The Supreme Court reiterated that judicial decisions operate retrospectively by default. A judgment applies from the beginning of the law it interprets, not merely from the date of the ruling. Only when the Court explicitly states that its decision is prospective will future-only application be permitted. This principle flows from the declaratory theory of law — courts declare what the law always was, not what it becomes. The ruling reinforces limits on judicial power to restrict access to legal remedies.

The retrospectivity of judicial decisions rests on the declaratory theory of adjudication: courts do not make law, they declare what the law has always been. Therefore, when a court interprets a statute or strikes down a provision, the ruling relates back to the moment the law came into existence. This is distinct from prospective overruling, a doctrine first adopted in India in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), where the Supreme Court held that its own ruling would not affect past transactions.

The power to make a judgment prospective is an exception, not the rule. It requires an express direction in the judgment itself. Without such direction, all parties — including those whose matters were decided under the old, now-incorrect position — are entitled to seek relief on the basis of the new ruling.

The tension this creates is practical: retrospective application can unsettle settled rights and create an avalanche of litigation. Courts therefore balance individual justice against systemic disruption when deciding whether to invoke prospective overruling.

Under Article 141, the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts in India. Combined with retrospectivity, this means a fresh interpretation of any provision immediately governs all pending and even past transactions unless the Court expressly shields them. CLAT PG passage questions on this topic test whether aspirants can distinguish when prospective overruling was applied versus when retrospectivity was the default.