Introduction
This doctrine or rule
has been incorporated in a number of legislations and Service Jurisprudence in India. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘relation back’ as: -
“The doctrine that an act done at a later time is, under
certain circumstances, treated as though it occurred at an earlier time.”
There are number of
Judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the same has been
explained in relation to various legislations.
Case Laws
1. Delhi Jal
Board v. Mahinder Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 210
The Supreme Court
applied the Doctrine of Relation Back in Service Jurisprudence by holding that
the findings of a disciplinary enquiry exonerating an Officer would have to be
given effect to as they relate back to the date on which the charges are
framed. If the Disciplinary Enquiry ends in favour of the Officer, it is as if
the Officer had not been subjected to any disciplinary enquiry. Promotion and
other service related benefits cannot be denied merely because disciplinary
enquiry was pending at the time when the Officer was in the zone of
consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental
Promotion Committee can, at best, keep its decision in abeyance till the
Disciplinary Enquiry ends in favour of the Officer.
2. Deo Nandan v.
Ram Saran, (2000) 3 SCC 440
The Supreme Court held
that the doctrine of relation back has been incorporated in Sections 134 and
137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
3. Sampath Kumar
v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559
The Supreme Court
applied the Doctrine of Relation Back to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Amendment of Plaint). The Court said that:
“An amendment once
incorporated relates back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of
Relation Back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of universal
application and in appropriate cases the court is competent while permitting an
amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to
the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have
been brought before the court on the date on which the application seeking the
amendment was filed.”
In the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, the Court held that if a party has already perfected
his title by way of adverse possession, then the right so accrued should not be
allowed to be defeated by permitting an Amendment in the Plaint and seeking new
relief which would related back to the date of the Suit and thereby depriving
such party the advantage accrued by lapse of time by excluding the period of
prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by such party. At best, the
Amendment in Relief Clause of the Plaint shall be deemed to have been made on
the date on which the Application for Amendment in Plaint has been filed.
4. South Konkan
Distilleries v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik, (2008) 14 SCC 632
This is a similar case
wherein the Supreme Court said that in cases where the amendment was barred by
time or not, is a disputed question of fact, the prayer for amendment may be
allowed and the issue of limitation can be made an issue in the Suit itself.
The Court, further, said that in such cases, the Amendment made cannot relate
to the date of filing of the Suit, but to the date of filing of the Amendment
Application.
5. Addagada
Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma, (1964) 2 SCR 933
The Supreme Court applied
the Relation Back Doctrine to Hindu Law in the following manner: -
“The doctrine of
relation back has already been recognized by Hindu law developed by courts and
applied in that branch of the law pertaining to adoption. There are two
ingredients of a declaration of a member's intention to separate. One is the
expression of the intention and the other is bringing the expression to the
knowledge of the person or persons affected. When once the knowledge is brought
home — that depends upon the facts of each case — it relates back to the date
when the intention is formed and expressed. But between the two dates, the
person expressing the intention may lose his interest in the family property;
he may withdraw his intention to divide; he may die before his intention to
divide is conveyed to the other members of the family: with the result his
interest survives to the other members. A manager of a joint Hindu family may
sell away the entire family property for debts binding on the family. There may
be similar other instances. If the doctrine of relation back is invoked without
any limitation thereon, vested rights so created will be affected and settled
titles may be disturbed. Principles of equity require and common sense demands
that a limitation which avoids the confusion of titles must be placed on it.
What would be more equitable and reasonable than to suggest that the doctrine
should not affect vested rights? By imposing such a limitation we are not
curtailing the scope of any well established Hindu law doctrine, but we are
invoking only a principle by analogy subject to a limitation to meet a
contingency. Further, the principle of retroactivity, unless a legislative
intention is clearly to the contrary, saves vested rights. As the doctrine of
relation back involves retroactivity by parity of reasoning, it cannot affect
vested rights. It would follow that, though the date of severance is that of
manifestation of the intention to separate the right accrued to others in the
joint family property between the said manifestation and the knowledge of it by
the other members would be saved.”
Concluding Remarks
Thus, from the
aforestated case-laws, it is clear that Indian Courts have applied the Doctrine
of Relation Back to Service Jurisprudence and a number of legislations
involving Hindu Law, Labour Laws, CPC etc. The Rule of Relation Back is not an
inviolable principle that has universal application but is a tool in the hands
of the Court as well as the lawmakers to assist them to do justice and be
equitable while framing laws or pronouncing judgments.
List of Doctrines
2. Doctrine of Delegated Legislation and the Constitution of India
3. Doctrine of Territorial Nexus and the Constitution of India
3. Doctrine of Territorial Nexus and the Constitution of India
4. Doctrine of Occupied Field and the Constitution of India
5. Doctrine of Pith and Substance and the Constitution of India
6. Doctrine of Colorable Legislation and the Constitution of India
5. Doctrine of Pith and Substance and the Constitution of India
6. Doctrine of Colorable Legislation and the Constitution of India
No comments:
Post a Comment