Prospective application

Judgments of the Supreme Court operate prospectively unless declared otherwise.

Legislation that touches the vested rights of individual cannot be given retrospective effect unless clearly indicated by the legislature.

Rules have to be applied prospectively but, the argument advanced by the learned counsel qua prospective application with the view that the Rules have to be applied after the year 2020 upon those civil servants who have been appointed after the said year is misplaced, rather it applies to all those who have completed 20 years of their service as the pre-condition of S. 13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, is completion of 20 years of service by a civil servant and, as such, the Rules are made applicable to those civil servants only

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Legislation that touches the vested rights of individual cannot be given retrospective effect unless clearly indicated by the legislature.

Rules have to be applied prospectively but, the argument advanced by the learned counsel qua prospective application with the view that the Rules have to be applied after the year 2020 upon those civil servants who have been appointed after the said year is misplaced, rather it applies to all those who have completed 20 years of their service as the pre-condition of S. 13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, is completion of 20 years of service by a civil servant and, as such, the Rules are made applicable to those civil servants only

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Sindh Environmental Protection Agency through its authorized officer filed a complaint alleging therein that the accused had initiated construction of a project of ground plus 16 floors high rise building without seeking environmental approval as required under S. 17 of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014

Accused sought premature acquittal through an application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Construction of the project had commenced prior to promulgation of Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014

Violation, if any, had constituted an offence punishable under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997

Since no action under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, was initiated against the accused on commission of alleged offence, therefore, the penal provisions of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014 forming a part of substantive law and not procedural one, could not be termed to have retrospective effect as such penal provisions followed by the conviction and punishment, could not take away the right of a person by applying it retrospectively

Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014, as per S. 1(3) had come into force at once, replacing the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, therefore, it could not have retrospective effect so as to apply it for the past matter, retrospectively

No probability of conviction of accused existed in the case of which the very charge was groundless

Accused was acquitted of the charge.

Executive order or notification which is detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of a person, cannot operate retrospectively

However, beneficial executive order/notification issued by the executive functionary can be given retrospective effect.

Notification which imposes or enhances liabilities cannot be given retrospective effect to the extent of rights already stood created and if the same is beneficial it may be given retrospective effect.

Change in substantive law, which divested and adversely affected the vested rights of the parties should always have prospective application, unless by express word of the legislation and/or by necessary intendment/implication such law had been made applicable retrospectively

Vested and substantive rights of parties should be decided according to the law which was prevalent when the action was initiated and the door of the court was knocked; and/or machinery (of the court) was set in motion.