NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

END-TERM EXAMINATION, SEPTEMBER- 2019

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES- I
ANSWER KEY
1. Explain the various aspects of mandatory and directory provisions

State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya- Nature & design of the statute; Consequences of non-
compliance; Is non-compliance visited by penalty?; Impact of other provisions whereby
necessity of compliance is avoided; The object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered.

• Object of the legislation should be upheld, Indicators of ‘Mandatory’ provisions- ‘Shall’,

‘at least’; Indicators of ‘Directory’ provisions- ‘May’, ‘as nearly as may be’

• Where mandatory & directory are lumped together, Substantial compliance of enactment
is insisted; If mandatory part is complied with it will be called substantial compliance
notwithstanding the non-compliance of directory requirements

Rai Vimal Krishna v. State of Bihar; Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh; R v. Immigration
Appeal Tribunal; Lachmi Narain v. Union of India; L. Hriday Narain v. ITO Delhi; Bashira v.
State of U.P.; Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi v. Ram Kali (Mst.), Sardar Govind Rao v. State
of M.P.; Wang v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Remington Rand of India v. Workmen.

‘shall’ in sub-section 2 is directory.

Since legal right of Mr. Joshi is affected ‘shall’ in sub-section 3 is mandatory, also the word ‘at
least. There was also a mention of a special notice other than additional notice.

Non-compliance of sub-section 3 makes for substantial non-compliance, therefore Mr. Joshi is

entitled to compensation for the loss that he suffered.

2. Silk Act: - Question on Referential Legislation: -

Explain Referential Legislation- both types. Section 28(1) of the General Clauses Act
Most important case on the point MV Narasimhan v. State of M.P.- discuss the exceptions to
incorporation particularly talk about acts being supplementary in nature. Other than this, also
discuss State of Kerala v. Attesse
Some other cases that could be discussed by the students Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of
India and Bajya v. Gopika Bai
A brief discussion on Mischief Rule could also be merited here to know the context of both the
legislations and to establish if they are statutes in Pari Materia.
3. nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis- every new enactment should
affect future and not past times. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the
intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is “deemed to be prospective only”.
Essential Requirements: - Explain the general presumption in favour of Prospectivity of
substantive provisions.

Statutes dealing with Substantive Rights- Cases like Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Bihari Khare,
New India Insurance Co. v. Laxmi

Matters relating to procedure, Principles laid down in the case of L’office Phospates v.
Yamashita Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd.

The doctrine of Fairness- Vijay v. State of Maharshtra

For penal statutes- Strict Construction of Penal Statutes. Why are penal statutes given
prospective and not retrospective application? Principle of Mollification- Justification of the
principle Article 15.1 of the ICCPR, Art.20 (1) of the Constitution, Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab
and other cases on the point

4. Harmonious Construction of two statutes-Presence of non-obstante clause in both the

sections-Examine the overriding effect- Special and general enactments-Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi
Lal, R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab.

Some aspects of Beneficial Construction will come in.

Seeking context from Long title: Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositors

Examine if there has been a repeal by implication with cases.

5. (a)

 Noscitur-a-Socii- find meaning from the associated words- Commissioners v. Savoy

Hotels, State of Rajasthan v. Sripal Jain, Dr. Devendra M.Surti v. State of Gujarat.
 Therefore, the words “or any other cause” can be brought within the ambit of the
definition.
OR
 Also, the court can apply the rule of “Ejusdem Generis”- words of the same class or
genus. When general words follow particular words, the meaning of the general words is
restricted to particular words if it forms a class or genus.
 The cases- Siddheshwari Cotton Mills v. Union of India, R v. Immigration Appeal
Tribunal, Brownsea Haven Properties v. Poole Corporation
 Hence, the words “or any other cause” can be brought within the ambit of the definition
(The student could identify either nosciur-a-socii or ejusdem generis, equal weightage is
given in both the cases)
(b) Popular Meaning of the word- Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Asst. Sales Tax Officer, meaning
of the word “Betel Leaves”; Forest Range Officer v. Khushboo Enterprises, meaning of “wood-
oil”; M/s Motipur Zamindari Co. v. State of Bihar, meaning of “sugar-cane”; Dinesh Chandra
Jamnadas Gandhi v. State of Gujarat, meaning of “betel-nut”;Commercial identity.

6. Mischief Rule of Construction: - Heydon’s case, Suppress the Mischief & Advance the
Remedy, Cornerstone of the Mischief Rule- The Four Questions What was the common law
before making of the Act ? What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not
provide? What is the remedy that the Parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the disease
of the Commonwealth ? and What is the reason of the remedy?

Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, Smith v. Hughes, U.P.Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Braj
Kishore, Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate,
K.Prabhakaran v. P.Jayarajan, Reema Agarwal v. Anupam & Others, R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala
v. UOI, CIT v. Sodra Devi

Limits to the Heydon’s rule: - Ambiguity due to more than one meaning; Words must be read in
the context of the statute; Use of this rule should not lead to absurd results; Wide ordinary
meaning cannot be confined to remedy the single identified mischief

7. Write critical notes on any two of the following: -

(i) ut res magis valeat quam pereat

• The basic requirement: - Meaning of the latin maxim: - Better the Act prevails than
perish.
• Statute to be made operative rather than null
• Most Important case on the point Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab
• Other cases Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, Gita Hariharan v. RBI

(ii) Parliamentary History as an Aid to construction

 History of the Statute in Question
 Hansards could never be relied upon
 cases in England up to Pepper v. Hart, which opened up the idea of Parliamentary
Material as Aids to construction
 Indian Cases, especially the ones where Court interpreted the Constituent Assembly
Debates, also the Bharat Singh case

(iii) Statutes in pari materia

 “Statutes are in pari materia which relate to the same subject matter or forming part of
the same system.”
  State of Madras v. A Vaidyanath Aiyer, State of MP v. Swaroop Chand, Common Cause,
A Registered Society v. Union of India, Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar, R v. Bristol City
Council ex parte Everett

(iv) Rule of Beneficial Construction

 ‘Beneficent Construction’ means an interpretation which promotes the benefits and avoid
their curtailing. An interpretation which promotes justice & equity should be preferred.
Although hardship is not a ground for striking down legislation, but wherever possible,
statute should be interpreted to avoid possible hardship.
 It is a tendency rather than a rule.
 Baldev Sahai v. R.C. Bhasin, U. Unichoyi v. State of Kerala, B. Shah v. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Others, Secretary of Karnataka v. Umadevi,
Mugnilal v. Sugan Chand, Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Noor Sabah Khatoon v.
Mohd. Quasim