Coke Maxim: A new law ought to be prospective, not retrospective in its operation.

The Cardinal Principle of construction of a statute is that every statute was prima facie a prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. When a procedural law is considered it is always retroactive i.e. came into effect from past date so the question of retrospective operation shall arise in substantive laws only. Also a criminal law shall always have retroactive operation whereas the civil law may have retrospective or retroactive operation. So by observing the different opinions of jurists and experts in India on retrospective and retroactive laws, a conclusion may be drawn in such a way that only substantive civil laws can be operated retrospectively if the statute specifically prescribes it or there exists large interest of the public as whole otherwise all statutes shall be operated retroactively. The dictionary meaning of the word prospective with reference to statutes shows that it is concerned with or applying the laws in future or at least from the date of commencement of the statute. Whereas the word retrospective when used with reference to an enactment may mean: 1. Effecting an existing contract or 2. Reopening of the past, closed and completed transactions, or 3. Affecting accrued rights and remedies, or 4. Affecting procedure. According to the case laws and general interpretations it is to be noted that the language of the legislature has to be clear and expressive for proving retrospective effect in the said clause of the legislature. If it is not described expressly in the act then it is presumed to be prospective effect. Nemo potest mutare consilium suum in alterius injuriam- No one is allowed to change his mind to the injury of others. Therefore, the legislature should also not change its mind to the prejudice of a vested right. As far as possible, law should be construed as prospective and not retrospective, except when they are expressly made applicable to past or pending transactions. Sometimes, even without express words, a retrospective operation is implied from the subject matter of the statute, as for example, alteration in procedure. A statute, generally, is not construed to operate retrospectively and take away a vested right, except when the cases in which it is to have such retrospective operation are set out therein. Therefore, an intention to forfeit established rights will not presumed, nor will a statute having such an effect be carried beyond the purpose plainly indicated by construction. Thus, a court will not so construe a statute as to deprive person of their properties and

transfer them to others without payment of compensation unless such a conclusion is ineluctable on account of policy of express words. The intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself and the function of the court is only to interpret the law and the court cannot legislate. The rule of beneficial construction requires that ex-post facto law should be applied to reduce the rigorous sentence of the previous law on the same subject. The principle is based upon the legal maxim Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex which means the welfare of the people is the supreme for the law. It is inspired by principles of justice, equity and good conscience. lex prospicit non respicit (law looks forward not back).

Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others: 1966 AIR 1423, 1966 SCR (3) 275

"Now as a general proposition, it, may be admitted that ordinarily a Court of appeal cannot take into account a new law, brought into existence after the judgment appealed from has been rendered, because the rights of the litigants in an appeal are determined under the law in force at the date of the suit. Even before the days of Coke whose maxim - a new law ought to be prospective, not retrospective in its operation - is off-quoted, Courts have looked with dis-favour upon laws which take away vested rights or affect pending cases. Matters of procedure are, however, different and the law affecting procedure is always retrospective. But it does not mean that there is an absolute rule of inviolability of substantive rights. If the new law speaks in language, which, expressly or by clear intendment, takes in even pending matters, the Court of trial as well as the Court of appeal must have regard to an intention so expressed, and the Court of appeal may give effect to such a law even after the judgment of the Court of first instance." In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra,it was stated that the ambit and scope of an amending Act and its retrospective operation as follows : "(i) A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a statute which merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is textually impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its application, should not be given an extended meaning and should be strictly confined to its clearly defined limits. (ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature. (iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law. (iv) A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished. (v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in Operation unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication."