Retrospective validation cannot override final court decisions; a legislature may cure defects, not annul binding adjudication.

A retrospective validating measure may cure the defect on which a judgment rests, but it cannot directly nullify a final judicial decision. The Kerala Ordinance sought to regularise cancelled medical admissions despite prior findings by the Admission Supervisory Committee, the High Court and the Supreme Court that the admissions were invalid and contrary to the prescribed online application process. Because the Ordinance did not remove any legal defect in the governing admissions framework and instead attempted to override binding adjudications, it amounted to legislative interference with the judicial function and offended separation of powers and the rule of law. The Ordinance was therefore unconstitutional and beyond legislative competence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Kerala Professional Colleges (Regularisation of Admission in Medical Colleges) Ordinance, 2017, which sought to regularise cancelled medical admissions notwithstanding prior judicial orders, was a permissible exercise of legislative power.

Analysis: The Ordinance was directed at a concluded controversy and attempted to restore admissions that had already been invalidated by the Admission Supervisory Committee, the High Court, and the Supreme Court. A legislature may retrospectively amend law or enact a validating measure by removing the defect on which a judgment rests, but it cannot directly annul or overrule a final judicial decision or trench upon the judicial function. The Ordinance did not remove any defect in the existing law governing admissions; instead, it sought to validate admissions irrespective of the mandated online application process and the prior findings of illegality. Such a measure amounted to legislative interference with final adjudication and offended the separation of powers and the rule of law.

Conclusion: The Ordinance was unconstitutional and beyond legislative competence, as it impermissibly attempted to nullify binding judicial determinations.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Ordinance could not stand because it sought to override final court orders rather than cure any legal defect, and the writ petitions were therefore allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature may cure the basis of a judgment by a competent retrospective amendment, but it cannot set aside a final judicial decision by direct legislative fiat.

---