Enactment Of An Amendment With Retrospective Effect Not An Encroachment Upon Judicial Powers: SC [Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court in Cheviti Venkanna Yadav vs. State of Telangana and Ors, has upheld the constitutional validity of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, 2015.
Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, whereby the term of the market committee was reduced from three years to one year by giving retrospective effect in the Amendment Act, was under challenge before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Aggrieved by the decision of division bench of the high court which had upheld the provisions, an appeal was preferred before the apex court.
The court observed that after the legislature came into existence, it has the competence to enact any law retrospectively or prospectively within the constitutional parameters (M/s. Rattan Lal and Co. and another etc. v. The Assessing Authority, Patiala and another).
The bench also added that the legislature has the power to enact laws, including the power to retrospectively amend laws, and, thereby, remove causes of ineffectiveness or invalidity and when a law is enacted with retrospective effect, it is not considered as an encroachment upon judicial power when the legislature does not directly overrule or reverse a judicial dictum.
The legislature cannot, by way of an enactment, declare a decision of the court as erroneous or a nullity, but can amend the statute or the provision so as to make it applicable to the past. The legislature has the power to rectify, through an amendment, a defect in law noticed in the enactment and even highlighted in the decision of the court, it said.
The court also observed that the status of the members have been changed by amending the word “appointed” by substituting it with the word “nominated”. In our considered opinion, by virtue of the amendment, the term which has been reduced for a nominated member stands on a different footing, the bench said.
Read the Judgment here.
This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.