Repeal of Statutes – Interpretation of Statutes Law Notes
Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant (Generalia Specialibus Derogant)
- These above two are two co-related maxims.
- The first maxim i.e generalia specialibus non derogant means general things do not derogate from special thing while the second one i.e., generalia specialibus derogant means the special things derogate from general things.
- According to the maxim, generalia specialibus non derogant a general Act is not construed as repealing a particular or special Act.
- According to this maxims, if the particular Act is earlier in time, but if it deals with a special object, a later enacted general law will not abrogate the particular Act.
- The maxim generalia specialibus derogant means if a special provision is made on a certain subject, that subject is excluded from the general provision, which means special things derogate (form exception) from general things.
- According to Maxwell : A general law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication.
- This rule of interpretation is applicable where both the Acts i.e., prior & subsequent Act deals with the same subject matter. But if both the Acts deals with different subject matters then the rule has got no application.
- Exception to this rule is legislative intent, i.e., unless a contrary intention is expressly indicated a general law, later enactment will not abrogate or repeal the earlier special Act.
- This maxim was applied as early as 1884 in the case, Mary Seward v. The Owner of the ‘Vera Cruz’.
In Mary Seward v. The Owner of the ‘Vera Cruz’ , the question was whether section 7 of the Admiralty Court Act of 1861 also gave jurisdiction over claims for loss of life which other wise would have come under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846. It was held that, the Admiralty Court had no such jurisdiction.
Prior special (particular) Law and later general Law
If a special law on a particular subject matter exists and afterwards, a general law on the same subject matter is enacted, then the later general law does not impliedly repeal the prior particular or special law.
Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph
In this case, the Municipal council of Palai was empowered by the Municipal Act to provide for the bus stand. Later on, Motor Vehical Act also empowered the government or its delegates to provide for bus stand. The SC held that, Municipal Act, prior particular Act not repealed by the Motor Vehical Act which is subsequent general Act. Municipal Act is specifically for municipal area of Palai whereas, Motor Vehical Act applying to all areas in general.
Prior General Law and Later Special or particular Law
If a general law on a particular subject matter exists and afterwards a special (i.e., particular) law on the same subject matter is enacted, then the later special law impliedly repeals the prior general law partially.
Ratanlal Adukia v. UOI
In Railway Act, 1890, section 80 was substituted in 1961. Section 80 provides for the special forum to file the claim against the Rail Administration for the losses arising out of accident.
Such claim can also be filed under the provisions of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It was held by the SC that, section 80 of Rail Act impliedly repealed the section 20 of CPC,1908.
Section 80 was a later special provision and a self contained code & section 20 of CPC, 1908 was a prior general provision.
Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo.
The SC stated in this case that, legislative intention has been to exclude older and general statutes by recent and special statutes. Specific statutes that come later in time supercede prior general statutes. The SC held that, both, Consumer Protection Act and Carriage by Air Act are specific statutes and came later than Civil Procedure Code. Therefore they must be treated as special Acts with respect to their coverage and provisions of CPC will have only a limited applicability to them.
Repeal of the Statutes (कायद्याचे निरसन)
- Oxford dictionary meaning : withdraw (a law) officially
- Concise Law Dictionary : A revocation (The undoing of a thing granted/The act of revoking)(To Revoke : to re-call, to cancel)
- Abrogation (abolish) of any law.
- A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, repealed and re-enacted the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Example: The General Clauses Act, 1897, repealed and re-enacted the General Clauses Act, 1868 & 1887.
- Object of Repeal : The object of repeal and re-enactment is to obliterate the repealed Act & get rid of certain obsolete matters. (i.e., no longer in use)
- Difference between ‘repeal’ and ‘expiry’ :
Statutes when classified with respect to duration of their operation, fall in to two categories.
- Temporary Statutes : they has a certain fixed period of time specified for its continuance. It expires on the expiry of the specified time, unless repealed earlier. Here duration may be extended but during it is in force, but, if it expires, then revival can only be by way of re-enactment. They can be repealed before its time is expired.
- Perpetual Statutes : When there is no limitation as to the time fixed for its duration, it remains in force until it is repealed.
So for temporary statutes : expiry & for perpetual statutes : Repeal
- Repeal & Enactment : Amendment includes abrogation or deletation of a provision in an existing statute. If amendment of existing law is small, the Act professes to amend but, if it is extensive, it repeals and re-enacts it.
- Repealed & Void Acts : There is a difference, Act is repealed by legislation while an Act or its provisions are declared void by judicial expression or declaration.
Types of Repeal
Express Repeal
When repeal of any enactment is brought about by in express terms bya statute, then it is known as ‘Express Repeal’. The words must clearly show an intention to repeal.
No particular form of words is necessary to bring about an express repeal. Words must show an intention to abrogate the Act or any provision.
The form of words are : “is (or are) hereby repealed”
“shall cease to have effect”, “shall be omitted”(used for a particular provision), “All provisions inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed”.
State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal : Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by new provisions.
Implied Repeal
‘Implied repeal’ or ‘repeal by implication’ is not readily inferred. There is a presumption against repeal by implication. i.e., legislatures while enacting a law has complete knowledge of the existing law.
Therefore when it does not provide a repealing provision means intention not to repeal the existing legislation.
The burden to show that, there has been a repeal by implication lies on the party asserting it.
Therefore one must start with presumption against repeal by implication. But when provision of later Act are so inconsistent with earlier & cannot stand together, then repeal is inferred.
M. Karunanidhi v. UOI : It was observed that, where there is a ‘clear and direct’ inconsistency between two Acts, and is absolutely irreconcilable bringing the two Acts into direct collision, then only one of these may be regarded as impliedly repealed by other.
Municipal Council of Palai v. T.J. Joseph
Where two statutes passed at different times are totally inconsistent with each other and can not be harmoniously interpreted, the latter statute repeals the former by implication.
The SC indicated, three tests can be applied for solving the question whether there is an implied repeal (with reference to Article 254 of the Constitution.)
- Whether there is a direct conflict between the two provisions.
- Whether the legislature intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing the earlier law.
- Whether the two laws occupy the same field.
Relevant maxim of implied repeal are generalia specialibus non derogant and generalia specialibus derogant, as discussed above. In case of law defining offences and penalties, offences created by an earlier statute is again described in later with different punishments, or varies the procedure, the earlier will be repealed by implication.
Effects of Repeal
In common law, the effect of an Act which had expired or was repealed was that, for all purposes it would be presumed that the Act never existed, unless contrary intention appeared, and all matters already decided under the Act were closed, if, therefore, during the pendency of a case a statute expired or was repealed, all transactions under it were closed even though the transaction under it had begun when the repealed statute was in force.
Maxwell says that the effect of repealing Acts passed after August 30, 1889 is dealt with by section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act, 1889. In India, section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is a verbatim reproduction of section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act, 1889 of England relating to effect of repeal.
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
Effect of repeal : Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto(so far) made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-
- revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or
- affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
- affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
- affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or
- affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;
and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.
Section 6A – Repeal of Act making textual amendment in Act or Regulation
Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which the text of any Central Act or Regulation was amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal.
Section 7 – Revival of repealed enactment
- In any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be necessary, for the purpose of reviving, either wholly or partially, any enactment wholly or partially repealed, expressly to state that purpose.
- This section applies also to all Central Acts made after the third day of January, 1868, and to all Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887.
Jindas Oil Mill v. Gondhra Electricity Company
It was observed by the Supreme Court that, when rights vest in someone under a statute, the rights continue to be vested in him even though the statute is repealed and replaced by another, unless the new statute clearly provides by express language or by necessary implication that such would not be the case.
Ekambarappa v. Excess Profits Tax Officer
The SC held that, the liability to pay tax for excess profits earned by appellant continues on him even though the place where he carried on business at the relevant time was merged into a State where such a regulation to pay excess profits was not in existence.
More Law Notes on Interpretation of Statutes –