Vested right of appeal protected against retrospective procedural change to High Court appeal routing.

A rule or statute is presumed to operate prospectively, particularly where retrospective effect would impair vested rights. Although procedural amendments may generally apply to pending matters, that principle does not extend to a rule that destroys or materially burdens an accrued right of appeal. The right of appeal to the Supreme Court was treated as a vested right attaching when the suit was instituted, and the amended High Court rule could not take that right away unless retrospective operation was clearly expressed. The amendment, by shifting certain second appeals from a Division Bench to a single Judge, was therefore held not to apply to cases instituted before 8 May 1951.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended High Court rule, which required certain second appeals to be heard by a single Judge, applied to appeals arising from cases instituted before 8 May 1951 and thereby affected the vested right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Analysis: A rule or statute is presumed to operate prospectively unless its language or necessary implication shows a contrary intention, especially where vested rights are affected. Although procedural changes may generally apply to pending matters, that principle does not extend to a rule which destroys or substantially impairs an accrued right of appeal. The right of appeal to the Supreme Court under the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions was treated as a vested right attaching when the suit was instituted, and such a right could not be taken away by a procedural rule unless retrospective operation was clearly indicated. The amended rule, by diverting certain appeals from a Division Bench to a single Judge, would prevent or seriously burden the further appeal route and therefore affected substantive rights rather than mere practice.

Conclusion: The amended rule did not apply to second appeals arising out of cases instituted before 8 May 1951. The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the appellant.

---