Legislative annulment of final judgments and hostile discrimination under Article 14 rendered the cashew acquisition amendment invalid.

Section 6 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Amendment Act, 1995 was held invalid because it attempted to nullify final inter partes judgments of the Supreme Court without removing the legal basis of those decisions, which is beyond legislative power. The provision also failed Article 14 because it singled out 10 factories for continued acquisition while 36 similarly situated factories were treated differently, despite a common factual and statutory backdrop. The classification lacked intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the stated object, so the acquisition under the amendment could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 6 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Amendment Act, 1995 was unconstitutional for directly nullifying final judgments of the Supreme Court without altering the legal basis of the earlier decisions. (ii) Whether Section 6 violated Article 14 by treating the 10 factories differently from the 36 similarly situated factories.

Issue (i): Whether Section 6 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Amendment Act, 1995 was unconstitutional for directly nullifying final judgments of the Supreme Court without altering the legal basis of the earlier decisions.

Analysis: A legislature may retrospectively change the law and thereby remove or alter the basis of a judicial decision, but it cannot exercise judicial power by simply declaring a final inter partes judgment ineffective. Section 6 contained a non obstante clause overriding any judgment and operated only upon the 10 factories specifically covered by the Schedule, which had been ordered to be returned under the prior final decision. No independent acquisition procedure with notice or hearing was provided for this new route, and the provision was directed at overturning a concluded judicial determination rather than curing the defect in the original acquisition.

Conclusion: Section 6 was unconstitutional as an impermissible legislative annulment of a final judicial decision and not a valid removal of the basis of the earlier judgment.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 6 violated Article 14 by treating the 10 factories differently from the 36 similarly situated factories.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed that the State itself had issued common notices on identical footing to all 46 factories, and the objects of the amending law made no real distinction between the factories retained by the State and those ordered to be restored. The object of the legislation was to address the same supposed public interest and unemployment concerns across the board, yet only the 10 factories were singled out for continued acquisition. The classification therefore lacked an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.

Conclusion: Section 6 violated Article 14 and was invalid on the ground of hostile discrimination.

Final Conclusion: The amending provision could not sustain itself either as a permissible legislative response to earlier judgments or as a valid classification under the equality guarantee, and the acquisition under it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature may retrospectively change the legal basis of a judgment, but it cannot directly nullify a final judicial decision inter partes, and any classification in a validating law must satisfy intelligible differentia with rational nexus to the statutory object.

---