If the Supreme Court gives a ruling on a law and says that this ruling will apply prospectively, ie, in future, what will happen to the past actions which have already been taken under the same law? Would those past actions be valid even though such ruling declares the law invalid?
When the courts declare the law by way of interpretation, the rule of retrospectivity of such declaration is the norm. This means that the declaration made by the court is deemed to applicable from the date of coming into existence of law. For example, where a law is declared invalid by a court, it is deemed to be invalid from the date that particular law had come into existence. This is because a court only declares the law by way of interpretation, so that declaration is effective for the entire duration of that law.
On the other hand, the concept of prospective overruling is a deviation from the principle of retroactive operation of a court ruling. It implies that such a court ruling would not have retrospective operation but would operate only in the future and will have only prospective operation. The purpose of prospective overruling is to avoid reopening of already settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is essentially meant to protect the interests of the litigants whose cases have already been decided and settled. This means that all actions which have already been taken prior to the declaration of such law by court, do not stand invalidated.
Since the prospective overruling affects only future actions, the past actions that have already been taken under the same law continue to be valid even if the such law has been held to be invalid.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Log in/Register