Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court takes up for hearing case concerning Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 
Petitioner argues that when it comes to retrospective applicability of a provision, there is no difference between statutory law or procedural law
Justice MR Shah says the applicability of a provision struck down will be prospective or retrospective will depend on the impact of the same.
Justice Bhat adds, in Golaknath case, Constitution provisions were amended which is why that judgment didn't have a prospective application but retrospective
Petitioner RR Kishore submits that section 6A(1) of the DSPE act provided for some protection against arrest without sanction and therefore the striking down of this section would have prospective applicability
Kishore says the purpose of section 6A was to protect the officers sitting at position of decision making authority from a threat. If protection is not given, he will shy away from taking decisions
Justice Saran points out that the question before Court is only on the aspect of prospective or retrospective applicability.
Justice Shah adds, that the object and purpose of the section and Act was taken into consideration when 2014 judgment was passed striking down section 6A as violative of Article 14
Kishore argues that protection under 6A is a must or else central government officers cannot work without fear
Justice Mishra - address us on the points of why the law should be prospective
RR Kishore - immunity under 6A is a vested right and is not simply a procedure. Immunity enjoyed by a senior officer is his substantive right
Justice Bhat - How is Article 23 affected, it was not argued in Subramanian Swamy case that 23 was affected
Justice Bhat - there are two judgments of this court on Article 21 vis a vis Prevention of Corruption Act
Justice Mishra - Article 21 gives protection against the offence. If you're contending protection from the procedure, you'll have to look elsewhere
Kishore - saying that protection under 6A is a procedural right would be undermining it. It is a very substantive right
RR Kishore - substantive right is a term used very often but nowhere has it been defined. He tells the court of the journey of this law
Justice Arun Mishra - Merely making oral arguments won't help. You're arguing well but give us some decisions and judgments
Senior Counsel Arvind Datar backs RR Kishore who is arguing in person. Datar tells the Court Kishore has done "tremendous research" and is extremely well prepared.
Justice Mishra - That is why we are hearing him or we won't have tolerated
RR Kishore - it is my submission that unless a judicial pronouncement says otherwise, applicability will be prospective
RR Kishore - in the existing situation, anyone could go to the police and register an FIR against an officer and say he's demanding bribe. Since it is a cognizable offence he would be arrested. This is why section 6A was inserted
Justice Mishra - We are only concerned about the legal point now. Will give you more time to prepare if you are not prepared
The Court grants additional time to RR Kishore. Matter will be taken up for hearing next on Thursday, Nov 7
