A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON 183RD LAW COMMISSION REPORT ON- A CONTINUUM ON GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE ADMISSIBILITY AND CODIFICATION OF EXTERNAL AIDS TO INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE

This article is written by Chief Anand of Lloyd Law College, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Abstract

There is always an issue to courts for the matter of interpreting provisions of the statute especially for the matter for interpreting statute and indeed it’s duty of the judiciary to interpret the statute. As there a conflict among the courts in local sense as there are many sources which can take into consideration to provide the construction of the statute and decide the matters and provide justice. Intent of the legislature while passing the bill is not always clear sometimes the meaning of words is not clear and sometime with the evolving society it is important to change the meaning of the words and provide justice in the same.

Keywords: External aid, Internal aid, Statutory aid, Supreme court, statute, Law Commission, Reports, Conflicts.

Introduction

There has been a conflict in judicial decision as to admissibility of external aids and courts are not following uniform approach, to principle of statutory construction. With the reference to the 60^th report of General clauses act,1897. The Law Commission view on the issue whether extrinsic aid should be made admissible in construction of Interpretation of Statute, and if so whether rules for extrinsic aids should be codified and incorporation in the General Clauses act,1897. After 60^th report many new legislations have come into force and uses external aids for the Interpretation and as now it is a long gap 60^th report lost its relevance which can be criticized.

In chapter 2 of the 60^th report which examine the issue of feasibility of having a code on Interpretation of Statute which can be harmonious with General Clauses Act, 1897 but is impractical. The main considerations now are:

1. Whether General Clauses Act,1897 should also provide the principles of Interpretation of Statute as regards the extrinsic aid of Interpretation.
2. Whether recommendation made in said 60^th report need any revision on whether those have lost relevance now.

Issue Framed

A statute is indeed considered as the will of legislature conveyed as text and Interpretation is an age-old process to understand will for the same. In early Hindu Civilization elaborative rules of Interpretation were evolving (60^th Law Commission report, Chapter 2, Para 2.2, Reference to Jaimini author of Mimamsat Sutras). There are two aspects of first is the ‘Meaning’ signifies what word means and second conveys the concept of ‘Purpose’ and ‘Object’ or ‘Reason’ and ‘Spirit’. Construction combines both  literal and purposive approaches.

In RS Nayak v. AR Antulay [1] five judge bench of Supreme Court held that need for Interpretation arises only when the language of the provision is ambiguous, not clear or where more than one views are possible or where given provision defeats the meaning of the statute. Again Supreme Court observed that if the words are clear and no obscurity is there and no ambiguity arises and intension of legislature id conveyed clearly, there is no scope of the count to amend or alter any provision [2]. Courts have to take recourse on internal as well as external aids for Interpreting. Her ethe Internal aid means those materials which are available in the statute itself though they may or may not be the part of the enactment, which include Preamble, Heading, Marginal Note, Illustrations, Punctuation, Proviso, Schedule, etc., when this does not work, courts have to take external aid which can be parliamentary material, historical background, different reports of commissions or committees etc.

In B. Prabhakar Rao and Ors v. State of Andra Pradesh and Ors [3] Supreme court accepted the necessity of external aid in the provision of statutory interpretation. Supreme court held that where there is no internal aid available courts can refer to external aid to discover the object of legislation which is now a well settled principle of modern statutory construction. In 2001, Supreme Court in one of case held that, external aid is indeed a cardinal principle of construction which widen the ambit of Interpretations.

Facts and Sources of External Aid

There are many sources for the external aid some of them are listed below:

1. Parliamentary Material

a) Debates: Like Debates of Constitutional Assembly, speeches of movers of the bill, statement of        object, reasons of bill, reports, etc. In English Law, Parliamentary Material does not come under the ambit of external aid under ‘Exclusionary Rule’. The ‘Exclusionary Rule’ was given in Pepper v. Hart (1993) which held that Parliamentary Material may be admissible as on external aid for interpretation of the statute subject to privileges under:

(a) Material relied on consist of more than one or more statement by minister or other promoter of the bill etc. with other Parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statement and there effect.

(b) Legislation is ambiguous or obscure or leads to absurdity.

(c) Statement relied on are clear.

Initially Indian courts uses this exclusionary rule which prevails in England and refuse to admit these materials. [4][5]

But Supreme court relaxed this rule in further cases. In State of Mysore v. RV Bidop [6] Justice Krishna Iyer quoted the passage from Crawford on statutory construction where he criticized the exclusionary rule.

(b) Statement of Object and Reasons

Accompanying a legislative bill, it is permissible to refer to it for understanding the background, antecedent state of affairs. But it cannot be used to ascertain the true meaning and effect of substantive provision of statute. [7]

(c) Reports of Committees and Commissions

There Reports can be refer by the courts as evidence of historical factors or of surrounding circumstances or mischief or evil intended to be remedied. In a case Supreme Court Refused to take recourse to the report of special committee appointed by Government of India examine the provision of partnership bill, for the construction of partnership [8]. But, later in Haldiram Bujiawala & Ors v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors [9], Supreme court took recourse of the same report. Similarly, in Rosy & Ors v. State of Kerela [10] Supreme court considered Law Commission of India, 41^st report for the Interpretation of Section 200 clause 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.  

2) Reference to other Statute

It is indeed standard principle for the purpose of Interpretation or construction of statutory provisions, the courts can take refer to provisions of other statute. The General Clauses Act, 1897 is an example of Statutory aid means use of one statute to interpret the other. Supreme court in Common cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India [11] took recourse to Section 13A and Section 139 clause 4B of the Income Tax act, 1961 for the purpose of interpreting Explanation 1 of Section 77 clause 1 of Representation of peoples act, 1951.

3) Dictionaries

It is permissible to use dictionary meaning if the word is not defined in the statute itself to understand the common meaning of the word in general sense.

4) Foreign Decisions

For interpreting any Indian statute courts are permitted to use decisions of any Foreign court uses the same system of jurisprudence as ours. These decisions have only persuasive value and are not binding to Indian courts so when it comes to binding these decisions are of no use. [12]

5) Other Materials

Supreme courts can use information available on internet for the purpose interpreting any statutory provision [13]. Courts can also refer to the text in books and published papers in journals for the purpose of interpreting the provisions. If this external aid is absent, it may happen that the courts won’t be able to provide justice.

There can be no uniformity when it comes to use of all these external aids to interpret the provisions of any statute and even though it is court have the discretion in every case depending on the facts and circumstances of the case so it may go non uniform while courts use this aid to interpret.

Recommendations by Law Commission for the same as per 60^th and 183^th report

 Firstly- New provision should be added inserted under General Clauses Act, as Article 367 of the Constitution of India read and means as, unless the context otherwise requires, The General Clauses Act, 1897 shall apply to interpret the provisions of The Constitution of India, but with subject to the modification and adaptations of Article 372 of The Constitution of India.

Secondly- Legislature should inert two new Sections 3A and 29A which jointly confer the proposed changes in rules and definition section should not affect the existing central laws and any further future enactments.

Thirdly- As per 60^th Report major recommendation was any recommendation made under the report will not affect the construction of any enactment in any way which has been made before the date of implementation of the aid recommendation.

Fourthly- Recommendations made in both reports shall be applicable to further enactments and not to the previous ones, means it should apply prospectively and not retrospectively.

Conclusion

With all these sources the courts have enough way for interpreting the provisions of any statute for the matter of providing justice to the society. As the Doctrine of Separation of Powers it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret the statute appropriately such the it will be harmonious with the values of the evolving society. To keep law updated with the evolving society it is the responsibility of the judicial officers to take into account different sources like debates, reports, other decisions even if they are not binding on them to interpret and to see different perspective so that they can have different areas connecting to the same matter and have a holistic point of view and can articulate it better and in more efficient way.

Reference

1. Grasim Industries Ltd v. Collector of Customs Bombay (2002)
2. State of Travancore-cochin & Ors v. Bombay (1952)
3. Aswini Kumar Ghose & Ors v. Arbindo Bose & Ors (1952)
4. Devadass (dead) by LRs v. Veera Makali Amman koil Athalur (1998)
5. CIT A.P. v. Jaylakshami Rice & Oil Mills Contractor Co. (1971)
6. Forasol v. ONGC (1984)
7. Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. (2002)
8. 138^th Law commission report,2002
9. 60^th Law commission report, 1974

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.