Judicial Doctrines | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

Definition and Purpose:

• The doctrine of prospective overruling occurs when a court overturns an established precedent but limits the application of the new rule to future situations.
• Objective: The primary goal is to prevent injustices or difficulties that might arise from sudden changes in the law. It ensures a smooth transition by correcting legal errors without disrupting past transactions or relationships based on the previous legal understanding.

Origin and Development:

• This doctrine originated in the United States and was later adopted by the Indian Supreme Court.
• In India, it was first applied in the landmark case of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967).
• The Court’s authority to use this doctrine comes from Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers it to make necessary orders for complete justice in any case before it.

Key Principles for Application:

• Can only be invoked in constitutional matters.
• Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to apply this doctrine, making its ruling binding on all courts in India.
• The scope of retroactive application is left to the Court’s discretion, tailored to ensure justice for the specific case.
• It is used to validate past actions under the overruled law.
• The doctrine avoids reopening settled issues and prevents unnecessary multiple proceedings.
• It provides time for entities and institutions to adjust to the new legal framework.

Landmark Cases Related to the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:

• Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): The first application of the doctrine in India, where the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decisions and held that Parliament could not amend the Constitution to abridge fundamental rights, applying the new rule prospectively.
• Chevron Oil Company v. Huson (1971):A U.S. case, where the U.S. Supreme Court laid down three factors for prospective overruling:
• Establishment of a new legal principle.
• Weighing the benefits of retroactive vs. prospective application.
• Considering whether retroactive application would result in substantial inequity.
• India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990): The Court applied prospective overruling to avoid tax refunds when invalidating state legislation.
• Managing Director, ECIL v. B Karunakar (1993): Applied prospective overruling to avoid prejudice to administrative processes, following an earlier decision on furnishing inquiry reports.
• Municipal Council, Kota v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (2001): Here, the Court upheld legislative competence without applying prospective overruling, showing reluctance to apply it in affirming legislative powers.
• Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2017): The Court overruled long-standing precedents on taxes and commerce but gave the ruling retrospective effect.

Doctrine of Implied Powers

Concept of Implied Powers:

• Known as the Doctrine of Implication, it suggests that when a law grants specific powers, it implicitly provides the means necessary to exercise those powers.
• It’s used when a law grants jurisdiction to an authority, and fulfilling the duty or exercising the power is impossible without using an incidental, implied power.
• Without these implied powers, the law would be ineffective or unenforceable.

Doctrine of Implied Powers in India:

• The Supreme Court of India has used this doctrine when a law assigns duties or grants powers to an authority, and fulfilling these duties requires implied powers.
• The law becomes unenforceable without these implied powers in situations where their absence makes the duty or power impossible to execute.

Case Law Examples of Implied Powers:

• Gopal Chandra Misra (1978): Recognized an implicit power for High Court judges under Article 217 to cancel a resignation even after acceptance, allowing flexibility.
• Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002): Established the Court’s inherent authority to reconsider its judgments, leading to the creation of curative petitions to correct obvious failures of justice.
• Raja Ram Pal (2007): Decided that the Indian Parliament has an implied power under Article 105 to expel members for contempt, helping maintain legislative decorum.
• Salil Sabhlok (2013): Interpreted Article 316 to recognize an implied power of the State Governor to establish procedures for appointing members to the State Public Service Commission, ensuring a more structured process.

Doctrine of Implied Prohibition:

• The Doctrine of Implied Prohibition limits the powers of the Central government in federal systems, implying that the government cannot exercise powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution.
• This contrasts with the Doctrine of Implied Powers, which allows unlisted powers if they help exercise listed ones.
• In India, the Constitution divides powers between the Central and State governments, categorizing them into the State List, Concurrent List, and Union List, with a separate section for residual powers.
• India does not recognize the Doctrine of Implied Prohibition but acknowledges the Doctrine of Incidental and Ancillary Powers, which grants the Central government additional powers necessary to fulfill its listed ones.

Doctrine of Inherent Powers of the Court

Introduction

• Inherent powers are essential for administering justice and are considered supplementary to the powers explicitly granted by law. These powers are rooted in necessity and are coextensive with the need to ensure complete justice.
• The legal basis for inherent powers is outlined in Sections 148 to 153A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which empowers the court to exercise its powers in various situations.

Section 148 of CPC

• Enlargement of Time: This section allows the court to extend any period fixed for performing an act under the CPC, with a maximum extension of 30 days, even after the initial deadline has passed. This power is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a right.

Section 149 of CPC

• Deficiency in Court Fees: If any part of the court fee has not been paid, the court can, at any stage, allow the payment of the fee. Once paid, the document has the same validity as if the fee had been paid initially.

Section 150 of CPC

• Transfer of Business: When the business of one court is transferred to another, the receiving court exercises the same powers and performs the same duties as the transferring court.

Section 151 of CPC

• Saving of Inherent Powers of Court: This section ensures that nothing in the CPC limits the court's inherent power to make necessary orders for justice or to prevent abuse of the court process. It does not grant new rights but helps in resolving procedural challenges.

Section 152 of CPC

• Amendment of Judgments, Decrees, or Orders: Clerical errors or accidental mistakes in judgments or orders can be corrected by the court, either on its own initiative or upon a party’s request. This ensures that court records are accurate and reflect the true facts.

Section 153 of CPC

• General Power to Amend: The court may amend any procedural defect in a suit to ensure that the real issue is addressed, and it can impose costs or other terms as needed.

Section 153A of CPC

• Power to Amend Decree After Dismissal of Appeal: If an appellate court dismisses an appeal under Order XLI Rule 11, the original court may amend the decree, even if the appeal’s dismissal upholds the initial order.

Limitations of Inherent Powers

• The inherent powers of the court have certain limitations:
• They can only be exercised when no express provision is available in the code.
• They cannot be exercised in ways that conflict with explicit provisions in the code.
• These powers should be used in exceptional situations.
• Procedure prescribed by law must be followed while exercising these powers.
• The court cannot exercise jurisdiction not vested in it by law.

Case Laws

• Ram Chand v. Kanhayalal (1966): The Supreme Court held that inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC can be used to prevent the abuse of the court process.
• Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila (1965): The Supreme Court observed that the CPC provides for certain inherent powers to courts to address procedural issues, but these powers cannot be invoked if there are express provisions available.

Doctrine of Waiver

Introduction

• The Doctrine of Waiver, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, refers to the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right.
• Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides the framework for the doctrine of waiver.
• Waiver occurs when a person knowingly and intentionally chooses not to exercise a right that they would otherwise have.
• Waiving a right means that the individual can no longer assert it and is precluded from challenging the constitutionality of the law benefiting from the waiver.

Doctrine of Waiver

• Waiver means that any person entitled to a right or privilege can voluntarily relinquish it, if done with full knowledge of the consequences.
• The doctrine assumes that an individual is the best judge of their own interests and understands the consequences of waiving a right.
• The doctrine of waiverdoes not apply to fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. These rights are for the public benefit, not just individual interests, and cannot be waived by individuals.

Salient Features of the Doctrine

• Intention: A waiver must be intentional. It can be either express (written or formal) or implied (inferred from conduct).
• Knowledge: The person waiving their rights must understand the nature of the right and the consequences of waiving it. However, absolute understanding is not necessary.
• Relevance: The waiver principle is important in legal proceedings. If applied to constitutional rights, it could allow individuals to give up their rights in exchange for benefits, which could potentially undermine public policy.

Case Laws

• Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Pavement dwellers had agreed not to claim their fundamental rights to live on public pavements. However, the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights cannot be waived. The Court emphasized that no one can waive off constitutional rights.
• Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay (1954): The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights are public policy matters and cannot be waived. The doctrine of waiver does not apply to constitutional rights.