Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Presumptions in Statutory Interpretation
Presumptions in Statutory Interpretation
Introduction:
The word ‘Interpretation’ is derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means
to explain or expound or to understand or translate. Interpretation is a process
through which one arrives at the true and correct intention of the law-making body
which is laid in the form of statutes. This helps in finding out the intention of the
author.
Interpretation of any data generally means to analyze the available data and come
out with an opinion which is certain and clear. This increases the ability of an
individual to understand and explain it in his/her own way. This helps to find out
the ways to understand and analyse the statute, where it leads the interpreter to the
whole new meaning which is completely different from the general meaning.
It is necessary for all law students, lawyers, judges and anyone who belongs to the
legal fraternity to know how to interpret the statute whenever a legislative house
comes up with a new statute or an amendment because they will be dealing with
these legislations on a day to day basis. The main intention of analyzing is to know
the new changes which are being brought due to the legislation and the impacts of
that legislation in society.
Usually, the interpretation of the statute is done by the judges, it is the primary
function of the judge as a judicial head. As we all know that our government is
divided into three important wings which are: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Here the legislature lays down the law and intends people to act according to the
legislature and the judiciary, that is judges will come up with the proper meaning
of the law and put the law into operation. This helps in maintaining checks and
balances between the wings.
Presumption in Statutes
In the interpretation of statutes, certain so-called presumptions exist, which are not
truly
on as the bats of law, flitting in the sunlight but disappearing in the sunshine of
fact.
Presumptions in Statutes
It is obligation on the court to raise presumption in every case where the factual
basis for raising
of a presumption of law exists, no discretion is left with the court but to draw the
statutory
conclusion; but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is
drawn from
In Hiten P.Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banarjee (2001) it was held that the rebuttal
does not have to
be conclusively established, but such evidence must be adduced before the court in
support of the
defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its
existence to be
accused. On the other hand in case of a mandatory presumption, the burden resting
on the
accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is, where a presumption is
raised under
Section 114, Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason
of the fact that
the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must also be
shown that the
Conclusive Presumption
presumption of law, if it acts within the allotted legislative sphere and does not
violate any
empowers it to do so.
General Presumptions
2. Vested rights are not taken away without express words or necessary implication
or without
compensation.
8. The legislature knows the existing law and does not intend to alter it except by
express
enactment.
11 Words are to be understood according to the subject matter they refer to and the
object of the
legislature.
12. An interpretation clause is an aid to the interpretation of the statute in which it
occurs and has
Presumption of Constitutionality
generality of its provisions and not by the freaks and exceptions it martyrs.
Legislature is
presumed to have inserted every part of the statute for purpose. There is always a
presumption of
constitutionality in favour of a statute and the burden is upon him who attacks it to
show that
Since the rule-making authority is presumed to enact a law which does not
contravene the
constitutional provisions, the court ought not to interpret the statutory provisions in
such a
so strong that in order to sustain it, the court may take into consideration, matters
of common
knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the time and may assume
every state of
Though presumption is that, the Act is constitutional and that the legislature
understands and
appreciates needs of the people, but when the Act is ex facie discriminatory and
arbitrary, such
presumption cannot stand. The burden of proof lies on him who challenges the
vires. If a
provision can be construed in two senses, one making the provision con
institutional and the
other unconstitutional, the court would always lean in favour of the former
construction.
REPORT THIS AD
1. Valid:
There is a presumption in law that the statutes are valid. The legislature does not
intend to enact a law which ultra-vires the Constitution.
The acts which are either passed by the Parliament, or by the State legislature or by
their subordinate bodies, should not cross the constitutional boundaries. No laws
can be enacted which are against the provisions and spirit of the constitution. If
there are two interpretations, one that saves the Act from becoming
unconstitutional and the other that makes the statute void, then in such a case, the
interpretation that renders the Act constitutional should be followed.
Case law-
i) the territorial connection should be real and factual, and not illusory
ii) The liability under the Act sought to be enforced, must be related to that
territorial connection only.
Case law-
1. Ajay Agarwal V. Union of India-
The supreme court held that the offence of criminal conspiracy is in the nature of
continuing offence. Therefore, the acts which constitute criminal conspiracy
whether committed in Dubai or Chandigarh, is immaterial. The offence can be tried
in India under Section 4 of the IPC.
3) Jurisdiction:
There is a presumption that, an interpretation that takes away the jurisdictions of
the courts, must not be given effect, unless the words of the statute provide so in
clear and explicit terms.
There is strong presumption that civil courts have jurisdiction to all cases which
are civil in nature. The exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts is not to be readily
inferred. Same is true with criminal cases.
The basis of this presumption is that courts should be accessible to all those who
want justice and the status quo about the state of law should be maintained. Unless
the jurisdiction of the court is ousted by the legislature in clear words or by
necessary implication, the courts should be presumed to have jurisdiction. The
construction of statute that takes away the jurisdiction of the superior courts or
extends or jurisdiction by giving right to appeal, should be avoided.
Strict construction should be given to the statutes that confer jurisdiction on the
subordinate courts, tribunals, or government agencies. If a construc-tion of an act
does not clearly say that the intention of the legislature is to oust the jurisdiction of
the court, then the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of judicature is not taken
away. When the jurisdiction is conferred by the statute, it is implied that the act has
also given power to do all such acts as necessary for its execution.
Special powers granted by an Act must be limited to the purpose for which it is
granted. The power of control by the superior courts, cannot be taken away except
by the express provision of the Statute. Unless the words of a statute provide for it
can be inferred from the words of a statute, there is a presumption that neither new
jurisdiction of the courts are created, nor the existing jurisdiction enlarged.
Since the legislation gives the jurisdiction to the courts, it is only the legislation
which can take away the jurisdiction. If the interpretation of an act gives two
constructions, one giving jurisdiction to the court and the other taking away the
jurisdiction, then the construction which gives the jurisdiction to the court, must be
given effect. If there is a dispute between two parties, then by mutual consent they
can neither create a jurisdiction, nor can they take away the same, from the court in
which their dispute can be tried.
There is a general presumption that civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all the
civil matters. The exclusion of civil jurisdiction of the court must be in express
terms or by clear implication. The general rule is that, there exists a jurisdiction in
a court to try all the civil matters. The burden of proof to prove that the jurisdiction
of civil courts is excluded is on the person who alleges such an exclusion. In the
cases where the jurisdiction of the courts is excluded, the civil courts have power
to examine whether the provisions of the statute are complied with. Also the civil
courts have power to ascertain that the prescribed procedure of the law has been
followed by the tribunal created by the statute. If the provisions of the statute or the
necessary judicial procedure is not complied with, then such non-compliance can
be challenged in the court of law. This principle is based on the presumption that a
remedy in the ordinary civil courts must always be available to the aggrieved
person. In addition to the remedies provided by the statute, ordinary remedy must
also be available, except if it is excluded by the express language of the statute or
by necessary implication.
Case laws-
1. Provincial government of Madras (now Andhra pradesh) V. J.S. Bassappa-
The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court
must not be construed readily. If the provisions of an act gives the finality to the
orders of the Authority as enacted, civil courts still have the jurisdiction in the
matter, if the provisions of the Act are not complied with ot the statutory tribunal
has failed to follow the principles of judicial procedure.
2. Bhimsi V. Dundappa-
The Supreme Court held that, if the revenue court is given the exclusive
jurisdiction to try certain matters and the jurisdiction of the civil court is totally
excluded, then the civil court should transfer such matters to be tried and
adjudicated by the revenue court only.
Case laws:
1. Gramma V. Veerupana-
Section 8 of “The Hindu Succession Act, 1956” provides that, if a Hindu male dies
intestate, his property will devolve as per the provisions of the Act.
The Supreme Court held that the Act is not applicable to those successions which
opened before the Act came into operation (i.e. successions prior to the year 1956).
Thus, it has only prospective operation.
When the procedural law is amended, the amendment has a retrospective effect. A
declaratory Act is given a retrospective operation, because a declaratory act
removes the doubts as to meaning and effect of the statute. The intention behind
passing the declaratory Act, is to set aside the Judicial error.
The rule that, generally the statutes will not give a retrospective operation, is a
rebuttable presumption. It can be rebutted with strong contrary evidence. A statute
should not be given greater retrospective operation than what is intended by the
legislature in the words of the statute.
If a court declares an Act as void, then the parliament can pass the validating act
having retrospective effect to revive the void Act. Retrospective operation of penal
law is prohibited. It has to be prohibited expressly by Article 20(1) of the
constitution of India. But if the Penal law benefits the accused, it can be given
retrospective effect.
Case laws:
1. Balumar Jamnadas Batra V. State of Maharashtra-
Section 123 of the customs Act, 1962, dealt with the burden of proof. The Supreme
Court held that section 123 deals with matters of procedure, and therefore, it will
have retrospective operation.
Landmark judgments:
The Supreme Court repeatedly made it clear that in order to give effect to an
amendment retrospectively, it should be clearly mentioned in the enactment that
the Act is supposed to have retrospective operation. In the case of P.Mahendran
and Others v. State of Karnataka and others, the apex court observed that the
amended set of Recruitment Rules, 1987 was not of a retrospective nature and was
instead of a prospective one. Therefore, the Karnataka Public Service Commission
was not supposed to make any kind of regulation or determination of selection of
members on the basis of the rules after the commencement of the same. If such
selection was made, the same would be declared as illegal. The court made its
judgment on the grounds that there were no provisions for making a retrospective
effect in the Rules, 1987.
In the absence of similar provision, the Rules were to prospective effect only. In
the recognised case of CIT Mumbai v. M/s Essar Teleholdings Ltd, the Supreme
Court mentioned that the legislature wing of the government has been vested with
plenary powers to decide whether an amendment is to operate prospectively or
retrospectively. Further, in general observation, the legislature considers any
statute prima facie to be prospective only unless the statute has been expressly by
necessary implication made to operate retrospectively.
In National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India v Union of
India, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that retrospective amendments will
amount to be unconstitutional if there is less clarification on the part of the
enactment which intends to overturn the previous decisions of the court or bring in
a change in the existing law.
In the case of Rohtas Bhankhar and Others v. Union of India and Another, the
court declared that whenever a retrospective amendment is to be made, it should be
taken into concern that the amendment does not have an adverse effect on the
public at large. In this case, a relaxation was provided to the candidates belonging
to the category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe for a competitive exam
giving a retrospective effect to an existing statute.
Conclusion:
From the above discussions and observation, it can be inferred that constitutional
legitimacy with respect to the retrospective amendment is still under a hold. On
some grounds, it is held to be valid while majorly it is considered to be inconsistent
with the judgments delivered by the courts. Courts, therefore, directed that it is
only in exceptional cases that the retrospective amendments will have an effect.
Judgments made by the apex court in concern with these amendments have sought
clarity and fairness from the same because it is not correct to take away the rights
and obligations that have already been conferred to an individual based on the
existing law for the sake of the implementation of a retrospective amendment. This
by itself stands against the Constitution of India in several ways.