This article deals with the question of the applicability of the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018.

“The essential idea of a legal system is that current law should govern current activities” (1)

The Specific Relief Amendment Act, 2018 repealed and substituted some provisions of the principal act. The Specific Relief (Amendment) Bill, 2017 was introduced in the Parliament on 22nd December, 2017. It was passed by the Lok Sabha on 15th March, 2018 and the Rajya Sabha on 23rd July, 2018. It received the assent of the President on 1st August, 2018. 

The Amendment Act substituted Section 10 of the principal Act as follows:

“Section 10. The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 11, section 14 and section 16.”

The amendment seeks to increase the disposal rate of cases and provide speedy justice to the parties in such suits. The question that arises is whether the amendments will be applicable prospectively or retrospectively. In the absence of any provision, the General Clauses Act, 1897 comes into picture so as to decide the applicability of this amendment.

The General Clauses Act was enacted with the objective of simplifying interpretation of specific terms and provisions which are not expressly described by the enactment but are commonly used. It can be seen as a statute which facilitates interpretation of other statutes.

The General Clauses Act was enacted with the objective of simplifying interpretation of specific terms and provisions which are not expressly described by the enactment but are commonly used. It can be seen as a statute which facilitates interpretation of other statutes. Section 6 of the Act states that the repeal of a provision shall not be retrospective unless the enactment states the retrospective application of the amendments. 

Applying the golden rule of construction, the court in Garikapatti Veeraya case (2) ruled that there was nothing to show that the Act applicable in the case would have retrospective effect, so it would be applied prospectively. 

Prior to the amendment, the plaintiff seeking specific performance of the contract had to prove that compensation was either inadequate or unascertainable. The case of Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi (3) was decided by Supreme Court and it was held that :-

“It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief.”

According to theories of jurisprudence, rights and duties are co-existent. Salmond proposed the theory of rights, he believed that no right exists without a corresponding duty. The duty of a person is the right vested in another person. This obligation of the plaintiff seeking specific performance can be viewed as a corresponding right or privilege enjoyed by the defendant.

Salmond proposed the theory of rights, he believed that no right exists without a corresponding duty. The duty of a person is the right vested in another person.

It is understood that unless a savings clause is inserted in the act, the amendments cannot be retrospectively applied. By the saving clause, action taken under the repealed provisions must be treated to have been done under the new enacted laws. An interpretation clause may also be inserted in a statute or a contract declaring as to how to go about the interpretation.

In the absence of the above two, the alternative remaining is interpreting the implied meaning. It has not been implied anywhere in the entire amendment act that the amended provisions would be applicable retrospectively. Hence, it can be concluded that the amendments are applicable prospectively.

(1) Garikapatti Veeraya case (AIR 1957 SC 540).
(2) AIR 1957 SC 540
(3) CIVIL APPEAL No. 4453 OF 2009 on 7 January, 2019

The health care industry is a critical industry across all the sectors. The testing laboratories, multi-specialty hospitals, consulting doctors, super specialty surgeries- all forms of medical services are expanding expeditiously in our country. But a blistering pace of expansion of unqualified clinics has been a cause of concern for the government.

The Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 has been enacted by the Central Government for compulsory and authentic registration so that all clinical establishments can be regulated. This aims to achieve the minimum necessary standards for all medical facilities and services. 

The act covers all forms of clinical establishments including both therapeutic and diagnostic ones being run in public or private sectors. Only the clinical establishments run by the armed forces are excluded. The act has specified guidelines for a standardized treatment – both specialty and super specialty. It recognizes both allopathic and AYUSH form of treatment.

This act would help in maintaining a digital registry of all clinical establishments at all the three levels- National, State and District level. It aims at putting a stop on all unqualified practitioners by the implementation of mandatory registration. The quality of health care would be improved by prescribing minimum standards for facilities ensuring all the conditions of registration are complied with, like compliance to standard treatment guidelines, maintenance of records etc. The compulsory registration will also help in better management of emergency medical conditions. The act says that details of rates charged have to be prominently displayed at a conspicuous place in local and in English language. These rates shall be determined by the central government from time to time in consultation with the state governments.

Heavy penalties ranging from Rs. 10,000 to 5 Lakhs will be levied if any provision is violated. 

All the test reports prepared by the prescribed qualified persons in registered testing laboratories need to write a disclaimer saying that these results are only for the use of medical practitioners. They are not allowed to give medical diagnosis. They are not allowed to state any medical opinion or interpretation of the test results. In case it is necessary to state the interpretation of the results, the report must bear signatures of a qualified medical doctor who shall only be responsible for that interpretation in the report. 

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare released a notification on 14^th February, 2020 specifying further regulations for the lab technicians which are: –

1. The laboratory technicians are not allowed to sign the test results. After obtaining the prescribed qualifications and training experience, he/she can conduct some specific tests but these shall be signed by qualified signatory authority of the laboratory.

2. The minimum qualification for lab technician is – Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology (DMLT) or Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) Medical Laboratory Technology (MLT) or Master of Science (M.Sc) Bio-chemistry or Micro-biology from a recognized university or institution.

3. It is mandatory to conduct periodic health checkups and vaccination of the staff.

4. In case a special test is conducted, it is mandatory to have a specialist of that subject in the lab (full time or part time or outsourced basis). Special test includes all test excluding the routine basic tests of biochemistry, hematology, or medical microbiology (example- fasting sugar, blood group, blood pressure etc.), some examples of special tests are biopsies or cytology.

Numerous efforts are being taken to curb the rapid growth of those clinical establishments which are not run by suitable qualified medical professionals. These efforts would result in a systematic collection of information creating a database for good quality health care sector. It would also help in appropriate policy formulation in the future. The effort would cut down extremely costly treatments and sub-standard healthcare.