Saving Clause

Saving Clause are generally appended in cases of repeal and reenactment of a new statute. It is
inserted in the repealing statute.
By this the rights already created under repealed enactment are not disturbed nor are new rights
created by it.
In the case of clash between the main part of statute and a saving clause, the saving clause has to
be rejected.

Saving clauses are generally appended in cases of repeal and re-enactment of

a statute.

By this the rights already created under repealed enactment are not disturbed
nor new rights are created by it. A saving clause is normally inserted in the
repealing statute.

In case of a clash between the main part of statute and a saving clause, the
saving clause has to be rejected.

In Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, the
Supreme Court did not allow the use of a saving clause, which was enacted like
a proviso, to determine whether a section in an Act was retrospective in operation.

In Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Union of India, the

Supreme Court while interpreting the saving clause in the Export Control Order,
1988 held that the clause only saved the rights which were in existence before
the order was issued and it did not confer any new rights which were not in
existence at that time.