflexible rule. Likewise, amendments introduced
by using expressions “inserted” or “amended” are construed differently. These principles are only general guides and cannot be applied like a statute in every case, the court noted.