INTERPRETATION OF

STATUTES
Semester- VI

MUDIT GUPTA
ROLL NO.- 13
Question 1:
Write full head notes for any 1 case relating to Operation of Statutes
Answer:
Case Name: Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2012)
Citation: (2012) 6 SCC 613
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: S.H. Kapadia, Swatanter Kumar, K.S. Radhakrishnan, and Dipak Misra.
Head Notes:
• The case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India is a landmark
decision of the Supreme Court of India that dealt with the issue of retrospective
taxation and the application of Indian tax laws to transactions that took place
outside India.
• The case arose from Vodafone's acquisition of a majority stake in an Indian
telecom company, Hutchison Essar, through a series of transactions that took
place outside India. The Indian tax authorities sought to tax the transaction on
the grounds that it involved the transfer of Indian assets.
• The Supreme Court held that the Indian tax authorities did not have jurisdiction
to tax the transaction, as it took place outside India and did not involve the
transfer of Indian assets. The court also held that the Indian government could
not retrospectively amend the law to tax the transaction, as this would violate
the principle of legal certainty and the rule of law.
• The court observed that taxing the transaction would be a violation of the
principle of non-retroactivity, which is an essential feature of the rule of law. It
further held that the legislative intent behind the amendment to the Income Tax
Act, 1961 was not to tax transactions that took place outside India prior to the
amendment.
• The court also examined the doctrine of fiscal sovereignty and held that the
Indian government's right to tax foreign companies operating in India was
subject to the limitations imposed by international law.
• The case is significant because it established the principle that Indian tax laws
cannot be applied retrospectively and that the Indian government cannot change
the law to tax transactions that took place before the law was amended. The
decision has had a far-reaching impact on foreign investment in India and has
been cited in several other cases involving the issue of retrospective taxation.

Question 2:
Write full head notes for:
• Explain any 2 Internal Aids to Interpretation of Statutes with
relevant case law head notes.
Answer:
1. Marginal Notes-
Case Name: Bengal Immunity Company v. State of Bihar
Citation: AIR 1955 SC 661
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 6th May 1955
Facts of the Case:
• The appellant, Bengal Immunity Company, challenged the constitutional
validity of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, which imposed a tax on the sale of
goods in the state of Bihar. The appellant contended that the Bihar Sales Tax
Act, 1947, was violative of Article 286 of the Constitution of India, which
 provides that no law of a state can impose a tax on the sale or purchase of
goods in the course of inter-state trade or commerce.

Issue:
• One of the main issues before the court was whether the Bihar Sales Tax Act,
1947, was violative of Article 286 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment:
• The Supreme Court of India held that the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, was
violative of Article 286 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that
the language of Article 286 was clear and unambiguous, and therefore, the
marginal note of the article could be used to interpret the complete meaning
of the article.
• The Court held that the marginal note appended to Article 286 i.e.
“Restrictions as to the imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of
goods” being a part of the Constitution as passed by the Constituent
assembly prima facie furnishes a clue as to the meaning and purpose of the
Article.
• Thus, the Court held that the marginal note, as well as the language of the
article, makes it clear that the object of the said article is to impose
restriction on the legislative powers of the States with respect to the
imposition of tax on sales and purchases of goods.

Conclusion:
• The case of Bengal Immunity Company v. State of Bihar is an important case
on the interpretation of statutes. The case highlights the importance of the
language of the statute and the marginal notes while interpreting statutes.
The court held that the marginal note of an article is a part of the article and
can be used to construe the article. The marginal note can be used only as an
aid to the construction of the article when the language of the article is
ambiguous or susceptible to different interpretations.

2. Definition and Interpretation Clause of the Statute-

Case Name: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 24th April 1973

Facts of the Case:

• The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, challenged the constitutional validity
of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution of India, which sought to abridge
the fundamental right to property. The petitioner contended that the
amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

Issue:
• One of the main issues before the court was whether the preamble of the
Constitution of India could be used as an aid to the interpretation of the
Constitution.

Judgment:
 • The Supreme Court of India held that the preamble of the Constitution of
India was an integral part of the Constitution and could be used as an aid to
the interpretation of the Constitution. The court observed that the preamble
was a key to the understanding of the Constitution and the purposes for
which it was framed.
• The court further held that the preamble of the Constitution of India
declared that the Constitution was adopted to secure to all citizens justice,
liberty, and equality. The court noted that the words "justice, social,
economic and political" were added to the preamble by the 42nd Amendment
to the Constitution in 1976. The court held that the addition of these words
did not alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
• The court observed that the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution were an essential feature of the Constitution, and any
amendment that abridged or abrogated these rights would violate the basic
structure of the Constitution. The court also held that the preamble of the
Constitution of India could be used to identify the basic structure of the
Constitution.
Conclusion:
• The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is an important case on
the interpretation of the Constitution of India. The case highlights the
importance of the preamble of the Constitution as an aid to the
interpretation of the Constitution. The court held that the preamble was an
integral part of the Constitution and could be used to identify the basic
structure of the Constitution. The court also held that any amendment that
abridged or abrogated the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution would violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Explain any 2 External Aids to Interpretation of Statutes with

relevant case law head notes.
Answer:
1. Reports of Committees and Commissions : In the process of enacting or amending
a statute, committees may be formed to study and make recommendations on the
proposed legislation. Reports of these committees, such as standing committee
reports, select committee reports, or joint committee reports, can provide insights
into the discussions, findings, and recommendations of the committee members,
and can be used as external aids to interpretation.
Case Name: Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India
Citation: (1996) 5 SCC 647
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 13th December 1995
Facts of the Case:
• The Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum filed a writ petition before the Supreme
Court seeking directions to prevent the pollution of the river Palar, which
 was being caused by industries in the Vellore district of Tamil Nadu. The
petitioner relied on the recommendations of the Madhav Gadgil Committee
and the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Committee to support their claim
that the industries were violating environmental laws.
Issue:
• One of the main issues before the court was whether the reports of
committees and commissions could be used as an aid to the interpretation of
statutes.
Judgment:
• The Supreme Court of India held that the reports of committees and
commissions could be used as an aid to the interpretation of statutes. The
court observed that these reports provided valuable guidance to the courts in
interpreting environmental laws and policies.
• The court noted that the Madhav Gadgil Committee and the
T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Committee were appointed by the
government to study the environmental problems in the Vellore district and
to recommend measures to prevent pollution of the river Palar. The court
held that the reports of these committees were relevant in interpreting the
provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
• The court further held that the reports of committees and commissions could
be used as an aid to the interpretation of statutes, especially when the
language of the statute was ambiguous or susceptible to different
interpretations. The court observed that the reports of committees and
commissions were not binding on the courts, but they could be used to
understand the intent and purpose of the legislature.
Conclusion:
• The case of Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India is an important
case on the interpretation of statutes. The case highlights the importance of
reports of committees and commissions as an aid to the interpretation of
statutes, especially in the context of environmental laws and policies. The
court held that the reports of committees and commissions could be used to
understand the intent and purpose of the legislature and to interpret the
provisions of the statute. The court also held that these reports were not
binding on the courts, but they provided valuable guidance in interpreting
the statutes.

2. International Conventions and Treaties: If a statute incorporates or refers to

international treaties, conventions, or principles of international law, these external
sources can be used to interpret the provisions of the statute in accordance with the
international obligations of the country.
Case: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Headnote:
• Citation: (1997) 6 SCC 241
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: 3-judge bench
• Parties: Vishaka (Petitioner) vs. State of Rajasthan (Respondent)
• Issue: Whether sexual harassment of women at the workplace amounts to a
violation of their fundamental rights, and whether there is a need for
guidelines to prevent and redress such harassment?
• Key Points:
 o This case dealt with the issue of sexual harassment of women at the
workplace and its impact on their fundamental rights.
o The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that sexual harassment of
women at the workplace amounted to a violation of their fundamental
rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and that
there was a need for guidelines to prevent and redress such harassment.
o The court referred to various international conventions and treaties, such
as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) and the Declaration on the Elimination of
Violence Against Women, to interpret the provisions of the Constitution
and to determine the scope and content of the fundamental rights of
women.
o The court observed that international conventions and treaties can be
referred to as external aids to interpretation to understand the principles
of law and human rights that have been accepted and recognized by the
international community.
o The court further held that the guidelines framed in Vishaka case were
based on the principles of gender equality and non-discrimination, as
enshrined in the Constitution of India and the international conventions
and treaties, and were necessary to prevent.

Question 3:
Write full head notes for any 2 cases relating to Interpretation of the
Constitution of India.
Answer:
Case 1: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Headnote:
• Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: 13-judge bench
• Parties: Kesavananda Bharati (Petitioner) vs. State of Kerala (Respondent)
• Issue: Whether the Constitution of India can be amended by the Parliament
without any limitation or whether there are inherent and implied limitations on
the power of constitutional amendment under the Indian Constitution?
• Key Points:
o This landmark case dealt with the interpretation of the amending power
of the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
o The petitioner challenged the 24th Amendment Act of 1971, which sought
to abrogate fundamental rights including the right to property.
o The Supreme Court, in a historic decision, held that the power of the
Parliament to amend the Constitution is not absolute and there are
implied limitations on the amending power.
o The court introduced the concept of "basic structure" of the Constitution,
which refers to the essential features and values of the Constitution that
cannot be abrogated or amended by the Parliament.
o The court held that the basic structure of the Constitution includes
features such as supremacy of the Constitution, secularism, federalism,
separation of powers, and protection of fundamental rights, among others.
o The court ruled that any amendment that destroys or damages the basic
structure of the Constitution would be unconstitutional and invalid.
 o However, the court also held that not all amendments would be
considered as damaging the basic structure and each case would be
examined on its own merits.
o The decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is considered as a
landmark judgment that laid down the principle of basic structure and
established judicial review as an important tool for interpreting the
Constitution of India.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Headnote:
• Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: 7-judge bench
• Parties: Maneka Gandhi (Petitioner) vs. Union of India (Respondent)
• Issue: Whether the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India includes the right to travel abroad?
• Key Points:
o This case dealt with the interpretation of the fundamental right to
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
o The petitioner's passport was impounded by the government on the
ground that it was in the interest of the general public.
o The petitioner challenged the impounding of her passport as a violation of
her fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
o The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the right to personal
liberty under Article 21 is not limited to mere physical freedom but
includes the right to travel abroad.
o The court observed that the right to travel abroad is an essential part of
personal liberty and any restriction on this right must meet the test of
reasonableness under Article 19 of the Constitution.
o The court emphasized that the procedure established by law for
restricting the right to travel abroad must be fair, just, and reasonable,
and must not be arbitrary or violative of natural justice.
o The court also held that the right to personal liberty is not only a negative
right but also a positive right that enables the individual to develop his or
her personality and freedom in its fullest sense.
o The decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is considered as a
landmark judgment that expanded the scope and interpretation of the
right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.