Vande Matram! Interpretation of Statute is very important skill which every law professional must possess. Hence it is incorporated in the degree course of law. Let’s discuss how are the precedents used to interpret a statute?
Precedents and judicial pronouncements:
A principle of law which has become settled by a series of decisions is generally binding on the courts and should be followed in similar cases. This is based on expediency and public policy.
“Per incuriam” are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provisions or authority binding on the Court concerned, or a statement of law caused by inadvertence or conclusion that has been arrived at without application of mind or proceeded without any reasons so that in such a case some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong.
Judgments:
Ramkrishna Bus Transport and Ors v. State of Gujarat and
Ors 1995 (1) G.L.H 520
While dealing with the provision of Sec. 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakkar in the case of Ramkrishna Bus Transport and Ors v. State of Gujarat and Ors, 866 at Para. 43 held that, whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory depends upon intention of the Legislature and not only upon the language in which it is used. The meaning and intention of the Legislature must be treated as decisive and they are to be ascertained not only form the phraseology used but also by considering the nature, design and consequences which would flow from construing it one way or the other. It is also true that in certain circumstances, the expression ‘may’ can be construed as ‘shall’ or vice versa. At the same time, however, it cannot be ignored that ordinarily ‘may’ should read as ‘may’ which is permissive and not obligatory. For the purpose of giving effect to the clear intention of the legislature, ‘may’ can be read as ‘shall’ or ‘must’.
Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B. AIR
1960 SC 936
In Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B., the Supreme Court was concerned with the retrospectivity of law passed by the West Bengal Legislature concerning the rights of tenants and in para 8 of the judgment the Supreme Court held that: “8. The principles that have to be applied for interpretation of statutory provisions of this nature are well established. The first of these is that statutory provisions creating substantive rights or taking away substantive rights are ordinarily prospective; they are retrospective only if by express words or by necessary implication...”
Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma AIR
1965 SC 1970 : (1965) 3 SCR 122
In Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma, a Constitution bench was concerned with the issue as to whether the rights of maintenance of illegitimate sons of a Sudra as available under the Mitakshara School of Hindu law were affected by introduction of Sections 4, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court held that they were not, and observed in para 7 as follows: “7. ... a statute should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect vested rights, and if the words are open to another construction, such a construction should never be adopted.”
ITO v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt AIR 1969 SC 778
In this case the Supreme Court, in context of a provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was concerned with the issue as to whether the Income Tax Officer could reopen the assessment under Sections 297(2)(d)(ii) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, although the right to reopen was barred by that time under the earlier Income Tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that the same was impermissible and observed in para 5 as follows: “5. ... The reason is that such a construction of Section 297(2)(d)(ii) would be tantamount to giving of retrospective operation to that section which is not warranted either by the express language of the section or by necessary implication. The principle is based on the well-known rule of interpretation that unless the terms of the statute expressly so provide or unless there is necessary implication, retrospective operation should not be given to the statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any right already acquired or to revive any remedy already lost be efflux of time.”
Sakshi v. Union of Inaia & Others, (2004) 5 SCC 518
In this case the Supreme Court has observed that: “23. Stare decisis is a well-known doctrine in legal jurisprudence. The doctrine of stare decisis, meaning to stand by decided cases, rests upon the principle that law by which men are governed should be fixed, definite and known, and that, when the law is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction authorized to construe it, such declaration, in absence of palpable mistake or error, is itself evidence of the law until changed by competent authority. It requires that rules of law when clearly announced and established by a court of last resort should not be lightly disregarded and set aside but should be adhered to and followed. What is precludes is that where a principle of law has become established by a series of decisions, it is binding on the courts and should be followed in similar cases. It is a wholesome doctrine which gives certainty to law and guides the people to mould their affairs in future.
Thanks for
reading till the end. Please share this blog.
#InterpretationOfStatutes
#StudyHelp #Notes #LawNotes #GeneralClausesAct #Bharat #India
================
No comments:
Post a Comment