Discuss the significance of prospective overruling as a judicial technique, with reference to the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling on the definition of 'industry'.

Prospective overruling allows a court to correct settled law while confining the new rule to future cases, leaving past transactions undisturbed. First deployed in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) [4], it resurfaced in the Supreme Court's 2026 nine-judge ruling reworking the meaning of "industry" [5].

Significance as a judicial technique

• Legal certainty: settled awards and closed disputes decided under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not reopened [1], protecting the reliance interests of both employers and workmen.
• Doctrinal correction without disruption: a larger Bench can refine long-standing precedent — here, the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply "triple test" was modified, not overturned [5].
• Managing judicial law-making: it cushions the retrospective shock inherent in judicial reinterpretation, keeping the courts' corrective role compatible with stability.
• Transitional bridge across statutes: useful where an old law is being replaced by a new one, as with the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which consolidates the ID Act, the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Standing Orders Act, 1946 [3].

Application in the 2026 ruling

• The 5:4 majority held its modified test operates prospectively; pending ID Act disputes continue under the 1978 test [5].
• The Bench declined to interpret Section 2(p) of the IR Code, 2020 — with its exclusions for sovereign functions and charitable institutions [2] — leaving it to future adjudication [5].
• The choice reflects judicial restraint towards nearly five decades of labour jurisprudence.

Limitations

• Two tests now run in parallel, creating a transitional gap for tribunals and risking divergent High Court rulings.
• Deferring the Code's exclusions prolongs uncertainty for workers in hospitals and educational trusts; trade unions read this as weakening collective bargaining [5].

Prospective overruling thus reconciles doctrinal evolution with legal stability. Its credibility, however, rests on courts articulating clear criteria for its use and on the executive swiftly clarifying the Code's scope through rules — so that the constitutional promise of worker participation and industrial justice under Article 43A is advanced, not deferred.