The Karnataka High Court has upheld the validity of amendments made to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, and the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 pertaining to the jurisdiction and allocation of appellate responsibilities. The Court’s judgment affirms that certain amendments—namely, those shifting the first appeals from Civil Judge (Senior Division) courts to District Courts, and requiring that first appeals from City Civil Courts before the High Court be heard by a Single Judge regardless of pecuniary jurisdiction—are constitutionally sustainable. However, the Court struck down the retrospective application of one amendment that had been given effect from August 28, 2007.
In the case before the Court, a petitioner challenged the amendments on the grounds that they adversely affected his vested right to appeal before a forum of his choosing, contending that such rights were substantive rather than merely procedural. Justice M. I. Arun, delivering the judgment, rejected this contention in respect of the impugned amendments, upholding them as valid exercises of legislative power, aimed at reducing backlog of cases and streamlining appellate jurisdiction. The State had justified the changes by referring to the large number of pending first appeals before the High Court and to the available strength of District Judges, arguing that efficiency demanded reallocation of appellate load. The Court accepted that rationale, observing that the amendments were consistent with the object of alleviating delays and improving disposal rates in the judiciary.
Importantly, while the Court validated most of the statutory changes, it held that the retrospective effect given to the amendments in the Karnataka Civil Courts Act was arbitrary and unreasonable, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The retrospective application would have disturbed settled expectations and undermined fairness by altering the legal remedy available in past matters. Accordingly, that portion was struck down, and the Court directed that the amendments would operate only prospectively. Pending first appeals were ordered to be transferred to jurisdictional District Courts in accordance with the amended law, and judgments rendered so far under the earlier regime were declared valid and saved until the new provisions take full effect.
The decision underscores the principle that legislative restructuring of courts and appeals is permissible, provided it remains within constitutional boundaries, respects equality, and does not impose unjust retroactive burdens. The judgment balances the state’s need to reform court structures with protection of litigants’ rights, validating alteration of appeal forums so long as change is prospective and legally principled.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.