Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-03-15 partly_allowed

State of Karnataka & Ors vs Karnataka Pawn Brokers Assn. & Ors

Bench: 2 — Deepak Gupta

In Brief

Karnataka amended its Money Lenders and Pawn Brokers Acts in 1998 to provide that security deposits would not carry interest, making the change retrospective from 1985. Money lenders and pawn brokers challenged this as violating an earlier judgment that had directed interest be paid. The Supreme Court held that while the prospective amendments are valid and constitutional (non-payment of interest is not arbitrary or violative of Article 14), the retrospective amendments are illegal because they attempt to nullify a court's mandamus, breaching the doctrine of separation of powers. The Legislature can amend statutes to remedy defects, but cannot overturn judicial decisions by introducing wholly new provisions that did not exist when the judgment was rendered.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Separation of Powers Administrative Law Labor and Employment Law Regulation of Trade

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login