1. Core Legal Answer & Context: (a) Discretion and Powers of the Court (Pre-2018 Amendment): Prior to the 2018 amendment, specific performance was a discretionary relief. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) stated that specific performance may be enforced. Courts had wide discretion to refuse specific performance even if all conditions were met, based on equitable considerations such as:

• Hardship to the defendant.
• Unfair advantage to the plaintiff.
• Uncertainty of terms.
• Where compensation in money was an adequate relief.
• Where the plaintiff was guilty of delay or unconscionable conduct. Courts also had powers to grant compensation in addition to or in lieu of specific performance (Section 21) and to grant injunctions.

(b) Changes Introduced by the 2018 Amendment: The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, brought a paradigm shift. It amended Section 10 to state that specific performance shall be enforced, making it a general rule rather than a discretionary remedy. This significantly curtailed judicial discretion. The amendment also:

• Introduced Section 20A, prohibiting injunctions in infrastructure project contracts.
• Introduced Section 20B, requiring courts to dispose of specific performance suits within 12 months.
• Introduced Section 20C, allowing experts to assist the court.

Exceptions where specific performance cannot be enforced (even post-amendment) are now limited to those specified in Sections 11(2), 14, and 16 of the SRA (e.g., contracts for personal service, contracts requiring continuous supervision, contracts where the plaintiff has violated essential terms).

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• Specific Relief Act, 1963: Sections 10, 11(2), 14, 16, 20, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21.
• Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• S.R. Tewari v. Union of India (1965): A pre-amendment case highlighting the discretionary nature of specific performance.
• K. Prakash v. B.R. Basavaraj (2022): A post-amendment case discussing the impact of the 2018 changes, emphasizing the mandatory nature of specific performance.

4. Clear Conclusion: The 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act fundamentally transformed specific performance from a discretionary equitable remedy to a mandatory right, significantly limiting judicial discretion and aiming to promote ease of doing business by ensuring greater certainty in contract enforcement, while retaining specific exceptions.