Amended forum of appeal is a matter of procedural law and applies retrospectively to pending proceedings.

The Appellants and Petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 (impugned legislations). These amendments enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judges and transferred the appellate jurisdiction for decrees passed by Senior Civil Judges from the High Court to District Courts.

Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act gave the amendments retrospective effect from 28.08.2007.

Litigants feared this would nullify nearly 20 years of High Court judgments and take away vested rights to a specific forum.

A Single Judge previously upheld the Acts but struck down the retrospectivity; the State and litigants appealed this finding.

1. Whether the State Legislature has the competence to enact laws altering the jurisdiction and forum of appeal

2. Whether the impugned legislations are manifestly arbitrary under Article 14 for lack of consultation with the High Court

3. Whether the forum of appeal is a vested substantive right or a matter of procedural law

4. Whether the retrospective operation under Section 4 must be read down to save the legislation from unconstitutionality

Entry 11-A of List III and Entry 13 read with Entry 46 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, affirming State competence over "administration of justice" [Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra].

The principle that the right to appeal is substantive, but the forum of appeal is procedural [Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.].

Doctrine of Reading Down and Purposive Interpretation to prevent manifest absurdity and preserve constitutional validity [Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla and Ahmedabad Municipal Corp. v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore].

The Court held that while the legislature has the power to enact retrospective laws, such laws must not be "manifestly arbitrary".

It determined that the forum of appeal is procedural; therefore, a change in forum applies to pending cases unless stated otherwise.

A literal reading of Section 4 (making the law retrospective to 2007) without a savings clause would absurdly nullify thousands of concluded judgments, rendering the law "harsh and unreasonable".

To "iron out the creases," the Court applied purposive interpretation to align the law with the legislative intent of reducing pendency (as suggested in Smt. Thirakavva v. Smt. Ratnavva) without disturbing finality.

The Court found that "substitution" of provisions implies the new rules govern pending actions immediately.

Finally, it rejected the discrimination claim, holding that the distinction between the Bengaluru City Civil Court (presided by District Judges) and other District Courts was a "reasonable classification".

It expressly excludes (a) appeals concluded by final judgments prior to the notification and (b) interlocutory orders already passed in pending proceedings. Pending appeals are to be transferred to jurisdictional District Courts and continued from the current stage. WP No. 17588/2024 was dismissed; WA No. 200260/2025 was disposed of with the aforementioned modifications.