Principles and Methods of Legislation and Interpretation of Statutes
Consolidating Consolidating and Codifying Statutes
Submitted to: Submitted by:Dr. Arti Puri
Iti han!i
Asso. Professor in La"s LL.M. #st Semester 1
Pan!ab $ni%ersity &egional Centre 'o - ()#* Ludhiana
&oll
Ac+no"ledgement Upon the successful completion of this project, I would wish to thank everyone who has been a part of it. First and the foremost I thank Prof. Harmeet Singh Sandhu, Director, Panjab University Regional Centre, Ludhiana for providing me with the esteemed opportunity of presenting a project report on nter!retation of Statutes and Princi!les of Legislation and Dr. "rti Puri for the clear concepts which she provided me about the Consolidating and Codifying Statutes which rendered great support during the drafting of this submission. And lastly, my heartiest gratitude towards all the respected authors of the numerous books I referred to, during the research process for this submission. It is truly said, ooks are our best friends.
!
,able of Contents 1. !. '. (. ). *. +. . /.
"odifying #tatutes $ord %erschell &ule Features of "odifying #tatutes "onstruction of "odifying #tatutes "onsolidating #tatutes Features of "onsolidating #tatutes "onstruction of "onsolidating #tatutes -ierences between "odifying and "onsolidating #tatutes ibliography
Codifying Statutes A Codifying Statute presents an orderly and an authoritative statement of the leading rules of law on a given subject, whether those rules are to be found in a statue law or common law1. The 1 %alsbury0 $aws of ngland 2( th dition3, 4ol. ((, p. (/ 2para 5/3. "odi6cation 7#ystemati8es "ase9$aw as well as #tatuts:;
Codifying Statute exhaustively states the entire law on a particular subject, the draftsman attempting to subsume in his code both the preexisting statutory provision and also the common law rules relating to the matter. These acts are passed to codify the existing law. The indication that the Act is a Code will generally be found in the preamble, if any or in the long title !. "t has been said that a Codifying Act is presumed not to alter the law unless a contrary intention appears#. $ut the presumption will be of help only after the language of the Statute is first construed according to normal canons of construction and is found to be of doubtful impact. %or example, the Code of Civil &rocedure, 1'().
Lord Herschell Rule A Codifying Act is approached in *uite a different spirit from a Consolidating Act. The principles applicable to the construction of such a statute are well stated in an oft*uoted passage of +ord erschel- " thin/ the proper course is, in the first instance, to examine the language of Statute and to as/ what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by any considerations derived from the previous state of the law, and not to start with in*uiring how the law previously stood, and then, assuming that it was probably intended to leave it unaltered, to see if the words of the enactment will bear an interpretation in conformity with this view. "f a Statute intended to embody in a Code a particular branch of the law is to be treated in this fashion, it appears to me that its utility will be almost entirely destroyed and the very o bject with which it was enacted will be frustrated. The purpose of such a statute surely was that on any point specifically dealt with by it, the law should be ascertained by interpreting the language used, instead of, as before, by roaming over a vast number of authorities in order to discover what the law was, extracting it by a minute critical examination of the prior decisions. " am of course, far from asserting that recourse main never be had to the previous state of the law for the purpose of aiding in the construction of provisions of the code. "f, for example, a provision be of doubtful import, such resort would be perfectly legitimate. 0r, again if in a Codewords be found which have previously ac*uired a technical meaning, are being used in a sense other than their ordinary onethe same interpretation might well be put upon them in the Code. " give these as examples merely. They, of course, do not exhaust the category. hat, however, " am venturing to insist upon is, that the first step ta/en should be to interpret the language of the statute and that an appeal to earlier decisions can only be justified on some special ground2.3
Features of Codifying Statutes ! oard of >rustees of the
%ollowing are the features of Codifying Statutesa) A Codifying Statute may be a Code only with respect to a particular branch of a subject. "t may not cover other branches of the same subject.
"n Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay vs. Abdullbhai Faizullabhai5 , it has been held that the &ayment of $onus Act, 1'45 does not cover all categories of bonus and is restricted to the subject of profit bonus. The result is that the Act spea/s as a complete code on the subject of profit bonus and does not annihilate by implication other different and distinct /inds of bonus such as customary bonus. b) "n contrast to an ordinary enactment, a Code is self contained and complete.
"n Gokul Mandar vs. Pudmanund Singh6 , it was held that the essence of a Codifying Statute is to be exhaustive on matters in respect of which it declares the law and it is not the province of the judge to disregard or go outside the letter of enactment according to its true construction. A Code is self contained and complete and that mar/s the distinction between a Code and an ordinary enactment. c) hen the Code covers a situation, it is not permissible to apply general principles. The court has to proceed on the mandate of the Code only.
"n Pioneer Aggregaes !".K.# $d. vs. Se%reary o& Sae &or he 'nvironmen ( , it was held that when the Code was silent or ambiguous, resort to the principles of private law may be necessary so that the courts may resolve difficulties by application of common law or e*uitable principles. $ut such cases will be exceptional. And if the statute law covers the situation, it will be an impermissible exercise of the judicial function to go beyond the statutory provision by applying such principles merely because they may appear to achieve a fairer solution to the problem being considered. 0n this principle, it was held in King 'm)eror vs. *ahu +au , that a matter concerning admission and disposal of criminal appeals has to be dealt with in terms of the Code of Criminal &rocedure and not outside those provisions.
) AI& 1/+* #" 1()). * I$& !/ "al +5+ 2<"3 +21/(3 ! All & ') 2%$3. AI& 1/') <" /. )
Similarly, in $. -anakirama yer vs. P.P.M. /ilkano yer 0, it was observed that a *uestion of res 1udi%aa in relation to a suit has to be decided solely on terms of Section 11 of Civil &rocedure Code and not on general principles of res 1udi%aa.
Construction of Codifying Statute hile construing a Codifying Act, first the language used in the Act should be examined without any reference or influence of previous law. +ord erschel said that the principles applicable for construction of Codifying Statutes are that at the first instance, the language of Statute is to be examined and its natural meaning is to be loo/ed for without getting influenced by any considerations as to previous state of law.
Consolidating Statutes Consolidating Statute is a Statute which presents whole body of statutory law on the subject in complete form repealing the former Statute. "n other words, it is a Statute which consolidates various laws on a particular subject at one place. "t collects all statutory enactments on a specific subject and gives them a shape of one Statute. The Companies Act is an example of a Consolidating Statute. According to atson, the very object of consolidation is to collect the statutory law on a particular subject and bring it down to date, in order that it may form a useful Code applicable to the circumstances existing at that time when Consolidating Act was passed.
Features of Consolidating Statutes a) A Consolidating Statute is not intended to alter the law and therefore it is relevant to refer to the previous state of law or to judicial decisions interpreting the repealed acts for the purposes of construction of corresponding provisions in Consolidating Act. b) A Consolidating Act maybe an Amending Act. This additional purpose is usually indicated in the preamble of long title by use of words An Act to consolidate and amend2.
Construction of Consolidating Statutes The provisions in a Consolidating Act may have their origin in different legislations. "f there is any inconsistency between two such provisions, respective dates of their first enactment may be referred to. hen a *uestion arises as to construction of a section in a Consolidating Statute, it may actually be a *uestion of construction of an earlier act in which that section first appeared. / AI& 1/*! #" *''. *
owever, the rule for construction of Consolidating Act is to examine the language used in the Act itself without any reference to repealed statutes. "f Consolidating Act fails to provide guidance as to its proper interpretation, the repealed enactments maybe loo/ed to. The presumption that same words employed in the same act at different places bear the same meaning has no application to Consolidating Acts when it is shown that different provisions where same words occur had their origin in different legislations. %or arriving at correct interpretation of a section in a Consolidating Statute, courts have consulted the earlier repealed acts in which that section had its origin. "n *ire%or o& Publi% Prose%uions v. S%hildkam)23, the *uestion related to the construction of Section ##!6#7 of Companies Act, 1'3). This section, prior to Consolidating Act coming into force, was enacted in Companies Act, 1'!) as Section 85 6#7. Therefore Section ##! 6#7 was construed in the light of the provisions of the original 1'!) Act. "n General 'le%ri% 4o. v. General 'le%ri% 4o. $d.22, in construing certain provisions of Trade 9ar/s Act, 1'#), all the previous act beginning from 1)85 and common law existing were considered by the court.
Difference between Codifying and Consolidating Statutes Codifying Statute 1. !. #. 3.
"t presents an orderly statement of leading rules of law on a given subject. %ormer statute survives. "t is self contained and complete. :nless the Code is ambiguous or silent on an issue, the court cannot go outside the letter of law. 5. &resumption that the same words when used at different places in same act would bear same meaning holds good and applicable.
Consolidating Statutes 1. !. #. 3.
"t presents whole body of statutory law on the subject repealing former statute. %ormer statutes are repealed. "t is not self contained and complete. ;udges may refer to earlier state of law and the judicial decisions interpreting repealed acts. 5. &resumption has no application.
15 21/*/3 ' All & 1*(5 2%$3. 11 21/+!3 ! All & )5+ 2%$3. +
ILI/&AP01 $hattacharyya, &rof. T. he ner)reaion o& Saues . Central +aw
Agency. Allahabad. 8 th . ner)reaion o& Saues. Central +aw &ublications. Allahabad. 1 st
