Introduction:

The Supreme Court, in a crucial ruling, has reaffirmed the principle that a judgment delivered by the Court is inherently retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah while deciding Kaniskh Sinha v. State of West Bengal [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 259]. The Court clarified the distinction between legislative and judicial lawmaking, stating that while laws made by the legislature are generally prospective unless explicitly given retrospective effect, the reverse applies to judicial decisions. However, the Court noted that certain judgments may be applied prospectively to prevent undue hardship or disruption to settled legal positions. The ruling specifically examined the 2015 judgment in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which mandated that complaints under Section 156(3) of the CrPC must be accompanied by an affidavit. The Court held that this requirement must be applied prospectively, ensuring that complaints filed before the ruling’s date are not invalidated due to the absence of an affidavit. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring clarity in the application of its rulings while balancing fairness and legal stability.

Arguments:

The petitioner, Kaniskh Sinha, approached the Supreme Court after his complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was dismissed solely on the ground that it did not include an affidavit, despite being filed before the Priyanka Srivastava ruling. The petitioner argued that retrospective application of the 2015 judgment would unfairly penalize complainants who had acted by the law as it existed at the time of filing. His counsel contended that unless a judgment explicitly states its prospective effect, it should not be assumed that it nullifies past actions taken under the previous legal framework. Additionally, it was argued that procedural requirements should not be applied in a manner that unduly restricts access to justice, especially in criminal proceedings where complainants seek police intervention. The petitioner relied on precedents where courts had emphasized that procedural mandates should not override substantive justice.

On the other hand, the State of West Bengal contended that all judicial pronouncements should be treated as clarifications of the law rather than new enactments, thus making them automatically retrospective. The State’s counsel argued that the Priyanka Srivastava ruling merely reinforced an essential safeguard against frivolous complaints and should be applied uniformly, regardless of the date of filing. They maintained that complainants should have anticipated the requirement of an affidavit, as it was rooted in principles of fairness and accountability. The State further argued that retrospective application ensures consistency in judicial decisions and prevents litigants from exploiting technical gaps in procedural law.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the legal position, clarified the general rule that judicial pronouncements are retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. However, it acknowledged that in certain cases, a prospective application is necessary to avoid unnecessary hardship. The Court observed that prospective application of judgments is justified when it would prevent disruption to settled matters or undue hardship to individuals who acted in good faith based on the previous legal position. The bench noted that the Priyanka Srivastava ruling, by its very language, indicated an intention for prospective application. The judgment in that case stated that “from now onwards,” complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC must be accompanied by an affidavit, implying a forward-looking directive rather than an attempt to invalidate past complaints. The Court emphasized that applying such procedural requirements retrospectively could lead to unjust outcomes, particularly in criminal cases where access to justice is paramount. Accordingly, it ruled that complaints filed before the Priyanka Srivastava judgment cannot be rejected solely for lacking an affidavit. This ruling reinforces the principle that while judicial decisions generally have retrospective effect, exceptions exist where fairness and stability necessitate a prospective approach.

This judgment marks a critical reaffirmation of judicial principles governing the retrospective and prospective application of rulings. It ensures that individuals are not unfairly penalized for following the law as it existed at the time of their actions. The Supreme Court has once again underscored its commitment to legal clarity and fairness, ensuring that procedural changes do not unjustly disadvantage litigants.