As per the case facts, the CBI registered an FIR and laid a trap against the respondent. The respondent sought discharge arguing the trap was laid without Central Government approval ... as required by Section 6A of the DSPE Act. The reason for the appeal to the Supreme Court was to determine whether the declaration that Section 6A of the DSPE Act is unconstitutional can be applied retrospectively in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution. The question arose regarding the retrospective application of a law declared unconstitutional, specifically Section 6A of the DSPE Act. Finally, the Supreme Court clarified that once a law is declared unconstitutional as being violative of Part III of the Constitution, it is considered void from its inception. Therefore, the declaration made in the Subramanian Swamy case applies retrospectively, meaning Section 6A of the DSPE Act is considered not to have been in force from the date of its insertion. This implies that any action taken under this provision without the required approval would not be legally sustained, as the provision itself was never valid