The Karnataka High Court has affirmed the constitutional validity of the 2023 amendments that reroute first appeals against decrees and orders issued by senior civil judges to district courts. The decision was rendered on Wednesday by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha, who upheld the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023.
Previously, appeals from suits valued over ₹10 lakh were directed to the High Court. Under the new legal framework, however, all appeals from decrees and orders passed by senior civil judges in civil cases will now be heard by the district court. While the court endorsed the amendments, it did modify Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act, which initially intended to apply the changes retrospectively from August 28, 2007.
“We find no difficulty in reading down Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act to exclude from its retrospective operation (i) all appeals that stand concluded by final judgments and orders; and (ii) all orders passed in proceedings that are pending,” noted the Court. The Bench clarified that the retrospective effect of the amendments would only apply to ongoing appellate proceedings, allowing them to continue from the stage they are transferred to the appropriate court.
The Court also stated that proceedings conducted before the amendments took effect, and those continued due to the High Court’s interim order on July 3, 2024, will not be deemed illegal or nullified. The petitions had contested the amendments, alleging they were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that parties have a vested right to have their appeals heard by the High Court, and that the retrospective application would invalidate past judgments.
In defense, the State argued that the amendments were designed to alleviate the backlog in the High Court and promote “justice at the doorstep.” The State also cited the Karnataka Law Commission’s opinion, which supported transferring pending regular first appeals to district courts to ease the High Court’s burden.
In a ruling delivered on July 8, the High Court observed that, while the right to appeal is substantive, the forum for hearing an appeal is a procedural matter. It further explained that procedural amendments are generally retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise, as in the current case where Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act specified retrospective application from August 28, 2007. However, the Court clarified that the law should not be interpreted to unsettle final judgments.
“It is common ground that the concluded appeals cannot be reopened, and it is not the legislative intent to render the decisions delivered in Regular First Appeals a nullity or without jurisdiction,” the Court emphasized. The argument that the amendment discriminated against litigants outside Bengaluru was dismissed, as the Court noted a valid distinction: city civil judges in Bengaluru hold district judge-cadre positions, unlike senior civil judges in other districts.
“Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits reasonable classification and, as noted above, there is sufficient reason for excluding appeals arising from Courts of the Bengaluru Urban District,” the Bench stated. Senior Advocate SM Chandrashekar appeared as Amicus Curiae, while the petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates KN Phanindra, Vivek Reddy, and DR Ravishankar, along with advocate Rohith R Kumar. The State Government was represented by Additional Advocate General Kiran V Ron and Additional Government Advocate Niloufer Akbar.
