Retrospective validating legislation may cure a statutory defect by removing the basis of invalidity, not by bare legislative declaration.

Retrospective validating legislation can cure a defect in an earlier statutory scheme if it removes the legal basis of the prior invalidity, but it cannot merely nullify a judicial decision by declaration alone. Here, the ordinance retrospectively expanded the definition of forest produce, replaced the rescission provision, and expressly validated the earlier notification despite any contrary judgment; on that basis, it was treated as competent validation rather than an impermissible legislative overruling. The Court also noted that the challenge could not succeed by relying on objects and reasons or executive policy, and that the restrictions imposed in support of a State monopoly were not shown to be unreasonable. The validating ordinance and the notification were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the validating ordinance was competent to cure the defect noticed in the earlier judgment and to extend the Act to forest produce in Government forests, thereby validating the notification and the rescission of the petitioners' contracts.

Analysis: The Act, as originally construed, did not apply to forest produce grown in Government forests, and the earlier decision had held the notification ineffective to that extent. The impugned ordinance, however, retrospectively enlarged the definition of forest produce, substituted the rescission provision, and expressly validated the earlier notification notwithstanding any contrary judgment, decree or order. A legislature, acting within its competence, may enact retrospective validating legislation and render a judicial decision ineffective by removing the basis of invalidity, but it cannot merely overrule a judgment by a bare declaration. Here, the ordinance did not purport to reverse the judgment in form alone; it cured the defect in the statutory framework by changing the operative provisions on which the earlier decision rested. The Court also held that the validity of such legislation could not be defeated by reference to objects and reasons or executive policy, and that the restrictions imposed in aid of a State monopoly were not shown to be unreasonable.

Conclusion: The validating ordinance was held valid, the earlier notification was effectively validated in relation to sal seeds in Government forests, and the challenge to the ordinance failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature may retrospectively validate an invalid action or notification by removing the statutory defect on which the prior judicial decision was founded, but only if it alters the legal basis rather than merely annulling the judgment by declaration.

---