Nemo Potent Mutare Consillium Suum In Alterius Injuriam

Spread the love

You can grab notes for other topics from here.

Nemo Potent Mutare Consillium Suum In Alterius Injuriam (No one is allowed to change his mind to the injury of others)

Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intentions of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is ‘deemed to be prospective only.

(Nova constitutio futuris forman imponero debet non praeteritis)

Rule I: Vested Rights are not taken away without express words or necessary implication or without compensation

The legislature should not change its mind to the injury of others. As a corollary of it, laws should be applied prospectively and not retrospectively. This should be followed as a general principle unless clearly set out in the Statute that its provisions shall be applicable retrospectively.[1]

In Krishna Ayyar v. Sundaraswami Iyer[2], there was no statutory right to appeal arising from an order under S. 66 of the Income Tax Act of 1922. Later, S. 66A was inserted providing for a right to appeal contingent on a certificate of fitness to be granted by the High Court. Appeal could be preferred before His Majesty in Council. The question which arose in this case was: Whether an appeal could be preferred from an order under S. 66 prior to the commencement of S. 66A?

To this question, it was observed by the Court:

“……provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment. Their Lordships can have no doubt that provisions which, if applied retrospectively, would deprive of their existing finality of orders, which, when the statute came into force, were final, are provisions which touch orders existing rights. Accordingly, if the section now in question is to apply to orders final at the date when it came into force, it must be clearly provided. Their Lordships cannot find in the section even an indication to that effect. In their Lordships’ opinion, therefore, the petitions in this case have no statutory right of appeal to His Majesty in Council.”

Rule II: Statutes dealing with merely matters of procedure are presumed to be retrospective unless such a construction is textually inadmissible.[3]

[1] Vepa Sarathi on page 238

[2] AIR 1922 PC 257

[3] G.P. Singh: Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th Edition, p. 498

You can grab notes for other topics from here.


Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *