Interpretation of Statutes: Syllabus

NOTES ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES BY: Prof.
RAHUL
N. BIBAVE
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
SYLLABUS
A. Introduction-
1. Meaning and objects of Interpretation
B. General Principles of Interpretation-
1. Literal Rule
2. Golden Rule
3. Miscief Rule
!. "tatute #ust be read as a $ole in its conte%t
&. "tatute to be construed to #a'e it effecti(e and $or'able
). *#issions not to be inferred
+. ,(er- $ord in a statute to be gi(en a #eaning
.. Internal Aids to construction-
1. Prea#ble
2. /efinition "ections
3. 0eading
!. Marginal 1otes
&. Punctuation
). Illustrations
+. Pro(iso
2. ,%planation
3. "cedules
/. ,%ternal Aids to construction
1. Parlia#entar- 0istor-
2. 0istorical facts and surrounding circu#stances
3. "ocial4 Political and econo#ic de(elop#ents
!. Reference to oter statutes
&. Contemporanea expositio and oter e%ternal aids
). .odif-ing statutes and consolidating statutes
,. "ubsidiar- Rules
1. "a#e $ord sa#e #eaning
2. 5se of different $ords
3. Rule of last antecedent
NOTES ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES BY: Prof. RAHUL
N. BIBAVE
!. Non Obstante clause
&. Legal fiction
). Mandator- and director- pro(isions
+. .onjuncti(e and disjuncti(e $ords 6or7 8 6and7
2. .onstruction of general $ords-
a. Noscitur a socius
b. Rule of ejusdem generis
c. Reddendo singula singulis
9. Interpretation of "tatutes affecting jurisdiction of courts-
1. General Principles
2. :e e%tent of e%clusion
3. ,%clusion of jurisdiction of superior courts
G. Interpretation of Penal and :a%ing "tatutes-
1. Rule of construction of ta%ing statutes
2. General principles of strict construction
3. Li#its of te rule of strict construction
!. Mens rea in statutor- offences and Indian Penal .ode
&. ;icarious liabilit- in statutor- offences
0. Interpretation of Re#edial "tatutes-
1. /istinction bet$een re#edial and penal statutes
2. Liberal construction of re#edial statutes
I. *peration of "tatutes-
1. .o##ence#ent
2. Retrospecti(e operation
<. ,%pir- and repeal of statutes
1. Perpetual and te#porar- statutes
2. ,ffect of e%pir- of te#porar- statutes
3. ,%press or i#plied repeal
!. .onse=uences of repeal
>. Interpretation of .onstitutional /ocu#ents-
1. Rules of interpretation of constitutional docu#ents as de(eloped b- te
courts of India
L. General .lauses Act4 123+
N. BIBAVE
INTRODUCTION
MEANING AND OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION:
,nacted la$s4 especiall- te #odern Acts and Rules4 are drafted b- legal e%perts
and it could be e%pected tat te language used $ill lea(e little roo# for interpretation or
construction. :e age-old process of application of te enacted la$ as led to for#ulate te
certain rules of interpretation or construction. ?B- interpretation or construction is #eant te
process b- $ic te courts see' to ascertain te #eaning of te Legislature troug te
#ediu# of autoritati(e for#s in $ic it is e%pressed@- sa-s "al#ond.
A statute is an edict of te Legislature A;isnu Pratap "ugar Bor's CP(t.D Ltd. (.
.ief Inspector of "ta#p4 5.P.4 13)2E and te con(entional $a- of interpretation or
construing a statute is to see' te ?intention@ of its #a'er. A statute is to be construed
accordingl- 6to te intent of te# tat #a'e it7 AR.M./. .a#arbaug$ala (. 5nion of India4
13&+E and ?te dut- of judicature is to act upon te true intention of te legislature-te #ens
or sentential legis@ C"al#ond ?<urisprudence@D. If te statutor- pro(ision is open to #ore tan
one interpretation te court as to coose tat interpretation $ic represents te true
intention of te legislature A;en'ats$a#i 1aidu4 R (. 1arasra# 1araindas4 13))E4 in oter
$ords te 6legal #eaning7 A/ines .andra <a#anadas Gandi (. "tate of Gujarat4 1323E or
6true #eaning7 ABlac' .la$son International Li#ited (. Papier$er'e Baldof Ascaffenburg
A.G.4 13+&E of te statutor- pro(ision. :e tas' is often not an eas- one and te difficulties
arise because of (arious reasons4 as li'e4 $ords in an- language are not scientific s-#bols
a(ing an- precise or definite #eaning and also it is i#possible e(en for te #ost
i#aginati(e Legislature to forecast e%austi(el- situations and circu#stances tat #a-
e#erge after enacting a statute $ere its application #a- be called for. :e nu#erous rules
of interpretation for#ulated b- courts are e%pressed b- different judges and support #a- be
found in tese for#ulations for apparentl- contradictor- propositions.
:e proble# of interpretation is a proble# of #eaning of $ords and teir
effecti(eness as #ediu# of e%pression to co##unicate a particular tougt4 ?Bords and
prases are s-#bols tat sti#ulate #ental references to referents@ AG. Billia#sF Language
and te La$E. But $ords of an- language are capable of referring to different referents in
different te%ts and ti#es. :e courts a(e terefore to loo' essentiall- to te $ords of te
statute to discern te 6referent7 aiding teir effort as #uc as possible b- te conte%t. Apart
fro# contro(ersies as to te li#its of te conte%t outside te statute4 tere is a difficult- in
and arising out of 6fringe7 #eaning of $ords.
N. BIBAVE
:e intention of te Legislature assi#ilates t$o aspectsF In one aspect it carries te
concept of 6#eaning7 i.e. $at te $ords #ean and in anoter aspect4 it con(e-s te concept
of 6purpose and object7 or te 6reason and spirit7 per(ading troug te statute. :e purpose
of interpretation4 terefore4 co#bines bot literal and purposi(e approaces. In oter $ords
te legislati(e intention i.e. te true or legal #eaning of an enact#ent is deri(ed b-
considering te #eaning of te $ords used in te enact#ent in te ligt of an- discernible
purpose or object $ic co#preends te #iscief and its re#ed- to $ic te enact#ent
is directed. A"tatute of 0i#acal Prades (. >ailas .and Maajan4 1332E. :is for#ulation
as no$ recei(ed te appro(al of te "upre#e .ourt and as been called te ?.ardinal
principle of construction@ A5nion of India (. ,lpinstone "pinning and Bea(ing .o. Ltd.4
2GG1E
:e #eaning of te e%pression 6intention of te Legislature7 is e%plained in anoter
for# b- Lord Batson in an often =uoted passage $ere e called it a 6slipper- pase7 and
saidF ?In a court of la$ or e=uit-4 $at te legislature intended to be done or not to be done
can onl- be legiti#atel- ascertained fro# tat $ic it as intended to or cosen to enact4
eiter in e%press $ords or b- reasonable and necessar- i#plication@ AAaron "olo#on and
.o. Ltd. case4 123+E. But te $ole of $at is enacted ?b- necessar- i#plication@ can ardl-
be deter#ined $itout 'eeping in #ind te purpose or object of te statute A"tate of Punjab
(. *'ara Grain Bu-ers "-ndicate Ltd.4 13)!E. :is for#ulation terefore does not in effect
reject te concept of ?purpose@ but contains te sa#e $itin te i#port of te prase
?necessar- i#plication@.
:e rules of interpretation are not rules of la$ and are not to be applied li'e te rules
enacted b- te Legislature in an interpretation Act A"uperintendent and Re#e#brancer of
Legal Affairs4 Best Bengal (. .orporation of .alcutta4 13)+E. :e- ser(e as guides and suc
of te# $ic ser(e no useful purpose no$ can be rejected b- courts and ne$ rules can be
e(ol(ed in teir place CibidD. B- boldl- rejecting out#oded rules4 b- substituting4 if necessar-
ne$ rules in teir place CibidD and b- a(oiding unnecessar- generaliHation A>ear "ing (.
"tate4 1322E te superior can elp in tas' of realiHation of te rules. In appl-ing te rules it
#ust be 'ept in te (ie$ tat te rules are not binding in te ordinar- sense li'e legislation
?te- are our ser(ants and not #asters. :e- are aids to interpretation4 presu#ptions and
pointers. 1ot infre=uentl- one rule points in one direction4 anoter in a different direction. In
eac case $e #ust loo' at all rele(ant circu#stances and decided as #atter of judg#ent
$at $eigt to attac to an- particular rule.@ AMaunsel (. *lins4 13+&E
An intelligent application of te rules and te solution in eac real difficult- depends
upon te indi(idual s'ill of a judge. B- co#bining 'no$ledge4 $isdo# and e%perience great
N. BIBAVE
judges de(elop te instinct of finding out tat solution $ic ar#oniHe te $ords in te
polic- or object beind te#. <ustice .ardoHo saidF ?A judge #ust tin' of i#self as an
artist4 $o altoug e #ust 'no$ te andboo's4 sould ne(er trust to te# for is
guidanceI in te end e #ust rel- upon is al#ost instincti(e sense of $ere te line la-
bet$een te $ords and te purpose $ic la- beind it.@
N. BIBAVE
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
LITERAL RULE:
:e $ords of a statute are first understood in teir natural4 ordinar- or popular sense
and prases and sentences are construed according to teir gra##atical #eaning4 unless
tat leads to so#e absurdit- or unless tere is so#eting in te conte%t4 or in te object of
te statute to suggest te contrar- A.ra$ford (. "pooner4 12!)E. ?:e true $a-@ according to
Lord Brouga#4 ?to ta'e te $ords as te legislature a(e gi(en te#4 and to ta'e te
#eaning $ic te $ords eiter b- prea#ble or b- te conte%t of te $ords in =uestion4
controlled or altered@ CibidDI and in te $ords of ;iscount 0aldane L...4 if te language used
?as a natural #eaning $e cannot depart fro# tat #eaning unless4 reading te statute as
$ole4 te conte%t directs us to do so@ AAttorne- General (. Milne4 131&E. In an oft =uoted
passage4 Lord Bensle-dale stated te rule tat4 ?In construing $ill and indeed statutes and
all $ritten instru#ents4 te gra##atical and ordinar- sense of te $ord is adered to4 unless
tat $ould lead to so#e absurdit- or so#e repugnance or inconsistenc- $it te rest of te
instru#ent in $ic case te gra##atical and ordinar- sense of te $ords #a- be #odified4
so as to a(oid tat absurdit-4 and inconsistenc-4 but no furter@AGre- (. Pearson412&+E. And
stated Lord At'insonF ?In te construction of statutes4 teir $ords #ust be interpreted in teir
ordinar- gra##atical sense unless tere be so#eting in te conte%t4 or in te object of te
statute in $ic te- occur or in te circu#stances in $ic te- are used4 to so$ tat te-
$ere used in a special sense different fro# teir ordinar- gra##atical sense.@A.orporation
of te .it- of ;ictoria (. Bisop of ;ancou(er Island4 1321E ;iscount "i#on L...4 saidF ?:e
golden rule is tat te $ords of a statute #ust pri#a facie be gi(en teir ordinar- #eaning.@
A1o'es (. /oncaster A#alga#ated .ollieries Ltd.4 13!GE
GOLDEN RULE:
9or a #odern state#ent of te rule Ci.e. literal rule to golden ruleD one #a- refer to
te speec of Lord "i#on of Glaisdale in a case $ere e saidF ?Parlia#ent is pri#a facie to
be credited $it #eaning $at is said in an act of Parlia#ent. :e drafting of statutes4 so
i#portant to a people $o ope to li(e under te rule of la$4 $ill ne(er be satisfactor- unless
courts see' $ene(er possible to appl- te 6golden rule7 of construction4 tat is to read te
statutor- language4 gra##aticall- and ter#inologicall-4 in te ordinar- and pri#ar- sense
$ic it bears in its CconstructionD conte%t4 $itout o#ission or addition. *f course4
N. BIBAVE
Parlia#ent is to be credited $it good senseI so tat $en suc an approac produces
injustice4 absurdit-4 contradiction or stultification of statutor- objecti(e te language #a- be
#odified sufficientl- to a(oid suc disad(antage4 toug no furter@ A"utendran (.
I##igration Appeal :ribunal4 13+)E
In dealing $it *rder 214 Rule 1) of te .ode of .i(il Procedure4 13G2 ". R. /as4 <.
saidF ?:e cardinal rule of construction of statute is to read te statutes literall-4 tat is4 b-
gi(ing to te $ords teir ordinar-4 natural and gra##atical #eaning. If o$e(er4 suc a
reading leads to absurdit- and te $ords are susceptible of anoter #eaning4 te court #a-
adopt te sa#e. But if no suc alternati(e construction is possible4 te court #ust adopt te
ordinar- rule of literal interpretation. In te present case te literal construction leads to no
apparent absurdit- and terefore tere can be no co#pelling reason for departing fro# tat
golden rule of construction.@
:e golden rule is a #odification of te principle of gra##atical interpretation. *n
te face of it4 tis rule sol(es all proble#s and is4 terefore 'no$n as te golden rule.
9urter4 since te literal #eaning is #odified to so#e e%tent4 tis approac is called te
#odif-ing #etod of interpretation.@
MISHCHIEF RULE:
Ben te #aterial $ords are capable of bearing t$o or #ore constructions te #ost
fir#l- establised rule for construction of suc $ords ?of all statutes in general Cbe te-
penal or beneficial4 restricti(e or enlarging of te co##on la$D@ is te rule laid do$n in
0e-don7s .ase C1&2!D $ic as ?no$ attained te status of a classic C>anailal "ur (.
Para#anidi "adu'an4 13&+D@. :e rule $ic is also 'no$n as 6purposi(e construction or
#iscief rule7 CAnderton (. R-an4 132&D4 enables consideration of four #atters in construing
an ActF
i. Bat $as te la$ before #a'ing of te Act4
ii. Bat $as te #iscief or defect for $ic te la$ did not pro(ide4
iii. Bat is te re#ed- tat te Act as pro(ided4 and
i(. Bat is te reason of te re#ed-
:e rule ten directs tat te courts #ust adopt tat construction $ic4 ?sall
suppress te #iscief and ad(ance te re#ed-@. :e rule $as e%plained in te ABengal
I##unit- .o. (. "tate of Biar4 13&&E b- ".R. /as4 ..<.4 as follo$sF ?It is a sound rule
construction of a statute fir#l- establised in ,ngland as far bac' as 1&G! $en 0e-don7s
N. BIBAVE
case $as decided tat for te sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general Cbe te-
penal or beneficial4 restricti(e or enlarging of te co##on la$D four tings are to be
discerned and consideredF
1
st
- Bat $as te co##on la$ before te #a'ing of te Act4
2
nd
- Bat $as te #iscief and defect for $ic te co##on la$ did not pro(ide4
3
rd
- Bat re#ed- te Parlia#ent at resol(ed and appointed to cure te disease of te
co##on$ealt4
!
t
- :e true reason of te re#ed-F
and ten te office of all te judges is al$a-s to #a'e suc construction as sall suppress
te #iscief4 and ad(ance te re#ed-4 and to suppress subtle in(entions and e(asions for
continuance of te #iscief4 and pro privatio commodo4 and to add force and life to te cure
and re#ed-4 according to te intent of te #a'ers of te Act4 pro bono publico@. :e
"upre#e .ourt in tis case applied te rule in construction of Article 22) of te .onstitution.
After referring to te state of la$ pre(ailing in te pro(inces prior to te .onstitution as also
to te caos and confusion tat $as brougt about in inter-state trade and co##erce b-
indiscri#inate e%ercise of ta%ing po$ers b- te different pro(inces legislatures founded on
te teor- of territorial ne%us. :e rule $as again b- te "upre#e .ourt in si#ilar conte%t
$ile construing te canges brougt about b- te .onstitution !)
t
A#end#ent Act in
Good-ear India Ltd. (. "tate of 0ar-ana4 133G.
An illustration of te application of te rules is also furnised in te construction of
section 2CdD of te PriHe .o#petition Act4 13&& defining te $ord ?PriHe .o#petition@ in
RM/ .a#aribaug$alla (. 5nion of India4 13&+. :e "upre#e .ourt statedF ?0a(ing regard
to te istor- of te legislation4 te declared object tereof and te $ording of te statute4
$e are of opinion tat te co#petitions $ic are sougt to be controlled and regulated b-
te Act are onl- tose co#petitions in $ic success does not depend on an- substantial
degree of s'ill.@
STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS CONTEXT:
Ben te =uestion arises as to te #eaning of a certain pro(ision in a statute4 it is
not onl- legiti#ate but proper to read tat pro(ision in its conte%t. :e state of te la$4 oter
statutes in pari materia4 te general scope of te statute and te #iscief tat it $as
intended to re#ed-. AR. ". Ragunat (. "tate of >arnata'a4 1332E :e state#ent of te rule
N. BIBAVE
$as recentl- full- adopted b- te "upre#e .ourt A5nion of India (. ,lpinstone "pinning and
Bea(ing .o. Ltd.4 2GG1E
It is a rule no$ fir#l- establised APilips India Ltd. (. Labour .ourt4 132&E tat te
intention of te Legislature #ust be found b- reading te statute as a $ole. :e rule is
referred to as an ?ele#entar- rule@ b- ;iscount "i#onds AA.G. (. 0R0 Prince ,rnest
Augustus4 13&+EI a ?co#pelling rule@ b- Lord "o#er(ell of 0arro$ CibidDI and a ?settled rule@
b- B. >. Mu'erjee4 <. APoppatlal "a (. "tate of Madras4 13&3E Lord 0alsbur- said4 @I
agree tat -ou #ust loo' at te $ole instru#ent inas#uc as tere #a- be inaccurac- and
inconsistenc-I -ou #ust4 if -ou can ascertain $at is te #eaning of te instru#ent ta'en as
a $ole in order to gi(e effect4 if it be possible to do so4 to te intention of te fra#er of it@
A.arles Robert Leader (. George 9. /iffe-4 1222E.
:e rule is of general application as e(en plainest ter#s #a- be controlled b- te
conte%t ABentle- (. Rotera#4 12+)E4 and ?it is concei(able@4 as Lord Batson said4 ?tat te
Legislature $ilst enacting one clause in plain ter#s4 #igt introduce into te sa#e statute
oter enact#ents $ic to so#e e%tent =ualif- or neutraliHe its effect@ AAd#inistrator-
General of Bengal (. Pre#lal Mullic'4 123&E. :e sa#e $ord #a- #ean one ting in one
conte%t and anoter in a different conte%t. A/. 1. Banerji (. P.R.Mu'erjee4 13&3E 9or tis
reason te sa#e $ord is used in different sections A9orbes (. Attorne- General of Manitoba4
133+E of a statute or e(en $en used at different places in te sa#e clause or section
ARa#nara-an Mor (. "tate of Maarastra4 13)!E of a statute #a- bear different #eanings.
:e conclusion tat te language used b- te legislature is plain or a#biguous can onl- be
trul- arri(ed at b- stud-ing te statute as a $ole. ?Bords and prases occurring in a statute
are to be ta'en not in an isolated or detaced #anner dissociated fro# te conte%t4 but are
to be read togeter and construed in te ligt of te purpose and object of te Act itself@
A/arsan "ing Bal$ant "ing (. "tate of Punjab4 13&3E
STATUTE TO BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AND WORKABLE:
:e courts strongl- lean against a construction $ic reduces te statute to a futilit-
AM. Pentia (. ;eera#allappa Muddala4 13)1E. A statute or an- enacting pro(ision terein
#ust be so construed as to #a'e it effecti(e and C$or'ableD operati(e ?on te principle
e%pressed in te #a%i#F ut res magis valet quam pereat@. A.I: (. ". :eja "ing4 13&3E It is
an application of tis principle tat courts $ile pronouncing upon te constitutionalit- of a
statute start $it a presu#ption in fa(our of constitutionalit- and prefer a construction $ic
'eeps te statute $itin te co#petence of te legislature A.orporation .alcutta (. Libert-
N. BIBAVE
.ine#a4 13)&E :e i#portance of te principle can be judged fro# te fact tat tere is
ardl- an- reported decision $ere a statute #a- a(e been declared (oid for seer
(agueness4 altoug teoreticall- it #a- be possible to reac suc a conclusion in case of
?absolute intractabilit- of te language used@ A"al#ond (. /unco#be4 122)E4 or $en ?it is
i#possible to resol(e te a#biguit-@ A9a$cett Properties (. Buc'inga# .ount- .ouncil4
13)GE4 i.e. $en te language is absolutel- #eaningless A:insu'ia ,lectric "uppl- .o. Ltd.
(. "tate of Assa#4 133GE. Lord /enning appro(ing 9are$ell4 <.4 stated te principleF ?But
$en a statute as so#e #eaning e(en toug it is obscure4 or se(eral #eanings4 e(en
toug it is little to coose bet$een te#4 te courts a(e to sa- $at #eaning te statute is
to bear4 rater tan reject it as a nullit-@ A9a$cett Properties (. Buc'inga# .ount- .ouncil4
13)GE
Appl-ing te sa#e principle te "upre#e .ourt as rejected constructions ad(anced
in respect of (alidation acts $ic if accepted $ould a(e led to te conclusion tat te
Legislature failed to acie(e te object of (alidating prior e%ecuti(e acts $ic it a(o$edl-
ad as e%pressed in te prea#ble and also apparent fro# oter pro(isions of te acts in
=uestion A>risnacandra Gangopad-a-a (. 5nion of India4 13+&E. A (alidating act #a-
e(en #a'e ineffecti(e judg#ents and orders of co#petent courts pro(ided it b-
retrospecti(e legislation re#o(es te cause of in(alidit- or te basis $ic ad led to tose
judg#ents. ABubanes$ar "ing (. 5nion of India4 133!E Jet b- careless drafting te
legislature #a- so#eti#e $oll- AB. "a#a Rao (. 5nion :erritor- of Pondicerr-4 13)+E or
partiall- A<a$aarlal (. "tate of Rajastan4 13))E fail to acie(e te object of (alidation.
:e sa#e principle is applied in construing #aciner- sections of a ta%ing statute so
as to #a'e tat #aciner- $or'able A..I.:. (. Maalira# Ra#jidas4 13!GE
OMISSIONS NOT TO BE INFERRED:
It is an application of te principle tat a #atter $ic sould a(e been4 but as not
been pro(ided for in a statute cannot be supplied b- courts4 as to do so $ill be legislation
and not construction A0ansraj Gupta (. /eradun Mussorie ,lectric :ra#$a- .o.Ltd.4 1333E
But tere is no presu#ption tat a casus omissus e%ists and language per#itting te court
sould a(oid creating a casus omissus $ere tere is none A>arnata'a "tate (. 5nion of
India4 13+2E
B- te 5.P. /istrict Boards Act4 1333 te pro(isions of te earlier Act4 1322 $ere
a#ended. In Act4 13334 section +1 $as a#ended $ic $as pro(iding te Board4 te po$er
N. BIBAVE
to dis#iss its "ecretar- b- special resolution and te a#ended section pro(ided tat a
resolution of dis#issal $as not to ta'e effect till te e%pir- of te period of appeal or till te
decision of appeal if it $as so presented. 1o corresponding a#end#ent $as #ade in
section 3G $ic conferred a po$er to suspend te secretar- 6pending in=uir- into is
conduct or pending te orders of an- autorities $ose sanction is necessar- for is
dis#issal7 and it $as eld b- te "upre#e .ourt tat a suspension resol(ed under section
3G to be operati(e till te appeal against dis#issal $as decided4 $as ultra vires te po$ers
of te Board. Bag$ati4 <. spea'ing for te .ourt saidF ?It $as unfortunate tat $en te
Legislature ca#e to a#end te old section +1 of te Act it forgot to a#end section 3G in
confor#it- $it te a#end#ent of section +1. But tis lacuna cannot be supplied b- an-
suc liberal construction as te 0ig .ourt sougt to put upon. 1o doubt it is te dut- of te
.ourt to tr- and ar#oniHe te (arious pro(isions of an Act passed b- te Legislature. But it
is certainl- not te dut- of to court to stretc te $ord used b- te Legislature to fill in gaps
or in o#issions in te pro(isions of an Act@ A0irade(i (. /istrict Board4 "ajaanpur4 13&2E
"i#ilarl-4 section 12 C1D of te Best Bengal Pre#ises Rent .ontrol C:e#porar-
Pro(isionsD Act4 13&G4 $ic ga(e po$er to court to rescind or (ar- 6an- decree for reco(er-
of possession7 $as eld not to co(er a po$er to rescind or (aran order for possession
passed under section !3 of te Presidenc- "#all .auses .ourts Act4 1222 A1alina'-a
B-sa' (. "-a#sunder4 13&3E
/e(lin4 L. <. pointing out tat tis $as apparent b- casus omissus obser(edF ?:e
court $ill al$a-s allo$ te intention of a statute to o(erride te defects of $ording but te
court7s abilit- to do so is li#ited b- recogniHed canons of interpretation. :e .ourt #a- for
e%a#ple4 prefer an alternati(e construction $ic is less $ell fitted to te $ords but better
fitted to te intention of te Act. But ere4 tere is no alternati(e constructionI it is si#pl- a
case of so#eting being o(erloo'ed. Be cannot legislate for cassus omissus. I #a- be sure
in tis case tat I 'no$ e%actl- $at Parlia#ent $ould do if it percei(ed a gap. But4 if tis
rule $ere to be rela%ed4 sooner or later te court $ould be sa-ing $at Parlia#ent #eant
and #igt get it $rong and tus usurp te la$ #a'ing function@ AGladstone (. Bo$er4 13)GE
N. BIBAVE
INTERNAL AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION
PREAMBLE:
:e role of prea#ble in interpretation cannot be curtailed or restricted. Prea#ble can
be an aid in constructing a pro(ision $en te pro(ision is a#biguous A"ita /e(i (. "tate of
Biar4 133&E. It can afford useful assistance to ascertain legislati(e intention but cannot
control oter$ise te plain #eaning of a pro(ision AL./.A. (. M. >. Gupta4 133!E
In te $ords of Lord 1or#and4 ?tere #a- be no e%act correspondence bet$een
prea#ble and enact#ent4 and te enact#ent #a- go be-ond4 or it #a- fall sort of te
indications tat #a- be gatered fro# te prea#ble. Again te prea#ble cannot be of #uc4
or an-4 assistance in construing pro(isions $ic e#bod- =ualifications or e%ceptions fro#
te operation of te general purpose of te Act. It is onl- $en it con(e-s a clear and
definite #eaning in co#parison $it relati(el- obscured or definite enacting $ords tat te
prea#ble #a- legiti#atel- pre(ail@ AA.G.;.0R0 Prince ,rnest Augustus of 0ano(er4 13&+E
:e "upre#e .ourt also enunciated te sa#e principle about te prea#bleF ?It is
one of te cardinal principle of construction tat $ere te language of an Act is clear4 te
prea#ble #ust be disregarded toug $ere te object of or #eaning of an enact#ent is
not clear4 te prea#ble #a- be resorted to e%plain it. Again4 $ere (er- general language is
used in an enact#ent $ic4 it is clear #ust be intended to a(e a li#ited application4 te
prea#ble #a- be used to indicate to $at particular instances4 te enact#ent is intended to
appl-. Be cannot4 terefore4 start $it te prea#ble for construing te pro(isions of an Act4
toug $e could be justified in resorting to it4 and $e $ill be re=uired to do so4 if $e find te
language used b- te Parlia#ent is a#biguous or is too general toug in point of fact
Parlia#ent intended tat it sould a(e a li#ited application@ ABura'ar .oal .o. Ltd. (. 5nion
of India4 13)1E
Retrospecti(el- inserted prea#ble into an earlier act is not of #uc assistance for
gatering te intention of te original act. :e (ie$ of te G$-er4 ..<. is pertinent ere. 0e
said4 ?But $e doubt (er- #uc $eter a prea#ble retrospecti(el- inserted in 13!G in an Act
passed 2& -ears before can be loo'ed at b- te .ourt for te purpose of disco(ering $at
te true intention of te Legislature $as at te earlier date. A legislature can al$a-s enact
tat te la$ is4 and sall be dee#ed al$a-s to a(e been suc and suc4 but tat is $oll-
different ting fro# i#puting to dead and gone legislators a particular intention #erel-
N. BIBAVE
because teir successors at te present da- tin' tat te- #igt or ougt to a(e ad it.@
ABola Prasad (. ,#peror4 13!2E
DEFINITION SECTIONS:
:e principle is tat all statutor- definitions a(e to be read subject to be te
=ualifications (ariousl- e%pressed in te definition clauses $ic created te# and it #a- be
tat e(en $ere te definition is e%austi(e inas#uc as te $ord defined is said to #ean a
certain ting. It is possible for te $ord to a(e a so#e $at different #eaning in different
sections of te Act depending upon te subject or conte%t. :at is $- all definitions in
statutes generall- begin $it te =ualif-ing $ords4 na#el-4 ?unless tere is an-ting
repugnant in te subject or conte%t@. :us4 tere #a- be sections in te Act $ere te
#eaning #a- a(e to be departed fro# on account of te subject or conte%t in $ic te
$ord ad been used and tat $ill be gi(ing effect to te opening sentence in te definition
section4 na#el- ?unless tere is an-ting repugnant in te subject or conte%t@. In (ie$ of tis
=ualification4 te court as not onl- to loo' at te $ords relating to suc #atter and interpret
te #eaning intended to be con(e-ed b- te use of te $ords ?under tose circu#stances@
ABirlpool .orp. (. Registrar of :rade Mar's4 1332E
Bile interpreting a definition4 it as to be borne in #ind tat te interpretation
placed on it sould not onl- be not repugnant to te conte%t4 it sould also be suc as $ould
aid te acie(e#ent of te purpose $ic is sougt to be ser(ed b- te Act. A construction
$ic $ould defeat or $as li'el- to defeat te purpose of te Act as to be ignored and not
accepted A>.;. Mutu (. Anga#utu A##al4 133+E
:e definition contained in te definition clause of a particular statute sould be used
for te purpose of te Act. /efinition fro# anoter statute cannot be borro$ed and used
ignoring te definition contained in te statute itself.
A ter# or e%pression defined under a particular statute as its o$n scope or li#its.
"uc a definition sould not be eiter restricted or e%panded b- i#porting ele#ents fro#
oter legal s-ste#s $en tere is no a#biguit- in te definition. A9eroHe 1. /oti(ala (. P.M.
Bad$ani4 2GG3E
"o#eti#es a definition is di(ided into t$o parts- e%planator- and e%pandator-. Ben
te e%planator- or te #ain part itself uses e%pressions of $ide a#plitude indicating clearl-
its $ide s$eep4 ten its a#bit is $idened to suc tings $ic oter$ise $ould a(e been
be-ond its nor#al i#port. AL/A (. M. >. Gupta4 133!E
N. BIBAVE
Bere a $ord is an e%pression is defined b- te legislature4 courts a(e to loo' to
tat definitionI te general understanding of it cannot be deter#inati(e. A"ures Loi-a (.
"tate of Maarastra4 133)E :at e%pression or $ere(er it occurs in te Act4 rules or
notifications tere under4 sould be understood in te sa#e sense. APrestige ,ngineering
CIndiaD Ltd. (. ..,4 133!E ,(en t$o si#ilar ter#s #a- not #ean te sa#e ting if teir
definitions in t$o different statutes are at (ariance $it eac oter. A9eroHe 1. /oti(ala (. P.
M. Bada$ani4 2GG3E
:$o distinct definitions of a cognate $ord or e%pression in te sa#e enact#ent #ust
be understood accordingl- in ter#s of te definition. "a#e $ord defined in te statute #a-
not carr- te sa#e #eaning troug out te statute. :e $ords $ic are used in declaring
te #eaning of oter $ords #a- also need interpretation and te legislature #a- use a $ord
in te sa#e statute in se(eral different senses. AIndian 0andicrafts ,#poriu# (. 5nion of
India4 2GG3E
HEADING:
0eadings are of t$o 'inds4 tose prefi%ed to a section and tose prefi%ed to a group
or set of sections. It is no$ settled tat te eadings can be preferred to in consisting an Act
of te Legislature.
In 9ric' India Ltd. (. 5nion of India C133GD te "upre#e .ourt obser(edF ?It is $ell
settled tat te eadings prefi%ed to sections or entries cannot control te plain $ords of te
pro(isionI te- cannot also be referred to for te purpose of construing te pro(ision $en
te $ords used in te pro(ision are clear and una#biguousI nor can te- be used for cutting
do$n te plain #eaning of te $ords in te pro(ision.
*nl- in te case of a#biguit- or doubt te eading or sub-eading #a- be referred
to as an aid in construing te pro(ision but e(en in suc a case it could not be used for
cutting do$n te $ide application of te clear $ords used in te pro(ision.@
Anoter i#portant case is tat of Bin'a (. .aran "ing C13&3D in $ic te
respondent-landlord sougt to e(ict te tenant under section 12G of te 5.P. :enanc- Act4
1333. :e section reads tat ?a person ta'ing or retaining possession of a plot of land
$itout te consent of te person entitled to ad#it i# and oter$ise tan in accordance
$it te pro(isions of la$ for ti#e being in force sall be liable to eject#ent.@
N. BIBAVE
:e "upre#e .ourt eld tat section 12G applied onl- in te cases $ere te
landlord see's to e(ict a person $o as no rigt to possession. :is is furter reiterated b-
te eading of tis section $ic reads4 6,ject#ent of person occup-ing land $itout title7.
:erefore4 section 12G ad no application to tenanc- #atters.
:e eading prefi%ed to section or group of sections in so#e #odern statute are
regarded as prea#bles to tose sections. :e- cannot control te plain $ords of te statute
but te- #a- e%plain a#biguous $ords. ABin'a (. .aran "ing4 13&3E
0eading prefi%ed to sections cannot control te plain $ords of te pro(isions. :e-
cannot also be referred to for te purpose of construing pro(ision $en te $ords used in
te pro(ision are clear and una#biguous. :e- cannot be used for cutting do$n te plain
#eaning of te $ords of pro(ision. *nl- in te case of a#biguit- or doubt eading or sub-
eading #a- be referred to as an aid in construing pro(ision. AR. >risnai (. "tate of A.P.4
2GG&E
MARGINAL NOTES:
In so#e e%ceptional cases4 #arginal notes #a- be inserted b- te legislators
te#sel(es. In suc cases elp can be ta'en of te #arginal notes because ere te- are
considered as part of te Act. 9or e%a#ple4 #arginal notes appended to Articles of te
.onstitution a(e been eld to constitute part of te .onstitution as passed b- te
.onstituent Asse#bl- and4 terefore4 te- a(e been used in construing te Articles of te
.onstitution. In Bengal I##unit- .o. Ltd. (. "tate of Biar C13&&D te "upre#e .ourt eld
tat #arginal notes appended to Article 22)4 $ic pro(ides for ?Restrictions as to
i#position of ta% on te sale or purcase of goods@4 are a part of te .onstitution and te-
furnis ?prima facie@ so#e clue as to te #eaning and purpose of te Article.
In Balraj >u#ar (. <agatpal "ing C132)D Lord Macnaugten said4 ?It is $ell settled
tat #arginal notes to te sections of an Act of Parlia#ent cannot be referred to for te
purposes of construing te Act. :e contrar- opinion originated in a #ista'e4 and as been
e%ploded long ago. :ere see#s to be no reason for gi(ing te #arginal notes in an Indian
statute an- greater autorit- tan te #arginal notes in an ,nglis Act of Parlia#ent@
:e #arginal notes or captions are4 undoubtedl-4 part of legislati(e e%ercise and te
language terein pro(ides te 'e- to te legislati(e intent. :e $ords so e#plo-ed are not
#ere surplusage. A5tta# /as .ela "under /as (. "iro#ani Gurud$ara Prabanda'
.o##ittee4 133)E :e legislati(e intent contained in te pro(ision sould not be b-passed
N. BIBAVE
$ere #arginal note is found #isleading or inappropriate. In case of conflict bet$een plain
language of pro(ision and #eaning of eading or title4 latter $ould not control te #eaning
$ic is clearl- and plainl- discernible fro# languages of for#er. ARaicur#ata#
Praba'ar (. Ra$at#al /ugar4 2GG!E
Language of te #arginal note or section eading pri#a facie furnises clues as to
te #eaning or purpose of te section.A*riental Insurance .o. Ltd. (. 0ansrajbai ;. >odala4
2GG1E Ben te language of a section is clear and una#biguous4 #arginal note cannot
restrict te #eaning of te section. :ere is no justification for restricting te section $en
te language e#plo-ed in te section clearl- spells out its o$n #eaning. A>arnata'a Rare
,art (. "enior Geologist4 /epart#ent of Mines and Geolog-4 2GG!E
PUNCTUATION:
It is (er- doubtful to sa- tat in te construction of #odern acts punctuation can be
loo'ed upon for purposes of construction. In te past also courts did not regard punctuation
in te construction of a statute. In te $ords of 0obouse4 ?It is an error to rel- on
punctuation in construing acts of te legislature@
In As$ini >u#ar Gose (. Arabinda Bose C13&2D Mu'erjea4 <.4 said4 ?Punctuation
is after all a #inor ele#ent in te construction of a statute4 and (er- little attention is paid to
it b- ,nglis .ourt.@
Bit respect to #odern statute it appears tat if te statute in =uestion is found to be
carefull- punctuated4 punctuation4 toug a #inor ele#ent4 #a- be resorted to for purposes
of construction.
In M. >. "alpe'ar (. "unil >u#ar "a#sunder .audari C1322D clause 13 C3D C(D of
te .. P. and Berar Letting of 0ouses and Rent .ontrol *rder $ere construed. :is
pro(ision per#itted eject#ent of a tenant on te ground tat ?te tenant ad secured
alternati(e acco##odation4 or as left te area for a continuous period of four #onts and
does not reasonabl- need te ouse.@ In olding te re=uire#ent tat te tenant 6does not
reasonabl- need te ouse7 as no application $en e 6as secured alternati(e
acco##odation7I te court referred and relied upon te punctuation co##a after te $ords
alternati(e acco##odation.
Anoter e%a#ple is Mod. "abbir (. "tate of Maarastra C13+3D. In tis case4
section 2+ of te /rugs and .os#etics Act4 13!G $as construed. According to te section4
N. BIBAVE
$oe(er 6#anufactures for sale4 sells4 stoc's or e%ibits for sale or distributes7 a drug
$itout a licence $as liable for punis#ent. :e "upre#e .ourt eld tat te presence of
co##a after 6stoc's7 indicates tat #ere stoc'ing is not an offence $itin te section.
:erefore4 it $as eld tat onl- stoc'ing for sale could not a#ount to offence and not #ere
stoc'ing.
ILLUSTRATION:
:e illustrations appended to a section for# part of te section and altoug te- do
not for# part of te statute4 are of rele(ance and (alue in te construction of te te%t of te
section and te- sould not be readil- rejected as repugnant to te section.
Illustrations to te section are parts of te section and elp to elucidate te principle
of te section. AMaes .ander "ar#a (. Raj >u#ari "ar#a4 133)E But it is said tat
illustrations cannot #odif- te language of te section and te- cannot eiter curtail or
e%pand te a#bit of te section $ic alone for#s te enact#ent.
9or e%a#ple4 in "oper (. Ad#inistrator General of Bengal C13!!D in interpreting
section 113 of te Indian "uccession Act4 132& and in deciding tat 6later7 be=uest to be
(alid #ust co#prise of all testators re#aining interest if te legatee to te later be=uest is
not in e%istence at te ti#e of te testator7s deat and tat a confer#ent of a life estate
under suc a be=uest is not (alid. :e Pri(- .ouncil too' on aid of illustrations 2 and 3
appended to tat section and eld tat $at is not clear fro# te language of te section-
tat o$e(er co#plete #a- be te disposition of $ill4 gift after te prior be=uest #a- not be
a life interest to an unborn person for tat $ould be a be=uest to a person not in e%istence at
te ti#e of te testators deat of so#eting less tan re#aining interest of te testator.
:e (ie$ of Lord "a$ e%pressed in Ariffin7s case AMod. "-deol Ariffin (. Jea *ai
Gar'4 131)E is pertinent ere. Lord "a$ obser(edF ?It is te dut- of a court of la$ to accept4
if tat can be done4 te illustrations gi(en as being bot of rele(ance and (alue in te
construction of te te%t. :e illustrations sould in no case be rejected because te- do not
s=uare $it ideas possibl- deri(ed fro# anoter s-ste# of jurisprudence as to te la$ $it
$ic te- or sections deal. And it $ould re=uire a (er- special case to $arrant teir
rejection on te ground of tis assu#ed repugnanc- to te sections te#sel(es. It $ould be
te (er- last resort of construction to #a'e tis assu#ption. :e great usefulness of te
illustrations $ic a(e4 altoug not part of te sections4 be e%pressl- furnised b- te
N. BIBAVE
legislature as elpful in te $or'ing and application of te statute4 sould not be tus
i#paired.@
In a case in(ol(ing interpretation of section 1G) of te Indian ,(idence Act4 12+24 te
"upre#e .ourt eld tat te said pro(ision $as not intended to relie(e te prosecution of
te burden of proof and $as designed to #eet certain e%ceptional cases $ere te
infor#ation $as as #uc $itin te 'no$ledge of te prosecution as of te accused.
A"a#bu 1at Mera (. "tate of Aj#er4 13&+E
0o$e(er4 te utilit- of illustrations in interpreting te section cannot detract te pri#e
i#portance of te language of te section $ic is te enacting pro(ision. :erefore4
illustrations cannot a(e te effect of controlling te real content of te section and #ust
gi(e $a- in case of repugnance $it te te%t of te section.
PROVISO:
Pro(iso as been (ariousl- defined. 0ida-atulla4 <.4 laid do$n a general rule
regarding a pro(isoF ?As a general rule4 a pro(iso is added to an enact#ent to =ualif- or
create an e%ception to $at is in te enact#ent and ordinaril-4 a pro(iso is not interpreted as
stating a general rule@.A"a Bojraj >u(erji *il Mills and Ginning 9actor- (. "ubas
.andra Jograj "ina4 13)1E
Lus <.4 obser(edF ?Ben one finds a pro(iso to a section te natural presu#ption is
tat4 but for te pro(iso4 te enacting part of te section $ould a(e included te subject
#atter of te pro(iso@. AMullins (. :reasurer of "ur(e-4 122GE
In te $ords of >apur4 <.4F ?:e proper function of a pro(iso is tat it =ualifies te
generalit- of te #ain enact#ent b- pro(iding an e%ception and ta'ing out as it $ere4 fro#
te #ain enact#ent4 a portion $ic but for te pro(iso $ould fall $itin te #ain
enact#ent@
*rdinaril-4 it is foreign to te proper function of a pro(iso to read it as pro(iding
so#eting b- $a- of an addendu# or dealing $it a subject $ic is foreign to te #ain
enact#ent.@ A.I:4 M-sore etc. (. Indo Mercantile Ban' Ltd.4 13&3E
A pro(iso to a pro(ision in a statute as se(eral functions and $ile interpreting a
pro(ision of te statute4 te court is re=uired to carefull- scrutiniHe and find out te real
object of te pro(iso appended to tat pro(ision. It is not a proper rule of interpretation of a
pro(iso tat te enacting part or te #ain part of te section construed first $itout
N. BIBAVE
reference to te pro(iso and if te sa#e is found to be a#biguous onl- ten recourse #a-
be ad to e%a#ine te pro(iso. *n te oter and4 an accepted rule of interpretation is tat
a section and te pro(ision tereto #ust be construed as a $ole4 eac portion tro$ing
ligt4 if need be4 on te rest. A pro(iso #ust be read in its conte%t and not in isolation.
ABalcandra Anantrao Ra'(i (. Ra#candra :u'ara#4 2GG1E :e real object of a pro(iso
sould be ascertained and it sould be read along $it te section as a $ole. It sould not
be rendered superfluous or redundant. A"an'ar Ra# and .o#pan- (. >asi 1aic'er4 2GG3E A
pro(iso is nor#all- used to re#o(e special cases fro# te general enact#ent and pro(ide
for te# speciall-.
A pro(iso =ualifies te generalit- of te #ain enact#ent b- pro(iding on e%ception
and ta'ing fro# te #ain pro(ision4 a portion4 $ic4 but for te pro(iso $ould be a part of
te #ain pro(ision. A pro(iso #ust4 terefore4 be considered in relation to te principle
#atter to $ic it stands as a pro(iso. A pro(iso sould not be read as if pro(iding
so#eting b- $a- of addition to te #ain pro(ision $ic is foreign to te #ain pro(ision
itself. A pro(iso to a section cannot be used to i#port into te enacting part so#eting $ic
is not tere. Bere te enacting part is susceptible to se(eral possible #eanings it #a- be
controlled b- te pro(iso. AMaula(i 0ussein 0aji Abraa# 5#arji (. "tate of Gujarat4 2GG!E
:e nor#al function of a pro(iso is to e%cept so#eting out of te enact#ent or to
=ualif- so#eting enacted terein $ic but for te pro(iso $ould be $itin te pur(ie$ of
te enact#ent. AAli M.>. (. "tate of >erala4 2GG3E
EXPLANATION:
"o#eti#es an e%planation is appended to a section to e%plain te #eaning of $ords
contained in te section. ,%planations are nor#all- inserted $it te purpose of e%plaining
te #eaning of a particular pro(ision and to re#o(e doubts $ic #igt creep up if te
e%planation ad not been inserted. It beco#es a part and parcel of te enact#ent.
,%planation to a section is part of te section.
:e "upre#e .ourt obser(ed in te Bengal I##unit- .o. (. "tate of Biar4 13&& tat
an e%planation is a part of te section to $ic it is appended and te $ole lot sould be
read togeter to 'no$ te true #eaning of te pro(ision. :e e%planation is to be li#ited to
te purpose for $ic it $as created and sould not be e%tended be-ond tat legiti#ate
field. :e e%planation created a legal fiction and tese fictions are created for definite
purpose. 0ere te a(o$ed purpose of te e%planation $as to e%plain $at an outside sale
N. BIBAVE
referred to in sub-clause CaD of te Article 22) C1D $as ?:e e%planation in clause 1 CaD
cannot be legiti#atel- e%tended to clause C2D eiter as an e%ception or as a pro(iso tereto
or read as curtailing or li#iting te a#bit of clause C2D.@ 0ence4 it as been eld tat e%cept
in so far as te Parlia#ent #a- b- la$ pro(ide oter$ise4 no state la$ can i#pose or
autoriHe te i#position of an- ta% on sales or purcases $en suc sale or purcase ta'es
place in te course of inter-state trade or co##erce and irrespecti(e of $eter suc sales
or purcases do or do not fall $itin te e%ception.
:e "upre#e .ourt obser(ed in ". "undara# (. ;. R. Pattabira#an4 132& tat it is
$ell settled tat an e%planation added to a statutor- pro(ision is not a substanti(e pro(ision
in an- sense of te ter# but as te plain #eaning of te $ord itself so$s it is #erel- #eant
to e%plain or clarif- certain a#biguities $ic #a- a(e crept in te statutor- pro(ision.
:e objects of an e%planation to a statutor- pro(ision are follo$ingF
aD to e%plain te #eaning and intend#ent of te act itselfI
bD $ere tere is an- obscurit- or (agueness in te #ain enact#ent to clarif- te sa#e
so as to #a'e it consistent $it te do#inant object $ic it see#s to subser(eI
cD to pro(ide an additional support to do#inant object of te Act in order to #a'e it
#eaningful and purposeful
dD an e%planation cannot in an- $a- interfere $it or cange te enact#ent or an- part
tereof but $ere so#e gap is left $ic is rele(ant for te purpose of te
e%planation4 in order to suppress te #iscief and ad(ance te object of te act4 it
can elp or assist te court in interpreting te true purport and intend#ent of te
enact#ent4 and
eD it cannot4 o$e(er4 ta'e a$a- a statutor- rigt $it $ic an- person under a statute
as been cloted or set at naugt te $or'ing of te Act b- beco#ing a indrance in
te interpretation of te sa#e.
SCHEDULES:
"cedules attaced to an Act generall- deal $it as to o$ clai#s or rigts under te
Act are to be asserted or as to o$ po$ers conferred under te Act are to be e%ercised.
:e di(ision of a statute into sections and scedules is done onl- for con(enience
and4 terefore4 a scedule #a- contain substanti(e enact#ent $ic #a- e(en go be-ond
te scope of a section to $ic te scedule #a- appear to be connected b- its eading.
0ere4 in suc a case a clear positi(e pro(ision in a scedule #a- be eld to pre(ail o(er te
N. BIBAVE
pri#a facie indication furnised b- its eading and te purpose te scedule contained in
te Act. AIR. (. Gittus4 132GE In deter#ining te #eaning or connotation of $ords and
e%pressions describing an article in a tariff scedule4 one principle $ic is fairl- $ell settled
is tat tose $ords and e%pressions sould be construed in te sense in $ic te- are
understood in te trade b- te dealer and te consu#er. :e reason is tat te- $o are
concerned $it it and it is te sense in $ic te- understand it $ic constitutes te
definiti(e inde% of legislati(e intention. :e true test for classification is te test of
co##ercial identit- and not te functional test. If te trade as ac=uired a particular
#eaning in te trade or co##ercial circles tat #eaning beco#es te popular #eaning in
te conte%t and it sould nor#all- be accepted. A1ational Mineral .orp. Ltd. (. "tate of M. P.4
2GG!E.
N. BIBAVE
EXTERNAL AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION
PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY:
(a) Bill:
As te speeces #ade b- te #e#ber of te constituent asse#bl- in te course of
debates on te constitution cannot be ad#itted as an e%ternal aid to te construction of te
constitution. in te sa#e $a-4 te debates on a bill in parlia#ent are not ad#issible for
construction of te Act $ic is ulti#atel- enacted.
In .iranjit lal coudr- (. 5nion of indiaCAIR 13&1 ". pp !&4!)D9AKAL ALI <.
ad#itted parlia#enatar- istor- including te speec of #inister introducing te Bill as
e(idence of te circu#stances $ic necessitated te passing of te act4 acourse
apparentl- appro(ed in later decisions.
In indira sa$an- (. union of india4 te supre#e court reffered ti /r. A#bed'ar 6s
speec in te constituent asse#bl- and obser(e in interpreting Art 1)C!D tat te debates in
te constituent asse#bl- could be relied upon as an aid to interpretation of te constitutional
pro(ision is borne out b- a series of decision of te court. "ince te e%pression bac'$ard
classes of te citiHens is not defined in constitution4 reference to suc debates is per#issible
to ascertain at an- rate te conte%t4 bac'ground and te object beind te#. Particularl-
$ere te court $ants to ascertain te original intent suc reference #a- be una(oidable.
() S!a!"#"$! %& %'"(!) a$* +"a)%$):
:e state#ent of objects and reasons acco#pan-ing a legislati(e bill cannot be used
to ascertain te true #eaning and effect of te substanti(e pro(isions of te legislation4 but it
can certainl- be pressed into ser(ice for te li#ited purpose of understanding te
bac'ground4 te antecedent state of affairs and te object tat te legislation sougt to
acie(e.
:e state#ent of object and reasons is undoubtedl- an aid to construction but tat
b- itself cannot be ter#ed to be and b- itself cannot be interpreted. It is a useful guide but
te interpretation and te intent sall a(e to be gatered fro# te entiret- of te statute and
$en te language of te sections pro(iding an appeal to a foru# is clear and categorical no
e%ternal aid is per#issible in interpretation of te sa#e.
(() C%##i))i%$),I$-.i+/ (%##i!!""):
Report of co##issions and en=uir- co##ittees preceding of introduction of a Bill
a(e also been referred to as e(idence of istorical facts or of surrounding circu#stances or
N. BIBAVE
of #iscief or e(il intended to be re#edied and at ti#es for interpreting te Act. ,%a#ple
can be ta'en of "*/RA /,;I7s case in $ic Inco#e :a% ,n=uir- report $as referredI in
,%press ne$spaper case te press co##ission7s case $as referred.
HISTORICAL FACTS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCE:
Lord A:>I1"*1 said@ in te construction of statutes4 it is4 of course at all ti#es and
under all circu#stances per#issible to a(e regard to te state of tings e%isting at te ti#e
of te statutes $as passed and e(ils4 $ic4 as appears fro# te pro(isions 4 it $as designed
to re#ed-.
In te $ords of Lord 0alisbur- F ?:e subject-#atter $it $ic te legislature $as
dealing4 and te facts e%isting at te ti#e $it respect to $ic te legislature $as
legislating are legiti#ate topics to consider in ascertaining $at $as te object and purpose
of te legislation in pasiing te act. C0erron (. Rat#ines and Ratgare .o##issioners4
C1232D A. !324 p. &G2 C0LD D.
SUBSE0UENT SOCIAL1 POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS AND
SCIENTIFIC INVENTIONS:
Generall-4 statutes are of ?al$a-s spea'ing (ariet-@ and te court is free to appl- te
current #eaning of te statute to present da- conditions. :erefore4 te reference to
circu#stances e%isting at te ti#e of te passing of te statute does not #ean tat te
language used4 at an- rate4 in a #odern statute sould be eld to be inapplicable to social4
political and econo#ic de(elop#ents or to scientific in(entions not 'no$n at te ti#e of
passing of te statute.
A statute #a- be interpreted to include circu#stances or situations $ic $ere
un'no$n or did not e%ist at te ti#e of te enact#ent of te statute. C"r. ,lectric Inspector (.
La%#inara-an .opra4 AIR 13)2 ". 1&34 p. &&+ C0LDD. Lord Bridge obser(edF ?Ben a
cange in social conditions produces a no(el situation4 $ic $as not in conte#plation at
te ti#e $en a statute is first enacted4 tere can be no a priori assu#ption tat te
enact#ent does not appl- to te ne$ circu#stances. If te language of te enact#ent is
$ide enoug to e%tend to tose circu#stances4 tere is no reason $- it sould not appl-.@
C.o#del .o##odities Ltd. ;. "ipore% :rade4 "A4 C133GD 2 ALL ,R &&24 p.&&+ C0LD.
In a case before it4 te "upre#e .ourt e#pasiHed tat te Indian Penal .ode
sould be construed4 as far as its language per#its4 $it reference to #odern needs and not
N. BIBAVE
$it reference to notions of cri#ainal jurisdiction pre(ailing at te ti#e $en te .ode $as
enacted. CMobari' Ali A#ad (. "tate of Bo#ba-4 AIR 13&+ ". 2&+4 p. 2+1.D
In "enior ,lectric Inspector (. La%#inara-an .opra4 supra it is said tat tere is a
distinction bet$een ancient statutes and co#parati(el- #odern statutes.
"ubbarao *4 <.4 e%plained tis principle tus F ? It is peraps difficult to attribute to
legislati(e bod- functioning in a static societ- tat its intention $as couced in ter#s of
considerable breadt so as to ta'e $itin its s$eep te future de(elop#ents co#preended
b- te praseolog- used. It is #ore reasonable to confine its intention onl- to te
circu#stances obtaining at te ti#e te la$ $as #ade. But in #odern progressi(e societ- it
$ould be unreasonable to confine te intention of te legislature to te #eaning attributable
to te $ord used at te ti#e te la$ $as #ade4 for a #odern legislature #a'ing la$s to
go(ern societ- $ic is first #o(ing #ust presu#ed to be a$are of an enlarged #eaning te
sa#e concept #igt attract $it te #arc of ti#e and $it te #odern re(olutionar-
canges brougt about in social4 econo#ic4 political4 and scientific and oter fields of u#an
acti(it-. Indeed4 unless a contrar- intention appears4 an interpretation sould be gi(en to te
$ords used to ta'e in ne$ facts and situation4 if te $ords are capable of co#preending
te#.@
REFERENCE TO OTHER STATUTES:
:e oter statutes are onl- an e%ternal aid to te interpretation. Anoter statute can
be used in interpreting te statute under consideration onl- $en it is so$n tat te t$o
statues are si#ilar. C 0arsad Meta (. "tate of Maarastra4 2GG1 2 scc 2&+.D
23 S!a!.!") i$ 4a+i #a!"+ial:
"tatues in pari #ateria #eans statues dealing te sa#e subject-#atter or for#ing
part of te sa#e s-ste#. :e rule of conte%t $ic sa-s tat te statute #ust be read as a
$ole as $ords are to be understood in teir conte%t4 per#its reference to oter statutes in
pari #ateria. CC2GG!D 1 ".. +&&.D
In an A#erican case4 pari #aterial $as e%plained as ?statutes are in pari #aterial
$ic relate to te sa#e person or ting4 or to te sa#e class of persons or tings. :e
$ord par #ust not be confounded $it te si#iles. It is used in opposition to it inti#ating not
li'eness #erel- but identit-. It is pase applicable to public statutes or general la$s #ade at
different ti#es and in reference to te sa#e subject.@ C.raiesI "tatutes La$4 +
t
,dn.4 p.
13!.D
N. BIBAVE
Lord Mansfield e#pasiHed tat ?$ere tere are different statutes in pari #ateria toug
#ade at different ti#es4 or e(en e%pired4 and not reffering to eac oter4 te- sall be ta'en
and construted togeter4 as one s-ste# and as e%planator- of eac oter.@ CR. (. Lo%dale4
C1+&2D3+ ,R 33!4 p. 33&.D
:e sense in $ic a ter# as been understood in se(eral statutes does not
necessaril- troug an- ligt on te #anner in $ic ter# sould be understood generall-4
especiall- $en te statutes in =uestion are not in pari #aterial and are not dealing $it an-
cognate subject and definition coined b- legislature is an e%tended or artificial #eaning so
assigned to fulfil object of tat particular enact#ent. CMaes$ari 9is "eed 9ar# (. :.1.
,lectricit- Board4C2GG!D !".. +G&FAIR 2GG! ". 23!1.D
:e cop-rigt Act4 13&+ and te A.P. General "ales :a% Act4 13&+4 are not statutes in
pari #ateria and terefore4 it as been eld tat te definition contained in te for#er sould
not applied in latter.C :ata .onsultanc- "er(ices (. "tate of A.P.4C2GG&D 1".. 3G2F C2GG!D
2+1 I:R !G1F C2GG!D 13+ ":. !2G.D
53 H"l4 &+%# "a+li"+ )!a!.!"):
According to Lord MacMillan4@if an Act of Parlia#ent uses te sa#e language $ic
$as used in a for#er Act of Parlia#ent referring to te sa#e subject4 and passed $it te
sa#e purpose4 and for te sa#e object4 te safe and $ell-'no$n rule of construction is to
assu#e tat te legislature $en using $ell-'no$n $ords upon $ic tere a(e been $ell-
'no$n decisions uses tose $ords in te sense $ic te decisions a(e attaced to te#.
CODIFYING AND CONSOLIDATING STATUTES:
:e purpose of a codif-ing statute is to present an orderl- and autoritati(e state#ent of
te leading rules of la$ on a gi(en subject4 $eter tose rules are to be found in statues or
co##on la$.
:e essence of a codif-ing statute ?is to be e%austi(e on te #atter in respect of
$ic it declares te la$ and it is not te pro(ince of a judge to disregard or go outside te
letter of enact#ent according to its true construction@.
:e purpose of a consolidating statute is to present $ole bod- of statutor- la$ on a
subject in co#plete for#4 repeating te for#er statutes.
A consolidating statutes is not a #ere co#pilation of earlier enact#ents. :e object
of te consolidation is to #a'e a useful code $ic sould be applicable to te
circu#stances e%isting at te ti#e $en te consolidating Act $as passed. 9or tis object4
all te statutor- la$ bearing upon a particular subject is collected and is transfor#ed into a
useful code.
CONTEMPORANEA EXPOSITIOEST FORTISSIMA IN LEGE:
N. BIBAVE
.onte#poranea ,%positioest 4 i.e. te effect of usage and te practice #eans tat
$ord of a statutes $ill generall- be understood in te sense $ic te- bore $en it $as
passed. Ma%$ell as saidF@ it is said te best e%position of a statute or anoter docu#ent
is tat $ic it as recei(ed fro# conte#porar- autorit-L.. $ere tis as been gi(en b-
enact#ent of judicial decision it is of course to be accepted as conclusi(e4@
:e principle of conte#poranea e%position is not applicable to #odern statutes. :e
doctrine is confined to te construction of a#biguous language used in (er- old statutes
$ere indeed te language itself a(e a rater different #eaning of tese da-s.
,arlier te supre#e court refused to appl- te principle of conte#poranea e%positio
to te telegrap act4 122&4 and te e(idence act4 12+24 but it $as referred to in te case of
R.".1a-a' (. A.R.Antule- in construing section 21 of Indian Penal .ode 412)G and it $as
eld tat an M.L.A. is not a public ser(ant4 as tis e%pression is defined terein.
OTHER EXTERNAL AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION:
DICTIONARIES:
Ben a $ord is not defined in te Act itself4 it is per#issible to refer to dictionaries to
find out te general sense in $ic tat $ord is understood in co##on parlance or4in oter
$ords4 dictionar- #eaning or co##on parlance #eaning as to be resorted to. CMunicipal
Board4 "aaranpur (. I#perial :obacco of India Ltd.4 C1333D 1 ".. &))I AIR 1333 ". 2)!I
1333 ll L< 2G2.D But in selecting one out of te (arious #eanings of a $ord4 regard #ust
al$a-s be ad to te conte%t as it is a te- funda#ental rule tat ?te #eanings of $ords
and e%pressions used in an Act #ust ta'e teir colour fro# te conte%t in $ic te-
appear@CRa# 1arian (. "tate of 5.P.4 AIR 13&+ ". 124 p. 23D
/ictionar- #eaning of a $ord is not considered $en a plain reading of te pro(ision
brings out $at $as intended C"tate of Maarastra (. Praful B /esai4 C2GG3D ! ".. C.riD
21&F AIR 2GG3 ". 2G&3F C2GG3D.
:e (ie$ of >RI"01A AIJAR4 <. is pertinent ere. 0e saidF ?/ictionaries are not
dictators of statutor- construction $ere te benignant #ood of a la$4 #ore e#paticall-4
te definition clause furnises a different denotation.@C"BI (. 1. "undara Mone-4 AIR 13+)
". 11114 p. 111!I 13+) ".. CLabD 132.D
Bere an e%pression in an- act as been defined4 te said e%pression $ill a(e te
sa#e #eaning and it is not necessar- to find out $at is te general #eaning of te
N. BIBAVE
e%pression. C5nited Ban' of India (. /ebts Reco(er- :ribunal4C1333D ! ".. )3I AIR 1333
". 1321I C1333D3) .o#p. .as.)G2.D:e definition gi(en in te statue is te deter#inati(e
factor. C". Gopal Redd- (. "tate of A.P.4 C133)D ! ".. &3)I 133) ".. C.riD +32I AIR 133)
". 212!.D :oo #uc reliance on te dictionar- #eaning $it regard to te conte%t is not
proper. CC2GG2D 3 ".. 112.D.
/ictionar- #eaning cannot be relied upon $en tere is a e%press statutor-
pro(ision in regard to tat #atter.C1agulapati La's#a##a (. Mupparaju "ubbaia4 C1332D
& ".. 22&.D. But so#eti#es $en te $ord is not defined in te Act4 dictionaries #a- be
elpful4 for eg4 to deter#ine te #eaning of 6furniture7 dictionar- #eaning $as relied on.
C1e$ .elur #anufacturers CP.D Ltd.. (. ..,4 C133+D 3! ,L: !)+.
FOREIGN DECISIONS:
Indian .ourts a(e per#itted in te interpretations of Indian statutes sobered use of
tose foreign decisions of te countries $ic follo$ te sa#e s-ste# of jurisprudence as
te Indian jurisprudence and $ic are rendered on statutes in pari #ateria.
"tatutor- construction #ust be o#e-spun e(en if ospitable to alien tin'ing.
C Bangalore Bater "uppl- and "e$erage Board (. A. Rajappa4 AIR 13+2 ". &!24 p. &33.D
:ere is one =ualification attaced to te4 assistance of foreign decisions tat pri#e
i#portance is al$a-s to be gi(en to te language of te rele(ant Indian "tatute4 te
circu#stances and te settings in $ic it is enacted in te conditions $ere it is to be
applied and tat it is not to be forgetten tat tere is al$a-s an ele#ent of ris' in ta'ing
read- and ast- assistance fro# foreign decisions C"ales :a% *fficer4 Banaras (. >anai-a
lal Mu'und Lal "araf4 Air 13&3 ". 13&4 pp.1334 1!G.D
:e "upre#e .ourt is not bound b- foreign CA#ericanD court decisionsI te- a(e
onl- a persuasi(e (alue. But if te- are in consonance $it Indian La$ te courts can
borro$ te principles laid do$n in foreign decisions 'eeping in (ie$ te canging global
scenario.CLi(erpool 8 London ".P.8 I. C2GG!D 3 ".. &12.D
9ollo$ing are te factors $ic oblige te Indian .ourts in ta'ing recourse to foreign
precedents of ,nglis spea'ing countriesF
1. Lin' of te ,nglis .o##on La$ and <urisprudenceI
2. "i#ilarit- of political tougtI and
3. :e use of ,nglis language as autoritati(e te%t of Indian "tatutes.
TEXT BOOKS:
N. BIBAVE
In arri(ing at te true #eaning of an enact#ent of te courts #a- refer to te te%t
boo's also. But it is not necessar- tat te #eaning gi(en in te te%t boo's sould
correspond to te (ie$ of te court. It is in te discretion of te court to accept or reject te
(ie$s gi(en in te te%t boo' $ic $as referred to b- te court. :ere are #an- instances of
bot rejection and acceptance of te (ie$s e%pressed in te%t boo's.
N. BIBAVE
SUBSIDIARY RULES OF INTERPRETATION
CONJUNCTIVE OR DISJUNCTIVE:
:e $ord 6or7 is nor#all- disjuncti(e and 6and7 is nor#all- conjuncti(e but at ti#es
te- read as vice versa to gi(e effect to te #anifest intention of te Legislature as disclosed
fro# te conte%t [Ishar !ingh "indra v. !tate of #.$.% &IR '()*+.
According to Lord 0AL"B5RJ4 te reading of 6or7 as 6and7 is not be restored to4
unless so#e oter part of te sa#e statute or te clear intention of it re=uires tat to be
done.
In Ishar !ingh "indra v. !tate of #.$. [&IR '()*+ section 3CbDCiD of te /rugs Act4
13!G defined drugs before its a#end#ents asF 6All #edicines for internal or e%ternal use of
u#an beings or ani#als and all substances intended to be used for or in te diagnosis4
treat#ent4 #itigation or pre(ention of disease in u#an beings or ani#als oter tan
#edicines and substances e%clusi(el- used or prepared for use in accordance $it te
A-ur(edic or 5nani "-ste#s of #edicine7. In tis definition4 te italiciHed $ord 6and7 $as read
disjuncti(el- as te conte%t so$ed tat it $as te clear intention of te legislature.
In !tate of "omba, v. RM- Chamar "augala [&IR '(./+ $ile dealing $it section
2CdDCiD of te Bo#ba- Lotteries and PriHe .o#petition .ontrol and :a% Act4 13!2 te
"upre#e .ourt read 6or7 as 6and7 to gi(e effect to te clear intention of te legislature as
e%pressed in te Act read as $ole.
SAME WORD SAME MEANING:
Ben te Legislature uses sa#e $ord in different parts of te sa#e section or
statute4 tere is a presu#ption tat te $ord is used in te sa#e sense trougout. But tis
presu#ption is a $ea' presu#ption and is readil- displaced b- te conte%t. ,(en $en te
sa#e $ord is used at different places in te sa#e clause of te sa#e section it #a- not
bear te sa#e #eaning at eac place a(ing regard to te conte%t of its use [$er
-harmadhi0ari% 1% in Mani0lal Ma2umdar v. 3auranga Chandra -e,% 456678+.
In $arrell v. &lexander ['(/)+ te #ore correct state#ent of te rule is stated tusF
?$ere te drafts#an uses te sa#e $ord or prase in si#ilar conte%ts4 e #ust be
presu#ed to intend it in eac place to bear te sa#e #eaning@.
:e "upre#e .ourt in interpreting te $ords 6te grounds on $ic te order as
been #ade7 as te- occurred in section 3C3D and section +C1D of te Pre(enti(e /etention
Act4 13&G eld tat te $ords did not bear te sa#e #eaning in tese t$o pro(isions. 5nder
section +C1D4 in co##unicating te grounds of detention to te detenu te Autorit- could
$itold suc facts $ic $ere according to it against te public interest to disclose. Bile
under section 3C3D4 in reporting to te "tate Go(ern#ent te grounds of detention4 tese
facts $ere li'el- to figure #ore pro#inentl-.
N. BIBAVE
It as been eld tat te rule of sa#e $ord sa#e #eaning #a- not appl- under
different pro(isions of te sa#e statute [CI9 v. :en0ateshara ;atcheries 4$.8 <td.% 4'(((8=
&IR '((5+. It does not necessaril- follo$ tat sa#e $ords used in t$o pro(isions #ust carr-
te sa#e #eaning [CI9 v. :. :en0atachalam% '(>>+.
USE OF DIFFERENT WORDS:
Ben in relation to sa#e subject-#atter4 different $ords are used in te sa#e
statute4 tere is presu#ption tat te- are not used in te sa#e sense. :$o different $ords
used in te sa#e statute prima facie as to be construed as carr-ing different #eanings.
.arr-ing of te sa#e #eaning b- suc $ords is an e%ception rater tan te rule [566>+.
:e $ords 6under anoter la$ for te ti#e being in force7 $ere eld to a(e
different #eaning fro# te $ords 6under tis Act7 or under anoter pro(ision of tis Act
[Oriental Insurance Co. <td. v. ;ansrajbhai v. ?odala% 4566'8@ &IR 566'+. 9or e%a#ple4 te
"upre#e .ourt applied tis rule in te construction of te prase 6rendered illegal7 occurring
in section !2 and te prase 6eld illegal7 occurring in section !34 !! and !& of te sa#e
statute4 ..P. and Berar Industrial /isputes "ettle#ent Act. It $as eld tat te prase
6rendered illegal7 bore a different #eaning fro# te prase 6eld illegal7 [Members "oard of
Revenue v. &rthur $aul "enthall% &IR '(.)+.
In te $ords of <ustice ;,1>A:ARAMA AIJAR4 ?$en t$o $ords of different i#port
are used in a statute in t$o consecuti(e pro(isions4 it $ould be difficult to #aintain tat te-
are used in te sa#e sense@ [CI9 v. :. :en0atachalam% '(>>+.
Ben dealing $it a long co#plicated statute4 #uc $eigt to te presu#ption
arising out of use of different $ords in different parts of a statute cannot be gi(en [Aualter
;all B Co. v. "oard of 9rade 4'()'8+.
RULE OF LAST ANTECEDENT:
As a corollar- to te rule tat prases and sentences in a statute are interpreted
according to te gra##atical #eaning4 relati(e and =ualif-ing $ords4 prases and clauses
are applied to te antecedent i##ediatel- preceding. 0o$e(er4 tis rule is subordinate to
conte%t. A =ualif-ing prase ougt to be referred to te ne%t antecedent $ic $ill #a'e
sense $it te conte%t and to $ic te conte%t appears to be properl- related [Castern
Countries and <ondon and "lac0 Dall Raila, Companies v. Marriage+.
In &shini ?umar 3hose v. &rbinda "ose [&IR '(.5+ section 2 of te "upre#e .ourt
Ad(ocates CPractice in 0ig .ourtsD Acts4 13&1 $as construed. "ection readF
6not$itstanding an-ting contained in te Indian Bar .ouncils Act4 132)4 or in anoter la$
regulating te conditions subject to $ic a person not entered in te roll of Ad(ocates of a
0ig .ourt #a- be per#itted to practice in tat 0ig .ourt4 e(er- Ad(ocate of te "upre#e
.ourt sall be entitled as of rigt to practice in an- 0ig .ourt $eter or not e is an
N. BIBAVE
ad(ocate of tat 0ig .ourt7. It $as eld b- te "upre#e .ourt tat te adjecti(al clause
6regulating te conditions etc.74 =ualified te $ord 6la$7 and not te $ords 6Bar .ouncil Act7.
:e (ie$s of Lord MA.1A5G0:,1 in an earl- case of Irra Dadd, Elotilla Compan,
v. "hagan -as ['*('+ are pertinent ere. In tis case4 section 1 of te Indian .ontract Act4
12+2 $as construed $ic reads4 ?1oting erein contained sall effect te pro(isions of
an- statute4 Act or Regulation4 not ereb- e%pressl- repeated4 nor an- usage or custo# of
trade4 nor an- incident of an- contact not inconsistent $it te pro(isions of te Act@. Lord
MA.1A5G0:,1 obser(ed tat ?te $ords 6not inconsistent $it te pro(isions of tis Act7
are not to be connected $it te clause 6nor an- usage or custo# of trade7. Bot4 te reason
of te ting and gra##atical construction of te sentence4 if suc a sentence is to be tried
b- an- rules of gra##ar4 see# to re=uire tat te application of tose $ords sould be
confined to te subject $ic i##ediatel- precedes te#@.
:is rule is subordinate to conte%t is illustrated b- a decision of te "upre#e .ourt
relating to te construction of section 1C3DCaD of te e#plo-ee7s Pro(ident 9und Act4 13&2.
:is section read4 6subject to te pro(ision contained in section 1)4 it Cte ActD applies to
e(er- establis#ent $ic is a factor engaged in an- industr- specified in "cedule I and in
$ic fift- or #ore persons are e#plo-ed7. :e contention before te .ourt $as tat te
re=uire#ent tat te $or'#an e#plo-ed sould be fift- and #ore go(erned te $ord
6industr-7 and not te $ord 6factor-7. In support of tis it $as urged tat te pronoun 6$ic74
#ust under te ordinar- rules of gra##ar =ualif- te noun i##ediatel- preceding it and tat
too' it to te $ord 6industr-7 rater tan to te $ord 6factor-7. 0o$e(er4 tis contention $as
rejected on te basis of te conte%t and it $as eld tat te re=uire#ent as to te prescribed
nu#ber =ualified te $ord 6factor-7 and not te $ord 6industr-7 [Regional $rovident Eund
Commissioner% "omba, v. !hree ?rishna Metal Manufacturing Co. "handara% &IR '()5+.
NON6OBSTANTE CLAUSE:
:e e%pression FnonGobstanteH #eans ?not$itstanding@. A clause beginning $it
?not$itstanding an-ting contained in tis Act or in so#e particular pro(ision in te Act or in
so#e particular Act or in an- la$ for te ti#e being in force74 is so#eting appended to a
section in te beginning4 $it a (ie$ to gi(e te enacting part of te section in case of
conflict an o(erriding effect o(er te pro(ision or Act #entioned in te nonGobstante clause.
It is e=ui(alent to sa-ing tat in spite of te pro(ision or Act #entioned in te nonGobstante
clause4 te enact#ent follo$ing it $ill a(e its full operation or tat te pro(ision indicated in
te nonGobstante clause $ill not be an i#pedi#ent for te operation of te enact#ent@
[$ara,an ?andi,al Cravath ?anaparavan ?alliani &mma v. ?. -evi 4'(()8@ &IR '(()+.
:e (er- purpose of nonGobstante clause is tat te pro(ision sall pre(ail o(er an-
oter pro(ision and tat oter pro(ision sall be of no conse=uence. In case of an-
discrepanc- bet$een nonGobstante clause and oter pro(isions4 nonGobstante clause $ould
N. BIBAVE
pre(ail o(er te oter clauses. ,(en b- dictionar- sense4 te e%pression 6not$itstanding7
i#plies tat oter pro(isions sall not pre(ail o(er te #ain pro(isions [<allu $rasad and
another v. !tate of "ihar and other% &IR '(()+.
:e case of Municipal Corporation% Indore v. Ratnaprabha [&IR '(//+ is (er-
i#portant regarding te effect of nonGobstante clause on a =uestion of construction. In tis
case4 te "upre#e .ourt considered section 132CbD of te Mad-a Prades Municipal
.orporation Act4 13&)4 $ic enacted tat ?te annual (alue of an- building sall
not$itstanding an-ting contained in anoter la$ for te ti#e being in force be dee#ed to
be gross annual rent at $ic suc building #igt reasonabl- at te ti#e of assess#ent be
e%pected to let fro# -ear to -ear@. :a'ing in (ie$ te nonGobstante clause te "upre#e
.ourt eld tat te annual letting (alue deter#ined under section 132CbD need not in e(er-
case be li#ited to te standard rent $ic #igt be fi%ed for te building under te Rent
.ontrol Act.
In <axminara,an !a Mill v. !tate of Orissa [&IR '((.+4 it $as eld tat te nonG
obstante clause need not necessaril- and al$a-s be co-e%tensi(e $it te operati(e part so
as to a(e te effect of cutting do$n te clear ter#s of te enact#ent. If te $ords of te
enact#ent are clear and capable of onl- one interpretation on a plain and gra##atical
construction of te $ords tereof4 a nonGobstante clause cannot cut do$n te construction
and restrict te scope of its operation. :e enacting part of te statute #ust4 $ere it is clear
be ta'en to control te nonGobstante clause $ere bot cannot be read ar#oniousl-.
LEGAL FICTIONS:
A legal fiction is one $ic is not an actual realit- and $ic te la$ recognises and
te court accepts as a realit-. :erefore4 in case of a legal fiction te courts belie(e
so#eting to e%ist $ic in realit- does not e%ist. It is noting but a presu#ption of te
e%istence of te state of affairs $ic in actuall- is non- e%istent. :e effect of suc legal
fiction is tat a position $ic oter$ise $ould not obtain is dee#ed to obtain under te
circu#stances [3ajraj !ingh v. !tate% 4'((/8+.
Legislature can create not onl- one but a cain of legal fictions b- te sa#e Act
[!tate of D.". v. !adan ?. "ormal% 456678@ &IR 5667+. Ben a legal fiction is created b- a
statute it #ust be gi(en its full effect ["havnagar #niversit, v. $alitana !ugar Mill 4$.8 <td.%
4566>8@ &IR 566>+
In interpreting a pro(ision creating legal fiction te court #ust ascertain te purpose
for $ic it is created and a(ing done so to assu#e all suc facts and conse=uences $ic
are incidental or ine(itable corollaries to te gi(ing effect to te fiction. 0o$e(er4 te court
#ust not lose sign of te fact tat on unforeseen e(ent #a- gi(e rise to unusual situations
[CC9 v. !arn Re0ha Co0es and Coals 4$.8 <td.% 456678+.
N. BIBAVE
Regarding te scope of application of a legal fiction4 it as been eld tat it is to be
confined to te purpose for $ic te fiction $as created [&. ". ?rishna v. !tate of
?arnata0a% 4'((*8@ &IR '((*+.
A fiction sould not be e%tended be-ond its purpose. :is is $ell illustrated b- te
case of #nion of India v. !ampat Raj -ugar [&IR '((5+. In tis case4 section &C3D CiiD of te
I#ports C.ontrolD *rder $as construed. :is section pro(ides tat ?It sall be dee#ed to be
a condition of e(er- suc license CI#port licenseD tat te goods for te i#port of $ic a
license is granted sall be te propert- of te licensee at te ti#e of i#port and tereafter
upto te clearance troug custo#s@. :e fiction created b- tis clause $as eld to be for
te proper i#ple#entation of te I#port C.ontrolD *rder and te I#ports and ,%ports
C.ontrolD Act4 13!+ and also for olding te licensee responsible for an-ting and e(er-ting
tat appens fro# te ti#e of i#port till te goods are cleared troug custo#s and tat te
fiction cannot be e#plo-ed to attribute o$nersip of te i#ported goods to te i#porter in a
case $ere e abandons te# i.e.4 in a situation $ere e does not pa- and recei(e te
docu#ents of title.
In <o0mat Nespapers 4$.8 <td. v. !han0arprasad ['(((@ &IR '(((+ it $as eld tat
$ile gi(ing effect to te legal fiction for te purpose for $ic it is created b- te legislature4
it as to be gi(en full pla- for fructif-ing te said legislati(e intention.
MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY PROVISIONS:
In legal ter#inolog- $ere so#eting is re=uired to be done and te conse=uences
of failure to do so are also pro(ided ten it is 'no$n as #andator- pro(ision [&sho0 ?umar
!harma v. Chandrashe0har% ['((>+. :ere is no uni(ersal rule regarding te director- or
#andator- pro(isions e%cept tis tat language alone #ost often is not decisi(e4 and regard
#ust be ad to te conte%t4 subject-#atter and object of te statutor- pro(ision in =uestion
in deter#ining $eter te sa#e is director- or #andator-. Mandator- or director- does not
depend upon praseolog- used in te statute but as to be deter#ined a(ing regard to
purpose and object of te statute [Chandri0a $rasad Iadav v. !tate of "ihar% 456678@ &IR
5667+. It is te dut- of te courts to get te real intention of te legislature b- carefull-
attending te $ole scope of te pro(ision to be construed. :e 'e- to te opening of e(er-
la$ is te reason and spirit of te la$4 it is te ani#us i#potentia4 te intention of te la$
#a'er e%pressed in te la$ itself4 ta'en as a $ole [!pecial Reference No. ' of 5665% In re
43ujarat &ssembl, Clection matter8% 456658+.
:e "upre#e .ourt appro(ed te follo$ing passageF ?:e =uestion as to $eter a
statute is #andator- or director- depends upon te intent of te Legislature and not upon
te language in $ic te intent is cloted. :e #eaning and intention of te legislature
#ust go(ern4 and tese are to be ascertained not onl- fro# te praseolog- of te
pro(ision4 but also b- considering its nature4 its design4 and te conse=uences $ic $ould
N. BIBAVE
follo$ fro# construing it one $a- or te oter@ [$assage from Craford@ !9&9#9ORI
CON!9R#C9ION% p. .')+.
Directory and Mandatory Provisions distinguished.
In te case of #andator- enact#ent it is said tat te- #ust be sta-ed or fulfilled
e%actl- but in case of director- enact#ents onl- substantial co#pliance is sufficient.
:ere are t$o director- re=uire#ents regarding enact#entsF
1. :e- $ic sould be substantiall- co#plied $it to #a'e te Act (alid.
2. ,(en if not at all co#plied $it te- $ill a(e no effect on te Act.
:e correct position appears to be tat substantial co#pliance of an enact#ent is
insisting4 $ere #andator- and director- re=uire#ents are lu#ped togeter4 for in suc
case4 if #andator- re=uire#ents are co#plied $it4 it $ill be proper to sa- tat te
enact#ent as been substantiall- co#plied $it not$itstanding te non-co#pliance of
director- re=uire#ents.
A pro(ision is not #andator- unless non-co#pliance $it it is #ade penal. A
#andator- pro(ision #ust be obe-ed and an- act done in its breac $ill be in(alid but if it is
director- it $ill be (alid.
It is a general rule tat non-co#pliance of #andator- re=uire#ents results in
nullification of te Act. But tere is one e%ception to tis rule. If certain re=uire#ents or
conditions are pro(ided b- a statute in te interest of a particular person4 te re=uire#ents
or conditions4 altoug #andator-4 #a- be $ai(ed b- i# if no public interest is in(ol(ed
and in suc a case te act done $ill be (alid e(en if te re=uire#ents or condition as not
been perfor#ed.
Consequences provided by Statute.
Ben no failure to co#pl- $it a prescribed re=uire#ent nullification as a
conse=uence is pro(ided b- te statute itself4 tere is no doubt tat suc statutor-
re=uire#ent #ust be interpreted as #andator-.
:e periods prescribed in te "cedule to te Indian Li#itation Act4 13)34 for
bringing a legal proceeding are #andator- because te conse=uences of te e%pir- of te
period of li#itation is pro(ided b- section ! of te Act in tat te .ourt is enjo-ed to dis#iss
a legal proceeding instituted after e%pir- of te prescribed period [Maqbool &hmed v. On0ar
$ratap Narain !ingh% &IR '(>.+.
Negative words.
Ben te co##and is cloted in a negati(e for#4 it suggests tat tere is clear
intention to consider te enacted pro(ision as #andator-. "5BBARA*4 <.4 obser(ed tat
?negati(e $ords are clearl- proibitor- and are ordinaril- used as a legislati(e de(ice to
#a'e a statute i#perati(e@ [M. $entiah v. Muddala :eera Mallappa% &IR '()'+.
In <achmi Narain v. #nion of India [&IR '(/)+ a pro(ision re=uiring 6not less tan
tree #onts7 notice $as eld to be #andator-.
N. BIBAVE
Affirmative Words when impy negative.
9or reading te pro(ision as #andator-4 affir#ati(e $ords stand at a $ea'er footing
tan te negati(e $ordsI but affir#ati(e $ords #a- also be so li#iting as to i#pl- a
negati(e. As an e%a#ple te pro(isions of section &!4 &34 1G+ and 123 of te :ransfer of
Propert- Act4 12224 prescribing #odes of transfer b- sale4 #ortgage4 lease or gift #a- be
ta'en. :e for#alities prescribed b- tese pro(isions for effecting a transfer of te nature
#entioned in te# are #andator- and te language used altoug affir#ati(e clearl-
i#ports a negati(e [Mian $ir "ux v. Mohamed 9ahar% &IR '(>7+.
!se of "Sha# or "Sha and May#$ "Must# and "shoud#.
In te $ords of <ustice 0I/AJA:5LLA0F ?:e $ord 6sall7 is ordinaril- #andator- but
it is so#eti#es not so interpreted if te conte%t or te intention oter$ise de#ands [!aini0
Motors v. !tate of Rajasthan% &IR '()'= #$!C" v. !hiv Mohan !ingh% 456678+
:e use of te $ord 6sall7 is ordinaril- #andator- but it is so#eti#es not so
interpreted if te scope of te enact#ent4 on conse=uences to flo$ fro# suc construction
$ould not so de#and. :e $ord 6sall74 terefore4 ougt to be construed not according to te
language $it $ic it is cloted but in te conte%t in $ic it is used and te purpose it
see's to ser(e. If b- olding te# to be #andator-4 serious general incon(enience is
caused to innocent persons or general public4 $itout (er- #uc furtering te object of te
Act4 te sa#e $ould be construed as director- [!tate of ;ar,ana v. Raghubir -a,al% 4'((.8+.
:e distinction of #andator- co#pliance or director- effect of te language depends
upon te language in $ic te statute under consideration is couced and its object4
purpose and effect. :e distinction reflected in te use of te $ord 6sall7 or 6#a-7 depends
on confer#ent of po$er. In certain conte%t4 6#a-7 does not al$a-s #ean #a-. Ma- is a #ust
for enabling co#pliance of pro(ision but tere are cases in $ic4 for (arious reasons4 as
soon as a person $o is $itin te statute is entrusted $it te po$er4 it beco#es dut- to
e%ercise. Bere te language of statute creates a dut-4 te special re#ed- is prescribed for
non-perfor#ance of te dut-.
A statute #ust be read in te te%t and its conte%t. Beter a statute is director- or
#andator- $ould not be depended on te user of te $ords 6sall7 or 6#a-7. "uc a =uestion
#ust be posed and ans$ered a(ing regard to te purpose and object it see's to acie(e.
:e construction of a statute $ill depend on te purport and object for $ic te sa#e ad
been used.
Statutes %mposing Pubic Duty.
Bere a statute i#poses a public dut- and also la-s do$n te #anner in $ic and
te ti#e $itin $ic te dut- sall be perfor#ed4 injustice or incon(enience resulting fro# a
rigid aderence to te statutor- prescription #a- be a rele(ant factor- in olding suc
prescriptions onl- director-.
N. BIBAVE
In Chander Mohan v. !tate of #.$. [&IR '())+ after a(ing regard to te object of
securing independence of subordinate judiciar-4 pro(ision for consultation $it te 0ig
.ourt in te #atter of appoint#ent of /istrict <udges as enacted in Article 233 of te
.onstitution4 $as eld to be #andator-.
In !upreme Court &dvocates on Record &ssociation v. #nion of India [&IR '((7+ te
=uestion of pri#ac- of te opinion of te .ief <ustice of India in te conte%t of appoint#ent
of <udges of te "upre#e .ourt and 0ig .ourts4 and transfer of judges of 0ig .ourts as
re=uired b- Articles 12!4 21+ and 222 of te .onstitution $as reconsidered b- te "upre#e
.ourt and te follo$ing propositions $ere laid do$nF
1. :e nature of consultation a#ongst te different .onstitutional functionaries is 6an
integrated participator- consultati(e process7 and all te functionaries #ust act collecti(el- to
reac an agreed decisionI
2. In te e(ent of conflicting opinions b- te .onstitutional functionaries te opinion of
te judiciar- 6s-#bolised b- te (ie$ of te .ief <ustice of India7 and for#ed in te #anner
indicated as pri#ac-I
3. 1o appoint#ent of an- judge to te "upre#e .ourt or an- ig .ourt can be #ade
unless it is in confor#it- $it te opinion of te .ief <ustice of IndiaI
!. :e opinion of te .ief <ustice of India as not #ere pri#ac- but is deter#inati(e in
te #atter of transfer of 0ig .ourt <udges.
Statutes Conferring Power.
:ose statutes $ic confer po$er often contain certain e%press conditions for te
e%ercise of te conferred po$er and in te absence of or in addition to te e%press
conditions.
In ;aridar !ingh v. "egum !umbrui [&IR '(/5+ it as been eld tat in statutes
conferring a po$er to be e%ercised on certain conditions4 te conditions prescribed are
nor#all- eld to be #andator- and a po$er inconsistent $it tose conditions is i#pliedl-
negati(ed.
"i#ilarl-4 $en a corporation is conferred $it a po$er4 it i#pliedl- autorises
e(er-ting $ic could be fairl- and reasonabl- regarded as incidental or conse=uential to
te po$er conferred [:.9. ?han2ode v. R"I% 4'(*58= &IR 4'(*58+.
:e (ie$ of Lord R*.0, is pertinent ere. 0e $as considering te re=uire#ent tat
a confession #ust be recorded in a #anner prescribed b- section 1)!4 .ri#inal Procedure
.ode4 12324 or not at all. 0e said tat ?$ere a po$er is gi(en to do a certain ting in a
certain $a- te ting #ust be done in tat $a- or not at all. *ter #etods of perfor#ance
are necessaril- forbidden@ [Na2ir &hmad v. ?ing Cmperor% &IR '(/)+.
Bere statutes confer po$er to depri(e te libert- of citiHens4 te conditions
prescribed for te e%ercise of te po$er4 including procedural re=uire#ents4 #ust be strictl-
follo$ed.
N. BIBAVE
Ben a statute confers po$er upon a public official to destro-4 defeat or prejudice a
person7s rigts4 interest4 or legiti#ate e%pectations4 te rules of natural justice regulate te
e%ercise of tat po$er unless te- are e%cluded b- plain $ords or necessar- intend#ent
[&nnetts v. McCann 4'(('8+.
Ben a po$er is conferred to #a'e subordinate legislation4 it #ust be e%ercised in
confor#it- $it te e%press and i#plied conditions contained in te e#po$ering statute.
:erefore4 an order in te nature of subordinate legislation can be callenged on te
follo$ing groundsF
'. Ben po$ers entrusted for one purpose are deliberatel- used $it te design of
acie(ing anoter purpose $ic is unautorised or actuall- forbidden.
5. :e order so$s on te face of it a #isconstruction of te enabling Act or a failure to
co#pl- $it te conditions $ic te Act as prescribed for te e%ercise of its po$ers.
>. :e order is not capable of being related to an- one of te prescribed purposes
[&.3. for Canada v. ;allet and Care, <td.% 4'(.58+.
Statute Conferring Private &ights and 'enefits.
If a statute confers a concession or pri(ilege and prescribes a #ode of ac=uiring it4
te #ode so prescribed #ust be adopted as e(en affir#ati(e $ords in suc cases are
construed i#perati(e [Cdards Ramia <td. v. &frican Doods <td.% 4'()68+.
If a person $ants to e%ercise is rigts of appeal e #ust prefer is appeal in
accordance $it te statute conferring te rigt and if te statute re=uires filing of a certified
cop- of decree or order appealed against along $it te #e#o of appeal4 e #ust do so
oter$ise te appeal $ill beco#e inco#petent [1agat -hish "hargava v. 1aahar <al
"hargava% &IR '()'+.
CONSTRUCTION OF GENERAL WORDS:
N%)(i!.+ A S%(ii)3
:e doctrine of noscitur a sociis C#eaning of a $ord sould be 'no$n fro# its
acco#pan-ing or associating $ordsD as #uc rele(ance in understanding te i#port of
$ords in a statutor- pro(ision [C"I v. "raj "hushan $rasad% 4566'8+
According to Ma%$ell4 ?tis rule #eans tat $en t$o or #ore $ords $ic are
susceptible of analogous #eaning are coupled togeter4 te- are understood to be used in
teir cognate sense. :e- ta'e as it $ere teir colour fro# eac oter4 i.e. te #ore general
is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general [Maxell@ IN9CR$RC9&9ION OE
!9&9#9C!% ''
th
edn.4 p. 321+.
In te !tate of ?arnata0a v. union of India [&IR '(/*+ Article 13!C3D of te
.onstitution $ic refers to Po$ers4 Pri(ileges and I##unities of a 0ouse of legislature of a
"tate $as construed. :e "upre#e .ourt eld tat te $ord 6Po$ers7 #ust ta'e its colour
fro# $ords in i##ediate connection $it it and tat it sould be construed to refer not to
N. BIBAVE
legislati(e po$ers but to po$ers of a 0ouse $ic are necessar- for te conduct of its
business.
In a recent case of <o0mat Nespapers 4$.8 <td. v. !han0arprasad [&IR '(((+
It as been eld tat for te applicabilit- of tis rule t$o $ords in te statute sould a(e
analogous #eaning. "ince in tis case4 te $ords 6discarge7 and 6dis#issal7 used in a
statutor- pro(ision did not a(e te sa#e analogous #eaning4 tis rule did not appl-.
R.l" %& E'.)*"# G"$"+i)3
According to te Rule of ejusdem generis% $en particular $ords pertaining to a
class4 categor- or genus are follo$ed b- general $ords4 te- are construed as li#ited to te
tings of te sa#e 'ind as tose specified [?.?. ?uchuni v. !tate of Madras &IR '()6+.
Regarding te application of Rule of ejusdem generis it is said tat te general
e%pression as to be read to co#preend tings of te sa#e 'ind as tose referred to b-
te preceding specific tings constituting a genus4 unless for te language of te statute it
can be inferred tat te general $ords $ere not intended to be so li#ited and no absurdit-
or unintended co#plication is li'el- to result if te- are allo$ed to ta'e teir natural #eaning.
:e cardinal nature of interpretation is to allo$ te general $ords to ta'e teir natural $ide
#eaning unless te language of te statute gi(es a different indication or suc #eaning is
li'el- to lead to absurd results in $ic case teir #eaning can be restricted b- te
application of tis rule and te- #a- be re=uired to fall in line $it te specific tings
designated b- te preceding $ords. But unless tere is a genus $ic can be
co#preended fro# te preceding $ords4 tere can be no =uestion of in(o'ing tis rule. 1or
can tis rule a(e an- application $ere te general $ords precede specific $ords [&sstt.
Collector of Central Cxcise v. Ramdev 9obacco Co.% 4'(('8= &IR '(('+.
:is rule applies under te follo$ing situationsF
1. Ben te statute contains an enu#eration of specific $ordsI
2. :e subjects of enu#eration constitute a class or categor-I
3. :at class or categor- is not e%austed b- te enu#erationsI
!. :e general ter#s follo$ te enu#erationI and
&. :ere is no indication of a different legislati(e intent [&mar Chandra v. Collector of
Cxcise% 9ripura% &IR '(/5+
:e rule of ejusdem generis as to be applied $it care and caution. :is is not an
in(iolable rule of la$ but it is onl- per#issible inference4 in te absence of an- indication to
te contrar- [3rasim Industries <td. v. Collector of Customs% 456658+.
In a case before i# <ustice 0I/AJA:5LLA0 e%plained te principle of ejusdem
generis b- gi(ing te follo$ing illustrationF ?In te e%pression 6boo's4 pa#plets4
ne$spapers and oter docu#entaries74 pri(ate letters #a- not be eld included if 6oter
docu#ents7 be interpreted ejusdem generis $it $at goes before. But in a pro(ision $ic
reads 6ne$spapers or oter docu#ents4 li'el- to con(e- secrets to te ene#-74 te $ords
6oter docu#ents7 $ould include docu#ent of an- 'ind and $ould not ta'e teir colour for#
ne$spaper@ [1agdish Chander 3upta v. ?ajaria 9raders 4India8 <td.% &IR '()7+.
N. BIBAVE
:e rule ejusdem generis is #erel- a canon of construction li'e #anoter rules
$ic gi(es $a- to te clear intention of te legislature. It also appears tat tis rule as no
in(erse application. General $ords proceeding te enu#eration of specific instances are not
go(erned b- tis rule and teir i#port cannot be li#ited b- an- suc principle.
In !tate of ?arnata0a v. ?empaiah [4'((*8 &IR '((*+ it $as eld tat te rule of
ejusdem generis $ic is an e%ception to te rule of construction te general $ords sould
be gi(en teir full and natural #eaning $as enunciated b- Lord .AMPB,LL in R. v.
Cdmundson ['*.(+% ?LLL.. $ere tere are general $ords follo$ing particular and specific
$ords te general $ords #ust be confined to tings of te sa#e 'ind as tose specified@.
W%+*) %& Ra$73
According to te rule of 6$ord of ran'74 te statutes $ic deals $it persons or
tings of inferior ran' are not e%tended to tose of superior degree b- introduction of general
$ords and te general $ords follo$ing particular $ords $ill not co(er an-ting of a class
superior to tose to $ic te particular $ords relate. 9or e%a#ple4 a dut- i#posed on
6copper4 brass4 pe$ter4 and tin and all oter #etals not enu#erated7 did not co(er sil(er or
gold as tese are #etals of a superior 'ind to te particular #etals enu#erated [Casher v.
;olmes% 4'*>'8+.
R"**"$*% Si$8.la Si$8.li)
?Bere tere are general $ords of description4 follo$ing an enu#eration of particular
tings suc general $ords are to be construed distributi(el-4 reddendo singula singulisI and
if te general $ords $ill appl- to so#e tings and not oters4 te general $ords are to be
applied to tose tings to $ic te- $ill4 and not to tose to $ic te- $ill not appl-I tat
rule is be-ond all contro(ers-@ [MH Neill v. Crommelin% 4'*.*8+.
*sborne7s .oncise /ictionar- gi(es an e%a#ple of reddendo singula singulis as 6I
de(ise and be=ueat all #- real and personal propert- to A7 $ill be construed reddendo
singula singulis b- appl-ing 6de(ise7 to 6real7 propert- and 6be=ueat7 to personal propert- [/
th
edn.% p. 5*'+.
:e rule as been applied in te construction of te Pro(iso to Article 3G! of te
.onstitution $ic readsF 6Pro(ided tat no Bill or a#end#ent for te purpose of clause CbD
sall be introduced or #o(ed in te legislature of a "tate $itout te pre(ious sanction of
te President7. It $as eld b- te "upre#e .ourt tat te $ord 6introduced7 referred to 6Bill7
and te $ord 6#o(ed7 to 6A#end#ent7 [?oteshar :ittal ?amath v. ?. Rangappa "aliga B
Co.% &IR '()(+.
STATUTES AFFECTING THE JURISDICTION OF
COURTS
GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
General principles regarding statutes affecting jurisdiction of courts $ill be discussed
N. BIBAVE
under four sub-eadingsF
A. ,%clusion #ust be e%plicitl- e%pressed or clearl- i#plied.
B. :ree classes of cases.
.. .ases of breac of statutor- duties.
/. *#ission to e%ercise statutor- po$er.
A3 E9(l.)i%$ #.)! " E94li(i!l/ E94+"))"* %+ Cl"a+l/ I#4li"*:
:e pro(isions e%cluding jurisdiction of ci(il courts and pro(isions conferring
jurisdiction on autorities oter tan ci(il courts are strictl- construed.
:ere is a strong presu#ption tat ci(il courts a(e jurisdiction to decide all
=uestions of ci(il nature. :erefore4 te e%clusion of jurisdiction of ci(il courts is not to be
readil- inferred and suc e%clusion #ust eiter be 6e%plicitl- e%pressed or clearl- i#plied7.
9or a court $ic $ould oter$ise a(e jurisdiction in respect of te subject-#atter
concerned4 ouster cannot be i#plied. *uster #ust be e%press ["hatia International v. "ul0
9rading !.&.% 456658= &IR 5665+.
:e e%istence of jurisdiction in ci(il courts to decide =uestions of ci(il nature is te
general rule and e%clusion is an e%ception of tis rule. :erefore4 te burden of proof to
so$ tat jurisdiction is e%cluded in an- particular case is on te part- $o raises suc a
contention [Rama,,a v. <axminara,an% &IR '(>7+.
.ri#inal courts are also courts of general jurisdiction and e%clusion of jurisdiction of
ordinar- cri#inal courts can be brougt about b- setting up courts of li#ited jurisdiction in
respect of te li#ited field4 but onl- if te (esting and te e%ercise of tat li#ited jurisdiction
is clear and operati(e and tere is an ade=uate #aciner- for te e%ercise of li#ited
jurisdiction ["himsen v. !tate of #.$.% &IR '(..+.
It as been eld tat li'e oter rules of construction te rule against e%clusion of
jurisdiction of courts is attracted onl- $ere t$o or #ore reasonabl- possible construction
are open on te language of te statute and not $ere te legislati(e intent is plain and
#anifest to oust te jurisdiction [?ilhota ;ollohan v. Jachilhu% &IR '((>+.
It as been eld tat a suit to e(ict a tenant $ose tenanc- as e%pired b- efflu% of
ti#e is also a suit to enforce a rigt under section 1G2C=D of :ransfer of Propert- Act and is
not a suit solel- arising fro# a contract and is not barred [Rapta0os "rett B Co. v. 3anesh
$ropert,% &IR '((*+.
An e%a#ple of statutor- ouster of jurisdiction is found in Arbitration and .onciliation
Act4 133). "ection 2C1DCfD of te Arbitration and .onciliation Act defines an international
N. BIBAVE
co##ercial arbitration and #a'es no distinction bet$een international co##ercial
arbitrations $ic ta'es place in India or international co##ercial arbitrations $ic ta'e
place outside India. ". 2C1DCeD defines 6court7 but does not pro(ide tat te courts in India $ill
not a(e jurisdiction if an international co##ercial arbitration ta'es place outside India. It
$as eld tat te courts in India $ould a(e jurisdiction e(en in respect of an international
co##ercial arbitration. An ouster of jurisdiction cannot be i#plied4 it as to be e%pressed
["hatia International v. "ul0 9rading !.&.% 456658= &IR 5665+.
B3 T:+"" Cla))") %& Ca)"):
BILL,"4 <. statedF ?:ere are tree classes of cases in $ic a liabilit- #igt be
establised4 founded upon statute. *ne is $ere tere $as a liabilit- e%isting at co##on
la$4 and tat liabilit- is affir#ed b- a statute $ic gi(es a special and peculiar for# of
re#ed- different fro# te re#ed- $ic e%isted at co##on la$I tere4 unless te statute
contains $ords $ic e%pressl- or b- necessar- i#plication e%clude te co##on la$
re#ed-4 te part- suing as is election to pursue eiter tat or te statutor- re#ed-. :e
second class of cases is4 $ere te statute gi(es te rigt to sue #erel-4 but pro(ides no
particular for# of re#ed-I te part- can onl- proceed b- action at co##on la$. But tere is
a tird class4 vi2.4 $ere a liabilit- not e%isting at co##on la$ is created b- a statute $ic
at te sa#e ti#e gi(es a special and particular re#ed- for enforcing it-:e re#ed- pro(ided
b- te statute #ust be follo$ed4 and it is not co#petent to te part- to pursue te course
applicable to cases of te second class [Dolverhampton Ne Dateror0s Co. v.
;a0esford% 4'*.(8+.
A statute falling in te second of tree classes of cases #entioned b- BILL,"4 <.
prescribes no special re#ed- and $eter it creates ne$ rigts and liabilities or regulates
te alread- e%isting ones4 te nor#al re#ed- troug te #ediu# of ci(il courts4 $ic are
courts of general jurisdiction re#ains al$a-s open [!ection (% Code of Civil $rocedure%
'(6*+.
9or te first and tird of tree classes of cases4 it as to be ascertained $eter te
statute in =uestion deals $it and regulates an alread- e%isting rigt or liabilit- or $eter it
creates a ne$ rigt or liabilit- $ic as no e%istence apart fro# te statute. If te statute is
of te first categor-4 te special re#ed- pro(ided terein4 subject to an- pro(ision for te
e%clusion of ordinar- re#ed-4 $ill onl- be construed as an alternati(e one [Northern Indian
Caterers <td. v. !tate of $unjab% &IR '()/+.
In Rohtas Industries <td. v. Rohtas Industries !taff #nion [&IR '(/)+ it $as eld tat
for $rongs created b- te Act te onl- re#ed- is $at is pro(ided in te Act. :erefore4 in
N. BIBAVE
case of a stri'e $ic is illegal te e#plo-er can a(e te $or'ers punised under section
2) but e as no rigt to clai# co#pensation for loss of business caused b- te illegal
stri'e.
In &0bar ?han v. union of India [&IR '()5+ it $as said tat it is not correct to sa- tat
te legislature ta'es a$a- ci(il court7s jurisdiction onl- $en a ne$ rigt is created b-
statute4 and a tribunal is set up for deter#ination of tat rigt4 for b- te use of appropriate
$ords jurisdiction #a- be e%cluded in oter cases also.
C3 Ca)") %& B+"a(: %& S!a!.!%+/ D.!i"):
:ere is no uni(ersal rule b- reference to $ic te =uestion of #aintainabilit- of ci(il
action can infallibl- be ans$ered.
In te $ords of Lord :,1:,R/,14 ..<.4 ?Ben an Act creates an obligation and enforces
te perfor#ance in a specified #annerI $e ta'e it to be a general rule tat perfor#ance can
not be enforced in anoter #anner. If a obligation is created but no #ode of enforcing its
perfor#ance is ordained4 te co##on la$ #a-4 in general find a #ode suited to te
particular nature of te case@ [-oe d. "ishop of Rochester v. "ridges%+.
:e "upre#e .ourt accepted tis principle in $remier &utomobiles <td.Hs case
[$remier &utomobiles <td. v. ?amla0ar !hantaram% &IR '(/.= 4'(/)8+.
Ben a statute creating te dut- pro(ides for te penalt- of fine or i#prison#ent for
breac of te dut- it is regarded as te onl- #anner of enforcing te dut-.
In "lac0 v. Eife Coal Co. <td. ['('5+% te .oal Mines Regulation Act4 122+ i#posed
on te #ine o$ners te dut- to #a'e due pro(ision for safet- of $or'er in te #ines. Lord
>I11,AR ere obser(edF ?:ere is no reasonable ground for #aintaining tat a proceeding
b- $a- of penalt- is te onl- re#ed- b- te statute. Be are to consider te scope and
purpose of te statute and in particular for $ose benefit it is intended. 1o$ te object of te
present statute is plain. It $as intended to co#pel #ine o$ners to #a'e due pro(ision for
te safet- of te #en $or'ing in teir #ines and te persons4 for $ose benefit all tese
rules are to be enforced4 are te persons e%posed to danger. But $en a dut- of tis 'ind is
i#posed for te benefit of particular persons4 tere arises at co##on la$ a correlati(e rigt
in tose persons $o #a- be injured b- its contra(ention. :erefore4 it is =uite i#possible to
old tat penalt- clause detracts in an- $a- fro# te prima facie rigt of persons for $ose
benefit te statutor- enact#ent as been passed to enforce te ci(il liabilit-@.
N. BIBAVE
In anoter case4 OHRour0e v. Camden <ondon "orough Council ['((/+ it $as eld
tat section )3 of te 0ousing Act4 132& designed to pro(ide acco##odation for o#eless
persons did not gi(e rise to a cause of action for da#ages in pri(ate la$. :e factors tat
$ere ta'en into account in reacing te conclusion tat te Parlia#ent did not intend tat a
breac of dut- to pro(ide acco##odation to o#eless $as actionable in tort $ereF
:e dut- $as enforceable in public la$ b- indi(idual o#eless persons.
:e Act $as a sce#e of social $elfare on grounds of public polic- and public
interest to confer benefits at te public e%pense not onl- for te benefit of o#eless
but te societ- in generalI and
:e e%istence of te dut- depended on te ousing autorit-7s judg#ent and
discretion.
D3 O#i))i%$ !% "9"+(i)" )!a!.!%+/ 4%;"+:
"ubject to e%ceptional case4 te nor#al rule is tat an o#ission b- a public autorit-
to e%ercise a statutor- po$er conferred for te benefit of te public does not gi(e rise to
breac of dut- sounding in da#ages. An e%a#ple can be ta'en of te case of !tovin v. Dise
['(()+ in $ic a #otor accident too' place at a road junction partl- because te (ie$ $as
obstructed b- an eart ban' adjacent to te road. Altoug under sections !1 and +3 of te
0ig$a-s Act4 132G te local autorit- as statutor- po$er to re#o(e te eart ban' but it
too' no steps in tat direction. It $as eld b- te 0ouse of Lords tat tere $as no co##on
la$ dut- on te autorit- to e%ercise te po$er and o#ission to e%ercise it did not gi(e rise
to a clai# for da#ages in negligence. It $as laid do$n tat #ini#u# preconditions for
basing a dut- of care upon te e%istence of statutor- po$er in respect of an o#ission to
e%ercise te po$er4 if it could be done at all4 $ereF
a. :at in te circu#stances it $ould a(e been irrational for te autorit- not to a(e
e%ercised te po$er4 so tat in effect tere $as a public la$ dut- to act and
b. :at tere $ere e%ceptional grounds to old tat te polic- of te statute conferred a rigt to
co#pensation on persons $o suffered loss if te po$er $as not e%ercised.
THE EXTENT OF EXCLUSION:
A. .onstruction of ,%clusionar- .lauses.
B. .ases of 1ullit-.
.. Rules of .onclusi(e ,(idence.
A3 C%$)!+.(!i%$ %& E9(l.)i%$a+/ Cla.)")3
:e absence of a pro(ision to enable an autorit- or tribunal for olding an in=uir- on
a particular =uestion is indicati(e tat jurisdiction of ci(il courts on tat =uestion is not
e%cluded. It as been eld tat te (er- pro(ision setting up ierarc- of judicial tribunals for
N. BIBAVE
te deter#ination of a =uestion is sufficient in #ost cases for inferring tat te jurisdiction of
te ci(il courts to tr- te sa#e #atter is barred [-esi0a Char,ulu v. !tate of &.$.% &IR '()7+.
It as been eld in a case tat $en jurisdiction of te ci(il courts on a particular
#atter is e%cluded b- transferring tat jurisdiction for# ci(il courts to tribunals or autorities4
it is presu#ed tat suc tribunals or autorities can dra$ upon tat principles of procedures
in .i(il Procedure .ode4 toug not e%pressl- #ade applicable4 to ensure fair procedure
and just decision unless suc principles are inconsistent $it te pro(isions of te Act
constituting te# [Rajasthan !tate Road 9ransport Corpn. v. $oonam $aha% &IR '((/+.
:e legal position as su##ed up in 0AL"B5RJ7" LAB" *9 ,1GLA1/ is as
follo$sF
?It is te dut- of persons upon $o# statutor- po$ers are conferred to 'eep strictl- $itin
tose po$ers. If suc persons act in e%cess of teir po$ers4 te- are to te e%tent to $ic
te- e%ceed teir po$ers4 depri(e of an- protection conferred upon te# b- te statute in
=uestion4 and $ill be subject to te ordinar- re#edies e%isting at co##on la$. An injunction
#a- be granted to restrain an act in e%cess of statutor- po$ers and a person injured b-
suc an act #a- be entitled to reco(er da#ages fro# te persons purporting to e%ercise te
po$er [;alsbur,Hs <as of Cngland% >
rd
edn.% :ol. >6% pp. )*)% )*/+@.
In Mafatlal Industries <td. v. #nion of India ['(()= '(()= '((/+ in dealing $it refund
pro(isions in te .entral ,%cises and "alt Act4 13!! and .usto#s Act4 13)24 a nine <udge
Benc of te "upre#e .ourt b- #ajorit- laid do$n te follo$ing general propositionsF
A clai# for refund of ta% on te ground tat it as been collected b- #isinterpreting or
#isappl-ing te pro(isions of a ta%ing Act or te rules and notifications #ade tere under
as to be preferred in accordance $it te pro(isions of te Act before te Autorities
and $itin te li#itations specified terein and no suit is #aintainable in tat bealf.
Bere a refund is clai#ed on te ground tat te pro(ision of te Act under $ic it $as
le(ied is or as been eld to be unconstitutional4 te clai# can be #ade b- a suit or b-
$a- of a $rit petition for suc a clai# is outside te pur(ie$ of te ActI and
A clai# for refund can succeed onl- $en te clai#ant establises tat e as not
passed on te burden of te ta% to oters.
:e e%tent of e%clusion is reall- a =uestion of construction of eac particular statute.
In te #atters of construction4 te applicable general principles are subordinated to te
actual $ords used b- te legislature.
N. BIBAVE
Article 3&) of te .onstitution pro(es tat if te President 6is satisfied tat a situation
as arisen in $ic te Go(ern#ent of te "tate cannot be carried on in accordance $it
te pro(isions of te .onstitution7 te President #a- b- procla#ationF
Assu#e to i#self te functions of te Go(ern#ent of te "tate.
/eclare tat te po$ers of te "tate Legislature sall be e%ercised b- te Parlia#entI
and
Ma'e suc incidental or conse=uential pro(isions as #a- be necessar- to gi(e effect to
te objects of te Procla#ation.
Before te !!
t
A#end#ent Act te Article furter pro(ided tat te satisfaction of te
President 6sall be final and conclusi(e and sall not be =uestioned in an- court of la$7. In
!tate of Rajasthan v. #nion of India [&IR '(//=4'(//8+ te "upre#e .ourt eld tat if te
satisfaction of te President is based on $oll- e%traneous grounds $ic a(e no ne%us
$it te action ta'en4 te Procla#ation can be callenged in a court of la$ on te ground
tat te President acted $itout te re=uired satisfaction in issuing te Procla#ation4 for
satisfaction based on $oll- irrele(ant grounds a#ounts to no satisfaction. 0o$e(er4 if tere
are so#e grounds $ic bear so#e rele(ance or ne%us to te action ta'en te sufficienc- of
satisfaction cannot be callenged in a court of la$.
B3 Ca)") %& N.lli!/:
A =uestion is often as'ed4 ?Ben can order passed b- a tribunal or autorit- of
li#ited jurisdiction be eld to be a nullit-M@ ?:e ans$er is supplied b- te original or pure
teor- of jurisdiction. :e jurisdiction of a tribunal is deter#inable at te co##ence#ent of a
proceeding and if jurisdiction is properl- assu#ed an- order passed tereafter $ill be $itin
jurisdiction and conclusi(e toug it #a- be erroneous in fact or la$. :e pure teor- of
jurisdiction ga(e place to #odern teor- of jurisdiction according to $ic defects of
jurisdiction can arise e(en during or at te conclusion of a proceeding. :e courts #a'e a
distinction bet$een jurisdictional =uestions of fact or la$ and =uestions of fact or la$ $ic
are not jurisdictional. If a =uestion of fact or la$ is jurisdictional4 te tribunal toug
co#petent to in=uire into tat =uestion cannot decide it conclusi(el-4 and a $rong
deter#ination of suc a =uestion results in #a'ing te final decision in e%cess of jurisdiction.
But if a =uestion of fact or la$ is non-jurisdictional4 te tribunal7s decision is final and
conclusi(e. In oter $ords4 it can be said tat a tribunal cannot b- a $rong deter#ination of
a jurisdictional =uestion of fact or la$ e%ercise a po$er $ic te legislature did not confer
upon it [R. v. !horedich &ssessment Committee% 4'('68+. 0o$e(er4 in tis teor- te
de#arcation bet$een jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional =uestions of fact or la$ is not
clear.
N. BIBAVE
In #jjam "ai v. !tate of #.$. [&IR '()5+ it $as eld tat adjudication b- a tribunal of
li#ited jurisdiction is (oid4 $en
Action is ta'en under an ultra vires statuteI
:e subject-#atter of adjudication is be-ond its co#petence or te order passed is suc
$ic it as no autorit- to pass.
:e adjudication is procedurall- ultra vires being in (iolation of funda#ental principles of
judicial procedure4 and
<urisdiction is assu#ed b- $rongl- deciding jurisdictional =uestions of la$ or fact.
A consideration of follo$ing points is rele(ant ereF
1. ?An e%clusionar- clause using te for#ula 6an order of te tribunal under tis Act sall not
be called in =uestion in an- court ineffecti(e to pre(ent te calling in =uestion of an order of
te tribunal if te order is reall- not an order under te Act but a nullit-.
2. .ases of nullit- #a- arise $en tere is lac' of jurisdiction at te stage of
co##ence#ent of en=uir- e.g.4 $en
Autorit- is assu#ed under an ultra vires statuteI
:ribunal is not properl- constitutedI
:e subject-#atter or te parties are suc o(er $ic te tribunal as no autorit- to
in=uireI and
:ere is $ant of essential preli#inaries prescribed b- te la$ for te co##ence#ent of
te in=uir-.
3. .ases of nullit- #a- also arise during te course or at te conclusion of te in=uir-. :ese
cases are also cases of $ant of jurisdiction if te $ord 6jurisdiction7 is understood in a $ide
sense. "o#e e%a#ples of tese cases areF
Ben te tribunal as $rongl- deter#ined a jurisdictional =uestion of fact or la$I
Ben it as failed to follo$ te funda#ental principles of judicial procedureI
Ben it as (iolated te funda#ental pro(isions of te ActI
Ben it as acted in bad faitI and
Ben it grants a relief or #a'es an order $ic it as no autorit- to grant or #a'e
["hupendra !ingh v. 3.?. #math% &IR '(/6+@.
Later on4 anoter categor- CfD $as also added after categor- CeD i.e.4
Ben b- #isapplication of te la$ it as as'ed itself te $rong =uestion [OHReill, v.
Mac0man% '(*5+.
C3 R.l" %& C%$(l.)i<" E<i*"$("3
B- enacting rules of conclusi(e e(idence or conclusi(e proof4 te legislature #a-
#a'e certain #atters non-justiciable. 9or e%a#ple4 if b- legislature co##and proof of A is
#ade conclusi(e e(idence or conclusi(e proof of B4 te #o#ent e%istence of A is
establised te .ourt is bound to regard te e%istence of B as conclusi(el- establised and
e(idence cannot be let in to so$ te non-e%istence of B. In effect te e%istence or non-
N. BIBAVE
e%istence of B after proof of A ceases to be justiciable [<ilavati "ai v. "omba, !tate% &IR
'(./+.
:e effect of a conclusi(e e(idence clause is subject at least to t$o =ualificationsF
A conclusi(e e(idence clause #a- be eld to be in(alid as an unreasonable restriction of
te funda#ental rigts.
:e insertion of suc clause in statutes conferring po$er #a- fail to sut out basic
defect of jurisdiction in e%ercise of te po$er. It #a- also be ineffecti(e to bar an attac'
on te ground of fraud or colourable e%ercise of po$er.
EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURTS:
:e jurisdiction conferred b- te .onstitution can be ta'en a$a- onl- b- a#ending
te .onstitution and not b- statutor- enact#ents.
In ?ilhota ;ollohon v. Jachilhu [&IR '((>+ it as been eld tat e(en a pro(ision in
te .onstitution conferring finalit- to te decision of an autorit- is not construed as
co#pletel- e%cluding judicial re(ie$ under Article 13)4 22) and 22+ of te .onstitution but
li#iting it to jurisdictional errors vi2.4 infir#ities based on (iolation of constitutional #andate4
mala fides% non-co#pliance $it rules of natural justice and per(ersit-.
If te Legislature states tat te decision or order of a court or tribunal sall be final
and conclusi(e4 te re#edies a(ailable under te .onstitution re#ain unfettered [Raj
?rushna "ose v. :iond ?anungo% &IR '(.7+.
:e 0ig .ourts of India apart fro# e%ercising super(isor- po$ers under te
.onstitution e%ercise a si#ilar po$er under "ection 11& of te .ode of .i(il Procedure4
13G24 o(er all subordinate courts. :is po$er of re(ision under section 11&4 $ic can be
e%cluded b- legislati(e enact#ents4 is construed as not readil- e%cluded e%cept b- e%press
pro(ision to tat effect.
N. BIBAVE
OPERATION OF STATUTES
COMMENCEMENT:
6.o##ence#ent7 of Act #eans te da- on $ic te Act co#es into force [!ection
>4'>8% 3eneral Clauses &ct% '*/(+. 5nless oter$ise pro(ided4 a .entral Act co#es into
operation on te da- it recei(es te Presidential Assent and is construed as co#ing into
operation i##ediatel- on te e%piration of te da- preceding its co##ence#ent [!ection .%
3eneral Clauses &ct% '*/(+.
A "tate Act co#es into force on te da- $en te assent of te Go(ernor or te
President4 as te case #a- be4 is first publised in te *fficial GaHette of te "tate.
5nless te Act is brougt into operation b- Legislati(e enact#ent or b- te e%ercise
of autorit- b- a delegate e#po$ered to bring it into operation4 an Act cannot be said to
co##ence or to be in force [!tate of Orissa v. Chandrashe0har !ingh% &IR '(/6+. Po$er to
bring into force an Act can be e%ercised b- te delegate e(en toug te legislature #a-
a(e ceased to be co#petent to enact te Act4 if it $as $itin te co#petence of te
legislature at te ti#e of its enact#ent [Ishar -as v. #nion of India% '(/5+.
:e co##ence#ent of an Act is often postponed to so#e specified future date or to
suc date as te appropriate Go(ern#ent #a-4 b- notification in te *fficial GaHette4
appoint. "o#eti#es different dates are also appointed for enforce#ent of different parts of
te sa#e Act.
An Act $ic is not applicable to an area or a "tate cannot be applied tere b-
judicial fiat. But if te fact situation of te case so re=uires and a pro(ision in suc an Act
e#bodies a principle of justice4 e=uit- and good conscience4 te principle so e#bodied #a-
be applied to a case arising fro# an area or "tate to $ic te Act originall- does not e%tend
[$anchugopal "arua v. #mesh Chandra 3osam,% '((/= &IR '((/+.
A pro(ision in a Bill does not co#e into operation unless te enacting process is o(er
and te resulting Act containing tat pro(ision is brougt into operation. 0o$e(er4 an Act can
pro(ide tat certain pro(isions of a Bill on gi(en subject $ill co#e into operation on teir
introduction in te legislature.
RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION:
G"$"+al P+i$(i4l"):
It is a cardinal principle of construction tat e(er- statute is prima facie prospecti(e
unless it is e%pressl- or b- necessar- i#plication #ade to a(e a retrospecti(e operation.
But te rule in general is applicable $ere te object of te statute is to affect (ested rigts
or to i#pose ne$ burdens or i#pair e%isting obligations. 5nless tere are $ords in te
statute sufficient to so$ te intention of te legislature to affect e%isting rigts4 it is dee#ed
N. BIBAVE
to be prospecti(e onl-. :e #a%i# nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non
praeteritis applies i.e.4 a ne$ la$ ougt to regulate $at it is to follo$4 not te past.
:e absence of a pro(ision e%pressl- gi(ing a retrospecti(e operation to te
legislation is not deter#inati(e of its prospecti(it- or retrospecti(it-.
9our facts are eld to be rele(ant ereF
General scope and pur(ie$ of te statuteI
:e re#ed- sougt to be appliedI
:e for#er state of la$I and
Bat it $as te legislature conte#plated [Jile !ingh v. !tate of ;ar,ana% 456678+.
P%;"+ !% Ma7" R"!+%)4"(!i<" La;):
:e 5nion Parlia#ent and te "tate Legislature a(e plenar- po$er of legislation
$itin te fields assigned to te#. :ese t$o can4 subject to certain .onstitutional
restrictions4 legislate prospecti(el- as $ell as retrospecti(el-. 6Parlia#ent and Legislatures7
co#petence to #a'e a la$ for a past period on a subject depends upon teir present
co#petence to legislate on tat subject. :e po$er to #a'e retrospecti(e legislation enables
te Legislature to obliterate an a#ending Act co#pletel- and restore te la$ as it e%isted
before te a#ending Act [!tate of 9.N. v. &rroran !ugars <td.% &IR '((/+. :e legislature
#a- #a'e a la$ b- retrospecti(e legislation $ic is operati(e of a li#ited period prior to te
date of its co#ing into force and is not operati(e eiter on tat date or in future [$.
?annadasan v. !tate of 9.N.% &IR '(()+.
:is po$er of retrospecti(e legislation is often utiliHed for (alidating prior e%ecuti(e
and legislati(e acts curing tose defects $ic #ade te# in(alid. It is not necessar- for
curing te defect tat te sa#e legislature $ic ad passed te earlier in(alid Act sould
b- retrospecti(e legislation #a'e te Act (alid.
:e statute affecting (ested rigts as been eld to be construed prospecti(el- [!hiv
!ha0ti CoGop. ;ousing !ociet, v. !araj -evelopers% 4566>8@ &IR 566>+.
S!a!.!") *"ali$8 ;i!: S.)!a$!i<" Ri8:!):
Lord BLA1,"B5RG obser(ed tat4 ?pro(isions $ic touc a rigt in e%istence at
te passing of te statute are not be applied retrospecti(el- in te absence of e%press
enact#ent or necessar- intend#ent@ [-elhi Cloth Mills B 3eneral Co. <td. v. CI9% -elhi% &IR
'(/5+.
It is a cardinal principle of construction tat e(er- statute is prima facie prospecti(e
unless it is e%pressl- or b- necessar- i#plication #ade to a(e retrospecti(e operation
[?eshavan v. !tate of "omba,% &IR '(.'= !tate of M.$. v. Rameshar Rathod% &IR '((6+.
It re=uires tat a close attention #ust be paid to te language of te statutor-
pro(ision for deter#ining te scope of te retrospecti(it- intended b- Parlia#ent [#nion of
India v. Raghubir !ingh% &IR '(*(+. But if te literal reading of te pro(ision gi(ing
retrospecti(it- produces absurdities and ano#alies4 a case not prima facie $itin te $ords
N. BIBAVE
#a- be ta'en to be co(ered4 if te purpose of te pro(ision indicates tat te intention $as
to co(er it [#nion of India v. Eilip 9iago -e 3ama of :edem :asco -e 3ama% &IR '((6+.
Presu#ption against retrospecti(it- #a- be rebutted b- necessar- i#plication
especiall- in a case $ere te ne$ la$ is #ade to cure an ac'no$ledged e(il for te benefit
of te co##unit- as a $ole [Mithilesh ?umari v. $rem "ihari ?hare% &IR '(*(+.
*nl- in so#e cases4 a distinction is #ade bet$een an e%isting rigt and a (ested
rigt and it is said tat te rule against retrospecti(e construction is applied onl- to sa(e
(ested rigts and not e%isting rigts.
S!a!.!") *"ali$8 ;i!: P+%("*.+":
In te $ords of Lord /,11I1GF ?:e rule tat an Act of Parlia#ent is not to be gi(en
retrospecti(e effect applies onl- to statutes $ic affect (ested rigts. It does not appl- to
statutes $ic onl- alter te for# of procedure or te ad#issibilit- of e(idence4 or te effect
$ic te courts gi(e to e(idence@ ["l,th v. "l,th% 4'())8+.
In contrast to statutes dealing $it substanti(e rigts4 statutes dealing $it #erel-
#atters of procedure are presu#ed to be retrospecti(e unless suc a construction is
te%tuall- inad#issible [3urbachan !ingh v. !atpal !ingh% &IR '((6+.
Ma%$ell e%pressed te rule in te follo$ing $ordsF ?1o person as a (ested rigt in
an- course of procedure. 0e as onl- te rigt of prosecution or defense in te #anner
prescribed for te ti#e being b- or for te court in $ic te case te pending4 and if4 b- an
Act of Parlia#ent te #ode of procedure is altered4 e as no oter rigt tan to proceed
according to te altered #ode@.
R"("$! S!a!"#"$!) %& !:" +.l" a8ai$)! R"!+%)4"(!i<i!/:
In recent -ears4 te rule against retrospecti(e operation as been stated a(oiding te
classification of statutes into substanti(e and procedural and a(oiding use of $ords li'e
e%isting or (ested. 9or e%a#ple4 in !ecretar, of !tate for !ocial !ecurit, v. 9unnicliffe4 te
si#ple state#ent of te rule $as #ade b- ":A5G0:*1 L.<. in te follo$ing $ordsF
?:e true principle is tat te Parlia#ent is presu#ed not to a(e intended to alter te la$
applicable to past e(ents and transactions in a #anner $ic is unfair to tose concerned in
te# unless a contrar- intention appears. It is not si#pl- a =uestion of classif-ing an
enact#ent as retrospecti(e or not retrospecti(e. Rater it #a- $ell be a #atter of degree-
te greater te unfairness4 te #ore it is to be e%pected tat te Parlia#ent $ill #a'e it clear
if tat is intended@ ['(('+.
STATUTES RELATING TO SUCCESSION:
Ben an- statute regulates te order of succession4 it applies onl- to tose
successions4 $ic open after te co#ing into force of la$ tat alters te order of
succession. :ose statutes $ic regulate te succession are not applicable to alread-
opened successions because of te effect of its application $ill be to di(est te estate fro#
person in $o# it ad beco#e (ested prior to co#ing into force of te ne$ statute.
N. BIBAVE
,%a#ple can be ta'en ere tat of section 2 of te 0indu "uccession Act4 13&). :is
section enacts tat te propert- of a #ale 0indu 6d-ing intestate7 sall de(ol(e according to
te pro(isions of te Act. It $as eld tat $ere succession opened before te Act4 it $ill not
appl- [Cramma v. :eerupana% &IR '())+. 0o$e(er4 in -a,a !ingh v. -han ?aur [&IR '(/7+ it
$as applied to te case of a fe#ale li#ited o$ner $o died after te Act but te #ale to
$o# se ad succeeded ad died prior to te Act.
STATUES RELATING TO TRANSFERS AND CONTRACTS:
:ose statutes $ic prescribe for#alities for effecting a transfer are not applicable
to transfer #ade prior to teir enforce#ent. "i#ilarl- statues dispensing $it for#alities
$ic $ere earlier necessar- for #a'ing transfers a(e not te effect of (alidating transfer
$ic $ere lac'ing in tese for#alities and $ic $ere #ade prior to suc "tatutes [Mata
$rasad v. Nageshari !ahai% &IR '(5.+.
0o$e(er4 certain posterior la$s seriousl- affect te perfor#ance of e%isting contracts
and te #ost co##on e%a#ple of suc posterior la$s is $ere a contract is frustrated b-
super(ening i#possibilit- brougt about b- subse=uent statutes or b- Go(ern#ental steps
ta'en under te# [!at,abrata v. Mugneeram% &IR '(.7+.
It as been eld tat a statute altering e%isting contracts and retrospecti(e in tat
sense need not necessaril- be construed to be so retrospecti(e as to affect a breac of
contract or its conse=uences $ic ad ta'en place before its operation [3ardner B Co. v.
Cone% 4'(5*8+.
STATUTES OF LIMITATION:
"ection 3G of te Li#itation Act4 13)3 pro(ides tat $en a later Act enacts sorter
periods4 it is usual to postpone its co#ing into effect for so#e reasonable ti#e4 or to #a'e
pro(ision for a ti#e gap $itin $ic te benefit of te earlier Act can be ta'en [!ection >6%
<imitation &ct% '()> 4&ct >) of '()>8+.
:erefore4 te statutes of li#itation are retrospecti(e in so far te- appl- to all legal
proceedings brougt after teir operation for enforcing causes of action accrued earlier4 but
te- are prospecti(e in te sense tat te- neiter a(e te effect of re(i(ing a rigt of action
$ic $as alread- barred on te date of teir co#ing into operation4 nor do te- a(e te
effect of e%tinguising a rigt of action substituting on tat date. 0o$e(er4 a statute b-4
e%press or i#plied pro(ision4 #a- re(i(e a barred clai# b- retrospecti(el- e%tending
li#itation.
FISCAL STATUTES:
9iscal legislation i#posing liabilit- is generall- go(erned b- te nor#al presu#ption
tat it is not retrospecti(e [;alsbur,Hs <as of Cngland% >
rd
edn.% :ol. >)% p. 75.+.
It is a cardinal principle of ta% la$ tat te la$ to be applied is tat in force in te
assess#ent -ear unless oter$ise pro(ided e%pressl- or b- necessar- i#plication.
N. BIBAVE
Assess#ent creates a (ested rigt and an assessee cannot be subjected to reassess#ent
unless a pro(ision to tat effect inserted b- a#end#ent is eiter e%pressl- or b- necessar-
i#plication retrospecti(e [Controller of Cstate -ut, 3ujaratGI v. M.&. Merchant% &IR '(*(+.
In "anarsidas v. I9O% -istt. I:% Calcutta [&IR '()7+ it $as eld tat a pro(ision $ic
in ter#s is retrospecti(e and as te effect of opening up liabilit- $ic ad beco#e barred
b- lapse of ti#e4 $ill be subject to te rule of strict construction.
PENAL STATUTES:
Penal statues are generall- considered prospecti(e. :ose penal statutes $ic
create offences or $ic a(e te effect of increasing penalties for e%isting offences $ill onl-
be prospecti(e b- reason of te .onstitutional restriction i#posed b- Article 2G of te
.onstitution [D. Ramnad Clectric -istribution Co. <td. v. !tate of Madras% &IR '()5+.
Ben an Act creates a ne$ offence it $ill bring into its fold onl- tose offenders
$ic co##it all ingredients of te offence after te Act co#es into operation.
REMEDIAL STATUTES:
A prospecti(e dis=ualification under a statute results fro# anterior #isconduct4 is not
al$a-s ta'en as sufficient to #a'e te statute retrospecti(e. "i#ilarl- te fact tat a
prospecti(e benefit under a statutor- pro(ision is in certain cases to be #easured b- or
depends on antecedent facts does not necessaril- #a'e te pro(ision retrospecti(e [Master
<adies F9ailorsH Organisation v. Ministr, of <abour% 4'(.68+.
In a case4 section 2C!D of te 0indu Bo#en7s Rigt to separate Residence and
Maintenance Act4 13!) $as considered. :is section entitled a 0indu Married Bo#an to
clai# separate residence and #aintenance fro# er usband 6if e #arries again7. It $as
eld tat tis $ould onl- appl- to cases $ere te usband #arried again after te date on
$ic te Act co#es into force [!u0hribai v. $oh0al !ingh% &IR '(.6+.
"ince re#edial statutes are to be construed liberall-4 te inibition of te rule against
retrospecti(e construction #a- be applied $it less insistence [Corpus 1uris !ecundum% :ol.
*5% &rt. 7')% pp. ((5% ((>+. :ose statutes $ic pro(ides for ne$ re#edies for enforce#ent
of e%isting rigts $ill appl- to future as $ell as past cause of action because suc statutes
do not affect e%isting rigts and are4 terefore4 classified as procedural.
STATUTES REGULATING APPEALS:
:e rigt of appeal as been recognised b- judicial decisions as a rigt $ic (ests
in a suitor at te ti#e of institution of original proceedings. An appeal is defined as te rigt
of entering a superior court and in(o'ing its aid and interposition to redress an error of te
court belo$.
:e "upre#e .ourt applied tis principle in 3ari0apati v. !ubbiah Choudhar, [&IR
'(./+ and te follo$ing fi(e propositions $ere deduced ereF
N. BIBAVE
?:e legal pursuit of re#ed-4 suit4 appeal and second appeal are reall- but steps
in a series of proceedings all connected b- a intrinsic unit- and are to be
regulated as one legal proceedingI
:e rigt of appeal is not a #ere #atter of procedure but is a substanti(e rigtI
:e institution of te suit carries $it te i#plication tat all rigts of appeal ten
in force are preser(ed to te parties tereto till te rest of te carrier of te suitI
:e rigt of appeal is a (ested rigt and suc a rigt to enter te superior court
accrues to te litigant and e%ists as on and fro# te date te lis co##ences and
altoug it #a- be actuall- e%ercised $en te ad(erse judg#ent is pronounced4
suc rigt is to be go(erned b- te la$ pre(ailing at te date of te institution of
te suit or proceeding and not b- te la$ tat pre(ails at te date of its decision
or at te date of filing appealI
:is (ested rigt of appeal can be ta'en a$a- onl- b- a subse=uent enact#ent if
it so pro(ides or b- necessar- intend#ent and not oter$ise@.
DECLARATORY STATUTES:
In te $ords of .raies4 ?9or #odern purposes a declarator- Act #a- be defined as
an Act to re#o(e doubts e%isting as to te co##on la$4 or te #eaning or effect of an-
statute. "uc Acts are usuall- eld to be retrospecti(e. :e usual reason for passing a
declarator- Act is to set aside $at Parlia#ent dee#s to a(e been a judicial error4 $eter
in te state#ent of te co##on la$ or in te interpretation of statutes. 5suall-4 if not
in(ariabl-4 suc an Act contains a prea#ble4 and also te $ord 6declared7 as $ell as
6enacted7 @ [Craies= !9&9#9C <&D% /
th
edn.% p. .*+.
If a statute is curati(e or #erel- declarator- of te pre(ious la$4 retrospecti(e
operation is generall- intended [Channan !ingh v. 1ai ?aur% &IR '(/6+.
It is settled tat an a#ending Act #a- be purel- clarificator- to clear a #eaning of a
pro(ision of te principal Act $ic $as alread- i#plicit. A clarificator- a#end#ent of tis
nature as retrospecti(e effect and4 terefore4 if te principal Act $as te e%isting la$ $en
te .onstitution ca#e into force4 te a#ending Act $ill also be part of te e%isting la$
[$unjab 9raders v. !tate of $unjab% &IR '((6+.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS:
Al!"+$a!i%$ i$ #a!!"+) %& 4+%("*.+":
As a litigant as no (ested rigt in an- #atter of procedure4 alterations in procedural
la$ are generall- eld to be retrospecti(e in te sense tat te- appl- to future as $ell as to
pending actions.
In "l,th v. "l,th ['())+ section1 of te Matri#onial .auses Act4 13)3 $as construed.
:is section enables rebuttal b- e(idence of presu#ption of condonation arising fro# #artial
intercourse. :is section as been eld to be procedural and applicable to a pending di(orce
proceeding irrespecti(e of te date of e(ents to $ic te e(idence #igt be directed.
N. BIBAVE
"ection 3!2-A of te .ode of .ri#inal Procedure4 12324 introduced b- a#ending Act
2) of 13&! $as construed in &nant 3opal !heore, v. !tate of "omba, [&IR '(.*+. :is
section enacted tat an- accused person sall be a co#petent $itness and #a- gi(e
e(idence on oat in disproof of te carges. It $as eld to be applicable to a prosecution
$ic $as pending at te ti#e te a#ending Act ca#e into force.
Al!"+a!i%$) %& S.)!a$!i<" Ri8:!):
In te $ords of ". R. /A"4 ..<.F ?:e golden rule of construction is tat4 in te
absence of an-ting in te enact#ent to so$ tat it is to a(e retrospecti(e operation4 it
cannot be so construed as to a(e te effect of altering te la$ applicable to a clai# in
litigation at te ti#e $en te Act $as passed@ [3ori0apati v. N. !. Chaudhar,% &IR '(./+.
An- retrospecti(e statute $ic affects rigts in e%istence is not readil- construed to
affect adjudication of pending proceedings. .ourts a(e leaned (er- strongl- against
appl-ing a ne$ Act to pending action4 $en te language of te statute does not co#pel
te# to do so [#nited $rainces v. &tiqa "egum% &IR '(7'+.
In :enugopala v. ?rishnasami% [&IR '(7>+ section !)C2D of te Go(ern#ent of India
Act4 133& $as construed $ic enacted tat ?Bur#a sall cease to be a part of India@. :is
section $as construed not to affect te continuance of pending action in an Indian .ourt
$ic related to properties situated in Bur#a.
A ne$ la$ $ic brings about a cange in te foru# la$ does not affect pending
actions4 unless a pro(ision is #ade in it for cange o(er of proceedings or tere is so#e
oter clear indication tat pending actions are affected [Mohd. Idris v. !at Narain% &IR '())+.
Bile te suit against te ruler of an Indian "tate $as pending4 section 2+-B $as
inserted in .i(il Procedure .ode4 13G2 b- a#ending Act II of 13&1 in te case of Mohanlal v.
!ai Mansinghji% [&IR'()5+. :is section applied to rulers of for#er Indian "tates and
pro(ided tat 61o ruler of a foreign "tate #a- be sued7. :e "upre#e .ourt eld tat tis
pro(ision applied also to pending suits for te $ord 6sued7 e#braced not onl- te institution
but also continuance of pre(iousl- instituted suit and te ban of te section operated for
bot.
Bot in Mithilesh ?umari v. $rem "ihari ?hare [&IR '(*(+ and -uvuru 1a,a Mohan
Redd, v. &lluru Naga Redd, [&IR '((7+ te "upre#e .ourt too' te notice of Bena#i
:ransactions CProibitionD Act4 1322 and allo$ed te appeals and decreed te suits. In
MithileshHs case a suit $as filed b- te real o$ner against te bena#idar for declaration of
is title in respect of a ouse $ic $as decreed. :e decree $as confir#ed b- te 0ig
.ourt. Ben te defendant appealed to te "upre#e .ourt b- special lea(e and appeal
$as pending tere4 te Bena#i :ransaction CProibitionD Act4 1322 ca#e into force. "ection
!C1D of tis Act pro(ided tat no suit to enforce an- rigt in respect of an- propert- eld
N. BIBAVE
"enami 6sall lie7 b- or on bealf of a person clai#ing to be te real o$ner. :e "upre#e
.ourt too' notice of te Act and dis#issed te suit.
N. BIBAVE
EXPIRY AND REPEAL OF STATUTES
PERPETUAL AND TEMPORARY STATUTES:
A statute #a- be perpetual or te#porar-. A statute beco#es perpetual $en no ti#e
is fi%ed for its duration4 and suc a statute re#ains in force until it is repealed eiter b-
e%press pro(ision or b- i#plication. A perpetual statute is not perpetual in te sense tat it
cannot be repealed but it is perpetual because it is not abrogated b- efflu% of ti#e or b- non-
user.
A statute is te#porar- $en its duration is for a specified ti#e and it e%pires on te
e%pir- of te specified ti#e unless it is repealed earlier. If te purpose of a statute is
te#porar- te statute cannot be regarded as te#porar- $en no fi%ed period is specified for
its duration. After a te#porar- statute e%pires4 it cannot be #ade effecti(e b- #erel-
a#ending te sa#e. Re(i(al of te e%pired statute can be done onl- b- re-enacting a statute
in si#ilar ter#s or b- enacting a statute e%pressl- sa-ing tat te e%pired Act is ere$it
re(i(ed.
EFFECT OF EXPIRY OF TEMPORARY STATUTES:
"ection ) of te General .lauses Act4 123+ $ic in ter#s is li#ited to repeals is not
applied $en a te#porar- statute e%pires. :e effect of e%pir- depends upon te
construction of te Act. :is topic can be ta'en up under te follo$ing sub-eadingsF
A. Legal proceedings under e%pired statute.
B. 1otifications4 *rders4 Rules etc. #ade under te#porar- statute.
.. ,%pir- does not #a'e te statute dead for all purposes.
/. Repeal b- a te#porar- statute.
A3 L"8al 4+%(""*i$8) .$*"+ "94i+"* )!a!.!":
A =uestion often arises $eter te legal proceedings under te e%pired statutes can
be initiated or continued after te Act as e%pired. ;er- often te Legislature itself enacts a
sa(ing pro(ision in te te#porar- Act $ic is si#ilar in effect to section ) of te General
.lauses Act4 123+. 0o$e(er4 if suc a sa(ing pro(ision is not present te nor#al rule is tat
proceedings ta'en against a person under a te#porar- statute ipso facto ter#inate as soon
as te statute e%pires [!. ?rishnan v. !tate of Madras% &IR '(.'+.
:erefore4 in absence of a sa(ing pro(ision $en a statute e%pires4 a person cannot be
prosecuted and con(icted for an offence against te Act and if te prosecution as not
ended before te date of e%pir- of te Act4 it $ill auto#aticall- ter#inate as a result of te
ter#ination.
In Ra,ala Corporation v. -irector of Cnforcement [&IR '(/6+ Rule 132-A of te
/efence of India Rules4 13)24 $ic related to te proibition of dealings in foreign
N. BIBAVE
e%cange $as b- te A#end#ent Rules4 13)&4 6o#itted e%cept as respects tings done or
o#itted to be done under tat rule7. :e =uestion $as $eter a prosecution in respect of
contra(ention of Rule 132-A could be co##enced after te Rule $as o#itted. :e ans$er
$as gi(en in negati(e b- te "upre#e .ourt and it $as eld tat initiation of a ne$
proceeding $ill not be a ting done or o#itted to be done under te rule but a ne$ act to
initiating a proceeding after te rule ad ceased to e%ist.
B3 N%!i&i(a!i%$)1 O+*"+)1 R.l") "!(3 #a*" .$*"+ T"#4%+a+/ S!a!.!":
:e nor#al rule is tat $en a te#porar- Act e%pires4 an- notification4 appoint#ent4
order4 sce#e4 rule4 b-e-la$s #ade or issued under te statute $ill also co#e to an end
$it te e%pir- of te Act and $ill not be continued e(en if te pro(isions of te e%pired Act
are re-enacted.
C3 E94i+/ *%") $%! #a7" !:" S!a!.!" D"a* &%+ all P.+4%)"):
,%pir- does not #a'e te statute dead for all purposes e(en in te absence of a
sa(ing clause. :e nature of te rigt and obligation resulting for# te pro(isions of te
te#porar- Act and teir caracter #a- a(e to be regarded in deter#ining $eter te said
rigt or obligation is enduring or not. :erefore4 in !tate of Orissa v. "hupendra ?umar [&IR
'()5+ it $as eld tat a person $o as been prosecuted and sentenced during te
continuance of a te#porar- Act for (iolating its pro(isions cannot be released before e
ser(es out is sentence4 e(en if te te#porar- Act e%pires before te e%pir- of full period of
te sentence.
D3 R"4"al / a T"#4%+a+/ S!a!.!":
Ben a te#porar- statute effects a repeal of an e%isting statute4 a =uestion arises
$eter te repealed statute re(i(es on te e%pir- of te repealing statute. "ection 11 C1D
and section 32C2DCaD of te Interpretation Act4 1233 a(e no application to a case of e%pir- of
a repealing Act. "i#ilarl-4 section )CaD of te General .lauses Act4 123+ as no application
on e%pir- of a repealing statute.
:erefore4 a statute $ic is repealed b- a te#porar- statute $ill re(i(e or not on te
e%pir- of te repealing statute $ill depend upon te construction of te repealing statute.
EXPRESS REPEAL:
An- particular for# of $ords is not necessar- to bring about an e%press repeal. :e
#ost co##on $ords for e%press repeals include 6is or are ereb- repealed74 6sall cease to
a(e effect7 and 6sall be o#itted74 etc. Ben a ne$ pro(ision is 6substituted7 in place of an
e%isting pro(ision or a ne$ pro(ision is #ade in suppression of an e%isting pro(ision4 ten
te declaration of in(alidit- of ne$ pro(ision on te ground of $ant of co#petence $ill also
in(alidate te repeal. 0o$e(er4 if te declaration of in(alidit- is on oter grounds te repeal
$ill be effecti(e altoug te ne$ pro(ision is declared in(alid unless fro# te totalit- of
N. BIBAVE
circu#stances and conte%t it is found tat tere $as no intention to repeal in te e(ent of te
ne$ pro(ision being struc' do$n [Indian Cxpress Nespapers v. #nion of India% 4'(*.8+.
"o#eti#es te Legislature does not enu#erate te Acts $ic it sougt to repeal but
onl- sa-s tat 6all pro(isions inconsistent $it tis Act7 are ereb- repealed. About tis
repealing pro(ision it is said tat it #erel- substitutes for te uncertaint- of te general la$
an e%press pro(ision of e=ual uncertaint-.
:e "upre#e .ourt obser(ed in a case tat $ere te repealed Act pro(ides
substantiall- for all #atters contained in te Act affecting te repeal tere is correspondence
bet$een te t$o Acts and te earlier Act $ould tus stand repealed. It is not necessar- tat
tere sould be co#plete identit- bet$een te repealing Act and te Act repealed in e(er-
respect [&bdul ?adir v. !tate of ?erala% &IR '()5+.
IMPLIED REPEAL:
A3 G"$"+al:
:ere is a presu#ption against a repeal b- i#plication and tis presu#ption is based
on te teor- tat te legislature $ile enacting a la$ as a co#plete 'no$ledge of te
e%isting la$s on te sa#e subject-#atter and4 terefore4 $en it does not pro(ide a
repealing pro(ision4 it gi(es out an intention not to repeal te e%isting legislation [Municipal
Council% $alai v 9.1. 1oseph% &IR '()>+.
:e "upre#e .ourt as indicated tat te test for deter#ining repugnanc- under
Article 2&! of te .onstitution #a- be applied for sol(ing a =uestion of i#plied repeal and
tat it sould be seenF
?Beter tere is direct conflict bet$een te t$o pro(isionsI
Beter te legislature intended to la- do$n an e%austi(e .ode in respect of te
subject-#atter replacing te earlier la$I
Beter te t$o la$s occup- te sa#e field@ [Municipal Council% $alai v 9.1. 1oseph%
&IR '()>+.
B3 P+i%+ G"$"+al La; a$* la!"+ Pa+!i(.la+ La;:
A prior general Act #a- be affected b- a subse=uent particular Act if te subject-
#atter of te particular Act prior to its enforce#ent $as being go(erned b- te general
pro(isions of te earlier Act i.e.4 generalilaus specialia derogant. 0ere te operation of te
particular Act #a- partiall- repeal te general Act4 or curtail its pro(isions or add conditions
to its operation for te particular cases.
In Ratan <al &du0ia v. #nion of India [&IR '((6+ section 2G of te Rail$a-s Act4
123G4 $ic $as substituted in 13)14 pro(ided for te foru# $ere a suit for co#pensation
for te loss of life of4 or personal injur- to4 a passenger or for loss4 destruction4 da#age4
deterioration4 or non-deli(er- of ani#als or goods against a rail$a- ad#inistration could be
brougt. It $as eld tat te said section $as a special pro(ision and a self-contained .ode
N. BIBAVE
and tat it i#pliedl- repealed in respect of suits co(ered b- it te general pro(isions of
section 2G of te .ode of .i(il Procedure4 13G2.
C3 P+i%+ 4a+!i(.la+ La; a$* la!"+ G"$"+al La;:
A prior particular la$ or special la$ is not readil- eld to be i#pliedl- repealed b-
later general enact#ent because te particular la$ deals $it a particular pase of te
subject co(ered b- te general la$ and4 terefore4 a reconciliation is possible bet$een te
t$o. A particular Act is construed as an e%ception or =ualification of te general Act.
:e (ie$ of Lord P0ILIM*R, is pertinent ereF ?It is a sound principle of all jurisprudence
tat a prior particular la$ is not easil- to be eld to be abrogated b- a posterior la$4
e%pressed in general ter#s and b- te apparent generalit- of its language applicable to and
con(erting a nu#ber of cases of $ic te particular la$ is but one. :is4 as a #atter of
jurisprudence4 as understood in ,ngland4 as been laid do$n in great nu#ber of cases4
$eter te prior la$ be an e%press statute4 or be te underl-ing co##on or custo#ar- la$
of te countr-. Bere general $ords in an Act are capable of reasonable and sensible
speciall- dealt $it b- earlier legislation4 tat earlier and special legislation is not to be eld
indirectl- repealed4 altered or abrogated fro# #erel- b- force of suc general $ords4 $itout
an- indication of a particular intention to do so@ [Nicolle v. Nicolle%4'(558+.
:e "upre#e .ourt obser(edF ?A general statutes applies to all persons and
localities $itin its jurisdiction and scope as distinguised fro# a special one $ic in its
operation is confined to a particular localit- and4 terefore4 $ic is doubtful $eter te
special statute $as intended to be repealed b- te general statute te court sould tr- to
gi(e effect to bot te enact#ents as far as possible [Municipal Council% $alai v 9.1. 1oseph%
&IR '()>+.
D3 A&&i+#a!i<" E$a(!#"$!):
It as been eld tat one affir#ati(e enact#ent is not easil- ta'en as repealed b-
anoter later affir#ati(e enact#ent. But if te later Act is precise negati(e of $ate(er
autorit- e%isted under an earlier Act4 te repealed sall be inferred. In te EosterHs case
[')'.+ te rule $as stated tusF ?:is Act is all in te affir#ati(e and4 terefore4 sall not be
abrogated a precedent affir#ati(e la$ beforeI and te said rule tat leges posteriores
priores contrarias abrogant% $as $ell agreedI but as to tis purpose contrarium est
multiplex@
In e=ualit-4 if one is an e%press and #aterial negati(e and te last is an e%press and
#aterial affir#ati(e4 or if te first is affir#ati(e4 and te later negati(e4
In #atter4 altoug bot are affir#ati(e@.
If te earlier affir#ati(e enact#ent conferring a po$er on A for benefit of B $as
intended to last until te sa#e po$er $as e%ercised b- B under a later enact#ent4 te
assu#ption of tat po$er b- B $ill result in i#plied repeal of te earlier enact#ent.
E3 La;) *"&i$i$8 O&&"$(") a$* P"$al!i"):
N. BIBAVE
Ben a later statute describes an offence $ic $as created b- an earlier statute
and i#poses a different punis#ent for tat offence or (aries te pro(ision tereof4 te
earlier statute is repealed b- i#plication. But $ere te offence described in te later Act is
different fro# te offence described in an earlier Act4 tis principle as no application.
Article 2GC2D of te .onstitution directs tat no person sall be prosecuted and punised for
te sa#e offence #ore tan once. :e General .lauses Act b- its section 2) pro(ides tat
$ere an act or o#ission constitutes an offence under t$o or #ore enact#ents4 ten te
offender sall be liable to be punised under eiter or an- of tose enact#ents but sall not
be liable to be punised t$ice for te sa#e offence. Bot of tese pro(isions appl- $en te
t$o offences $ic are te subject-#atter of prosecution or prosecutions are sa#e4 $en
te- are different tese pro(isions $ill not appl-.
N. BIBAVE
STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF TAXING STATUTES
TAXING STATUTES:
A ta% is i#posed for raising general re(enue of te "tate for public purposes. In
contrast to ta%4 a fee is i#posed for rendering ser(ices and bears a broad co-relationsip
$it te ser(ices rendered.
:a%es are distributed bet$een te 5nion and "tates b- (arious entries in List I and
List II of te .onstitution. Parlia#ent can under its residuar- po$er in entr- 3+ of List I le(- a
ta% not #entioned in tese lists.
A ta%ing statute #eans a statute or an Act #a'ing co#pulsor- i#position $eter of
ta% or fee. :ere are follo$ing tree stages in te i#position of ta%F
/eclaration of liabilit- in respect of persons or propert-I
Assess#ent of ta% tat =ualifies te su# $ic te person liable as to pa-I
Metods of reco(er- if te person ta%ed does not (oluntaril- pa-.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION:
A ta%ing statute is to be strictl- construed [;ansraj B !ons v. !tate of 1B?% 456658+. In
te $ords of Lord .AIR1"F ?If te person sougt to be ta%ed co#es $itin te letter of te
la$4 e #ust be ta%ed4 o$e(er great te ardsip #a- appear to te judicial #ind to be. *n
te oter and4 if te .ro$n see'ing to reco(er te ta%4 cannot bring te subject $itin te
letter of te la$4 te subject is free4 o$e(er apparentl- $itin te spirit of la$ te case
#igt oter$ise appear to be. In oter $ords4 if tere be ad#issible in an- statute4 $at is
called an e=uitable construction4 certainl-4 suc a construction is not ad#issible in a ta%ing
statute $ere -ou can si#pl- adere to te $ords of te statute@ [$artington v. &.3.% 4'*)(8+.
:ere is noting li'e i#plied po$er to ta%. :e source of po$er $ic does not
specificall- spea' of ta%ation cannot be interpreted b- e%panding its $idt as to include
terein te po$er to ta% b- i#plication or b- necessar- inference.
:e judicial opinion of binding autorit- flo$ing fro# se(eral pronounce#ents of te
"upre#e .ourt as settled te follo$ing principlesF-
In interpreting a ta%ing statute4 e=uitable considerations are entirel- out of place. :a%ing
statutes cannot be interpreted on an- presu#ption or assu#ption. A ta%ing statute as to
be interpreted in te ligt of $at is clearl- e%pressed. It cannot i#port pro(isions in te
statute so as to suppl- an- deficienc-. It cannot i#pl- an-ting $ic is not e%pressed.
Before ta%ing an- person it #ust be so$n tat e falls $itin te a#bit of te carging
section b- clear $ords used in te section4 and
If te $ords are a#biguous and open to t$o interpretations4 te benefit of interpretation
is to be gi(en to te subject.
N. BIBAVE
:ere is noting unjust in te ta% pa-er escaping if te letter of te la$ fails to catc
i# on account of te legislature7s failure to e%press itself clearl- [!tate of D. ". v. ?esoram
Industries <td.% 456678+.
Altoug nor#all- a ta%ing statute is to be strictl- construed but $en te statutor-
pro(ision is reasonabl- a'in to onl- one #eaning4 principle of strict construction #a- not be
adere to [Per "I10A4 <.4 9ata Consultanc, !ervices v. !tate of &.$.%4566.8+.
Lord "IM*1/" $ile interpreting a section in a ta%ing statute saidF ?:e =uestion is
not at $at transaction te section is according to so#e alleged general purpose ai#ed4 but
$at transaction its language according to its natural #eaning fairl- and s=uarel- its@ [!t.
&ub,n 4<M8 v. &.3.% 4'(.'8+
Lord "IM*1/" ga(e tis #a%i# of ta% la$ tat4 ?te subject is not to be ta%ed
unless te $ords of te ta%ing statute una#biguousl- i#pose te ta% on i#@ [Russell v.
!cot 4'(7*8+.
:e "upre#e .ourt as also stated tat before ta%ing an- person it #ust be so$n
tat e falls $itin te a#bit of te carging section b- clear $ords used in te section
[Commissioner of Dealth 9ax% 3ujarat v. Cllis "ridge 3,m0hana% &IR '((*+.
B0AGBA:I4 <.4 as also e%pressed te principle regarding te interpretation of
ta%ing la$s. In is $ordsF ?In construing fiscal statutes and in deter#ining te liabilit- of a
subject to ta% one #ust a(e regard to te strict letter of te la$. If te re(enue satisfies te
court tat te case falls strictl- $itin te pro(isions of te la$4 te subject can be ta%ed. If4
on te oter and4 te case is not co(ered $itin te four corners of te pro(isions of te
ta%ing statutes4 no ta% can be i#posed b- an inference or b- analog- or b- tr-ing to probe
into intentions of te legislature and b- considering $at $as te substance of te #atter@
[&.:. Earnande2 v. !tate of ?erala% &IR '(./+.
Anoter i#portant principle pertinent ere is tat a(oidance of double ta%ation b- te
sa#e Act. :e principle is tat if te $ords of te Act on one construction results in double
ta%ation of te sa#e inco#e4 tat result $ill be a(oided b- adopting anoter construction
$ic #a- reasonabl- be open. *n te basis of tis general rule it is said tat se(eral eads
of inco#e #entioned in te Inco#e ta% La$s are #utuall- e%clusi(e and a particular inco#e
can co#e under onl- one of te eads.
:e rule of a(oidance of double ta%ation is #erel- a rule of constructionI terefore4 it
ceases to a(e application $en te legislature e%pressl- enacts a la$ $ic results in
double ta%ation of te sa#e inco#e. :e la$ so #ade cannot be eld in(alid #erel- on te
ground tat it results in double ta%ation. In te absence of clear pro(isions stipulating double
or #ultiple le(ies4 te courts $ould lean in fa(our of a(oiding double ta%ation [Municipal
Council% ?ota v. -elhi Cloth B 3eneral Mills Co. <td.% 4566'8+.
0UALIFICATIONS OF RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION:
N. BIBAVE
Ben te statutor- pro(ision is reasonabl- open to onl- one #eaning4 no =uestion of
strict construction of ta%ing statutes arises. "trict construction of a ta%ing statute does not
#ean tat $ere te subject falls clearl- $itin te letter of la$4 te court can a(oid te ta%
b- putting a restricted construction on te basis of so#e supposed ardsip or on te
ground tat te ta% or penalt- i#posed is ea(- or oppressi(e. Bere t$o (ie$s are
possible4 te one in fa(our of te assessee #ust be adopted [#nion of India v. On0ar !.
?anar% 456658= Cemento Corpn. <td. v. CCC% 456658+. :e interpretation fa(ouring te
assessee $ic as been acted upon and accepted b- Re(enue for a long period sould
not be disturbed e%cept for co#pelling reasons ["irla Cement Dor0s v. C"-9% 4566'8I AIR
2GG1I C2GG1DE.
Ben te intention to ta% is clear4 it cannot be defeated b- a #ere defect in
praseolog- on te ground tat te pro(ision could a(e been #ore artisticall- drafted
[CD9% "ihar v. ?ripashan0ar% &IR '(/'+.
:e object of te legislature as to be 'ept in (ie$ and a construction consistent $it
te object as to be placed on te $ords used if tere b- a#biguit-4 is also applicable in
construing a ta%ing state#ent [&dministrator% Municipal Corpn.% "ilaspur v. -attatra,a
-ahan0ar% &IR '((5+.
.onsiderations of public polic- are also eld to be rele(ant in interpreting and
appl-ing a ta%ing statute. It as been eld tat pa-#ents tainted $it illegalit- cannot be
treated as #one- $oll- and e%clusi(el- spent for te purpose of business for being allo$ed
as a deduction in co#putation of profits of te business for ta%ation purposes under te
Inco#e :a% Act [Maddi :en0ataraman B Co. 4$.8 <td. v. Commissioner of IncomeG9ax% &IR
'((*+.
It as been eld regarding te liabilit- to pa- interest on dela-ed pa-#ent of ta% tat
interest can be le(ied and carged onl- if te statute tat le(ies and carges te ta% #a'es
a substanti(e pro(ision in tis bealf [India Carbon <td. v. !tate of &ssam% &IR '((/+.
A pro(ision of e%e#ption fro# ta% in a fiscal statute is to be strictl- construed [Oxford
#niversit, $ress v. CI9% 4566'8@ &IR 566'@ 4566'8+. It is a $ell-'no$n principle tat a person
$o clai#s an e%e#ption as to establis it and te rule of strict construction does not
negati(e its application. :ere is a#ple autorit- for te (ie$ tat te principle applies to
e%e#ptions granted in ta%ing la$ as $ell [CI9 v. Ram ?rishna -eo% &IR '(.(+. :ere are t$o
options regarding construction of e%e#ptionsF
*ne (ie$ sa-s tat an e%e#ption in case of a#biguit- sould be liberall- construed in
fa(our of te subject confining te operation of te dut-I
"econd (ie$ sa-s tat te e%e#ptions fro# ta%ation a(e a tendenc- to increase te
burden on te oter #e#bers of societ- and sould4 terefore4 be deprecated and
construed in case of doubt against te subject.
N. BIBAVE
In interpreting an e%e#ption legislati(e intent is also #aterial. Bere te legislati(e
intent $as to grant e%e#ption to li(e sa(ing drugs or #edicines or e=uip#ents4 onl- if
i#ported for being used in India and not for e%port4 it $as eld tat suc construction could
be properl- placed on e%e#ption pro(ision [Collector of Customs v. M.1. Cxports <td.%
4566'8+.
In Commissioner of IncomeG9ax v. ?urti 1ina "hai ?otecha [&IR '(//+ it $as noted
tat te rule of strict construction does not per#it te ta%-pa-er to ta'e benefit of an illegalit-.
"ection 2!C2D of te Inco#e-:a%4 13224 $as construed not to per#it te assesses to carr-
for$ard te loss of an illegal speculati(e business for setting it off against profits in
subse=uent -ears. "o e(en a ta%ing statute is to be construed consistent $it #oralit-
a(oiding a result $ic gi(es recognition to continued illegal acti(ities or benefits attaced to
it.
:e pro(isions of ta%ing statutes regulating li#itation period #ust be gi(en strict
construction [5665+. In a recent case4 it as been eld tat a li#itation pro(ision $itin $ic
steps a(e to be ta'en for reco(er- of duties not le(ied or not paid or sort paid or
erroneousl- refunded4 is subject to te rule of strict construction [1.?. Cotton !pinning B
Deaving Mills Co. <td. v. Collector of Central Cxcise% &IR '((*+.
N. BIBAVE
REMEDIAL AND PENAL STATUTES
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REMEDIAL AND PENAL STATUTES:
Re#edial statutes are also 'no$n as $elfare4 beneficent or social justice oriented
legislation. Penal statutes are tose $ic pro(ides for penalties for disobedience of te la$
and are directed against te offender in relation to te "tate b- #a'ing i# liable to
i#prison#ent4 fine4 forfeiture or oter penalt-.
:ere are certain legislations $ic are directed to cure so#e i##ediate #iscief
and bring into effect so#e t-pe of social refor# b- a#eliorating te condition of certain class
of persons $o according to present da- notions #a- not a(e been fairl- treated in te
past. "uc legislations proibit certain acts b- declaring te# in(alid and pro(ide for redress
or co#pensation to te persons aggrie(ed [Central Raila, Dor0shop% 1hansi v.
:ishanath% &IR '(/6+.
A re#edial statute recei(es a liberal construction in fa(our of te class of persons for
$ose benefit te statute $as enacted $ile penal statutes is strictl- construed in fa(our of
te alleged offender.
:e (ie$ of Lord MA.MILLA1 is pertinent ereF ?It #ust be borne in #ind tat $ile
te statute and rule a(e te beneficent purpose of pro(iding protection for $or'#en teir
contra(ention in(ol(es penal conse=uences. Bere penalties for infringe#ent are i#posed4
it is not legiti#ate to stretc te language of a rule4 o$e(er4 beneficent its intention4 be-ond
te fair and ordinar- #eaning of its language@ [<ondon B N Castern Raila, Co. v.
"arriman% 4'(7)8+.
:is (ie$ $as cited b- te "upre#e .ourt in 9olaram v. !tate of "omba, [&IR '(.7+.
Lord P*R:,R in te abo(e-stated ,nglis case ga(e a different (ie$F ?Most
#easures of a re#edial caracter4 suc as 9actories Acts and a great #an- oters4 a(e
penalt- clauses4 but I a(e ne(er 'no$n tat circu#stances be regarded as a ground for a
narro$ and pedantic construction@ [<ondon B N Castern Raila, Co. v. "arriman% 4'(7)8+.
In "hagirath ?anoria v. !tate of M.$. [4'(*78= &IR'(*7+ te "upre#e .ourt e%ibited
a liberal approac in olding tat non-pa-#ent of e#plo-er7s contribution $itin fifteen da-s
under para 32 of ,#plo-er7s Pro(ident 9unds "ce#e4 13&2 $ic $as punisable under
section 1!C2-AD of te ,#plo-ee7s Pro(ident 9unds and Miscellaneous Pro(isions Act4 13&2
$as a continuing offence. .ief <ustice .0A1/RA.05/ obser(edF ?.onsidering te object
and purpose of tis pro(ision4 $ic is to ensure te $elfare of $or'ers4 $e find it
i#possible to old tat te offence is not of continuing nature@.
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF REMEDIAL STATUTES:
A3 G"$"+al 4+i$(i4l"):
*n construing a re#edial statute te courts ougt to gi(e to it ?te $idest operation
$ic its language $ill per#it. :e- a(e onl- to see tat te particular case is $itin te
N. BIBAVE
#iscief to be re#edied and falls $itin te language of te enact#ent@ [!a,,ad Mir
#jmuddin ?han v. Jiaulnisa "egum% 4'*/(8+.
In case of a social benefit oriented legislation li'e te .onsu#er Protection Act4 132) te
pro(isions of te Act a(e to be construed in fa(our of te consu#er to acie(e te
purpose of te enact#ent but $itout doing (iolence to te language [<uc0no
-evelopment &uthorit, v. M.?. 3upta% &IR '((7+.
:e liberal construction #ust flo$ fro# te language used and te rule does not
per#it placing of an unnatural interpretation on te $ords contained in te enact#ent nor it
does per#it te raising of an- presu#ption tat protection of $idest a#plitude #ust be
dee#ed to a(e been conferred upon tose for $ose benefit te legislation #a- a(e been
enacted [Mugnilal v. !uganchand% &IR '().+.
In case tere is an- e%ception in te beneficent legislation $ic curtails its
operation4 te .ourt in case of doubt sould construe it narro$l- so as not to undul- e%pand
te area or scope of e%ception [!hei0h 3ulfan v. !anat ?umar% &IR '().+.
It is te dut- of te .ourt to be (igilant so tat benefits conferred b- te $elfare
legislation are not defeated b- subtle de(ices. In Dor0men v. &ssociated Rubber Industr,
<td. ['(*.+ it as been eld tat it is te dut- of te .ourt4 in e(er- case $ere ingenuit- is
e%pended to a(oid $elfare legislation4 to get beind te s#o'e screen and disco(er te true
state of affairs. Ben a co#pan- o$ing certain sares of anoter co#pan- created a
subsidiar- co#pan- $oll- o$ned b- it and transferred to it te sares eld b- it4 it $as eld
tat te di(idend inco#e fro# te sares sould be ta'en into account in assessing te
profits of te old co#pan- for co#putation of bonus pa-able to $or'#en. :e .ourt can
pierce te (eil of corporate entit- of a co#pan- if it as been for#ed for a(oidance of
$elfare legislation.
B3 Ill.)!+a!i<" (a)"):
Sadhoo v. (a)i *a Mohd. 'iri Wor+s, -./012:
In tis case te "upre#e .ourt interpreted section 31C2DCaD of te Beedi and .igar
Bor'ers C.onditions of ,#plo-#entD Act4 13)). :is section 31C2DCaD pro(ides tat te
e#plo-ees discarged4 dis#issed or retrenced #a- appeal to te prescribed autorit-. It
$as eld tat b- te liberal construction of te section tere to be no $ritten order of
ter#ination to enable te e#plo-ee to appeal and tat an e#plo-ee $o $as ter#inated b-
stopping i# to enter te place of $or' could appeal to te prescribed autorit-.
3udip 3aur v. Surinder Singh -A%& ./0/2,
In tis case te "upre#e .ourt dealt $it section 12&C3D of te .r. P. .. :is section
pro(ides for reco(er- of #aintenance granted in fa(our of a $ife or #inor cild b- issue of a
$arrant if te order for #aintenance is not co#plied $it 6$itout sufficient cause7 and
enables te #agistrate4 if te a#ount still re#ains unpaid to sentence te person against
$o# te order is #ade to i#prison#ent for a period of one #ont. :e .ourt dre$ a
N. BIBAVE
distinction bet$een 6#ode of enforce#ent7 and 6#ode of satisfaction7 and eld tat e(en
after a sentences of i#prison#ent4 te person concerned re#ained liable for arrears of
#aintenance for non-pa-#ent of $ic e $as i#prisoned and te liabilit- for pa-#ent
could be satisfied onl- b- pa-#ent and not b- suffering te sentence.
Motor 4wner#s %nsurance Co. *td. v. 5.3. Modi -A%& ./0.2,
In tis case4 te $ords 6an- one accident7 occurring in section 3&C2DCaD of te Motor
;eicles Act4 1333 $as construed. 0a(ing regard to te beneficial purpose of te Act4 te
$ords $ere construed to signif- as #an- accidents as te nu#ber of persons in(ol(ed in te
accident to enable te li#it of Rs. 2G4GGG pa-able b- te insurance co#pan- to appl- to
eac person injured.
M6NS &6A IN STATUTORY OFFENCES:
A3 G"$"+al P+i$(i4l"):
:e principle related to Mens Rea is e%pressed in te #a%i# 6&ctus non facit reum
nisi mens sit rea7 $ic #eans tat te e%istence of a guilt- intent is an essential ingredient
of a cri#e at co##on la$.
.ri#es in(ol(ing mens rea are of t$o t-pesF
.ri#es of basic intent4 and
.ri#es of specific intent.
In cri#es of basic intent4 te mens rea does not go beind te actus reus. Bile in
cri#es of specific intent4 mens rea goes be-ond te conte#plation of te proibited act and
foresigt of te conse=uences and as a purposi(e ele#ent [-irector of $ublic $rosecutions
v. Majes0i% 4'(/)8+.
Ignorance of la$ is no defence in cri#inal la$ but if te la$ is not publised in an-
#anner $atsoe(er4 to enable a person to find it out b- appropriate in=uir-4 te absence of
'no$ledge of proibition #a- afford a defence of absence of mens rea [<im Chin &i0 v.
Reginam% 4'()>8+.
In !herras v. -e Rut 2en% ['*(.@ 4'*(.G((8+ <ustice BRIG0: found tat tere are
tree classes of cases $ere te Legislature nor#all- enacts absolute proibitionF
9irst is a class of acts $ic are not cri#inal in an- real sense but are acts $ic are
proibited in public interest under a penalt-4 and instances of tis class are found in te
Re(enue "tatutes4 Adulteration Acts4 Ga#e Acts4 etc.I
"econd class co#preends so#e and peraps all public nuisancesI
:ird class of cases are tose $ere4 altoug te proceedings #a- be cri#inal in for#4
te- are reall- onl- a su##ar- #ode of enforcing a ci(il rigt.
It as been eld tat $en te state of an accused person7s #ind and is 'no$ledge
are ingredients of an offence4 e as to be judged on te facts as e belie(ed te# to be.
9or e%a#ple4 in R. v. 9affe ['(*7+ $en te accused s#uggled a controlled drug #ista'enl-
belie(ing tat e $as i#porting currenc- and also #ista'enl- belie(ing tat te i#port of
N. BIBAVE
currenc- $as proibited and e $as co##itting an offence4 e could not be punised for te
cri#inal offence of 6'no$ingl- concerned7 in te i#portation of a controlled drug.
If te statute deals $it a gra(e social e(il and a construction consistent $it te
e%istent $it te e%istence if mens rea as a necessar- ingredient of te offence $ould
largel- frustrate te effecti(e enforce#ent and te purpose of te statute4 it #a- be inferred
tat te legislature intended to pro(ide for strict liabilit- [Indo China !team Navigation Co. v.
1asjit !ingh% &IR '()7+.
In te $ords of Lord ".ARMA1F ?:e =uestion $eter an offence created b- te
statute re=uires mens rea4 guilt- 'no$ledge or intention4 in $ole4 in part or not at all turns
on te subject-#atter4 te language and te structure of te Act studied as a $ole4 on te
language of te particular statutor- pro(ision under consideration construed in te ligt of
te legislati(e purpose e#bodied in te Act and on $eter strict liabilit- in respect of all or
an- of te essential ingredients of te offence $ould pro#ote te object of te pro(ision@
[Dings <td. v. Cllis 4'(*78+.
B3 Ill.)!+a!i%$):
3apnath &ai v. State -A%& .//02,
In tis case4 te "upre#e .ourt considered section 3C!D of te :errorists and
/isrupti(e Acti(ities CPre(entionD Act4 132+. :is section pro(ides tat 6$oe(er arbours
an- terrorist7 sall be punisable $it i#prison#ent $ic sall not be less tan fi(e -ears
but $ic #a- e%tend to i#prison#ent for life. It $as eld b- te .ourt tat te section
pro(ided for ars punis#ent and could not be eld to a(e e%cluded mens rea and a
person gi(ing selter to a terrorist $itout 'no$ing tat e $as a terrorist could not be
punised under te section.
Nathua v. State of M.P. -A%& ./112,
0ere a dealer in food grains $as prosecuted under section + of te ,ssential
.o##odities Act for contra(ening te M.P. Grain /ealers Licensing *rder4 13&24 for
carr-ing on business in food grains $itout license. It $as found tat te accused ad
applied for a license and e $as under te i#pression tat te license $as issued to i#
and tat order of rejection of is application $as not co##unicated to i# and tat e $ent
on sending te returns of te footing tat e $as a licensee to te autorit- concerned. :e
"upre#e .ourt ac=uitted te accused and eld tat te Act $ic i#posed ea(- penalties
could not be construed to dispense $it mens rea as te object of te Act could not be
defeated on suc a construction.
Sar)oo Prasad v. State of !.P. -A%& ./1.2,
:e "upre#e .ourt in tis case eld tat an- person4 $eter e#plo-er or
e#plo-ee contra(ening te pro(isions of section + of te 9ood Adulteration Act4 13&! is
liable to punis#ent under section 1) and it $as not necessar- for te prosecution to
establis tat te person concerned as guilt- 'no$ledge or intention or tat e 'ne$ tat
te article $as adulterated.
N. BIBAVE
&. S. 5oshi v. A)it Mis -A%& ./77$ 8./7792:
A pro(ision in te "ales :a% Act proibited collection of an- su# b- $a- of ta% $ic
$as not pa-able as ta% or $ic $as in e%cess of ta% pa-able and contra(ention of tis
proibition $as #ade punisable offence and te person contra(ening $as also #ade liable
to forfeit te su# collected in contra(ention of te proibition. It $as eld b- te "upre#e
.ourt tat mens rea $as not an ingredient for #a'ing a person liable for te offence or
forfeiture. It $as eld tat te principle 6no mens rea no cri#e7 as no application to
econo#ic offences. It $as also eld tat te $ord 6collected7 did not include a#ounts
gatered tentati(el- to be gi(en bac' if found non-e%igible and 6sall be forfeited7 #eant
6sall be liable to be forfeited7 lea(ing a discretion to te autorities not to forfeit te su#s
returned to persons fro# $o# te- $ere collected.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN STATUTORY OFFENCES:
:e #a%i#s ?respondent superior@ and ?qui facit per alium facit per se@ a(e no
place in cri#inal la$. :e general rule of cri#inal la$ is tat cri#inal liabilit- in a #aster tat
#igt result eiter as a principle or an accessor-4 springs fro# autoriHation and not si#pl-
for# te relationsip of #aster and ser(ant. 0o$e(er4 te Legislature #a- in an infinite
(ariet- of $a-s pro(ide tat tere is to be cri#inal liabilit- in one $o as personall- no
mens rea or in one $o as not co##itted actus reus [:ane v. Iiannapoullo% 4'()78+.
In !tate of 3ujarat v. ?ansara Maniram "hi0alal [&IR '()7+ it $as eld b- te
"upre#e .ourt tat for an offence under section 32 of te 9actories Act4 mens rea need not
al$a-s be establised and te #anager or occupier of a factor- can onl- escape liabilit-
for# a contra(ention of te Act $ic is punisable under section 324 if e is able to bring
real offender to boo' in te #anner pro(ided in section 1G1.
In !rinias Mall v. Cmperor [&IR '(7/+ te =uestion related to te #aster7s liabilit-
for te act of is ser(ant in co##itting a contra(ention of a Price .ontrol *rder #ade under
rule 21C2DCbD of te /efence of India Rules. :e 0ig .ourt concluded tat guilt- intent of te
#aster $as dispensed $it for te offence under rule 21C!D $ic #ade an- person
contra(ening te pro(ision of te Rule liable to punis#ent $it i#prison#ent $ic could
e%tend to tree -ears. 0o$e(er4 te Pri(- .ouncil did not accept tis conclusion.
In :ane v. Iianno $oullos ['()7+ a restaurant license older $as carged for
'no$ingl- selling or suppl-ing 6into%icating li=uor contrar- to te conditions of7 of is license.
*ne of te conditions of te license $as tat li=uor sall not be sold or supplied on pre#ises
oter$ise tan to persons ta'ing table #eals tere. A $aitress engaged b- te licensee4
$o ad specific orders not to contra(ene te conditions of te license4 ser(ed li=uor to t$o
custo#ers $o ad ordered for #eals on te occasion. :is $as done $itout te
'no$ledge of te e#plo-er licensee $o $as engaged in te business at te base#ent.
N. BIBAVE
:e 0ouse of Lords eld tat as te 'no$ledge of te licensee $as not establised4 te
carge against i# $as not (alid and4 terefore4 it $as dis#issed.
N. BIBAVE
INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS
PRELIMINARY:
A constitution is an organic instru#ent. It is a funda#ental la$. Bere #ore tan one
reasonable interpretation of a constitutional pro(ision are possible4 tat $ic $ould ensure
a s#oot and ar#onious $or'ing of te .onstitution sall be accepted rater tan te one
tat $ould lead to absurdit- or gi(e rise to practical incon(enience or #a'e $ell-e%isting
pro(isions of e%isting la$s nugator-. A"tate of Biar (. >a#es$ar "ing4 13&2I .andra
Moan (. "tate of 5.P.4 13))E
:e .onstitution #ust be interpreted in a broad and liberal #anner gi(ing effect to all
its parts and te presu#ption sould be tat no conflict or repugnanc- $as intended b- its
fra#ers. It cannot be construed in a narro$ and pedantic sense and te court sould be
guided $it a broad and liberal spirit. AA.>. Gopalan (. "tate of Madras4 13&GE
Bile interpreting te .onstitution a construction #ost beneficial to te $idest
possible a#plitude #ust be adopted. *ne sould gi(e to Parlia#ent te freedo#4 $it in te
fra#e$or' of te .onstitution4 to ensure tat te blessings of libert- $ill be sared b- all. It
is necessar- to$ards tat end tat te .onstitution sould not be construed in a narro$ and
pedantic sense. A>esa(anand Barati (. "tate of >eralaE
9ollo$ing principles a(e fre=uentl- been discussed b- te courts $ile interpreting
te .onstitutionF
Principle of i#plied po$ers
Principle of incidental or ancillar- po$ers
Principle of i#plied proibition
Principle of occupied field
Principle of pit and substance
Principle of colourable legislation
Principle of territorial ne%us
Principle of se(erabilit-
Principle of prospecti(e o(erruling
Principle of eclipse
N. BIBAVE
PRINCIPLE OF IMPLIED POWERS:
:e .onstitution inter alia4 contains te objects $ic te countr- stri(es to acie(e
for its people and also #ar's te outline of te po$ers gi(en to te Parlia#ent. But unli'e a
code it does not sub-di(ide all tese po$ers to te #inutest detail nor does it specif- all te
#eans necessar- in te e%ecution of te sa#e. La$s $ic are necessar- and proper for
te e%ecution of te po$er or are incidental to suc po$er are called i#plied po$ers and
tese la$s are presu#ed to be constitutional.
In oter $ords4 constitutional po$ers are granted in general ter#s out of $ic
i#plied po$ers #ust necessaril- arise. Li'e$ise constitutional restraints are put in general
ter#s out of $ic i#plied restraints #ust also necessaril- arise. It is an establised
principle of interpretation tat $ene(er certain po$ers are granted b- te .onstitution
so#e restrictions is put b- it4 all po$ers tat are needed for te e%ercise or perfor#ance of
te sa#e are b- i#plication also conferred b- it4 and tis naturall- #eans tat tese i#plied
po$ers are also constitutional.
:e go(ern#ent #ust a(e a legiti#ate object $itin te pur(ie$ of te .onstitution
and all #eans $ic are appropriate and necessar- for acie(ing tat object are
constitutional if te- are $itin te li#its of te .onstitution.
In India4 te "upre#e .ourt as obser(ed in "idi "idi <eaves and Merchants
&ssociation v. !tate of "omba, [&IR '()5 !C 7*)+4 tat te principle of i#plied po$ers
could be eld to be applicable $ere(er it $ould be i#possible to enforce te #aterial
pro(isions of te .onstitution. It as4 o$e(er4 cautioned in Ram0rishna v. Municipal
Committee [&IR '(.6 !C ''+4 tat te courts #ust be (er- cautious $ile interpreting
e%press po$er visGKGvis i#plied po$er lest a broader interpretation unnecessaril- gi(en
interfered $it precise and definite #eaning.
PRINCIPLE OF INCIDENTAL AND ANCILLARY POWERS:
:is principle is si#ilar to te principle i#plied po$ers. :e .onstitutions of certain
nations specificall- gi(e to teir la$-#a'ing bod- incidental and ancillar- po$ers of
legislation. :e argu#ent tat $en tere is no e%press #ention of tis po$er in te
.onstitution no suc po$er #ust e%ists is not con(incing because it is presu#ed tat so#e
suc po$er #ust e%ist for te s#oot $or'ing of te .onstitution.
N. BIBAVE
In India te subjects #entioned under te tree lists in te "e(ent "cedule of te
.onstitution a(e ti#e and again been interpreted in te $idest possible a#plitude. ,ntr- 33
in te 5nion List and entr- )! in te "tate List e%pressl- #ention offences against la$s $it
respect to an- of te #atters in tis List $ic are e%a#ples of incidental or ancillar-
po$ers. Bit tese po$ers e%ists te i#plied po$er to #a'e la$s incidental to te e%ercise
of suc po$er. :e grant of po$er includes e(er-ting necessar- to e%ercise tat po$er is a
basic principle of interpretation [:asanlal Maganlal v. !tate of "omba,% '()'= 1an
Mohammad Noor Mohammad v. !tate of 3ujarat% '())+. :e essential po$ers of la$-
#a'ing cannot be delegated b- te legislature to anoter agenc- but for a subsidiar- or
ancillar- #easure delegation is perfectl- legiti#ate.
:e "upre#e .ourt as eld ti#e and again in cases li'e !tate of Rajasthan v. 3.
Chaala [&IR '(.( !C .77+% Dest "engal v. #nion of India [&IR '()> !C '57'+4 tat a
general $ord in an- entr- under an- of te tree lists in te se(ent scedule of te
.onstitution #ust be interpreted to e%tend ancillar- or subsidiar- #atters $ic can fairl-
and reasonabl- be eld to be included in it. It as been eld in $athumma v. !tate of ?erala
['(/* 5 !CC '+% tat po$er to #a'e la$s $it respect to 6#one- lending and #one-
lendersI relief of agricultural indebtedness7 under entr- 3G of te "tate List includes po$er to
#a'e a la$ relating to debt of agriculturists alread- paid b- sale of propert- in e%ecution of
te decree and an- #easure to pro(ide relief and reco#pense. "i#ilarl-4 te po$er to #a'e
la$s $it respect to collection of rent includes po$er $it respect to re#ission of rent
A#nited $rovinces v. &tiqa "egum% &IR '(7' EC ')+. Po$er to i#pose ta% includes po$er to
enact la$s relating to cec'ing to ta% e(asion [Commissioner of Commercial 9axes v. R. !.
1haver% &IR '()* !C .(+ and po$er of raising re(enue b- i#posing licensee fee4
[Chaturbhuj v. #nion of India &IR '()6 !C 757+. Po$er to legislate on an- specific subject
includes po$er to enact a (alid la$ retrospecti(el- if a pre(ious la$ on tat subject as been
declared unconstitutional.[Rai Ram0rishna v. !tate of "ihar% &IR '()> !C '))/+
PRINCIPLE OF IMPLIED PROHIBITION:
In te .onstitutions of so#e countries4 Cfor instance Australia and 5nited "tates of
A#ericaD te 5nion or te .entral Legislature as been gi(en po$er to legislate on certain
subjects enu#erated in te for# of a list and for te subjects left out of te list te "tate
Legislatures a(e been conferred po$er to #a'e la$s. *n te oter and4 in te
.onstitutions of so#e oter countries Cfor instance India and .anadaD .entral and "tate
Legislatures a(e been e#po$ered to legislate in distinct fields designated b- #ore tan
one list. In te for#er class of cases4 te specific4 #ention of subject to be legislated upon
N. BIBAVE
b- te .entre #eans i#plied proibition on te .entre to legislate on te residuar- areas. In
te latter class of cases4 te principle of i#plied proibition does not e%ist at all%["urhanpur
9apti Mills v. !tate of Madh,a $radesh% &IR '()5 M$ 55.+% e(en toug tat of incidental
and ancillar- po$er does.
PRINCIPLE OF OCCUPIED FIELD:
:e principle of occupied field #eans tat $en te 5nion or .entral Legislature
#a'es a la$ on a particular subject and tereb- occupies te field4 te "tate Legislatures
a(e no po$er to enact an- la$ on tat field.
In te e(ent of teir doing so te "tate Legislation $ould4 to tat e%tent4 beco#e
unconstitutional. In India4 te .onstitution grants specific areas of legislation to te 5nion
Parlia#ent and "tate legislatures in te for# of 5nion List and "tate List respecti(el- and
one cannot encroac upon te po$ers of te oter. It is te .oncurrent List4 $ere bot te
Parlia#ent and "tate Legislatures a(e been e#po$ered to enact la$s4 $ere te proble#
co#es. Article 2&!C1D of te .onstitution sa-s in tis regard tat if an- pro(ision of a la$
#ade b- te Legislature of a "tate is repugnant to an- pro(ision of a la$ #ade b- te
Parlia#ent $ic Parlia#ent is co#petent to enact4 or to an- pro(ision of an e%isting la$
$it respect to one of te #atters enu#erated in te .oncurrent List4 ten4 subject to te
pro(isions of clause C2D4 te la$ #ade b- Parlia#ent4 $eter passed before or after te la$
#ade b- te Legislature of suc "tate4 or as te case #a- be4 te e%isting la$4 sall pre(ail
and te la$ #ade b- te legislature of te "tate sall4 to te e%tent of te repugnanc-4 be
(oid. Article 2&! C2D states tat $ere a la$ #ade b- te legislature of a "tate $it respect
to one of te #atters enu#erated in te .oncurrent List contains an- pro(ision repugnant to
te pro(ision of an earlier la$ #ade b- Parlia#ent of an e%isting la$ $it respect to tat
#atter4 ten4 te la$ so #ade b- te Legislature of suc "tate sall4 if it as been reser(ed
for te consideration of te President and as recei(ed is assent4 pre(ail in tat "tate
pro(ided tat noting in tis clause sall pre(ent Parlia#ent fro# enacting at an- ti#e4 an-
la$ $it respect to te sa#e #atter including a la$ adding to4 a#ending4 (ar-ing or
repealing te la$ so #ade b- te Legislature of te "tate.A>u#aun Motor *$ners 5nion (.
"tate of 5ttar Prades4 13))E.
PRINCIPLE OF PITH AND SUBSTANCE:
N. BIBAVE
:e principle #eans tat if an enact#ent substantiall- falls $itin te po$ers
conferred b- te .onstitution upon te legislature b- $ic it $as enacted4 it does not
beco#e in(alid #erel- because it incidentall- touces upon subjects $itin te do#ain of
anoter legislature as designated b- te .onstitution. Nuestions fre=uentl- co#e up before
te .ourt as to $eter a la$ purporting to be #ade under one or #ore legislati(es entries
in an autoriHed list is in fact a legislation $itin tose entries onl- or is in a la$ enacted
under anoter entr- in anoter list in $ic tat legislature is not co#petent to enact la$4
and tis =uestion is resol(ed b- appl-ing te principle of pit and substance.
In !ubrahman,am Chettiar v. Muthusam, 3oundan [&IR '(7' $C 7/+% te
abo(e#entioned =uestions arose under "ection 1GG of te Go(ern#ent of India Act4 133&.
Bile stating tat te Pri(- .ouncil ad e(ol(ed te rule of pit and substance $it respect
to te .onstitution of .anada $en si#ilar =uestions under "ections 31 and 32 of te Britis
1ort A#erica Act4 12)+ ad arisen4 .ief <ustice "ir Maurice G$-er obser(edF
?It #ust ine(itabl- appen fro# ti#e to ti#e tat legislation4 toug purporting to deal $it a
subject in one list4 touces also on a subject in anoter list4 and te different pro(isions of
te enact#ent #a- be so closel- inter-t$ined tat blind obser(ance to a strictl- (erbal
interpretation $ould result in a large nu#ber of statutes being declared in(alid because te
legislature enacting te# #a- appear to a(e legislated in te forbidden spere. 0ence4 te
rule $ic as been e(ol(ed b- te <udicial .o##ittee $ereb- te i#pugned statute is
e%a#ined to ascertain its 6pit and substance74 or its 6true nature and caracter74 for te
purpose of deter#ining $eter it is legislation $it respect to #atters in tis list or in tat.@
In !tate of "omba, v. E. N. "alsara [&IR '(.' !C >'*+% te "tate Legislature
enacted te Bo#ba- Proibition Act4 13!3 under ,ntr- of te "tate List relating to
6Into%icating li=uors4 tat is to sa-4 te production4 #anufacture4 possession4 transport4
purcase and sale of into%icating li=uors7. It $as callenged on te ground tat it $as a
5nion subject under ,ntr- !1 of te 5nion List relating to 6i#port and e%port across custo#s
frontiers7 as te proibition on purcase4 use4 transport and sale of li=uor $ould affect te
i#port. :e Act $as eld to be (alid e(en toug it ad an incidental effect on te po$er of
te 5nion.
In "ennett Coleman and Compan, v. #nion of India ['(/5 5 !CC /**+% te "upre#e
.ourt obser(ed tat te tests of pit and substance of te subject #atter and of direct and of
incidental effect of te legislature are rele(ant to =uestions of legislati(e co#petence but
te- are irrele(ant to te =uestions of infringe#ent of funda#ental rigts.
N. BIBAVE
In M. Ismail Earuqui v. #nion of India [&IR '((. !C )6.+% te "upre#e .ourt obser(ed tat
te pit and substance of te Ac=uisition .ertain Area at A-od-a Act4 1333 is ac=uisition of
propert- and not public order. :e Act falls $itin te a#bit of ,ntr- !2 of List III. :e "tate
of 5ttar Prades being under te President7s Rule at te rele(ant ti#e4 te legislati(e
co#petence of te Parlia#ent cannot be doubted. A construction $ic pro#otes a larger
national purpose #ust preferred to a strictl- literal construction tending to pro#ote
factionalis# and discord.
PRINCIPLE OF COLOURABLE LEGISLATION:
:e follo$ing land #ar' obser(ation of te "upre#e .ourt in te fa#ous case of ?.
C. 3ajapati Nara,an -eo v. !tate of Orrisa% [&IR '(.> !C >/.+% aptl- described te principle
of colourable legislation.
?:e idea con(e-ed b- te e%pression is tat altoug a legislature in passing a statute
purports to act $itin te li#its of its po$ers4 -et in substance and in realit- it transgresses
tose po$ers4 te transgression being (eiled b- $at appears on proper e%a#ination to be
a #ere pretence or disguise. In oter $ords4 it is te substance and if te subject-#atter in
substance is so#eting $ic is be-ond te po$ers of tat Legislature to legislate upon4 te
for# in $ic te la$ is cloted $ould not sa(e it fro# conde#nation. :e legislature cannot
(iolate te constitutional proibition b- e#plo-ing te indirect #etod.@
Legislati(e co#petence is te #atter of scrutin- b- courts [1agannath "a0sh !ingh v.
!tate of #ttar $radesh &IR '()5 !C '.)>+. :e a#bit of te po$er $ould be loo'ed into4 not
te #anner of its e%ercise [3. Nageshar v. &ndhra $radesh !tate Road 9ransport
Corporation &IR '(.* !C >'7+. 0o$ #uc $as done b- te legislature4 o$ #uc or o$
little could a(e been done4 could te object be acie(ed b- doing so#eting different4
could oter #eans a(e been adopted to acie(e te object4 and oter li'e =uestions are
totall- irrele(ant considerations [Collector of Customs v. -ass and Compan, &IR '()) !C
'.//+. :e basic te#e is 6-ou cannot do indirectl- $at -ou cannot do directl-7. :e
principle of colourable legislation i#putes no #oti(es or #ala fides to te la$ #a'er [?. C.
3ajapati Nara,an -eo v. !tate of Orissa &IR '(.> !C >/.+. :e #ain =uestion is $eter
te la$ enacted is $itin te designated do#ain or outside of it [!tate of "ihar v. ?aeshara
!ingh &IR '(.5 !C (.5+.
In M. R. "alaji v. !tate of M,sore [&IR '()> !C )7(+% te constitutionalit- of a "tate
order reser(ing si%t--eigt percent of seats of ad#issions of students belonging to bac'$ard
N. BIBAVE
classes $as in =uestion. It $as eld b- te "upre#e .ourt tat te order $as (iolati(e of
Article 1& C!D as te e%ecuti(e action $as an o(ert and latent transgression of constitutional
autorit- and $as tus a fraud on te constitutional po$er.
In 1agannath "a0sh !ingh v. !tate of #ttar $radesh [&IR '()5 !C '.)>+% it $as eld
b- te "upre#e .ourt tat te 5ttar Prades Large Land 0oldings :a% Act4 13&+ i#posing
ta% $as not confiscator- in nature and tus not colourable. In R.M.-.C. 4M,sore8 $rivate
<imited v. !tate of M,sore [&IR '()5 !C .(7+% te ruled tat le(-ing ta% on priHe
co#petitions $as not (oid on te ground tat it $as colourable4 and tat no #oti(es could
be i#puted to la$ #a'ers. In 9.3. :en0ataraman v. !tate of Madras [&IR '(/6 !C .6*+% it
$as eld b- te "upre#e .ourt tat le(-ing of sales ta% on cane jagger- $as not colourable
as te legislature ad po$er to i#pose ta%.
PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL NEXUS:
According to Article 2!&C2D no la$ #ade b- Parlia#ent sall be dee#ed to be in(alid
on te ground tat it $ould a(e e%tra-territorial operation. :us4 te .onstitution confers te
po$er to enact la$s a(ing e%tra-territorial operation onl- to te 5nion Parlia#ent and not to
te "tate Legislature4 and conse=uentl- an e%tra-territorial la$ enacted b- an- "tate is
cangeable unless te sa#e is protected on te ground of territorial ne%us. If a "tate la$
as sufficient ne%us or connection $it te subject #atter of tat la$4 te state la$ is (alid
e(en $en it as e%tra territorial operation.
:e area in $ic te principle of territorial ne%us as been applied #ost in India is
ta%ation. In !tate of "omba, v. R.M.-. Chamarbaugala [&IR '(./ !C )((+% a ne$spaper
printed and publised at Bangalore ad $ide circulation in te "tate of Bo#ba-. :roug
tis ne$spaper te respondent conducted and ran priHe co#petitions for $ic te entries
$ere recei(ed fro# te "tate of Bo#ba- troug agents and depots establised in te "tate
to collect entr- for#s and fees for being for$arded to te ead office at Bangalore. :e
Bo#ba- Legislature i#posed a ta% on te business of priHe co#petitions in te "tate b-
enacting te Act of 13&2 and a#ending te Bo#ba- Lotteries and PriHe .o#petitions Act4
13!2. :e respondent contended tat e $as not bound to pa- te said ta% on te ground of
e%tra-territorialit-.
9or sufficienc- of territorial connection4 t$o ele#ents $ere considered b- te court4
na#el-4 C1D te connection #ust be real and not illusor-4 and C2D te liabilit- sougt to be
i#posed #ust be pertinent to tat connection. It $as eld tat all te acti(ities $ic te
N. BIBAVE
co#petitor $as ordinaril- e%pected to underta'e too' place in te "tate of Bo#ba- and
tere e%isted a sufficient territorial ne%us to enable te Bo#ba- Legislature to ta% te
Respondent $o $as residing outside te "tate.
In !tate of "ihar v. Charusila -as [&IR '(.( !C '665+% te "upre#e .ourt eld tat
$ere(er caritable and religious trusts are situated $itin a "tate4 te legislature of tat
"tate as autorit- under te la$ to enact la$s in respect of te# e(en $en an- large or
s#all part of te caritable or trust propert- is situated in anoter "tate. As a natural
corollar- to tis4 te "tate Legislature enacting te la$ is also e#po$ered to legislate in
respect of te trustees4 teir ser(ants and agents $o are in tat "tate to ad#inister te
trust.
In Dallace "rothers and Compan, <imited v. Commissioner of Income tax [&IR '(7*
$C ''*+% te Appellant4 a co#pan- incorporated in ,ngland a(ing its registered office tere4
$as a partner in a fir# carr-ing on business in Britis India. Appl-ing te test of territorial
ne%us te Pri(- .ouncil eld tat te inco#e or profits #ade b- te Appellant as a partner in
te fir# as $ell as te inco#e or profits $ic accrued $itout Britis India $ere bot liable
to ta% under te Inco#e :a% Act4 1322.
PRINCIPLE OF SEVERABILITY:
It is $ell-establised principle tat $en te constitutionalit- of an enact#ent is in
=uestion and it is found tat part of te enact#ent $ic is eld to be in(alid can be se(ered
fro# te rest of te enact#ent4 te part so se(ered alone sall be declared unconstitutional
$ile te rest of te enact#ent sall constitutional. 1aturall-4 $ere suc se(erance is not
possible4 te $ole enact#ent sall a(e to be eld unconstitutional. :is principle of
se(erabilit- $as so e%plained b- te Pri(- .ouncil in &ttorne, 3eneral of &lberta v. &ttorne,
3eneral of Canada ['(>( &C ''/+.
In &. ?. 3opalan v. !tate of Madras [&IR '(*6 !C 5/+% te "upre#e .ourt said tat
in case of repugnanc- to te .onstitution4 onl- te repugnant pro(ision of te i#pugned Act
$ill be (oid and not te $ole of it4 and e(er- atte#pt sould be #ade to sa(e as #uc as
possible of te Act. If te o#ission of te in(alid part $ill not cange te nature or te
structure of te object of te legislature4 it is se(erable.
In !tate of "omba, v. E. N. "alsara [&IR '(.' !C >'*+% te eigt sections of te
Bo#ba- Proibition Act4 13!3 $ere declared in(alid b- te court on te ground tat te-
$ere (iolati(e of certain funda#ental rigts. :e "upre#e .ourt eld tat te parts declared
N. BIBAVE
unconstitutional $ere se(erable fro# rest of te Act since te- $ere not ine%tricabl- bound
up $it te re#aining pro(isions of te Act.
In R.M.-. Chamarbaugala v. #nion of India ['(./ !CR (>6+% is a land#ar'
judg#ent on te point $ere te =uestion in(ol(ed $as as to $eter te definition of priHe
co#petition in section 2 CdD of te PriHe .o#petition Act4 13&& $ic co(ered $itin it bot
co#petitions of s'ill and ga#bling could be interpreted as li#ited to co#petitions of
ga#bling alone. Appl-ing te gra##atical and #iscief rules of interpretation te "upre#e
.ourt concluded tat te e%pression 6priHe co#petition7 $ould #ean onl- priHe co#petitions
of a ga#bling nature in te Act.
In ;.R. "anthia v. #nion of India [&IR '(/6 !C '7.>+% te "upre#e .ourt struc'
do$n certain pro(isions of te Gold .ontrol Act4 13)2 and since tese $ere not ine%tricabl-
bound up $it te rest of te pro(isions of te Act4 te rest $ere eld to be (alid. :e
decision is an illustration of se(erabilit- in application.
PRINCIPLE OF PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING:
In I. C. 3ola0 Nath v. !tate of $unjab [&IR '()/ !C ')7>+% fi(e of te ele(en judges4
of te "upre#e .ourt laid do$n te principle of prospecti(e o(er-ruling.
:e learned judge $as of te (ie$ tat Article 3)2 la-s do$n onl- te procedure to
a#end te .onstitution and besto$ed no po$er of a#end#ent $ic could be found onl- in
te residuar- legislati(e po$er of Parlia#ent contained in Article 2!2. 0e also felt tat te
$ord 6la$7 in Article 13C2D #eans ordinar- la$ and constitutional la$ and conse=uentl- te
"tate $as not e#po$ered to #a'e an- constitutional a#end#ent $ic ta'es a$a- or
abridges funda#ental rigts as 6la$7 includes 6a#end#ent7 as $ell. :us4 $ile olding tat
te Parlia#ent $as not autoriHed to a#end funda#ental rigts4 tese fi(e learned judges
jointl- declared tat te principle $ould operate onl- in future and it ad no retrospecti(e
effect. :erefore te na#e 6prospecti(e o(erruling7. :e effect of te decision $as tat all
a#end#ents #ade $it respect to funda#ental rigts till te da- of te decision in te case
$ould continue to re#ain (alid and effecti(e4 and after te date te Parlia#ent $ould a(e
no autorit- to a#end an- of te funda#ental rigts. :e learned judges i#posed tree
restrictions too on te application of te principle- 1D constitutional #atters onl-4 2D tat te
"upre#e .ourt alone4 and no oter court4 $ould a(e te autorit- to appl- te principle4
and 3D te scope of te prospecti(it- to be i#posed is a #atter of discretion for te "upre#e
.ourt $ic is to be #oulded in accordance $it te justice of te cause or #atter before it.
N. BIBAVE
:ere see# to be at least 2 (alid reasons for te birt of te principle of prospecti(e
o(erruling in India. 9irst4 te po$er of Parlia#ent to a#end te funda#ental rigts4 and te
9irst and "e(enteent A#end#ents specificall-4 ad been upeld pre(iousl- b- te
"upre#e .ourt in !han0ari $rasad v. #nion of India [&IR '(.' !C 7.*+ and !ajjan !ingh v.
!tate of Rajasthan [&IR '(). !C *7.+. "econdl-4 during 12)+ to 13&G4 a large bod- of
legislation ad been enacted bringing about an agrarian re(olution in India.
PRINCIPLE OF ECLIPSE:
According to Article 13C1D of te .onstitution all la$s in force in te territor- of India
i##ediatel- before te co##ence#ent of tis .onstitution4 in so far as te- are
inconsistent $it te pro(isions of tis Part4 sall4 to te e%tent of suc inconsistenc-4 be
(oid. Article 13 C2D of te .onstitution sa-s tat te "tate sall not #a'e an- la$ $ic ta'es
a$a- or abridges te rigts conferred b- tis part and an- la$ #ade in contra(ention of tis
clause sall4 to te e%tent of te contra(ention4 be (oid.
In !tate of "omba, v. E. N. "alsara [&IR '(.' !C >'*+% eigt sections of a pre-
constitution legislation4 te Bo#ba- Proibition Act4 13!34 $ere eld to be unconstitutional in
(ie$ of Article 13 C1D in so far as te- proibited possession4 use and consu#ption of
#edicinal preparations $ic $as (iolati(e of Article 13 C1D CfD of te .onstitution.
In !aghir &hmad v. !tate of #ttar $radesh [&IR '(.. !C /5*+% te constitutionalit- of
te 5ttar Prades Road :ransport Act4 13&1 $as in =uestion. :e "upre#e .ourt eld it to
be (iolati(e of Article 13 C1D CgD and ence (oid under Article 13 C2D obser(ing tat an
unconstitutional la$ is a dead la$ incapable of being (italiHed b- a constitutional
a#end#ent re#o(ing te fetters4 and tat te onl- course open is its re-enact#ent.
In "i0haji Narain -ha0ras v. !tate of Madh,a $radesh [&IR '(.. !C /*'+% section !3
of te Motor ;eicles Act4 1333 $as a#ended b- te .entral Pro(inces and Berar Motor
;eicles CA#end#entD Act4 13!+4 bot being pre-constitution legislations. :e A#end#ent
Act e#po$ered te Pro(incial Go(ern#ent to ta'e up te entire Pro(incial #otor transport
business4 and it could run it eiter in co#petition $it #otor transport operator or e%cluded
te# totall- fro# tis $it te co#ing into being of te .onstitution4 tese beca#e
unconstitutional as (iolati(e of Article 13 C1D CgD. B- a constitutional a#end#ent of Article 13
C)D on <une 124 13&1 te "tate $as e#po$ered to carr- on te business to te notification
issued b- te go(ern#ent to tis effect $as =uestioned. :e respondent go(ern#ent argued
tat fro# <anuar- 2)4 13&G to <une 124 13&1 section !3 re#ained (oid4 but te a#end#ent
N. BIBAVE
of Article 13 C)D on <une 124 13&1 #ade section !3 (alid and operati(e again. It $as eld b-
te "upre#e .ourt tat te true position is tat te i#pugned la$ beca#e4 for te ti#e
being4 eclipsed b- te funda#ental rigt. :e effect of te .onstitution C9irst A#end#entD
Act4 13&1 $as to re#o(e te sado$ and to #a'e te i#pugned Act free fro# all ble#is or
infir#it-. All la$s4 e%isting or future4 $ic are inconsistent $it te pro(isions of Part III of
our .onstitution are4 b- te e%press pro(ision of Article 134 rendered (oid to te e%tent of
suc inconsistenc-. "uc la$s $ere not dead for all purposes. :e- e%isted for te purpose
of pre-.onstitution rigts and liabilities and tere#ained operati(e4 e(en after te
.onstitution4 as against non-citiHens. It is onl- as against te citiHens tat tere#ained in a
dor#ant or #oribund condition.
:$o conclusions can be dra$n fro# tis decisionF first4 te doctrine of eclipse if
based on te principle tat an- la$ $ic is in contra(ention of funda#ental rigts is not4 b-
(irtue of te sa#e4 null and (oid4 but re#ains onl- unenforceableI and secondl-4 te doctrine
recogniHes te distinction bet$een a la$ being declared (oid because of te legislati(e
inco#petence to enact tat la$4 and a la$ being declared (oid on te ground tat it (iolates
funda#ental rigts.
In Madhu <ima,e v. !ubG-ivisional Magistrate% Mongh,r [&IR '(/' !C 57)*+%
section 1!! and .apter ;III of te .ode of .ri#inal Procedure4 12324 a pre-constitutional
la$4 $ere callenged on te ground tat te- (iolated Article 13 C1D CaD and $ere not sa(ed
b- Article 13C2D4 as it ten stood before its a#end#ent in 13&14 under $ic te "tate $as
not e#po$ered to put restrictions on freedo# of speec and e%pression in te interest of
public order. Also4 te e%pression 6securit- of te state7 in Article 13 C2D ad consistentl-
been construed b- te "upre#e .ourt to #ean onl- gra(e treats to national securit-4 and
tus te i#pugned sections $ere not co(ered $itin te e%pression 6securit- of te "tate7
and ence (oid after te .onstitution ca#e into e%istence. :is #eant tat te principle of
eclipse applied under $ic te i#pugned sections $ould be eclipsed and could be brougt
bac' to life b- a#ending te .onstitution. :e Principle of ,clipse $as4 o$e(er4 not applied
b- te "upre#e .ourt $ic created a fiction in te retrospecti(e operation of te
a#end#ents and tus sa(ed te pro(isions fro# being eld unconstitutional.
N. BIBAVE
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT1 2=>?
DEFINITIONS:
S"(!i%$ @ (@) Aa&&i*a<i!B sall include affir#ation and declaration in te case of persons b-
la$ allo$ed to affir# or declare instead of s$earingI
S"(!i%$ @ (@?) A%a!:B sall include affir#ation and declaration in te case of persons b- la$
allo$ed to affir# or declare instead of s$earingI
S"(!i%$ @ (C5) A);"a+B1 $it its gra##atical (ariations and cognate e%pressions4 sall
include affir#ing and declaring in te case of persons b- la$ allo$ed to affir# or declare
instead of s$earingI
S"(!i%$ @ (2@) A(%##"$("#"$!B used $it reference to an Act or Regulation4 sall #ean
te da- on $ic te Act or Regulation co#es into forceI
S"(!i%$ @ (2D) AC%$)!i!.!i%$B sall #ean te .onstitution of IndiaI
S"(!i%$ @ (2>) A"$a(!#"$!B sall include a Regulation Cas ereinafter definedD and an-
Regulation of te Bengal4 Madras or Bo#ba- .ode4 and sall also include an- pro(ision
contained in an- Act or in an- suc Regulation as aforesaidI
S"(!i%$ @ (5>) AI$*ia$ la;B sall #ean an- Act4 *rdinance4 regulation4 rule4 order4 b-e-la$
or oter instru#ent $ic before te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution ad te force of la$
in an- Pro(ince of India or part tereof4 or tereafter as te force of la$ in an- Part A "tate
or Part . "tate or part tereof4 but does not include an- Act or Parlia#ent of te 5nited
>ingdo# or an- *rder in .ouncil4 rule or oter instru#ent #ade under suc ActI
S"(!i%$ @ (5) Aa(!B1 used $it reference to an offence or a ci(il $rong4 sall include a series
of acts4 and $ords $ic refer to acts done e%tend also to illegal o#issionsI
S"(!i%$ @ (?) AC"$!+al A(!B sall #eans an Act of Parlia#ent4 and sall include O
CaD an Act of te /o#inion Legislature or of te Indian Legislature passed before te
co##ence#ent of te .onstitution4 and
N. BIBAVE
CbD an Act #ade before suc co##ence#ent b- te Go(ernor General in .ouncil or te
Go(ernor General4 acting in a legislati(e capacit-I
S"(!i%$ @ (D>) AS!a!" A(!B sall #ean an Act passed b- te Legislature of a "tate
,stablised or continued b- te .onstitutionI
S"(!i%$ @ (5D) AHi8: C%.+!B1 used $it reference to ci(il proceedings4 sall #ean te
igest .i(il .ourt of appeal Cnot including te "upre#e .ourtD in te part of India in $ic
te Act or Regulation containing te e%pression operatesI
S"(!i%$ @ (2?) ADi)!+i(! J.*8"B sall #ean te <udge of a principal .i(il .ourt of original
jurisdiction4 but sall not include a 0ig .ourt in te e%ercise of its ordinar- or e%traordinar-
original ci(il jurisdictionI
S"(!i%$ @ (@5) AMa8i)!+a!"B sall include e(er- person e%ercising all or an- of te po$ers
of a Magistrate under te .ode of .ri#inal Procedure for te ti#e being in forceI
S"(!i%$ @ (2=) A*%(.#"$!B sall include an- #atter $ritten4 e%pressed or described upon
an- substance b- #eans of letters4 figures or #ar's4 or b- #ore tan one of tose #eans
$ic is intended to be used4 or $ic #a- be used4 for te purpose or recording tat
#atterI
S"(!i%$ @ (52) A&i$a$(ial /"a+B sall #ean te -ear co##encing on te first da- of AprilI
S"(!i%$ @ (@D) A#%$!:B sall #ean a #ont rec'oned according to te Britis calendarI
S"(!i%$ @ (CC) A/"a+B sall #ean a -ear rec'oned according to te Britis calendar.E
S"(!i%$ @ (55) a ting sall be dee#ed to be done in A8%%* &ai!:B $ere it is in fact done
onestl-4 $eter it is done negligentl- or notI
NOTES
"ection &24 Indian Penal .ode4 12)G and "ection 2CD4 Li#itation Act4 13)3 $ic
also define ?good fait7. Bitin te definitions under tese statutes absence of 6due care and
attention7 is destructi(e of good faitI $ereas4 as defined in te General .lauses Act4 6good
fait7 #a- e%ist in spite of negligence C1. "ubra#ania Ai-ar (. *fficial Recei(er4 AIR 13&1 ".
1D. :e latter definition is tus e=uitable and #ore reasonable and recogniHes as good la$4
$at is after all good sense4 tat ?a careless #an is not disonest #an and no a#ount of
N. BIBAVE
argu#ent $ill pro(e tat e is one.@ CGood#an (. 0r(e-4 123)D. But $en a person is a$are
of possible ar# and acts in spite of it4 is action is rec'less and in te e-es of la$ #ala
fide. CMunicipalit- of Bi$and- and 1iHa#pur (. >ailas "iHing Bor's4 AIR 13+& ". &23D.
S"(!i%$ @ (5C) Ai##%<al" 4+%4"+!/B sall include land4 benefits to arise out of land4 and
tings attaced to te eart4 or per#anentl- fastened to an-ting attaced to te eartI
NOTES
:e definition of 6i##o(able propert-7 as contained in te :ransfer of Propert- Act4
1222 Csection 3D is as follo$sF ?6I##o(able Propert-7 does not include standing ti#ber4
gro$ing crops or grass.@ :e e%pression is also defined in te Registration Act4 13G2 A".
2C)DE in te follo$ing ter#sF ?7i##o(able propert-7 includes land4 building4 ereditar-
allo$ances4 rigt to $a-s4 ligt4 ferries4 fiseries or anoter benefit to arise out of land4 and
tings attaced to te eart of per#anentl- fastened to an-ting $ic is attaced to te
eart but not standing ti#ber4 gro$ing crops nor grass@. :ese4 definitions a(e to be
contrasted $it te definition of 6Goods7 in te "ale of Goods Act4 133G4 A". 2C+DE $ic
readsF ?7goods7 #eans e(er- 'ind of #o(able propert- oter tan actionable clai#s and
#one-I and includes stoc' and sares4 gro$ing crops4 grass and tings attaced to and
for#ing part of te land $ic are agreed to be ser(ed before sale and contract of sale@. :e
ter# ?attaced to eart@ is also defined in te :ranser of Propert- Act4 1222 C". 3D in te
follo$ing $ordsF ?7Attaced to eart7 #eans-CaD rooted in eart as in te case of trees and
srubsI CbD i#bedded in te eart4 as in te case of $alls and buildingsI or CcD attaced to
$at is so e#bedded for te per#anent beneficial enjo-#ent of tat to $ic it is attaced@.
S"(!i%$ @ (@C) A#%<al" 4+%4"+!/B sall #ean propert- of e(er- description4 e%cept
i##o(able propert-I
S"(!i%$ @ (@=) AO&&"$("B sall #ean an- act or o#ission #ade punisable b- an- la$ for
te ti#e being in forceI
S"(!i%$ @ (5?) Ai#4+i)%$#"$!B sall #ean i#prison#ent of eiter description as defined in
te Indian Penal .odeI
S"(!i%$ @ (5@) AG%<"+$#"$!B or A!:" G%<"+$#"$!B sall include bot te .entral
Go(ern#ent and an- "tate Go(ern#entI
S"(!i%$ @ (=) AC"$!+al G%<"+$#"$!B sall4 O
N. BIBAVE
CaD in relation to an-ting done before te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution4 #ean te
Go(ernor General or te Go(ernor General in .ouncil4 as te case #a- beI and sall
include4 O
CiD in relation to functions entrusted under sub-section C1D of "ection 12! of te
Go(ern#ent of India Act4 133&4 to te Go(ern#ent of a Pro(ince4 te Pro(incial
Go(ern#ent acting $itin te scope of te autorit- gi(en to it under tat sub-sectionI
and
CiiD in relation to te ad#inistration of a .ief .o##issionerPs Pro(ince4 te .ief
.o##issioner acting $itin te scope of te autorit- gi(en to i# under sub-section
C3D of "ection 3! of te said ActI
CbD in relation to an-ting done or to be done after te co##ence#ent of te
.onstitution4 #ean te PresidentI and sall include4 O
CiD in relation to functions entrusted under clause C'D of article 2&2 of te .onstitution to
te Go(ern#ent of a "tate4 te "tate Go(ern#ent acting $itin te scope of te
autorit- gi(en to it under tat clauseI
CiiD in relation to te ad#inistration of a Part . "tate before te co##ence#ent of te
.onstitution C"e(ent A#end#entD Act4 13&)4 te .ief .o##issioner or te
Lieutenant-Go(ernor or te Go(ern#ent of a neigbouring "tate or oter autorit-
acting $itin te scope of te autorit- gi(en to i# or it under article 233 or article 2!3
of te .onstitution4 as te case #a- beI and
CiiiD in relation to te ad#inistration of a 5nion territor-4 te ad#inistrator tereof acting
$itin te scope of te autorit- gi(en to i# under article 233 of te .onstitutionI
S"(!i%$ @ (CE) AS!a!" G%<"+$#"$!B1 O
CaD as respects an-ting done before te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution4 sall
#ean4 in a Part A "tate4 te Pro(incial Go(ern#ent of te corresponding Pro(ince4 in a
Part B "tate4 te autorit- or person autorised at te rele(ant date to e%ercise e%ecuti(e
Go(ern#ent in te corresponding Acceding "tate4 and in a Part . "tate4 te .entral
Go(ern#entI
CbD as respects an-ting done after te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution and before
te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution C"e(ent A#end#entD Act4 13&)4 sall #ean4 in a
Part A "tate4 te Go(ernor4 in a Part B "tate4 te Rajpra#u'4 and in a Part . "tate4 te
.entral Go(ern#entI
CcD as respects an-ting done or to be done after te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution
C"e(ent A#end#entD Act4 13&)4 sall #ean4 in a "tate4 te Go(ernor4 and in a 5nion
territor-4 te .entral Go(ern#entI and sall4 in relation to functions entrusted under
N. BIBAVE
article 2&2A of te .onstitution to te Go(ern#ent of India4 include te .entral
Go(ern#ent acting $itin te scope of te autorit- gi(en to it under tat articleI
S"(!i%$ @ (@2) Al%(al a.!:%+i!/B sall #ean a #unicipal co##ittee4 district board4 bod- of
port co##issioners or oter autorit- legall- entitled to4 or entrusted b- te Go(ern#ent
$it4 te control or #anage#ent of a #unicipal or local fundI
S"(!i%$ @ (22) AC%ll"(!%+B sall #ean4 in a Presidenc- to$n4 te .ollector of .alcutta4
Madras or Bo#ba-4 as te case #a- be4 and else$ere te cief officer in carge of te
re(enue-ad#inistration of a districtI
S"(!i%$ @ (2F) AC%##i))i%$"+B sall #ean te cief officer in carge of te re(enue-
ad#inistration of a di(isionI
S"(!i%$ @ (5=) AI$*iaB sall #ean4 O
CaD as respects an- period before te establis#ent of te /o#inion of India4 Britis
India togeter $it all territories of Indian Rulers ten under te suHeraint- of 0is Majest-4
all territories under te suHeraint- of suc an Indian Ruler4 and te tribal areasI
CbD as respects an- period after te establis#ent of te /o#inion of India and before
te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution4 all territories for te ti#e being included in tat
/o#inionI and
CcD as respect an- period after te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution4 all territories for
te ti#e being co#prised in te territor- of IndiaI
"ection 3 C3GD ?Indian "tate@ sall #ean an- territor- $ic te .entral Go(ern#ent
recogniHed as suc a "tate before te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution4 $eter
described as a "tate4 an ,state4 a <agir or oter$iseI
S"(!i%$ @ (D=) AS!a!"B O
CaD as respects an- period before te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution C"e(ent
A#end#entD Act4 13&)4 sall #ean a Part A "tate4 a Part B "tate or a Part . "tateI and
CbD as respects an- period after suc co##ence#ent4 sall #ean a "tate specified in
te 9irst "cedule to te .onstitution and sall include a 5nion territor-IE
S"(!i%$ @ (C5A) AU$i%$ !"++i!%+/B sall #ean an- 5nion territor- specified in te 9irst
"cedule to te .onstitution and sall include anoter territor- co#prised $itin te
territor- of India but not specified in tat "ceduleIE
N. BIBAVE
S"(!i%$ @ (F5) A4"+)%$B sall include an- co#pan- or association or bod- of indi(iduals4
$eter incorporated or notI
NOTES
:e $ord 6person7 as been defined in (er- $ide sense. But in an- particular statute
te #eaning of te $ord #a- get controlled b- te conte%t. C/ulicand (. .I:4 AIR 13&) ".
2&!D.
S"(!i%$ @ (F>) A+"8i)!"+"*B1 used $it reference to a docu#ent4 sall #ean registered in
India under te la$ for te ti#e being in force for te registration of docu#entsI
S"(!i%$ @ (>) AC:a4!"+B sall #ean a .apter of te Act or Regulation in $ic te $ord
occursI
S"(!i%$ @ (DF) A)"(!i%$B sall #ean a section of te Act or Regulation in $ic te $ord
occursI
S"(!i%$ @ (C2) A).6)"(!i%$B sall #ean a sub-section of te section in $ic te $ord
occursI
S"(!i%$ @ (D5) A)(:"*.l"B sall #ean a scedule to te Act or Regulation in $ic te
$ord occursI
S"(!i%$ @ (D2) A+.l"B sall #ean a rule #ade in e%ercise of a po$er conferred b- an-
enact#ent4 and sall include a Regulation #ade as a rule under an- enact#entI
S"(!i%$ @ (CF) A;illB sall include a codicil and e(er- $riting #a'ing a (oluntar-
postu#ous disposition of propert-I
S"(!i%$ @ (F=) A4.li( $.i)a$("B sall #ean a public nuisance as defined in te Indian
Penal .ode C!& of 12)GDI
S"(!i%$ @ (5E) A&a!:"+B1 in te case of an- one $ose personal la$ per#its adoption4 sall
include an adopti(e faterI
S"(!i%$ @ (D?) A)%$B1 in te case of an- one $ose personal la$ per#its adoption4 sall
include an adopted sonI
N. BIBAVE
GENERAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION:
C%#i$8 i$!% %4"+a!i%$ %& "$a(!#"$!):
S"(!i%$ D3 C1D Bere an- .entral Act is not e%pressed to co#e into operation on particular
da-4 ten it sall co#e into operation on te da- on $ic it recei(es te assent4 O
CaD in te case of a .entral Act #ade before te co##ence#ent of te .onstitution4 of
te Go(ernor-General4 and
CbD in te case of an Act of Parlia#ent4 of te President.
C3D 5nless te contrar- is e%pressed4 a .entral Act or Regulation sall be construed as
co#ing into operation i##ediatel- on te e%piration of te da- preceding its
co##ence#ent.

E&&"(! %& +"4"al:
S"(!i%$ C3 Bere tis Act4 or an- .entral Act or Regulation #ade after te co##ence#ent
of tis Act4 repeals an- enact#ent iterto #ade or ereafter to be #ade4 ten4 unless a
different intention appears4 te repeal sall not O
CaD re(i(e an-ting not in force or e%isting at te ti#e at $ic te repeal ta'es effectI or
CbD affect te pre(ious operation of an- enact#ent so repealed or an-ting dul- done or
suffered tereunderI or
CcD affect an- rigt4 pri(ilege4 obligation or liabilit- ac=uired4 accrued or incurred under
an- enact#ent so repealedI or
CdD affect an- penalt-4 forfeiture or punis#ent incurred in respect of an- offence
co##itted against an- enact#ent so repealedI or
CeD affect an- in(estigation4 legal proceeding or re#ed- in respect of an- suc rigt4
pri(ilege4 obligation4 liabilit-4 penalt-4 forfeiture or punis#ent as aforesaidI
and an- suc in(estigation4 legal proceeding or re#ed- #a- be instituted4 continued or
enforced4 and an- suc penalt-4 forfeiture or punis#ent #a- be i#posed as if te repealing
Act or Regulation ad not been passed.

R"4"al %& A(! #a7i$8 !"9!.al a#"$*#"$! i$ A(! %+ R"8.la!i%$:
S"(!i%$ CA3 Bere an- .entral Act or Regulation #ade after te co##ence#ent of tis Act
repeals an- enact#ent b- $ic te te%t of an- .entral Act or Regulation $as a#ended b-
te e%press o#ission4 insertion or substitution of an- #atter4 ten4 unless a different
intention appears4 te repeal sall not affect te continuance of an- suc a#end#ent #ade
b- te enact#ent so repealed and in operation at te ti#e of suc repeal.

N. BIBAVE
R"<i<al %& +"4"al"* "$a(!#"$!):
S"(!i%$ ?3 C1D In an- .entral Act or Regulation #ade after te co##ence#ent of tis Act4 it
sall be necessar-4 for te purpose of re(i(ing4 eiter $oll- or partiall-4 an- enact#ent
$oll- or partiall- repealed4 e%pressl- to state tat purpose.
C2D :is section applies also to all .entral Acts #ade after te tird da- of <anuar-4 12)24
and to all Regulations #ade on or after te fourteent da- of <anuar-4 122+.

C%$)!+.(!i%$ %& +"&"+"$(") !% +"4"al"* "$a(!#"$!):
S"(!i%$ =3 C1D Bere tis Act4 or an- .entral Act or Regulation #ade after te
co##ence#ent of tis Act4 repeals and re-enacts4 $it or $itout #odification4 an-
pro(ision of a for#er enact#ent4 ten references in anoter enact#ent or in an-
instru#ent to te pro(ision so repealed sall4 unless a different intention appears4 be
construed as references to te pro(ision so re-enacted.
C2D Bere before te fifteent da- of August4 13!+4 an- Act of Parlia#ent of te 5nited
>ingdo# repealed and re-enacted4 $it or $itout #odification4 an- pro(ision of a for#er
enact#ent4 ten references in an- .entral Act or in an- Regulation or instru#ent to te
pro(ision so repealed sall4 unless a different intention appears4 be construed as references
to te pro(ision so re-enacted.

C%##"$("#"$! a$* !"+#i$a!i%$ %& !i#":
S"(!i%$ >3 C1D In an- .entral Act or Regulation #ade after te co##ence#ent of tis Act4 it
sall be sufficient4 for te purpose of e%cluding te first in a series of da-s or anoter
period of ti#e4 to use te $ord ?fro#@4 and4 for te purpose of including te last in a series of
da-s or anoter period of ti#e4 to use te $ord ?to@.
C2D :is section applies also to all .entral Acts #ade after te tird da- of <anuar-4 12)24
and to all Regulations #ade on or after te fourteent da- of <anuar-4 122+.

C%#4.!a!i%$ %& !i#":
S"(!i%$ 2E3 C1D Bere4 b- an- .entral Act or Regulation #ade after te co##ence#ent of
tis Act4 an- act or proceeding is directed or allo$ed to be done or ta'en in an- .ourt or
office on a certain da- or $itin a prescribed period4 ten4 if te .ourt or office is closed on
tat da- or te last da- of te prescribed period4 te act or proceeding sall be considered
as done or ta'en in due ti#e if it is done or ta'en on te ne%t da- after$ards on $ic te
.ourt or office is openF
P+%<i*"* tat noting in tis section sall appl- to an- act or proceeding to $ic te Indian
Li#itation Act4 12++4 applies.
N. BIBAVE
C2D :is section applies also to all .entral Acts and Regulations #ade on or after te
fourteent da- of <anuar-4 122+.

M"a).+"#"$! %& *i)!a$("):
S"(!i%$ 223 In te #easure#ent of an- distance4 for te purpose of an- .entral Act or
Regulation #ade after te co##ence#ent of tis Act4 tat distance sall4 unless a different
intention appears4 be #easured in a straigt line on a oriHontal plane.

D.!/ !% " !a7"$ pro rata i$ "$a(!#"$!):
S"(!i%$ 253 Bere4 b- an- enact#ent no$ in force or ereafter to be in force4 an- dut- of
custo#s or e%cise4 or in te nature tereof4 is le(iable on an- gi(en =uantit-4 b- $eigt4
#easure or (alue of an- goods or #ercandise4 ten a li'e dut- is le(iable according to te
sa#e rate on an- greater or less =uantit-.

G"$*"+ a$* $.#"+:
S"(!i%$ 2@3 In all .entral Acts and Regulations4 unless tere is an-ting repugnant in te
subject or conte%t4O
C1D $ords i#porting te #asculine gender sall be ta'en to include fe#alesI and
C2D $ords in te singular sall include te plural4 and vice versa.

Interpretation of Statutes: Syllabus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpretation of Statutes: Syllabus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTES ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES BY: Prof.

You might also like