Validating legislation may cure defects by retrospectively changing the legal basis, not merely overturning a court decision.

A validating law is constitutionally effective where the legislature has competence over the subject matter and retrospectively amends the underlying legal basis that supported an earlier invalidation. The text explains that a legislature cannot simply nullify a court decision, but it may cure the defect by changing the governing regulatory norm so the prior result no longer follows. Here, the retrospective amendment to the zoning regulations altered the height restriction and validated permissions, constructions, and regularised deviations for the relevant period. Because the change removed the foundation of the earlier judgment rather than merely declaring it ineffective, the Act was within legislative competence and constitutionally valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996 was constitutionally valid and, in particular, whether it merely nullified the earlier judicial decision or validly removed the basis of that decision by retrospectively altering the governing planning regulations.

Analysis: A validating law is competent if the legislature has power over the subject matter and, by retrospective amendment, cures the defect that formed the foundation of the earlier judicial invalidation. The legislature cannot simply declare a court's decision ineffective, but it can alter the legal basis on which the decision rested so that the same result would no longer follow in the altered legal setting. Here, the earlier decision proceeded on the footing that the applicable zonal regulations limited building height to 55 feet. The impugned Act retrospectively modified those regulations and validated permissions and constructions made during the relevant period, including by regularisation of deviations. The change was not merely formal: it altered the substantive norm on which the High Court had relied and therefore removed the very foundation of the prior judgment.

Conclusion: The Act was within legislative competence and was constitutionally valid; it did not amount to an impermissible legislative reversal of the judicial decision.

---