Category: Retrospective Application

ISSUE:

Whether the State Government has the authority to retrospectively apply enhanced license fees on the balance stock of intoxicants held by a licensee after the expiry of the license period?

Whether the balance stock of liquor, already subjected to the license fee at the time of its initial purchase, can be subjected to an enhanced fee retrospectively?

RULE:

Subordinate legislation, such as rules made by a delegate, can be given retrospective effect if explicitly or implicitly authorized by the parent statute.

The principles of equity and consistency in taxation justify applying enhanced fees to surplus stock retained by the licensee, ensuring parity with other vendors operating under the revised fee structure?

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner, as an existing employee prior to the enforcement of the Delhi Education Act, 1973, and Rules, was entitled to retire at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years as determined by the school management?

Whether the respondent school, despite being a private and unaided institution, was legally bound to uniformly apply statutory provisions under the Delhi Education Act and Rules to its employees?

RULE:

Statutory provisions governing service conditions, including retirement age, are binding on recognized private schools, regardless of whether they are aided or unaided, and such provisions must be applied uniformly.

Existing employees are entitled to retain the more favorable service conditions, such as a higher retirement age, provided under prior applicable frameworks, and any deviation is impermissible under the statutory framework.

ISSUE:

Whether retrospective legislation or rules can nullify a binding Supreme Court judgment and override rights already accrued?

Whether the LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981, and the rules made under it violate constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)?

Whether the delegation of legislative power under the LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981, is excessive or lacks sufficient legislative guidance?

RULE:

Retrospective legislation cannot nullify a binding judicial mandate or accrued rights unless expressly provided for and constitutionally valid.

Legislative delegation is valid if sufficient policy guidance is provided, ensuring clear limits on the exercise of delegated powers.

Laws are valid under Article 14 if classifications are reasonable and not arbitrary and under Article 19(1)(g) if restrictions serve the public interest and are justified.

ISSUE:

Whether the principle of judicial independence under Article 235 restricts the Governor’s legislative authority under Article 309 in framing service rules for judicial officers?

Whether the quota rule for recruitment can constitutionally extend to confirmations and seniority, as governed by service rules?

Whether retrospective amendments to service rules violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness under Articles 14 and 16?

RULE:

Judicial independence limits the Governor’s powers to the legislative framing of general rules, leaving their application and implementation to the High Court.

The quota system is restricted to recruitment and cannot be extended to confirmation and seniority without explicit statutory authority.

Retrospective amendments to service rules must satisfy the test of reasonable nexus and must not arbitrarily prejudice any class of officers.