Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
183rd Report
on
November, 2002
D.O.No.6(3)(79)/2002-LC(LS) 8.11.2002
With regards,
2
3
Yours sincerely,
3
4
CONTENTS
4
5
The reference also states that the 60th Report was submitted in
1974 and since then, many new statues have come into force and some
of the canons of interpretation on the use of extrinsic aid have also
undergone changes. Further, if the Law Commission’s 60th Report is
now implemented, then there may be “criticism that the said Report has
lost its relevance because of a long gap”. We may, however, state that the
question of external aids was specifically dealt with in Chapter II of the
60th report.
“It has also been felt that our courts have not been following
uniform approach to principles of statutory construction especially
regarding tools relating to external aids.”…
“At the same time our courts have often been referring to text
books, decision of the foreign courts rather than the judgement of
our Supreme Court. In these circumstances, it needs to be
5
6
“Further, the Law Commission Report was given way back in 1974
on a reference made in 1959. Since then, many new statues have
come into force bringing to the fore issues such as information
technology, in the light of which even the Evidence Act has been
amended. Further some of the rules of interpretation on the use of
extrinsic aids such as parliamentary debates, preparatory works,
reports of the Law Commission of India and Parliamentary reports
have undergone changes. It is also felt that if the 60th Report
(1974) of the Law Commission is now implemented, there may be
criticism that the Report has lost its relevance because of a long
gap.”
6
7
7
8
“Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is
no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly
conveyed, there is no scope for court to take upon itself the task of
amending or altering the statutory provisions.” (para 10)
8
9
Recently, in District Mining Officer and others v Tata Iron & Steel
Co. and another , (2001) 7 SCC 358, Supreme Court has observed:
9
10
Following are some known external aids, which are admissible for
the interpretation of statutory provisions:
(1) Parliamentary material
(a) Debates
Courts often take recourse to parliamentary material like debates
in Constituent Assembly, speeches of the movers of the Bill, Reports of
Committees or Commission, Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Bill, etc. As per traditional English view, these parliamentary material or
Hansard were inadmissible as external aids, on the basis of ‘exclusionary
rule’. This “exclusionary rule” was slowly given up and finally in Pepper
v Hart, (1993) 1 ALLER 42 (HL), it was held that parliamentary material
or Hansard may be admissible as an external aid for interpretation of a
statute, subject to parliamentary privilege, under following
circumstances; where (a) legislation is ambiguous or obscure or leads to
an absurdity; (b) the material relied on consists of one or more
statements by a minister or other promoter of the Bill, together, if
necessary, with such other parliamentary material as is necessary to
understand such statements and their effect; and (c) the statements
relied on are clear.
10
11
11
12
which they intended to achieve when they enacted cls (4) and (7)
in their present form.” (para 45)
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
(4) Dictionaries
16
17
Apart from the various external aids discussed above, courts while
interpreting a statutory provision, can take into account relevant
historical facts or history of enactment in order to understand the
subject matter of statute. Court can also have regard to the surrounding
circumstances which existed at the time of passing of the statute. But,
like any other external aid, the inference from historical facts and
surrounding circumstances must give way to the clear language
employed in the enactment itself. In this regard, Supreme Court in
Mohanlal Tripathi v. Distt. Magistrate Rail Bareilly and others, (1992) 4
SCC 80, has observed:
17
18
Recently, Supreme Court while dealing with the Dental Act, 1948
in Dental Council of India v Hariprakash, (2001) 8 SCC 61 has observed:
18
19
Again, in S.P. Jain v Krishan Mohan Gupta and others, AIR 1987
SC 222, the Supreme Court has held:
“We are of the opinion that law should take pragmatic view of the
matter and respond to the purpose for which it was made and also
take cognizance of the current capabilities of technology and life
style of community”. (para 18)
19
20
words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable
of comprehending them.
International Conventions
Apart from these external aids, court also take recourse to other
material. For example, wherever necessary, court can look into
International Conventions (P.N. Krishanlal v Govt. of Kerala, (1995) Sup.
(2) SCC 187). The Supreme Court in Visakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR
1997 SC 3011 took recourse to International Convention for the purpose
of construction of domestic law. The Court observed :-
Other materials
20
21
Whether external aids can be incorporated into the General Clauses Act
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
“The legislature often fails to keep pace with the changing needs
and values, nor it is realistic to expect that it will have provided all
contingencies and eventualities. It is, therefore, not only necessary
but obligatory on the court to step in to fill the lacuna.” (para 17)
26
27
an external aid for interpretation. This facility was unknown in the past.
Similarly, in future some other new technology may come out. Again,
new or peculiar circumstances may arise where the court has to take
recourse to some material or aid which has not been used in the past as
external aid. Therefore, rigid and statutory rules for interpretation of
statutes for the use of external aids are not warranted.
27
28
Pollution Control Board II vs Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62); right
to health care (State of Punjab vs Ram Lubhaya, (1998)4 SCC 11). Now,
‘procedure established by law’ means that substantive law as well as
procedural law must be ‘just, fair and reasonable’. Meaning of words
‘affairs of state’ appearing in section 123 of the Evidence Act has also
undergone drastic changes with the passage of time. In this regard, Law
Commission in its 60th Report at para 2.9 has observed:
“It was Mr. Justice Holmes who pointed out in his inimitable style
that, ‘a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged’, it is the
skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content
according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.”
(para 4)
This kind of rule that the meaning of the words may get changed
with the passage of time cannot be expressed in legislative form.
28
29
“We are not limited to lifeless words of the statute and formalistic
canons of construction in search for the intent of Congress
(Parliament in our case)”. …
It was observed in Distt. Mining Officer v Tata Iron and Steel Co.,
(2001) 7 SCC 358 that a bare mechanical interpretation of the words and
application of legislative intent devoid of concept or purpose will reduce
most of the remedial and beneficent legislation to futility.
Further, rules of interpretation are not rules of law; they are mere
aids to construction and constitute some broad points. It is the task of
29
30
the court to decide which rules are, in the light of all circumstances, or
ought to prevail (see Keshavji Ravji & Co. v CIT, (1990) 2 SCC 231).
The Law Commission in its 60th Report has stated at para 2.9:
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
On the basis of the discussion above, we are of the view; (1) in the
event of ambiguity of a provision, for the purpose of interpretation of
such a statutory provision, courts can certainly take recourse to material
or aids outside the statute, i.e., external aids, and (2) the rules of
interpretation specially regarding use of external aids, should not be
incorporated in the General Clauses Act, 1897 at all.
We recommend accordingly.
34
35
35
36
1897 and all Central Acts and Regulations made after the
commencement of this Act, unless those Acts or Regulation contain
separate definitions of their own or there is something repugnant in the
subject or context. The opening words of section 3 is as follows:-
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
operation of the Article 367; and the General Clauses Act, 1897 as
it stood immediately before 26 January, 1950 (subject to
adaptations made under the Constitution) will continue to apply.”
The Law Commission in its 60th Report has suggested few changes
only. The Commission has observed at para 1.26 that the
recommendations given in the report are not numerous or radical. The
provisions of the said Act cause no serious difficulty which may
necessitate any radical change in the Act.
The result is, that the most of the changes proposed in the General
Clauses Act 1897 in 60th Report of the Law Commission will be
applicable only and only to statutes which will be enacted after the
proposed amendments are enforced and not on the existing enactments.
Therefore, the Commission does not consider it necessary to undertake a
fresh review of the aforesaid recommendations contained in the 60th
Report.
We recommend accordingly.
40
41
(T.K. Viswanathan)
Member-Secretary
Dated: 01.11.2002
41