GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT

SUBMITTED BY: DEV KARN BARDHAN SINGH

DIVISION: C
PRN: 16010223070

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA.

SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED)UNIVERSITY, Pune.

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

DR SAURABH CHANDRA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA.

AUGUST 2018
 CERTIFICATE

The project entitled Generalia Specialibus non derogant submitted to the Symbiosis Law
School, NOIDA for the subject Interpretation of Statutes as part of internal assessment is my
original work carried out under the guidance of Dr Saurabh Chandra from JULY 2018 TO
DECEMBER 2018.

The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any publication or degree.
The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the work has been duly
acknowledged. I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for
plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate :

Date:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to firstly thank Dr Saurabh Chandra for giving me the opportunity to work on
this specific project. It has enabled me to learn and understand the subject better. I would also
like to thank Dr C.J Rawandale the director of Symbiosis Law School, Noida, for giving me
the opportunity of learning in Symbiosis. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family
for the constant support and help they have provided me with.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERIAL NUMBER TITLE PAGE NUMBER

1. COVER PAGE 1

2. CERTIFICATE 2
3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3
4. INTRODUCTION 5
5. OVERVIEW 5

6. WHAT IS A STATUTE 6

7. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 7
AND GENERALIBUS
SPECIALIA DEROGANT
8. ANALYSIS AND INDIAN CASES 8
9. CONCLUSION 9
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY 10
INTRODUCTION

Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant is a lawful saying, utilized in India,

with the accompanying importance: Generalia specialibus non derogant 1,
or, in other words " where there are general words in a later Act capable
of reasonable and sensible application without extending to subjects
specially dealt with by the earlier legislation, you are not to hold that
earlier or special legislation indirectly repealed, altered or derogated from
merely by force of such general words, without any indication of particular
intention to do so" The exacting significance of this articulation is that
general words or things don't discredit from exceptional.

This articulation was disclosed to imply that when there is strife between
a general and exceptional arrangement 2, the last will win or the general
arrangements must respect the unique arrangements. The adage is
viewed as a 'cardinal standard of understanding' , and is described as an
all around perceived guideline. The general arrangement, nonetheless,
controls situations where the unique arrangement does not have any
significant bearing as the extraordinary arrangement is offered impact to
the degree of its extension. Accordingly a specific or a unique
arrangement controls or chops down the general run the show.

It basically means that general do not restrict or detract from the special.
General statements or provisions do not derogate from special provisions
or statements. Special acts are not repealed by General Acts unless there
be some express reference to the previous legislation or a necessary
inconsistency in the two acts standing together, which prevents the
maxim from being applied. The maxim is regarded as a ‘cardinal principle
of interpretation’ (State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC
1098.)3

OVERVIEW

Generalia specialibus non derogant is the rule that a general statutory

arrangement does not revoke a particular one. The lead may apply either
to two separate statutes, or to arrangements inside a similar Act. It was
connected by the Supreme Court on account of Hutch v the Governor of
Wheatfield Prison. That case offered the conversation starter whether a
1
Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Man Mohan Dev AIR 1966 SC 1931
2
CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC)
3
State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098
youngster between the ages of fifteen and seventeen years who had been
indicted an indictable offense attempted summarily, could be condemned
for the time of confinement material to a grown-up (under the Criminal
Justice Act, 1951), or whether the sentence was restricted to three
months detainment under the terms of the Summary Jurisdiction Over
Children (Ireland) Act, 1884. The Court held that since the 1951 Act was
a general Act, and the 1884 Act had an extraordinary application, the
saying generalia specialibus non derogant connected. Thusly, the 1884
Act was not impliedly revised or cancelled by the 1951 Act, and the
conceivable sentence was restricted to three months detainment.

The proverb was connected as respects clashing arrangements of a

similar Act in the High Court in National Authority for Occupational Safety
and Health v Fingal County Council all things considered , there was an
evident clash between the general terms of subsection 3 of segment 51 of
the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 , which stipulated that
specific procedures must be organized inside one year, and subsection 4
of a similar area, which expressed that procedures in more restricted
conditions ought to be brought inside a half year. Murphy J, alluding to
the Hutch case, found that the more prohibitive period in subsection 4
connected.

Further, it is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are
so inconsistent with, or repugnant to those of the earlier that the two
cannot stand together; unless the two acts are so plainly repugnant to
each other that effect cannot be given opt both at the same time a repeal
cannot be implied, it is only when there is inconsistency in the two
standing acts together which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus
non derogant from being applied4

For where there are general words in a later act capable of reasonable
application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by
earlier legislation then in the absence of an indication of a particular
intention to that effect the presumption is that the general words are not
intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation 5 or to take a way a
particular privilege of a particular class of persons. The law will not allow
the exposition to revoke or to alter by construction of general words any

4
See per Willes, J,. in Daw V Metr. Bd of W., 12 C.B.N.S, 161, AT p.178
5
Per Ld Selborne in Seward V vera Creuz, 10 App. Cas 59, at p. 68, see also Plymouth Corporations and
Walter, in re (1918) 2 Ch 354, at 359
particular statute, where the words may have their proper operation
without it”

An affirmative act which gives a new right does not destroy an existing
statutory right unless the intention be apparent that the two rights should
not co-exist6; and where two acts are merely affirmative and the
substance such that both may stand together the later does not repeal
the earlier, but they both have concurrent effect 7. Thus, if by one act an
offence be triable at quarter session and another act makes the same
offence triable at assizes, without adding such express negative words as
“and not elsewhere” the jurisdiction of the session remains, and the
offence may be tried at either court8

The general rule undoubtable is that where an Act does not create a
disturb of offence but only adds a remedy in respect of an existing duty or
offence, it is to be construed as cumulative; but this rule must always be
applied with due attention to the language of the particular act

WHAT IS A STATUTE? GENERAL STATUTE AND

SPECIAL STATUTE

A statute is a composed law gone by a council on the state or government

level. Statutes put forward general recommendations of law that courts
apply to particular circumstances. A statute may preclude a specific
demonstration, coordinate a specific demonstration, make an assertion,
or put forward administrative systems to help society.

A statute starts as a bill proposed or supported by an official. On the off

chance that the bill survives the administrative board process and is
affirmed by the two places of the assembly, the bill moves toward
becoming law when it is marked by the official officer (the president on
the government level or the representative on the state level). At the
point when a bill progresses toward becoming law, the different
arrangements in the bill are called statutes. The term statute means the
height of a bill from authoritative proposition to law. State and
government statutes are aggregated in statutory codes that gathering the
statutes by subject. These codes are distributed in book shape and are
accessible at law libraries.
6
O’ Flaherty V M’Dowell, 6 H.L Cas. 142 at p. 157
7
Fosters Case. 11 Rep. 56 b, at p.62 ; Hill V Hall. 1 Ex D.411
8
1 Blac. Com. 93. See R. V St Edmunds Salisbury, 2 Q. B. 72 ; R. V J.J of Suffolk Id. 85
Lawmaking powers are vested mainly in chosen authorities in the
administrative branch. The vesting of the head lawmaking power in chose
legislators is the establishment of a delegate majority rules system.
Beside the government and state constitutions, statutes gone by chose
legislators are the main laws to counsel in finding the law that applies to a
case.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Firstly, this specific project will help us understand what is a general

statute, and a specific statute. Since the term generalia specialubus non
derogant means that universal things do not detract from specific things.
This well-known proposition of law says that when a matter falls under
any specific provision, then it must be governed by that provision and not
by the general provision. The general provisions must admit to the
specific provisions of law. It is a basic principle of statutory interpretation.

The research is to basically find out how it is so with the help of specific
cases mentioned. A number of distinctions will also be made in relation to
the similar concepts of generalia specialubus non derogant. The basic
method of research for this specific paper is books, legal dictionaries and
law lexicons. Along with internet sources and articles relating to the
project topic as well.

GENERALIBUS SPECIALIA DEROGANT

Generalibus specialia derogant means that where a special provision is

made in a special statute, that special provision excludes the operation of
a general provision in a general law. That was the interpretation given in
the case ‘PP V Chew Siew Luam.

In this specific case, the defendant was charged with heroin trafficking
which carried a punishment of death or life impressment. However, as she
was pregnant, the learned president of sessions court granted her bail
pending hearing on the case based on section 388 (i) of the criminal
Procedure Code, which permits the granting of bail to any person under
the age of 16 years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of
a non-bail able offence carrying life imprisonment of death as a penalty
The public prosecutor in the above cases appealed against the order and
referred to section 41B of the dangerous drugs act which provided that
bail shall not be granted to an accused person charged with this act where
the punishment is of death or imprisonment of more than 5 years.

The basic application of this Latin Maxim is that the federal court
disagreed with the previous decision and decided that section 41B of the
dangerous drug acts must be construed in the context of the act and not
in that of the Criminal Procedure Code and to that extent the general
provisions of the Criminal Procedure must be ex necessitate yield to the
specific provisions of Section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

ANALYSIS

This maxim implies that 'general things dont derogate or are different
from the special arrangements' .This maxim is summoned to decide the
extent of a general institution
with reference to a unique establishment which goes before it.
The imperative conditions for applying this saying are:

 Both the general sanctioning and specific establishment must be all

the while
agent, the general authorization covering the bigger field and the specific
authorization covering a constrained field out of a bigger field secured by
the general
authorization.

 There must be nothing contained in the general arrangements

demonstrating the
administrative expectation to overrule or put aside the specific
arrangement.
At the end of the day this proverb will apply at whatever point there is
specific order
furthermore, a general order in a similar statute, and the last mentioned,
taken in its most
extensive sense, would overrule the previous, the specific authorization
must
be agent, and the general authorization must be taken to influence just
the oter “
parts of the statute to which it might legitimately apply9

INDIAN CASES

HINDUSTAN ELECTRON LTD. V. CIT 258 ITR 518 (MP)

The assessee-company was maintaining a residential accommodation in

the compound of its staff colony for the stay of the company’s officials
from Delhi, auditors, foreign technicians, etc. Though the nomenclature
given to the accommodation was guest [Type text] Page 2 house, the
Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure under section 37(4) as
being impermissible.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the finding of the

Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of
the Commissioner (Appeals).On further appeal the court relying on this
maxim held that Section 37(4) specifically denies any depreciation on
maintenance of such kinds of guest house. This is a special provision and
this will override the general provisions of depreciation applicable in the
Act.

The Tribunal applying this principle had rightly declined to grant any relief
to the assessee. Once a particular provision has been made, then that
provision will prevail as against the general provision. It is a well known
dictum which has been accepted and known as “Generalia specialibus non
derogant . The Tribunal had rightly approached the matter and denied the
depreciation to the assessee in respect of the expenditure claimed.

2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. VICKERS SYSTEMS

INTERNATIONAL LTD. [2003] 87 ITD 182 (MUM)

The assessee-company had paid ex gratia bonus in excess of 8.33 per

cent in the relevant previous years. The Assessing Officer disallowed the

9
The multi-volume Sutherland Statutory Construction is the authoritative text on the rules of statutory
construction
excess amount. On appeal, the assessee contended that those payments
were made as per the agreement with Workers’ Union dated 3-7-1985
and the purpose was to buy industrial peace. It also claimed that the
expenditure incurred on ex gratia payment was to be allowed under
section 37(1) and that as the amount did not exceed 20 per cent of the
salary, that was also allowable under section 36(1)(ii). The Commissioner
(Appeals) allowed the expenditure.

On revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal held that from section 37(1) it refers to
the allowability of only those expenses, which are not described in
sections 30 to 36. It is a general provision. If some expenditure is
described in sections 30 to 36, the same cannot be considered under
section 37(1).

That is a residuary provision. If the Act has prescribed any special

provision for the allowability of such expenditure, that special provision
will prevail over the general provision. That is in conformity with the
principle enunciated in the dictum: generalia specibus non derogant
(general things will not derogate from special things). Relying on this
maxim the court held that in the instant case, the amount of bonus was
reasonable with reference to pay of the employees and the conditions of
their services. It was also reasonable with reference to the profit of the
business. It was established with reference to the records that there was
general practice of making such ex gratia bonus to the employees. As
such, the assessee complied with the conditions contained in section
36(1)(ii).
For the reasonings adduced in the impugned order, the Commissioner
(Appeals) took a correct view in the matter and his order called for no
interference and, accordingly, it was to be upheld. In the result, appeal of
the revenue stood dismissed.

This saying is material subject to the condition that there is nothing in the
general arrangement, communicated or suggested, showing an aim
despite what might be expected. On the off chance that an uncommon
arrangement is made on a specific issue that issue is avoided from the
general arrangement.

CONCLUSION
The essential finish of the above mentione look into venture is that
Statutes are drafted by the council and there is each plausibility of
circumstances of uncertainty, clashes, oddities, absurdities, hardships,
repugnancy, excess and so forth. In such circumstances, the tenets of
understanding of statutes become an integral factor and the
arrangements are translated in order to give most extreme impact to
them and to render equity to the current circumstance. The saying of
generalia specialibus non derogant assumes an imperative part in
translating statutes and is utilized in plenitude of cases. It helps in
rearranging entangled issues and makes conveying judgments
substantially less demanding.

The transaction amongst statute and precedent-based law has a profound

history. The attractive quality of lucidness inside our one incorporated
arrangement of laws proposes that, in at any rate a few territories, a
rendition of the precept of similarity from enactment will have critical
work to do. One specific zone to watch with intrigue is great confidence
and reasonable managing in contract law. The High Court has not yet
completely entered this field. In any case, there have been legal and
extrajudicial signs that rising statutory standards may demonstrate
persuasive in the goals of this issue.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.Books

 Trayner’s Latin Maxim, Universal Publishing pg. 235

 P RAMANATHAN AIYAR, Advanced Law Lexicon, Wadhwa Nagpur, pg
453
 Broom’s Legal Maxims and Definitions, Sweet and Maxwell pg. 233-
245

2.Internet sources

 www.coursehero.com
 www.scribd.com
 www.academia.edu
 rmit.libguides.com
 ndiankanoon.org
 lawaids.blogspot.com