Karnataka High Court Advises Legislators to Draft Simpler Laws with Clear Timelines

The Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru has advised legislators to draft laws in the simplest possible way and explicitly specify whether amendments are prospective, retrospective, or retroactive. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde made these observations while deciding a legal dispute, noting that legislative clarity would substantially reduce conflicting judicial opinions.

The court's observations came during the resolution of a dispute between Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private, the official liquidator of M/s BPL Engineering Limited, and the Commercial Tax Department.

According to the court, the legislature should indicate in clear terms how an amended provision is intended to apply to transactions and events that occurred prior to the amendment, to pending proceedings, and to future transactions. The court noted that there are instances where even the Supreme Court has had to examine whether a particular amendment operates prospectively or retrospectively in different contexts, citing the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as one such illustration.

Justice Hegde also suggested reviving the practice of including illustrations in legislative enactments to capture the true import of a provision. He noted that while illustrations are well known in older enactments like the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as well as newer ones like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the practice has been forgotten over time.

"After all, the law is meant for common man and should be drafted in the simplest possible way. It should never be a puzzle," the court observed.

The court further pointed out that the characterisation of an amendment as prospective or retrospective frequently depends on how it is introduced. For instance, amendments made by substitution are often regarded as retrospective, while those using expressions like "inserted" or "amended" are construed differently. The court noted these principles are only general guides and cannot be applied like a statute in every case.