Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) has upheld the validity of the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023, but struck down the retrospective effect given to the Civil Courts Amendment as arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Justice M.I. Arun held that while the legislature was competent to alter appellate forums and pecuniary jurisdictions, it could not retrospectively invalidate judgments delivered over the past 18 years without a saving clause. The Court observed:
“Legislative wisdom cannot be replaced by judicial discretion; but where retrospective operation leads to absurdity, courts are duty-bound to correct the error.”
The retrospective application of the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023—from 28 August 2007—was declared arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconstitutional, whereas all other provisions, including changes to appellate jurisdiction, were upheld.
Facts
The petitioner, a practicing agriculturist and social worker, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging two amendments passed by the Karnataka Legislature —
- The Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Act No.33 of 2024), and
- The Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Act No.32 of 2024) —
both of which were published in the Karnataka Gazette on 19 June 2024.
The amendments significantly altered the pecuniary and appellate jurisdictions of civil courts across the State. Specifically, appeals from decrees of Senior Civil Judges were redirected from the High Court to the District Court, and first appeals from City Civil Judges were made triable by a Single Judge of the High Court instead of a Division Bench.
Most controversially, Section 4 of the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act gave retrospective effect to the new provisions from 28 August 2007, without any saving clause protecting cases already adjudicated during this 18-year period.
Issues
- Whether the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023, and Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 are constitutionally valid.
- Whether the retrospective effect given to the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the notification dated 24 June 2024 issued by the State Government could validly modify the retrospective clause through executive power.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the amendments curtailed a vested right of appeal, which is a substantive right, not a matter of mere procedure. The retrospective clause would nullify decrees and judgments delivered since 2007, undermining the finality of litigation.
It was argued that the amendments were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14, as they lacked a saving clause protecting pending and decided appeals. Further, the retrospective clause had no rational nexus with the legislative objective of reducing pendency, and its implementation would create chaos in appellate proceedings, forcing re-transfer of concluded cases.
The petitioner also relied on Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 740) and Cochin Devaswom Board v. Vamana Setti (AIR 1966 SC 1980) to argue that retrospective laws must not disturb vested rights.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State defended the amendments, asserting that they were policy measures aimed at reducing pendency of first appeals in the High Court and ensuring speedier justice through the District Courts. The State emphasized that the right of appeal is conferred by statute and may be restructured by the legislature in the public interest.
It further contended that any hardship caused to individual litigants could not invalidate the amendments as long as the legislative competence and object were constitutionally sound.
On the retrospective clause, the State argued that an executive notification dated 24 June 2024 had already clarified that the amendment would operate prospectively, rendering the petitioner’s grievance infructuous.
Analysis of the Law
The Court began by affirming that the right to appeal is a statutory right. The legislature has full competence to regulate appellate forums, but such right cannot be retrospectively extinguished unless clearly expressed and justified.
Justice Arun observed that the amendments altering jurisdiction and forum of appeal were rationally connected to the object of decongesting High Court dockets. However, granting retrospective effect from 2007 was legally untenable since it would invalidate judgments already delivered by competent courts and create an absurd legal vacuum.
The Court noted that Section 4 of the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act purported to empower the State to remove difficulties, but the executive notification converting retrospective application into prospective operation amounted to amending the statute by executive order, which was impermissible.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on several precedents to interpret legislative competence and the doctrine of “reading down”:
- Calcutta Gujarati Education Society v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation (2003) 10 SCC 533 – Reiterated that courts must uphold legislative intent but may “read down” provisions to prevent absurdity. The Court quoted: “Reading down cannot be used to rewrite the statute; it can only be used to make a law workable and harmonious.”
Applied here, the Court read down the retrospective clause to preserve legislative purpose while preventing injustice. - Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (2010) 8 SCC 24 – Affirmed that courts should not substitute legislative wisdom with judicial notions of justice. However, where literal interpretation leads to absurdity, purposive construction is warranted.
- Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1975) 4 SCC 298 – Held that courts cannot substitute procedure prescribed by statute. Applied to reject the State’s executive correction of legislative error.
Through these precedents, the Court concluded that retrospective effect, when it nullifies vested rights or leads to absurd consequences, violates constitutional reasonableness under Article 14.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench held that while the legislature acted within its competence to restructure appellate jurisdiction, the retrospective clause was a legislative mistake leading to uncertainty and absurdity. Justice Arun noted that the State’s notification attempting to “remove difficulty” could not amend or override the statute, as only the legislature can cure such errors.
“Where retrospective operation of a law leads to confusion and absurdity, courts are bound to correct the anomaly and declare such provision unreasonable and arbitrary.”
Accordingly, the Court struck down the retrospective operation of the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act while upholding all other changes as constitutionally valid.
Conclusion
The High Court partly allowed the petition, declaring that:
- The retrospective effect given to the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 from 28 August 2007 is set aside; it shall apply prospectively.
- All other amendments to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 are upheld.
- Pending first appeals shall be transferred to the appropriate courts under the amended structure, while judgments already rendered under the unamended provisions shall remain valid.
Implications
- Confirms that right to appeal is a vested, substantive right which cannot be retrospectively curtailed.
- Clarifies that executive notifications cannot amend or override legislation.
- Upholds the State’s power to restructure court hierarchy to reduce pendency but within constitutional limits.
- Reinforces judicial restraint while ensuring protection against legislative arbitrariness.
