Why Litigation; Why Courts?
IF retrospective legislation is so right and legal, why do we need the courts and why should anyone enter into litigation? Is it fair for the Government to change the rules after they lost the game? And what is the legislature on which the Supreme Court has conferred so much unfettered right to legislate? Most of the retrospective laws are not even read in Parliament and often it takes about 120 seconds to pass a retrospective legislation. The Law is actually made by the babus, often by an Under Secretary, almost always to cover up the mistakes of the bureaucrats and this cover-up is given respect in the name of "legislative will". The arrogance of the babu can be clearly seen behind every word in the legislation - "so what if I made a mistake, Parliament will retrospectively amend my mistakes; if I make a mistake, Supreme Court finds fault with me, but if I correct it and say Parliament has done it, Supreme Court will ratify it!"
Retrospective legislation is in fact a vulgar manifestation of the contempt the Babu has for Parliament and Supreme Court.
And if they want to change the law retrospectively, why can't they do it before the Supreme Court gives its judgement? They fight the battle in the Supreme Court in all seriousness, sure of winning either way – heads I win; tails you lose. If they win in the Supreme Court, that's fine; if they lose, they can always amend the law retrospectively!
Maybe we should have a law that a tax appeal can be made in the Supreme Court only if an Under Secretary in the Revenue Department certifies that the Government will not amend the law retrospectively. If the Government does not like the appeal, it can immediately pass a law amending the provisions retrospectively. And the power to amend the law retrospectively should be delegated to the Under Secretary – that will save a lot of time, money and paper and reduce litigation!