INTRODUCTION
In the doctrine of prospective overruling, courts bound the effect of new rules to future instances. This doctrine was born in America in the early 1900s, was used for the first time in 1932,[1] and was further adopted by the English courts, followed by India in 1967. It was initially explicitly suggested as a judicial technique by George F. Canfield[2] to the South Carolina Bar Association that the court should have the power to make laws if a precedent is flawed. This doctrine was destined to put an end to the Blackstonian principle,[3] which restricted the power of judges to mere interpretation of law even if it was erroneous or a bad precedent for the future. They had no power to make law, as it was within the legislature’s domain and not the judiciary. If a precedent was overturned later, it had a retrospective effect, and the original law was considered an error. There was a dire need in this ever-evolving time to stay in the loop and align with the tune of rapidly growing societal changes. The essence of this doctrine lies in the notion of stare decisis,[4] which says ‘to stand by things decided’ i.e. a court is bound by its previous decision and previous decisions of all higher courts. This doctrine is not contrary to the above notion, as the law would still be binding on all the courts. The Doctrine of prospective overruling restricts the effects of a doctrine to all future cases, along with the power of judges to change the law. The effect of the law will be prospective, i.e. it will not be endured by any of the previous verdicts of the court or the case in which it was decided, as then it would be unfair to the parties approaching the court[5].
APPLICATION
The Indian Constitution follows a hierarchical system abiding by principles of common law, relying heavily on precedents and where laws are working on principles adopted in the past. The introduction of doctrine was needed as cultural, social, and economic changes might render the precedent like a fifth wheel. The case of IC Golaknath v State of Punjab[6] wrote the fate of this doctrine in India. In this case, the 11 bench judges of the Supreme Court reversed their previous rulings from the Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases and held that parliament does not have the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368[7], and such amendments are protected by Article 13,[8] which protects fundamental rights from being violated. This decision was only to be applied to future cases. This doctrine is often denoted as modern doctrine, sun bursting,[9] i.e. possesses a degree of aptness and a pragmatic solution to overturn a precedent while disrupting its usage in the old cases. In the case of P. Rajendran v. State of Madras[10], the Supreme Court asserted that the rule provided for the allocation of seats within the general category according to population ratio within every district in the state law was invalid and unconstitutional. However, the Court applied the doctrine, of prospective overruling, ensuring that the judgment would only take effect in the future, thus avoiding any negative impact on academic careers that might have occurred if it were applied retroactively.
Our Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention or be against this doctrine, but it renders enough power to the Supreme Court to introduce the doctrines to seek justice. Article 32[11] grants the Supreme Court power to enforce fundamental rights, allowing individuals to directly approach the Court. Article 141[12] states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts. Article 142[13] grants the Supreme Court power to pass a decree or order necessary for doing justice. Lower Courts are bound to apply the precedent in all future cases and can seek clarification from the apex court as and when needed.
This doctrine is only to be exercised by the apex court[14] of the country, and initially, its use was restricted to constitutional matters,[15] but currently, it covers a dynamic range of matters. It was not completely left to the discretion of the court rather, the purpose behind the change and future implications were to be kept at the centre. This doctrine is a method of judicial review that keeps the check on societies.
DRAWBACKS
1) The Supreme Court, by making the laws, is overstepping its jurisdiction over legislative functions. India, being a federal country, has separated the powers of the judiciary and legislature. There may be conflicts and overlaps in such cases.
2) A legislature introduces a law after adequate drafting, debating, approval, voting, and reviewing, and the public is notified about it, but when it comes to laws overturned by the Supreme Court, unless it is actively in practice, the public won’t be notified about it. A law not known to the public is no law.
3) As it is not applied to the case in which the precedent is overruled so as not disappoint to the expectations with which parties approached the Court, it becomes unfair. When a law is overturned, it means the precedent was not fit for the current regime, yet it is not applied to the case that birthed the change, rendering them helpless.
There arose plenty of criticism[16] as the doctrine was influenced by the American Constitution, and the structure and working of the Indian and American constitutions did not align. But the doctrine hasn’t been applied in its strict sense. In American law[17], the doctrine of prospective overruling overturns a law only for future cases, leaving past decisions unaffected. In the Golaknath case[18], the Indian Supreme Court did not nullify existing constitutional amendments. Instead, it ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights in the future, but this constraint would apply merely to future amendments, leaving earlier changes intact.
TOOL FOR PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL CHANGE?
The need for courts to make and interpret law while being sensitive to societal changes is important. This doctrine is direct in its approach, as it is keeping the old legal standard on which people in that particular societal framework relied intact and parallelly addressing the future trends. It moulds the future of law without changing the past. Although it might be unfair to the case in which the precedent is being overruled, it is a mixed bag that is skewed towards the positive side. It balances the need for justice, evolution, and peace in the current regime. It ensures that law evolves to meet contemporary standards of justice in a rapidly evolving domain. For instance, in cases related to gender preference, a minority rights court can use this doctrine to eliminate outdated laws. It indeed fulfils the criteria as a tool for progressive change.
CONCLUSION
The doctrine of prospective overruling is like a rule that says you can only play video games for one hour. One day, your parents change it to two hours, but the new rule starts tomorrow, not today. So, the old rule still applies today. It offers a practical solution as well as balances the situation, allowing the court to correct precedents that do not hold merit in the present domain. It is also a tool of judicial review, as it takes into consideration prudence and guides societies, giving power to the apex court to overturn precedents. The future of prospective overruling holds more effective and frequent use to rectify legal errors and to adapt to changing societal values without any imbalances in the economy, giving way to the futuristic approach. This will maintain further balance between growth in the legal arena without disturbing the past. In due course of time, this doctrine will be used to navigate technological changes, address climate law, regulate economic law, interpret international law, health law, etc. Their future will be a tower of strength for the courts.
Author(s)Name: Saakshi Ramrakhyani (Nirma University, Institute of Law)
References:
[1] Great Northern Ry Co v Sunburst Oil & Refining Co 287 US 358 (1932)
[2] George F Canfield, Address of George F. Canfield: Before the Conference on the Limitation of Armament in Washington (n.p., 1921) https://archive.org/details/addressofgeorgef00canf_4 accessed 31 August 2024.
[3] Andolan Sarkar and Anshul Ramesh, ‘The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: Legislative Analysis of Its Evolution & Application in India’ (2023) https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Doctrine-of-Prospective-Overruling.pdf accessed 19 August 2024.
[4] Sneha Solanki, ‘What is stare decisis in simple terms?’ (Thomson Reuters, 30 January 2023) https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/the-doctrine-of-stare-decisis/#:~:text=Stare%20decisis%2C%20meaning%20in%20Latin,case%20with%20allegedly%20comparable%20facts accessed 19 August 2023.
[5] ibid
[6]IC Golaknath v State of Punjab (1967) SCR (2) 762
[7] Constitution of India art 368
[8] Constitution of India art 13
[9]Thomas E Fairchild, ‘Limitation of New Judge-Made Law to Prospective Effect Only: “Prospective Overruling” or Sunbursting’ (1968) https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2556&context=mulr accessed 19 August 2024.
[10] P Rajendran v State of Madras (1968) SCR (2) 786
[11] Constitution of India art 32
[12] Constitution of India art 141
[13] Constitution of India art 142
[14] ibid
[15]Ganga Ram Moolchandani v State of Rajasthan (2001) 6 SCC 89
[16] ibid
[17] Constitution of America
[18] ibid
