Curative amendment to disqualification proviso held retrospective, preserving municipal disqualification from the original commencement date.

Substitution of "after" with "upto" in the proviso to Section 13A(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act was treated as a curative amendment correcting a drafting error and removing an absurdity. Because the change was intended to align the text with the original two-child norm introduced by the First Amendment Act, it operated retrospectively and related back to 5 April 1994. The disqualification therefore had to be tested from that date, and the challenge to the municipal disqualification failed, leaving the removal from office sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the substitution of the word "after" by "upto" in the proviso to Section 13A(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 by the Haryana Municipal (Second Amendment) Act, 1994 was declaratory and retrospective, and whether the appellant's disqualification had to be tested with reference to the date of commencement of the First Amendment Act.

Analysis: The disqualification under Section 13A(1)(c) was introduced by the First Amendment Act with effect from 5 April 1994 to give effect to the two-child norm. The proviso, as originally drafted, produced an absurd result if read literally, because it would have made the embargo operate only for one year and then cease. The Second Amendment substituted the word "upto" for "after" to remove that drafting error and to bring the text into conformity with the legislative intent. A substitution of this kind is treated as replacing the earlier text, and a curative or declaratory amendment that supplies an obvious omission or removes an absurdity ordinarily operates retrospectively where that is necessary to effectuate the original intent. On that construction, the amended proviso related back to the commencement of the First Amendment.

Conclusion: The Second Amendment was declaratory and retrospective, and the appellant remained disqualified because the relevant period ran from 5 April 1994.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the disqualification failed, and the judgment sustaining the removal from municipal office stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A substitution made to cure a drafting error and remove an absurdity in a proviso is to be construed as declaratory and retrospective when it is necessary to give effect to the legislature's original intent.

---