Prospective overruling is now well settled and widely accepted as part of constitutional interpretation. It can be invoked by the Supreme Court when succeeding the law declared by it earlier. The doctrine of prospective declaration of law serves as a mechanism to prevent the reopening of settled issues and to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Under this doctrine, actions taken contrary to the declared law before the date of the declaration are validated. This approach is taken in the larger public interest. Importantly, the law as declared applies only to future cases.

The doctrine of prospective overruling originated in the Golak Nath case and has been further accepted in subsequent cases. For instance, in the Waman Rao case, it was observed that amendments to the Constitution made before April 24, 1973 (when the Ninth Schedule was amended) are valid. However, after April 1973, amendments to the Ninth Schedule are open to challenge if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

In a recent judgment, IR Coelho vs. State of TN (2007), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine. According to this ruling, amendments to the Constitution made on or after April 24, 1973, which amend the Ninth Schedule, must be tested against the essential features of the Constitution as regulated in Articles 21, 14, and 19, along with the underlying principles.