2026 Supreme(Cal) 202

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
GAURANG KANTH, J.
Sahujain Charitable Society And Anr. – Petitioners 
Versus 
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors. - Respondents
WPO 1220 of 2024
Decided On : 24-03-2026

The legislature cannot utilize retrospective validating statutes to nullify binding judicial pronouncements or resurrect time-barred tax liabilities unless the specific foundational defect is removed; such attempts violate separation of powers and protected constitutional rights regarding property and arbitrary state action.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 300A and 13 - Municipal Taxation - Retrospective amendment of statute - Validity of legislative override of judicial pronouncement - Scope of legislative competence - The legislature may modify or cure a defect identified by judicial pronouncement but cannot nullify the finality of a binding judgment to resurrect a time-barred and previously invalidated fiscal liability. The non-obstante clause and the validating fiction rendering prior illegal revisions and recoveries as valid are unconstitutional and violate the doctrine of separation of powers and the protection against arbitrary deprivation of property. (Paras 61, 63, 69, 74, 77, 79)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Doctrines of Severability and Reading Down - Where part of a statute attempts to retroactively nullify a binding judgment without curing the underlying constitutional infirmity, that part is severable - The remaining portion providing for future temporal limits on revaluation remains operative as it falls within legislative competence for fiscal administration, provided it does not reopen crystallised liabilities. (Paras 79, 80, 81, 82)

Facts of the case:
The petition challenged a legislative amendment that substituted a section of a local municipal act. This amendment, through a non-obstante clause, sought to validate past tax revaluations and collections that had been explicitly invalidated by a previous court judgment, which had fixed a reasonable time period for such retrospective fiscal acts. The petitioner contested the demand notices issued on the strength of this retroactive legislation, arguing it violated constitutional guarantees of property rights and separation of powers by overriding a final judicial determination.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the legislature has the power to enact fiscal laws retrospectively, such power does not permit the nullification of binding judicial decisions that have attained finality. The attempt to legislatively resurrect liabilities that had been extinguished by law was inconsistent with constitutional provisions. The court severed the invalid sections, including the non-obstante clause and the retrospective validation clause, while preserving the prospective portion of the amendment that set a temporal limit on future revaluations.

Issues: Whether an amendment empowering retroactive tax revaluation and validating previously invalidated demands constitutes a valid exercise of legislative power or an impermissible encroachment upon judicial independence and constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi: Legislative power to enact curative fiscal legislation is limited to removing the foundation of a judicial decision and cannot extend to explicitly overriding the final judgment itself. Attempting to reopen and enforce tax liabilities that were judicially determined to be expired is arbitrary and infringes upon separated powers and protection against arbitrary deprivation of property.

Result: Writ petition partly allowed; the non-obstante clause and the validation provision are declared unconstitutional, and the impugned demand notices are quashed.