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

concerned with evidence at all, but are cannons of interpretation. To "presume"

means to

suppose that something is probably true. Thus presumption means an act of

presuming, assuming

or imagining something to be true. The legislature is presumed to use appropriate

words to

manifest its intention.

In G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Saifuddin Quadri(1987) it was held that Presumption

may be looked

on as the bats of law, flitting in the sunlight but disappearing in the sunshine of
fact.

Presumptions in Statutes

Presumption in Rule of Evidence

It is obligation on the court to raise presumption in every case where the factual
basis for raising

of presumption had been established. Such a presumption is a presumption of law,

as

distinguished from a presumption of fact, which describes provisions by which the

court "may
presume" a certain state of affairs. In other words, provided the facts required to
form the basis

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

rebut ting it and proving the contrary.

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

reasonably probable, the standard of reasoning being that of a "prudent man".

Mandatory and Discretionary Presumption

In case of a discretionary presumption, the presumption, if drawn, may be rebutted

by an
explanation which might reasonably be true and which is consistent with the
innocence of the

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

explanation is a tone one.

Conclusive Presumption

As observed by the Supreme Court, the legislature is competent to create a

conclusive

presumption of law, if it acts within the allotted legislative sphere and does not
violate any

constitutional mandate. Conclusive presumption can be created by government

also, if statute

empowers it to do so.

General Presumptions

Some general presumptions may be laid down as under:

1. The words in a statute are used precisely and not loosely.

2. Vested rights are not taken away without express words or necessary implication
or without

compensation.

3. Mens rea is generally required for a criminal act.

4. Government is affected by a statute.

5. The jurisdiction of courts is neither enlarged nor decreased.

6. Statutes are not intended to be inconsistent with international law.

7. The legislature does not intend what is inconvenient and unreasonable.

8. The legislature knows the existing law and does not intend to alter it except by
express

enactment.

9. The legislature does not commit mistakes or make omissions.

10. Different words in the same statute have different meanings.

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

no effect on other statutes.

Presumption of Constitutionality

Constitutionality is the state of being constitutional Law is judged for its

constitutionality on the

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

there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles.

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

manner as would involve its unconstitutionality. The presumption of

constitutionality is indeed

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

facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation. Interpretation

creating unjust and

discriminatory situation should be avoided.

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

It is presumed that statutes are

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.

There is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an Act. one who alleges

against the constitutionality of an enactment, must show that there is a
transgression of the constitutional boundaries.
When the validity of the statute made by the competent legislature is challenged,
the court must presume that the statute is valid. Though it is presumed that the Act
is constitutional, if the Act on the face of it is arbitrary and discriminatory, then the
presumption cannot stand. If there is any doubt about the constitutional validity of
any law, the benefit of doubt should be in the favour of the constitutional validity
of an Act. The Court should assume that the legislature has not committed a
mistake and out-lined the intention in the Act what it intended. It is presumed that
the legislature has expressed its intention in the Act what it intended. It is
presumed that the legislature has expressed its intention in appropriate words.
Every word used by the legislature, must be given its due importance. Unless it is
proved that the legislation has transgressed the constitutional limits, it must be
presumed to be constitutionally valid.
When the meaning of the statutory language gives two meanings, the statute should
be construed in such a way so as to give it constitutional validity, and not to raise
any doubts about its constitutional validity. This rule is applicable even to bye-laws
and constitutional Amendments Act.

 Case law-

1. Govindlalji V. State of Rajasthan-

The constitutional validity of “the Rajasthan Nathdwara Temple Act” was
challenged. Under Section 16 of the said Act, words “affairs of temple” were
construed as restricted to the secular affairs, and as such had to be constitutionally
valid. If a wider construction would have been given to the said Section, it would
have violated Articles 25 and 26 of the constitution.
2) Territorial in Operation:
The general rule for an act of parliament is that it is applicable only within the
territories of the Country in which it is enacted, unless otherwise provided.
Thus, the statutes passed, will bind within boundaries of the country in which it
extends. The extra-territorial operation is forbidden. But according to Article
245(2) of the constitution of India, No act made by the Parliament shall be deemed
to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra territorial operation. Courts are
bound to enforce such legislation. For example, “The Indian penal Code, 1860” is
extra territorial in nature. According to section 3, any person bound by Indian Law,
committing any offence outside India, shall be tried in India, As if he has
committed that offence in India,
Section 4 says that, IPC applies to any offence committed by any citizen of India in
any place without or beyond India, and by any person on any ship or air-craft
registered in India, wherever in the world it may be.
Various state-legislatures in the country are empowered to enact a law for the6
whole of the state or any part of the state. The laws passed by the state legislatures,
are for the purpose of that state only such law, in the absence of any territorial
connection, cannot have any extra-territorial operations.
In order that a territorial connection is sufficient, two things are to be considered,
they are-

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.

2. K.K. Kochari V. The state of Madras-

The Supreme court held that the laws made by the state legislature apply within the
boundaries of the concerned state. It can be challenged for its extra-territorial
operation, because Article 245(2) of the constitution of India empowers only the
Union parliament to make extra-territorial laws.

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.

4) Prospective in Operation of Statutes:

The dictionary meaning of the word prospective with reference to statutes shows
that it is concerned with or applying the laws in future or at least from the date of
commencement of the statute. It is to be noted that the Doctrine of Prospective
overruling was evolved by the Supreme Court for the first time in India in I.C.
Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1967 SC 1643. In this case the Supreme
Court held that the Parliament had no power to amend the fundamental rights.
Chief Justice Subba Rao posed the questions as to when Parliament could not
affect fundamental rights by enacting a bill under its ordinary legislative process
even unanimously, how could it then abrogate a fundamental right with only a two
third majority and while amendment of less significant Articles of the Constitution
require ratification by a majority of States of the Union, how could a fundamental
right be amended without this requirement being fulfilled. The learned judge was
of the view that the word ‘law’ Art. 13 (2) means both ordinary law as well as
constitutional law. Consequently, the state was not empowered to make any
constitutional amendment which takes away or abridged fundamental rights as
‘law’ includes ‘amendment’ as well. Thus, while holding that the Parliament was
not empowered to amend fundamental rights, the five learned judges jointly
declared that the principle would operate only in future and it had no retrospective
effect. Therefore, the name ‘prospective overruling’. The effect of the decision was
that all amendments made with respect to the fundamental rights till the day of the
decision in the case would continue to remain valid and effective, and after that
date the Parliament would have no power to amend any of the fundamental rights
contained in Part III of the Constitution.

Penal statutes have prospective operation. Article 20 of the Constitution of India

restricts the retrospective operation of the Penal statutes. An act which is legal
when it was done, cannot be made illegal by enacting a new statute.

 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.

2. Govind Das V. Income Tax officer-

“The income tax act, 1961” came into force on 1st april, 1962. Section 171(6) of
the Act imposes the joint and several liability on the members of the HUF to pay
tax assessed on the HUF property, if the assessment is already completed and it is
found that the family has already affected partition.
The Supreme Court held that section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will not
apply to assessments which were made prior to 1st April, 1962.

 Exceptions to Prospective operation of statutes:

Procedural statutes are also known as adjunctival statutes. They do not confer any
rights or create any new rights.
Statutes dealing with procedural matters are presumed to have retrospective
operation.
Retrospective operation of statutes means a statute will have effect on the matters
prior to the date on which the Act has come into force. Retrospective means it will
be effective from the date previous to the date on which the statutes come into
force. A statute may be expressly declared retrospective or it may be implied by
the court as retrospective. When the statute explains or supplies an omission in an
earlier enactment, it is presumed to be retrospective. A retrospective operation
should not be given to an act that will impair an existing right or an obligation. If
an enactment gives two interpretations, one retrospective and the other prospective,
then it must be construed as prospective only. This rule is based on the
presumption that the legislature never intended what is unjust. Every new Act
should affect only the future and not the past. There is a presumption that a statute
applies to acts or circumstances which came into existence after the Act came into
existence, unless the legislature intended to apply it retrospectively.

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.

2. Reliance Jute and Industries limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax-

The Supreme Court held that while the Taxing statute is interpreted, the law in
force in the relevant assessment year, has to be applied, unless there is an express
contrary provision or contrary intention that appears from necessary implications.

3. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad V. Ashoka Mills Limited-

The supreme court held that, the date on which the goods are cleared, the rate at
which the excise duty is prevalent on that date, is to be applied. If after the goods
are cleared, there is any change in the rate of excise duty, then the changed rate of
excise duty cannot be applied to the goods which have been already cleared i.e. it
will not have retrospective effect.

4. Union of India V.  L. Ramaswamy-

The Supreme Court held that if a rule “x” is substituted by rule “y”, then the old
rule “x” which is substituted by a new rule “y” will not be applicable under any
circumstances from the date on which it ceased to have forced a law.
5. Punjab Traders V. State of Punjab-
The Supreme Court held that if in any statute the meaning of an existing provision
is already implied, and such implied meaning is subsequently clarified by the
legislature by amending the statute, then the amending statute 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.

Therefore, the necessity to keep a check on the retrospective amendments is

necessary to maintain the integrity of the Constitution. As far as the conflict
between the legislature and the judiciary is concerned, the legislature must make
sure that it allows a legislature to operate retrospectively only when it is extremely
necessary and in a way help the judiciary to deliver pending judgments. Similarly,
the judiciary should carry the responsibility to keep the movement of the
legislature in check thereby keeping the Constitution of India intact. Therefore,
both these organs must work interdependently for better regulation of statutes in
the country.