Supreme Court: Subsequent Judgment Overruling Earlier Judgment Applies Retrospectively Unless Stated Otherwise

 There arises no occasion for us to declare the interpretation given to Section 8 of the NDPS Act and the relevant NDPS Rules, by the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), as prospectively applicable. There exists no overwhelming reason for us to do so. On the other hand, in order to meet the ends of justice and with a view to ensure that public interest is safeguarded and to give effect to the salutary object behind the enactment of the NDPS Act, the decision must necessarily be retrospectively applicable. This Court in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), perhaps, did not think fit to confine or restrict its interpretation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act to future cases only. This is evinced from the fact that whilst overruling Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), it deliberately chose not to discuss the doctrine of prospective overruling let alone resort to it. This conspicuous silence in Sanjeev Deshpande (supra) as regards the prospective or retrospective effect of overruling Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) has to be borne in mind and given due deference. As a natural corollary to the aforesaid, we see no reason why we should deviate from the default Rule of retrospectivity and instead, resort to the doctrine of prospective overruling. Therefore, pending cases, if any, which were instituted before the decision of this Court in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would also be governed by the law as clarified by it. {Para 158}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether Subsequent Judgment Overruling Earlier Judgment if applied Retrospectively will affect rights of accused under article 20(1) of constitution?

 Furthermore, the retrospective application of the dictum in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would not give rise to any implications as regards the rights of the Accused persons Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. This is because while overruling the decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) has only clarified the law as it stood from its inception and given true effect to the meaning assigned to the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and the Rules thereunder, by the lawmakers. The same cannot be construed as creating a new offence. Additionally, the overruling of a decision cannot be equated to the enactment of an ex-post facto law, especially when the interpretation given to the statute/provision in the overruling decision is not a novel and unreasonably expansive interpretation of the provision in question such that it was completely unforeseeable. It cannot be reasonably argued that the indiscriminate dealing in of substances which are only mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and absent under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, was indubitably legal and allowed by the legislation, prior to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra). Therefore, there remains no doubt in our minds that giving retrospective effect to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would be necessary considering the facts and circumstances in the background of which we are called upon to adjudicate these matters. {Para 159}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS

  We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers Under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers Under Sections 227 or 216 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 Code of Criminal Procedure provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an Accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the Accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed. {Para 154}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Dealing With Substance Mentioned In NDPS Act Schedule Is An Offence Though It's Not Listed In Schedule Of NDPS Rules

 It cannot be said that the dealing in of "Buprenorphine Hydrochloride" would not amount to an offence Under Section 8 of the NDPS Act owing to the fact that the said psychotropic substance only finds mention under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and is not listed under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules. There exists nothing to indicate that Rules 53 and 64 of the NDPS Rules respectively, are the governing Rules in their respective Chapters, more so, when the language of the other Rules in Chapters VI and VII respectively, are clear about their application to the substances mentioned under the Schedule to the Act as well. {Para 156}

157. All the psychotropic substances mentioned under the Schedule to the Act have potential grave and harmful consequences to the individual and the society at large, when abused. Some psychotropic substances mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act are also mentioned under the D&C Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This is only because those substances while capable of being abused for their inherent properties could also be used in the field of medicine. However, the mere mention of certain psychotropic substances under the D&C regime would not take them away from the purview of the NDPS Act, if they are also mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Print Page

Supreme Court has given prospective effect to its judgment passed in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab

1) The only issue surviving for consideration is with regard to the prosecution being vitiated because PW-10 was the informant as also the Investigating Officer, in view of Mohan Lal (supra).   Societal interest therefore mandates that the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) cannot be allowed to become a spring board by an Accused for being catapulted to acquittal, irrespective of all other considerations pursuant to an investigation and prosecution when the law in that regard was nebulous. Criminal jurisprudence mandates balancing the rights of the Accused and the prosecution. If the facts in Mohan Lal (supra) were telling with regard to the prosecution, the facts in the present case are equally telling with regard to the Accused. There is a history of previous convictions of the Appellant also. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that while the law stood nebulous, charge sheets have been submitted, trials in progress or concluded, and appeals pending all of which will necessarily be impacted.

2)  Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by this Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of law, it is deemed that all actions taken contrary to the declaration of law, prior to the date of the declaration are validated. This is done in larger public interest. Therefore, the subordinate forums which are bound to apply law declared by this Court are also duty-bound to apply such dictum to cases which would arise in future. Since it is indisputable that a court can overrule a decision there is no valid reason why it should not be restricted to the future and not to the past. Prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy but also an extended facet of stare decisis and not judicial legislation. These principles are enunciated by this Court in Baburam v. C.C. Jacob, MANU/SC/0175/1999 : (1999) 3 SCC 362 and Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., MANU/SC/1176/1997 : (1997) 5 SCC 201.

18. The criminal justice delivery system, cannot be allowed to veer exclusively to the benefit of the offender making it uni-directional exercise. A proper administration of the criminal justice delivery system, therefore requires balancing the rights of the Accused and the prosecution, so that the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) is not allowed to become a spring board for acquittal in prosecutions prior to the same, irrespective of all other considerations. We therefore hold that all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2450-2451 of 2010

Decided On: 11.02.2019

 Varinder Kumar  Vs.   State of Himachal Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.I., Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 321

Print Page

Basic concept of doctrine of prospective overruling

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling originated in the American Judicial System. The literal meaning of the term ‘overruling’ is to overturn or set aside a precedent by expressly deciding that it should no longer be controlling law. Similarly ‘prospective’ means operative or effective in the future.  So, combined together, prospective overruling means construing an earlier decision in such a way that it would not have a binding effect to the parties of the original suit or to the cases decided on the basis of that judgment, and yet changing the law, applying it only prospectively to the future cases. For example, if principle A is laid down in the case of X v. Y and later on the court disagrees with the Principle A, it changes the principle prospectively without affecting the judgment of X v. Y and thus the new principle will apply only to the future cases.

Print Page

Whether burden of proof is on insurance company to prove breach of policy clearly?

Mr. Chapalgaonkar relied on the judgment in the case of Premlata Shukla (supra). Though the proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not applicable, it is well settled that once it is established that the vehicle involved in the accident was duly insured with the Insurance Company, the burden is on the Insurance Company to show that they are not liable to indemnify the insured on account of breach of policy. The breach of policy must be clearly made out.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1397 of 2015

Decided On: 16.08.2018

 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited  Vs.  Rekha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Dhavale, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 527

Print Page