Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry
Rule established
The right of appeal is a substantive right, not merely a procedural one. It vests in a litigant on the date the suit is instituted. A subsequent amendment taking away the right cannot operate retrospectively unless expressly provided.
Facts
- Suit was instituted under the old law which provided a right of appeal
- While the suit was pending, the statute was amended removing the right of appeal
- After decree was passed, the losing party sought to appeal
- Respondent argued the amendment applied and no appeal lay
Issue
- Whether an amendment removing the right of appeal applies to suits instituted before the amendment.
Held
- The right of appeal is a substantive right (not merely procedural)
- It vests on the date the lis commences (suit is filed)
- A subsequent amendment cannot retrospectively take away a vested right
- Exception: only if the amending Act expressly or by necessary implication provides for retrospective operation
- Appeal held to be maintainable under the old law
Ratio Decidendi
The right of appeal is a vested substantive right that accrues at the commencement of the lis. Retrospective operation of a statute taking away substantive rights is not to be presumed unless the Legislature has clearly so provided. The presumption against retrospectivity is strongest where vested rights would be disturbed.
How to use it in an exam
- Leading authority on substantive vs procedural; retrospective legislation
- Five propositions are quotable for Part B
- Key line: "In Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry (1957), the Supreme Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive vested right accruing at institution of suit and cannot be retrospectively taken away by amendment."
Source
Source: AIR 1957 SC 540
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.