Retrospective supervisory power cannot reopen a final pre-Constitution order absent express constitutional intent.

Article 227 was held not to operate retrospectively to reopen a final order made before the Constitution came into force. The text applied the settled principle that a later procedural provision may act retrospectively only where that construction is textually permissible, but a provision affecting existing rights does not do so unless express words or necessary intendment show that result. As no express retrospective language or necessary intendment was found in Article 227, the Constitution did not authorise interference with the earlier final order.

---

---

Issues: Whether Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be invoked to interfere with an order that had become final before the Constitution came into force.

Analysis: The order challenged was made at a time when no power of interference of the kind later conferred by Article 227 existed. The principle applied was that a later procedural provision may operate retrospectively only if such construction is textually permissible, but a provision affecting an existing right is not retrospective in the absence of express language or necessary intendment. No such express words or necessary intendment were found in Article 227, and therefore the Constitution did not authorise reopening of the earlier final order.

Conclusion: Article 227 could not be applied retrospectively to disturb the prior final order, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional or statutory provision conferring supervisory or appellate power will not operate retrospectively to reopen a final order made before the provision came into force unless retrospective operation is expressly provided or necessarily intended.

---