INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR

Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law

End Semester Examination November 2012

Subject: Interpretation of Statutes

Maximum marks: 10 marks X 5= 50 marks Duration: three hours

1. Most statutes are considered as "always speaking variety". Accordingly, the courts
are free to apply the contemporary meaning of the statute to the present day
circumstances. That does not mean that the language used in the other statutes need
not be applied to later social, economic and political developments unknown at the
time of passage of legislation. In this connection, take up any one topic of your choice
and demonstrate how the interpretation of that area had not been static but
progressive and dynamic to absorb the new ideas and new situations.

2. It is said that our so called educated people are largely ignorant about the great
intellectual achievements of our ancestors and the intellectual treasury which they
have bequeathed to us. This statement is equally good to the subject of interpretation
of statues. In this connection, can you think of any other historical system of statutory
interpretation? Name the major principles of that system and explain how they have
been authoritatively referred to. What is its major limitation vis-a-vis popular system?

3. With regard to the interpretation of penal statutes, it is said that plugging the
loopholes must strictly be left to the legislature and not assumed by the court. On the
other hand, it is also accepted that rule of strict construction of penal statutes does not
require a narrow and pedantic construction of a provision so as to leave loopholes for
the offender to escape. Explain both the points with illustrious case-laws of the
Supreme Court.

4. a) In respect of debts payable to banks and financial institutions, which Act you
consider to be a special legislation - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 or the Companies Act, 1956. Refer to the legal controversy and
the decision.

b) Explain the rule of casus omissus in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal v Chaudhari Devi Lal University.
5. Explain the name of the case-law in which a similar issue arose and the principle of
interpretation involved in the following scenarios:

A. The appellant a resident of Palwal in Gurga_on District committed house

trespass. By an order dated May 31, 1962, he was convicted by Magistrate and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. At the time of his conviction he was 16
years old. The trial court has not applied the Probation of Offenders Act 1958
(as it then was) in his case for two reasons: firstly, he did not ask for it and
secondly, it was brought into force only from 1st September, 1962 and hence
on the date of his conviction by the trial court, the Act was not force ih
Gurgaon.

B. X was charged with the offence of bigamy under Section 57 of the Offences
Against the Person Act, 1861. It reads as whosoever being married shall marry
any other person during the life ofhis former husband or wife shall be guilty.
X already married once, again married another wife when the first wife was
living. However, he took the defence that his first marriage is none in the eye
of the law as he married a girl coming in the category of close
relations/prohibited relationship. The court convicted him.

C. Mr. X was appointed as a member of the State Public Service Commission in

2003.About two years later in March 2005, he was appointed as Chairman of
the Commission. Now, a question arises as to which date is to be counted as
the date of joining for calculation of the six years tenure of office prescribed
for such posts. In fact, Article 316(2) of the Constitution provides that a
member of a Public Service Commission should hold office for a term of six
years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains, in
the case of the Union Commission, the age of sixty five years, and in the case
of a State Commission or a Joint Commission, the age of sixty years,
whichever is earlier. The Supreme Court held that the offices of member and
chairman are different.

D. A Son who murdered his mother was held to be not an 'issue' for the purposes
of Administration of Estates Act, 1925.

E. While interpreting Section 36(2) ofthe Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993"
a question arose as to whether the prescription of the bar of I year for
inquiring into violations of human rights is relating to 'jurisdiction' or
'limitation period' of the Commission. The court decided that it is relating to
jurisdiction.

'