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.

It is presumed that statutes are

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-
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 the 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-
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.

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-
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.

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:
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.

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:
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.