The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 has fundamentally amended the law of specific performance in India by subordinating damages to specific performance as a contractual remedy. In 2023, the Supreme Court, in Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., held that the amendment applies prospectively. While the Court recently recalled the decision on merits, the finding on the applicability of the amendment was not dealt with and continues to remain good law. This article argues that the Court’s reasoning is unconvincing, both theoretically and doctrinally, and undermines the legislative intent to make specific performance a more widely available remedy. It is demonstrated that treating rights and remedies as interchangeable concepts results in inconsistent judicial approaches regarding the applicability of the Amending Act. Relying on theoretical literature distinguishing rights and remedies (with a distinctive focus on specific performance), as well as Indian doctrine, it is argued that specific performance ought to be treated as a remedy and not a right. Consequently, this article proposes an appropriate analytical framework for courts to decide the applicability of the Amending Act.