Legislative Override of Judicial Decisions

A legislative override occurs when a legislature changes the law after a court has interpreted or invalidated it. The legislature may remove the legal basis of the decision, but it cannot simply annul the judgment or usurp judicial power.

Permissible legislative response

A legislature may change the law underlying a judgment, including retrospectively, and may enact a validating law. Under Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills v. Broach Municipality, 1969, such legislation must remove the legal defect identified by the court rather than merely command that the judgment be disregarded.

• The law must fall within the enacting legislature's constitutional competence.
• Retrospective operation may validate earlier actions if the constitutional defect has genuinely been cured.

Constitutional limits

Legislation cannot simply declare a binding judicial decision wrong, reverse an individual decree, or directly exercise the judicial function. The changed law must satisfy Article 13, fundamental rights, legislative competence and other constitutional limitations.

• Parliament may alter the constitutional basis of a decision through Article 368, but the amendment cannot damage the basic structure under Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973.
• A colourable attempt to nullify adjudication without changing its legal basis violates the separation of powers and the rule of law.
• The legislature may change the law applicable to a class of cases, but it cannot function as an appellate court in a particular dispute.

Application to tribunals

Parliament may design tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B, but tribunal legislation remains subject to constitutional judicial review. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997, the Supreme Court held that review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and by the Supreme Court under Article 32, forms part of the basic structure.

• Tribunals may supplement the constitutional courts, but legislation cannot make them complete substitutes for High Courts in judicial review.
• A fresh tribunal law must cure defects relating to independence or institutional design identified by the judiciary; merely reenacting invalid provisions is insufficient.