This article contains following topics:
- Commencement of Statutes
- Repeal of Statutes
- Revival of Statutes
- Retrospective Operation of Statutes
- Presumption regarding Jurisdiction
COMMENCEMENT OF STATUTES
In India, section 3(13) of the General Clauses Acts of 1897 states that “the term commencement, when used in connection to an act or regulation, refers to the day on which the act or regulation went into effect”. A statute is effective from the date specified in the statute. If the statute does not specify a start date, it begins when the president’s assent is received.
Case- Harla vs State of Rajasthan (AIR 1951 SC 467)- In this case, it was determined that the rule that, in the absence of a specific date specified in the statute of its commencement, it will take effect on the day the assent of the president of India, the governor, or a state is received, may cause unavoidable hardship to people, despite the fact that the government typically does not take long to publish a statute once it has received assent. The difficulty can be reduced if the commencement of a statute is presumed from the date of its publication in the official gazette.
REPEAL OF STATUTES
A repealed statute is one that is no longer legally valid. After any legislation is repealed, it is considered that the act never existed in actuality, unless the contrary purpose exists.
Case- State of Punjab vs Mohar Singh (AIR 1955 SC 84)- In this case it was held by the supreme court that when a new legislation on the same subject replaces an old law, the new legislation should be looked to know the intention of the lawmakers. It is necessary to know that whether the lawmakers intend to keep rights and liabilities mentioned under previous act or not.
REVIVAL OF STATUTES
It is a common law principle that when a statute is repealed and the repealing statute is repealed by another statute, the repeal of the second statute immediately revives the first statute, assuming that the original statute was not intended to remain repealed.
Case- Ameer-un- Nissa Begum vs Mahboob Begum (AIR 1955 SC 352)-In this case it was held that once a repealing statute is repealed, that does not mean the revival of the repealed statute unless the language of the repealing statute so provides expressly.
RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES
A retrospective statute is one that removes or impairs any vested right acquired under current law, creates a new responsibility, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability to previously completed transactions or considerations. The statute is rarely interpreted retrospectively. If a statute is worded in wording that allows for either interpretation, it should be interpreted prospectively.
This notion is founded on the maxim “nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis,” which states that each new enactment should effect the future rather than the past. This criterion is not strict or inflexible, but must be implemented in light of the language of the act and the subject matter with which it deals. If there are two possible interpretations of sttaute
Generally retrospective operation is given to the statutes in the following cases:
- If the statute deals with procedural aspect of law.
- If the statute is a declaratory statute.
- If the statutes affecting costs.
Case- Jose De Costa vs Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim (AIR 1975 SC 1843)- In this case it was held that substantive law cannot be given a retrospective effect but procedural law may be given a retrospective effect.
Case- P. Ganeshwar Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1988 SC 2608)- The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the April 28, 1980, amendment to explanation (c) of rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Engineering Service (Special) Rules, 1960, allowing for the direct recruitment of 37.5 percent of only substantive vacancies to assistant engineer positions, does not apply to vacancies that existed before the amendment date because it does not have retroactive effect.
PRESUMPTION REGARDING JURISDICTION
There are various presumptions regarding jurisdiction in the interpretation of law. Some of the presumption are:
- Presumption against Ouster of established jurisdiction, creation of new jurisdictions and enlargement of existing jurisdiction of court- It is assumed that until a statute expressly states otherwise, it should not be interpreted in a way that denies a court jurisdiction. This theory is predicated on the idea that the state should preserve the status quo while the courts remain accessible to administer justice. Likewise, there is another presumption that says the court cannot expand existing authorities or establish new ones unless the act expressly specifies otherwise. In India jurisdiction of Supreme courts and High courts are conferred by the Constitution of India so their jurisdiction cannot be curtailed.
Case- Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee vs Raj Shiv Rattan Singh(AIR 1955 SC 576)- In this case it was held that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of such a claim must be brought about by some specific provisions in the Act.
- Presumption against violation of International law- It is presumed that any statute should not be read in a way that is inconsistent with international law to the greatest extent practicable. However, if the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, the court is compelled to read it in this manner. This presumption is based on a broad range of international law and certain constitutional requirements.
Case- Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)- In this case court took reference of Article 13 of Universal declaration of Human rights which declares that the freedom of expression or opinion is available to all regardless of frontiers.
- Presumption against extra- territorial operation of State- Unless specifically stated, it is assumed that a law solely applies within a nation’s borders and has no extraterritorial effect. According to Article 245(2) of the Indian Constitution, no measure passed by parliament can be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it would have an extraterritorial effect. This makes it quite evident that in India, a statute cannot be declared unconstitutional due to its extraterritorial nature.
Case- K.K. Kochuni vs State of Madras (AIR 1960 SC 1080)- In this case it was held that a law made by state legislature can be challenged for extra territorial operation because under Article 245(2) only law made by parliament are mentioned.
