Karnataka High Court Upholds 2023 Amendments to Civil and High Court Acts

Introduction

The Karnataka High Court was hearing a petition that questioned whether the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 were constitutional and valid.

The High Court of Karnataka upheld the constitutional validity of the 2 laws which are the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023. However, the court also mentioned that applying the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 to the previous cases was unreasonable and unfair. It will cause confusion and contradictions with the other parts of the laws. 

Justice M.I. Arun stated that all the changes which are made are correct and legally valid. Appeals from Civil Judges going to the District Court and the first appeals from the City Civil Court being heard by a High Court’s Single Judge regardless of the monetary value of the case was valid. 

In this article let’s see how the Karnataka High Court upheld the 2023 amendments to the Civil and High Court acts. 

Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023

Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 states that all the changes made to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 through this amendment will apply retrospectively from 28 August 2007 (meaning they will be treated as effective from that date). If any problem or confusion arises while applying these amendments, the State Government can issue an order (published in the Official Gazette) to solve it as long as it doesn’t go against the Act. 

This special power can only be used within two years from when the Act starts. This special power can only be used within two years from when the Act starts. This amendment clarifies that appeals from a Senior Civil Judge go to the District Court and grants the government limited power to fix any issues that arise in implementing these changes, effective from 28 August 2007.

Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023

The Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 amends some parts of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The main aim behind this amendment was to make the legal procedures clearer and faster. Especially about the first and second appeals in the High Court. Karnataka’s Law Commission in 2023 suggested that there is a need to update some procedures and definitions under the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. This would help in disposing of cases faster.

So, this amendment redefines what is meant by First Appeal and Second Appeal and makes related changes. It came into effect immediately after being passed. Earlier, the terms First Appeal and Second Appeal were defined differently. First appeal now means an appeal that goes to the High Court against the decision (Judgment, Decree, or Order) of a City Civil Judge who handled the case originally (in original jurisdiction). It also includes appeals that can be made under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) from any subordinate civil court.

Second appeal means an appeal that goes to the High Court against the decision made by a Senior Civil Judge or District Judge. It is an appeal against the appellate order. With the amendment all the first appeals will now be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court. Earlier, some were also heard by the Division Bench. 

The State Government can issue an order to fix if any difficulties or confusion arises when the new law is being applied. However, the State Government can use this power only within 2 years from the date on which the Act came into effect. 

Baburao vs. The State of Karnataka (2025)

Brief details of the case

Name of the caseBaburao vs. The State of Karnataka
Case numberWP 201536/2024 (KAHC030055622024)
Parties to the casePetitioner –  BaburaoRespondent – The State of Karnataka
Type of caseWrit Petition
BenchJustice M.I. ARUN
Date of judgement 24/09/2025

Background of the case

In this case, a social worker and agriculturalist (petitioner) has filed a writ petition in the court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petition challenges the 2 amendments which were passed by the Karnataka Legislature. 

The pecuniary and appellate jurisdictions across the state were altered significantly with these amendments. The appeals from decrees of the Senior Civil Judges were now transferred to the District Court and the first appeals from the City Civil Judges to Single Judge of the High Court in place of Division Bench. The retrospective effect was given to the new provisions from August, 2007. 

Arguments of the petitioner and the respondent

Arguments from the petitioner side

The petitioner argued that the amendments which were introduced took away the right to appeal which was already existing. This right is a substantial legal right and not a procedural matter. All the court decisions which are made since 2007 would get cancelled with the retrospective effect of the law, which will undo the cases which were already settled. 

It was further argued that the amendments were unreasonable and unfair in nature. It also violated Article 14 of the Constitution. There was no provision related to the protection of the already decided or the ongoing appeals. There was no logical connection to the goal of the government which was to reduce the pending cases. Instead, this would create confusion in the courts related to reopening of the cases that were already decided. 

The petitioner supported their argument by citing two Supreme Court cases, Bhagat Ram Sharma vs. Union of India (1988) and Cochin Devaswom Board vs. Vamana Setti (1966) held that retrospective laws should not take away rights that people have already earned or “vested.”

Arguments from the respondent side

The representatives of the respondents argued that introducing such amendments was part of the policy decision which was taken to minimise the backlog of the first appeals in the High Court. It was being done to make the procedure faster by allowing District Courts to handle some of the cases too. It was further argued that the right to appeal is not a fundamental right however, a right which is given by the law. The legislature can change it if there is a question of public interest. 

It was also argued that if some people are facing some kind of inconvenience due to this change, it does not make the law invalid. The government has the power to change it with a reasonable purpose.

In relation to the retrospective clause, the respondent pointed out that the notification of the government which was issued on 24th June, 2024 had specifically mentioned that the amendment would only apply in the future. Hence the ground of the petitioner’s objection is no longer valid. 

Precedents analysed in the case

In Calcutta Gujarati Education Society vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation (2003) court said that while judges should respect what the legislature intended, they can “read down” a law to avoid ridiculous or unfair results. “Reading down” doesn’t mean changing the law; it just makes it work properly. In this case, the court limited the retrospective clause to protect the purpose of the law without causing injustice.

In another case Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (2010), the court stated that the judges should not replace the decisions of the legislature with their own interpretation of what is fair. But if the literal reading of the law leads to absurd results, then the court can use its own interpretation to make sense. 

In Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1975), the court held that judges can’t change the procedure laid down by law. This was used to reject the State’s attempt to correct a legislative mistake through an executive order.

Observation of the court

  • The court observed that the main aim of the amendments was to reduce the backlogs of the cases and ensure that there was a speedy disposal of the first appeals in the High Court.
  • The amendments made to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 in relation to appeals from Senior Civil Judges to District Courts and the first appeals from the City Civil Council to the High Courts being heard by Single Judge are fair and valid. 
  • The court however observed that the retrospective effect given to the Act was unreasonable and arbitrary. 
  • This could lead to potentially nullifying judgments and confusion in the cases which are already decided. 
  • The State cannot give retrospective effect using a notification, there should be a proper legislative amendment. 
  • The absence of a saving clause for pending or decided appeals made retrospective implementation problematic.

Judgement of the case

The constitutional validity of the acts was upheld by the court. In its order dated 24 September 2025 in Baburao vs. The State of Karnataka, the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, partly allowed the petition. The court cancelled the retrospective effect that was given to the amendment of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act through the Karnataka Act No. 33 of 2024, which was earlier made effective from 28 August 2007. 

The court held that this amendment will apply only prospectively, meaning it will be valid from now onwards and not from the past. However, the court upheld all the other amendments made to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, and also approved the changes made to the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, through the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023.

The court directed that all pending First Appeals should be transferred to the proper courts as per the amended Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 2023. It also clarified that any judgments already passed by courts under the old law will remain valid. Similarly, judgments given by the Division Bench of the High Court under the old provisions will continue to stand until the new law comes into full effect.

As per the amended Section 17 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, all pending cases (original suits) before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, where the case value is up to ₹15 lakh, must now be transferred to the Civil Judge’s Court. Also, all pending First Appeals before the High Court that are now to be heard by a Single Judge must be listed before the concerned Single Judge.

The High Court has directed all officers and staff of the Principal Bench at Bengaluru and the Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi, as well as all District Court judges, to immediately start transferring the pending cases and appeals according to the new amendments and the Court’s directions. The Court has also disposed of all pending interim (interlocutory) applications.

Conclusion

The Baburao case reinforces that while legislative amendments to procedural laws are valid to improve efficiency and reduce case backlogs, retrospective application must be approached cautiously. It should be noted that the retrospective amendments affecting vested rights require explicit legislative action and a saving clause to protect already decided or pending cases. The judgment highlights the balance courts maintain between respecting legislative intent and preventing unfair or absurd outcomes.

References

Categories

Related Posts

Linkedin-in Instagram Facebook