CHEVITI VENKANNA YADAV v. STATE OF TELANGANA & Ors.

2.1 There is a demarcation between legislative and judicial functions predicated on the theory of separation of powers. The legislature has the power to enact laws including the power to retrospectively amend laws and thereby remove .causes of ineffectiveness or invalidity. When a law is enacted with retrospective effect," it is not considered as an encroachment upon judicial power when the legislature does not directly overrule or reverse a judicial dictum. The legislature cannot, by way of an enactment, declare a decision of the court as erroneous or a nullity, but can amend the statute or the provision so as to make it applicable to the past. The legislature has the power to rectify, through an amendment, a defect in law noticed in the enactment and even highlighted in the decision of the court. This plenary power to bring the statute in conformity with the legislative intent and correct the flaw pointed out by the court, can have a curative and neutralizing effect. When such a correction is made, the purpose behind the same is not to overrule the decision of the court or encroach upon the judicial turf, but simply enact a fresh law with retrospective effect to alter the foundation and meaning of the legislation and to remove the base on which the judgment is founded. This does not amount to statutory overruling by the legislature. In this manner, the earlier decision of the court becomes non-~xistent and unenforceable for interpretation of the new legislation. No doubt, the new legislation can be tested and challenged on its own merits and on the question whether the legislature possesses the competence to legislate on the subject matter in question, but not on the ground of over-reach or colourable legislation. [Para 29) [709-E-H; 710-A-B]

2.2 Once it is held that the legislature has the power to enact the law as per its wisdom, and that too with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that the enactment is a colourable . exercise. The doctrine of colourable legislation does not involve any question of bona fide or ma/a fides on the part of the B c D E F G H 692 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R. legislature. The whole doctrine revolves itself into the question of the competency of a particular legislature to enact a particular law. If the legislature is competent to pass a particular law, the motives which impelled it to act are really inconsequential, unless they, in the amended incarnation invite the frown of any Article of the Constitution. [Para 30) [710-C-D]