Repeal and Revival of Statutes
Short Description
interpretation of statutes- repeal and revival in india...
Description
P a g e | 1
REPEAL AND REVIVAL OF STATUTES
INTRODUCTION For the purpose of law reforms ocial bodies exist or may be constituted from time to time and the work of these bodies can have considerable inuence on the development or reforms of statute law. The most important of these bodies is the Law Commis Commissio sion n of ndia ndia!! which which has has a si"ni# si"ni#can cantt contri contribut bution ion in crim riminal nal! civil vil and othe otherr law law refor orm ms in ndia. $fter ter the the commencement of the Constitution of ndia it became absolutely necessary to review the existin" laws. %ecommendations of such ocial bodies for law reforms are a cont ontinuous uous proce ocess! but law law makin kin" is the powe ower of the competent le"islative authority. t is to be noticed that power to make law with re"ard to any sub&ect carries with it allancillary and incidental powers to make it e'ective and workable! to prevent its evasion! to amend and even to repeal it.(
MEANING OF REPEAL %epea epeall mean means s to revok evoke! e! abr abro"at o"ate e or canc cancel el part partic icul ular arly ly a statute. $ny statute may repeal an $ct in whole or in part! either expressly or impliedly by enactin" matter contrary to and inconsistent inconsistent with the prior le"islation. Thus a statute fre)uently stat states es that that cert certai ain n prio priorr stat statut utor ory y prov provis isio ions ns ar are e ther thereb eby y repealed. The courts will treat matter as repealed by implication only if the earlier and later statutory provisions are clea clearl rly y inco incons nsis iste tent nt.. *hen *hen a repea epeali lin" n" prov provis isio ion n is itse itself lf repealed! this does not revive any provision previously repealed by it! it! unle unless ss inte intent nt to reviv evive e is appa apparrent! ent! but but it may may allo allow w common law principles a"ain to apply. ( $b kafaltiya! nterpretation of +tatutes! p"., -/.
P a g e | 2
$ccor $ccordin din" " to 0ene 0eneral ral Clau Clause ses s $ct! $ct! (12/! (12/! +ectio +ection n 3 4%epe 4%epeal5 al5 connotes abro"ation or obliteration of one statute by another! from the statute book as completely 4as if it had never been passed.5 *hen an $ct is repealed 4 it must e !"#si$ere$ 6except as to transactions past and closed7 as i% it &a$ #e'er e(iste$.5 M"$i)!ati"# is #" repeal
%epeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance! dependin" upon the intention of the le"islature. This intention may be of total or protanto repeal or it may be merely to modif modify y the forme formerr enact enactme ment nt by en"ra en"raft ftin" in" an exce excepti ption on or "rantin" an exemption or by super addin" conditions! or by restr estric icti tin" n"!! inte interrcept ceptin in" " or susp suspen endi din" n" its its oper operat atio ion. n. +uch +uch modi#c modi#cati ation on would would not amoun amountt to re repea peal. l.8 +ection 3 of the 0eneral Clauses $ct applies even in case of a partial repeal or repeal of part of an $ct applies even in case of a partial repeal or repeal of part of an $ct. -
PERPETUAL AND TEMPORAR* STATUTES STATUTES $ statute may be perpetual or temporary. $ perpetual statute is one for the duration of which no time is #xed. t remains in force force until until it is re repea peale led. d. 9erpetu erpetual al statut statute e is so known known not not because it cannot be repealed but because it is not abro"ated by e:ux of time or by non,user. $ statute is temporary when its duration is only for a speci#ed time and such a statute expires on the expiry of the speci#ed time unless it is repealed earlier. +imply because the purpose of a statute! as mentioned in its pream preamble ble!! is tempor temporar ary! y! the statut statute e cannot cannot be re re"a "ard rded ed as temporary when no #xed period is speci#ed for its duration. The duration of a temporary statute may be extended extended by a
8 ndia Tobacco Co. Ltd. ;. CTkambarappa v. ?anpad +abha! $% (238 +C (81(.
P a g e | +
fresh statute or by exercise of a power conferred under the ori"inal statute.
PO,ER TO REPEAL $ power to make a law with respect to the topics committed to 9arliament or +tate Le"islature carries with it a power to repeal a law on those topics. n Rama-ris&#a '. /a#apa$a$ Sa&a !@ the +upreme Court had laid down that 4sub&ect to any constitutional restriction! the "eneral rule is that 4the power of a le"islative body to repeal a law is co,extensive with its power to enact such a law and a Le"islature which has no power to enact a law on a particular sub&ect,matter has also no power to repeal the same.5 $ Le"islature! however! has no power to bind itself or its successor as to the course of future le"islation for to acknowled"e such a power will remain that a Le"islature can curtail its own or its successorAs powers which are conferred by the Constitution and which cannot be restricted or taken away except by an amendment of the Constitution. t is an axiom of British Constitutional law that 4$cts of 9arliament dero"atory from the subse)uent 9arliament bind not.5 Because the Le"islature bein" in truth the soverei"n power is always of e)ual and always of absolute authority. t acknowled"es no superior upon earth! which the prior Le"islature must have been! if its ordinances could bind a subse)uent 9arliament.
O0/ECT OF REPEALING ACTS %epeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance! dependin" upon the intention of the Le"islature. f the intention indicated expressly or by necessary implication in the subse)uent statute was to abro"ate or wipe out o' the former enactment! wholly or in part then it would be a case of total or pro tanto repeal. Broadly speakin" the principal ob&ect of a repealin" statute and amendin" $ct is to excise dead matter, prune of superuities and reject clearly inconsistent @ 6(2387 +upp - +C% /D $% (238 +C (/-.
P a g e |
enactments.’ $ repealin" $ct is an enactment which otherwise expressly or by necessary implication revokes another statute. t can be said an edited revision of law intended to excise dead matter from the statute book and so to reduce its volume. %epealin" $cts may have purposes such as to remove inconsistencies in law! to revise $cts! to strike out the unnecessary enactments! to reduce the increasin" spate of le"islation and to remove duality of law. n /aga##at& 0arapatre '. ema3i rama# 0a-$e!= the Bombay Ei"h Court said that the sole ob&ect of repealin" $ct is to "et rid of a certain )uantity of obsolete matter. ts normal e'ect is to obliterate it from the statute book as completely as if it had never been passedD it must be considered as a law that never existed. +ection 3 of the 0eneral Clauses $ct! (12/ however! provides an exception to this rule.
The provisions of an earlier $ct may be revoked or abro"ated by subse)uent $ct either by express lan"ua"e or inference from the lan"ua"e used. 9re,existin" laws may be repealed by the enactment of new and independent le"islation! or by amendments! by revision and codi#cation. a&ority of repealin" $cts are those! which subse)uently re,enact the law on the same sub&ect matter. n essence there is no distinction between such laws and laws which merely profess to amend. f the amendment of the existin" law is small! the $ct is amendin" one! and if it is extensive! it repeals the previous law and re,enact it. $n amendin" provision can certainly "ive "uidance to interpretation of existin" provisions. Thus! it is a matter of construction as to what is repealed and what is remainin" there in the same sub&ect. The words 4repeals5! 4re, enacts5 and the 4provisions so repealed5 occurrin" in +ection 1 of the 0eneral Clauses $ct! (12/ are important and very si"ni#cant! and limit the very operation of the rule of construction of 4references5 only where any provision of a former enactment is repealed and re,enacted. n such a case it = $% (2=1 Bom =/D 6(2=27 3( Bom L% ((@(G L% (2=1 Bom -3(.
P a g e | 4
is only the particular re,enacted provision that can be read in place of the repealed provision. The rule of construction laid down in +ection 1 does not authoriHe the substitution of any provision whatsoever of the repealin" enactment for the provision repealed of a former enactment. 3
MODES OF REPEAL 9arliament has the power to make a law and to repeal any existin" law, be it temporary statute or a perpetual statute. %epeal may be brou"ht by the Le"islature in the two followin" waysG The
Le"islature may enact a distinct repealin" enactment to declare that an earlier $ct has been abolished. t is called E(press Repeal. The Le"islature may enact an enactment which is so inconsistent with the earlier $ct that no harmony between the two is possible or it covers the entire sub&ect matter of the earlier statute. This is called Implie$ Repeal. Io repeal can be brou"ht unless there is express repeal of an earlier $ct by a later $ct or two $cts cannot stand to"ether. /
E5PRESS REPEAL The use of any particular form of words is not necessary to brin" about an express repeal. $ll that is necessary is that the words used show an intention to abro"ate the $ct or previous provision in )uestion. The usual from is to use the words shall cease to have e'ectA is also not uncommon. *hen the ob&ect is to repeal only a portion of an $ct words shall be omittedA are normally used. The le"islative practice in ndia shows that omission of a provision is treated as amendment which si"ni#es deletion of that provision and is not di'erent from 3 ;ino C! J 9. *orks 697 Ltd. ;. Commissioner of ncome Tax! $% 8 +C (38-. /T. Bhattacharya! The nterpretation of +tatutes! 9". , -@1.
P a g e | 6
repeal. t has been held that 4there is no real distinction between repeal and amendment.5 t has also been held that 4where a provision of an $ct is omitted by an $ct and the said $ct simultaneously re,enacts a new provision which substantially covers the #eld occupied by the repealed provision with certain modi#cation! in that event such re, enactment is re"arded havin" force continuously and the modi#cation or chan"es are treated as amendment comin" into force with e'ect from the date of enforcement of re,enacted provision. This type of repeal as the expression shows is always in so many words clearly laid down as for exampleG, a7 4s or are hereby repealed!5 7 4+hall cease to have e'ect!5 !7 4+hall be omitted!5 $7 4$ll provisions inconsistent with this $ct are hereby repealed!5 e7 4+hall to the extent necessary to "ive e'ect to the provisions of this $ct be deemed to have been repealed or modi#ed.5
The last two types of repeal are in uncertain terms and re)uire to be construed by the Court as to what and how much is to be repealed. t is also noted that where a new provision is substituted by the le"islature in place of the existin" provision! and the later new provision was declared invalid due to the want of competency of the le"islature! such repeal shall have no e'ect. n I#$ia# Ne8 Papers '. U#i"# O% I#$ia!1 the +upreme Court observed that when repeal of an existin" provision is accompanied by enactment of a new provision! which is the case when a new provision is substituted in place of an existin" provision! the declaration of invalidity of the new provision on 1 6(21=7 ( +CC 3@(G $% +C =(=G 6(21@7 8 Comp L? 1=-6+C7G (21=6@7 >CC (((G (21@ 687 +C$L> 1=-G 8 +C% 81/.
P a g e | 9
the "round of want of competence will also invalidate the repealD but if the declaration of invalidity is on other "rounds e.".! arbitrariness or violation of fundamental ri"hts! the repeal speakin" "enerally will be e'ective althou"h the new provision is declared invalid unless from the totality of circumstances and the context it is found that there was no intention to repeal in the event of the new provision bein" struck down. *here no direct reference is made by the Le"islature to a particular $ct or +ection but merely stated 4all provisions inconsistent with this $ct5 are hereby repealed! e'ect of such "eneral repeal can be determined by applyin" the principles of construction "overnin" the cases of implied repeal. n A$ul :a$ir '. State "% :erala !2 the +upreme Court has observed that in interpretin" such provisions if there is similarity or correspondence between the repealed and repealin" $ct then the repeal shall be e'ected! but where there is no correspondence! both the $cts are substantially di'erin" in their scope! the repeal is ine'ective. *hen a Central $ct has been adopted under $rticle 8=8 by a +tate by a resolution passed by the Eouse or Eouses of the Le"islature of the +tate! the amendment or repeal of the Central $ct by the 9arliament does not a'ect its continuance as a +tate $ct is also adopted under $rticle 8=8 by the +tate by a resolution of the Eouse or Eouses of the Le"islature. (
Esse#tials "% E(press Repeal
The essential in"redients of an express repeal are as mentioned belowG, 2 $% (238 +C 288G 6(238 +upp 8 +C% /@(. ( +tate of *est Ben"al v. 9ronob Kr. +ur! $% 8- +C 8-(-.
P a g e | ;
There
must be a subse)uent repealin" $ct. +uch subse)uent $ct must seek to repeal an earlier $ct. +peci#c words such as ..is hereby repealedA! .shall cease to have e'ectA must be used in this subse)uent repealin" $ct showin" clear intention to e'ect repeal of an earlier $ct.
IMPLIED REPEAL n this case! the Le"islature does not use the words to precisely show its intention to repeal a law. nstead! it enacts a law which is so contradictory to an existin" law that both cannot be "iven e'ect to. This implies abro"ation of the existin" law. Thus! implied repeal is the result of inconsistent subse)uent le"islation. The implied repeal takes place in the followin" two waysG, *hen subse)uent $ct is so inconsistent with earlier $ct that only one of the two can remain in force *hen a subse)uent $ct covers whole sub&ect matter of the earlier $ct and intended to be a substitute for the earlier $ct n Atal Tea C". Lt$. V. Regi"#al P.F. C"mmr.< 11 it was held that that a repeal may be express or implied. f provisions of a later enactment are so inconsistent or repu"nant with the provisions of an earlier one that the two cannot stand to"ether! the earlier $ct can be said to have been repealed by implication. There is no real distinction in essence between repeal and an amendment. n this case )uestion was relatin" to +ection (@,B of >mployees 9rovident Funds and iscellaneous 9rovisions $ct! (2=8. This +ection was amended in (211. By way of amendment! power of Commissioner to levy dama"es was curtailed. Formerly it was up to (M and now it is as per slidin" table under 9ara -8,$ of the scheme. 9oint is whether (( 6(2217 ( C$LLT 8=/ EC! (221 6/27 FL% -/8! (22/ LablC (8/.
P a g e | =
this curtailment of power is prospective or applied also in connection with defaults prior to amendment for which no action was initiated prior to amendment. t was held that there is no savin" clause. There is a presumption a"ainst retrospectivity. This rule may be overcome not only by express words in the $ct but also by circumstances suciently stron" to displace it. The amended and unamended +ection (@,B is really incompatible and inconsistent with one another so far as rates of levy of dama"es are concerned. By this amendment! provisions of +ection (@,B so far as it conferred the discretionary power to determine the rates at which dama"es would have to be levied can be said to have been repealed by implication. The discretionary power to levy dama"es stands curtailed by virtue of amendment. There is a presumption a"ainst a repeal by implicationD and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the Le"islature while enactin" a law has a complete knowled"e of the existin" laws on the same sub&ect,matter! and therefore! when it does not provide a repealin" provision! it "ives out an intention not to repeal the existin" le"islation. mplied repeal may operate on a part of statute or on its entirety. f repu"nancy relates to a part of statute! the part of statute will stand repealed only to the extent of repu"nancy. %epeal shall not be inferred if two $cts can be read to"ether and some application may be made of words in earlier $ct. Presumpti"# agai#st implie$ repeal
There is a presumption a"ainst repeal by implication. %eason is based on the theory that Le"islature while enactin" a law has complete knowled"e of existin" laws on the same sub&ect matter and therefore! when it does not provide a repealin" provision! it "ives out an intention not to repeal existin" le"islation. (8 (8 0.9. +in"h! 9rinciples of +tatutory nterpretation! 9"., 3-1.
P a g e | 1>
TEST OF REPEAL 0* NECESSAR* IMPLICATION $lthou"h law does not favor repeal by implication and it is only in the last resort that Courts hold that one enactment is repealed by another even without express words. %epeal by implication is the conse)uence of contradictory or inconsistent le"islation. But it is not necessary for the le"islature to repeal always by express words! and if the repeal is not express! it may ow from necessary implication in the followin" casesG,
$ statute is repealed if its provisions are plainly repu"nant to those of a subse)uent statute. n other words! if the earlier and the later laws are in direct conict with each other. f the previous statute and the subse)uent statute standin" to"ether would lead to wholly absurd conse)uences. f the entire sub&ect,matter of the #rst is taken away by the second. *hether two laws occupy the same #eld. n aris& C&a#$ra '. State "% M.P. !(- it was held that if two laws 4operate in the same #eld5 without collision! they cannot be said to 4occupy the same #eld5 and there will be no inconsistency and no implied repeal! unless later law intends to be exhaustive code. f the Le"islature intended to lay down an exhaustive Code in respect of sub&ect matter replacin" earlier law.
mplied repeal could therefore be inferred only when the earlier and later law operate in the same #eld and occupy the same #eld but are so inconsistent with each other that both of them cannot co,exist in harmony and only one can survive. mplied repeal may also be concluded when le"islative intent is to brin" exhaustive Code in respect of sub&ect matter replacin" earlier law. n such cases! the earlier law is deemed to have been repealed by implication. (- $% (23= +C 2-8.
P a g e | 11
n State "% M.P. '. :e$ia Leat&er a#$ Li?u"r Lt$. A#$ Ot&ers!(@ is was observed that the doctrine of implied repeal is based on the theory that the Le"islature! which is presumed to know the existin" law! did not intend to create any confusion by retainin" conictin" provisions and therefore! when the Court applies the doctrine! it does not more than "ive e'ect to the intention of the Le"islature by examinin" the scope and the ob&ect of the two enactments and by comparison of their provisions. The matter in each case is one of the construction and comparison of the two statutes. The Court leans a"ainst implyin" repeal. Nnless two $cts are so plainly repu"nant to each other that e'ect cannot be "iven to both at the same time! repeal will not be implied! or that there is necessary inconsistency in the two $cts standin" to"ether. To determine whether a later statute repeals by implication an earlier! it is necessary to scrutiniHe the terms and consider the true meanin" and e'ect of earlier $ct. Nntil this is done! it is impossible to ascertain whether any inconsistency exists between the two enactments.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF IMPLIED REPEAL 1) Only prior legislation is repealed by implication
*here the provisions of subse)uent $ct directly contradict the provisions of the earlier $ct and there is no possibility of reconciliation between them or when the subse)uent $ct covers whole sub&ect matter of the earlier $ct! implied repeal may be inferred. t may be appreciated that in these circumstances! it is the previous law which stands repealed by implication! not the later one. (@ 8@6(7 h L? +C -3.
P a g e | 12
n Ma@a Mat&e8 '. State "% :erala !(= it was held that the rules of interpretation when a sub&ect is "overned by two sets of %ules are well settled. *hen a provision of law re"ulates a particular sub&ect and a subse)uent law contains a provision re"ulatin" the same sub&ect! there is no presumption that the later law repeals the earlier law. The rule makin" authority! while makin" the later rule! is deemed to know the existin" law on the sub&ect. f the subse)uent law does not repeal the earlier rule! there can be no presumption of an intention to repeal the earlier rule.
2) Implied repeal may not operate on entire statute
t is not necessary that the whole statute is impliedly repealed. mplied repeal may a'ect only a part of the earlier $ct! where certain provisions of later enactment are similar to or are in a"reement with the earlier law and both can stand and operate to"ether! there is no implied repeal in respect of such provisions!. The )uestion of implied repeal in such cases shall be con#ned to only those provisions of previous $ct which have been contradicted in the later $ct. 3) Implied repeal o earlier la! can be inerred only !"en subse#uent la! occupies t"e same $eld, yet contradicts t"e earlier one
mplied repeal cannot be inferred if the previous law and later law can be read to"ether and both of them can be applied! may be to limited extend! without interference. There could be implied repeal of earlier le"islation when the later law operates in the same #eld and occupies the same #eld! but cannot co, exist with it due to inconsistency and contradiction. n Del&i Mu#i!ipalit@ '. S&i's&a#-ar!(3 it was held that the 9revention of Food $dulteration $ct! (2=@ and %ules made (= $% 8( +C G 8( 6-7 +CC -@.
P a g e | 1+
there under relatin" to vine"ar were not impliedly repealed by the subse)uent >ssential Commodities $ct! (2==. $lthou"h both contained re"ulatin" provisions and laid down standards of )uality and composition of vine"ar! it cannot be said that the two laws could not stand to"ether. The former does not render compliance with latter impossible! nor compliance of former involves violation of latter. @7 Implied repeal may be concluded when exhaustive Code is intended *hen le"islative intent is to replace earlier law by an exhaustive Code in respect of sub&ect matter! implied repeal of an earlier $ct may be inferred. n such cases! the earlier law stands repealed by implication. n Nagar Ma&apali-a '. Vi&a S&u-la!(/ the %espondent ( was appointed under the (2=2 $ct but claimin" bene#t of re"ulariHation under the (28( $ct. t was held that an $ct enacted later would prevail over the earlier one. %) &rior special la! is not repealed by later general la!
ssential Commodities $ct! (2== #xin" hi"her rate of price of an essential commodity. +tate 0overnment issued an order under Oefence of ndia %ules clarifyin" that the hi"her rate could not be char"ed in respect of the stock already existin" since prior to upward revision of rate. t was held that the +tate 0overnment was competent to issue the order. t was observed that there is no le"al bar to creatin" two sources of power to achieve the same purpose and that there was no real inconsistency as the order of state was supplementary to CentreAs noti#cation. ) Implied repeal can be inerred i later la! imposes diferent punis"ments or same ofence
*here an o'ence created by an earlier $ct is a"ain described in a later $ct and the later $ct varies the procedure or imposes di'erent punishment for that o'ence! in such a case the earlier $c stands repealed by implication But where o'ence described in later $ct is di'erent from o'ence described in earlier $ct! this principle has no application. n State "% Ma$&@a Pra$es& '. Veeres&8ar Ra" !8( +ection 83 of 0eneral Clauses $ct provides that where an act of 8 6(21@7 6+upp7 +CC 81.
P a g e | 16
omission constitutes an o'ence under two or more enactments! then the o'ender shall be liable to be punished under either or any of those enactmentsD but shall not be punished twice for the same o'ence. $rticle 8687 of the Constitution directs that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for same o'ence more than once. Both these provisions apply only when two o'ences are same. But if o'ence under two enactments is not identical! none of these provisions shall apply.
EFFECT AND CONSEUENCES OF REPEAL Ge#eral rule
%epeal of a statute completely obliterates it as if it never existed or if it had never been enacted. oreover! the proceedin"s pendin" there understand discontinued! 88 and no new proceedin" can be started under it after repeal. $s observed in :"l&apur Ca#esugar ,"r-s Lt$. V. U#i"# "% I#$ia!8- repeal of a statute or deletion of a provision! unless covered by +ection 3! 0eneral Clauses $ct! (12/ or a savin" provision! is totally obliterated from the statute book and the proceedin"s pendin" there under discontinued. 8@ $ previous law may be repealed either expressly or by implication. n both the cases! the conse)uences are the same. Followin" are the e'ects of repeal of an enactmentG (7 Later $ct abro"ates prior one. 87 %epealed $ct ceases to exist and does not remain in force with e'ect form the date of appeal.
8( $% (2=/ +C =28. 88
in any Central $ct or re"ulation made after the commencement of this $ct! it shall be necessary! for the purpose of revivin"! either wholly or partially! any enactment wholly or partially repealed! expressly to state that purpose. The second clause says that this section applies also to all Central acts made after the third day of ?anuary! (131! and to all re"ulations made on or after the fourteenth day of ?anuary! (11/. +ection 3 6a7 of the $ct states that when this $ct! or any Central act or re"ulation made after the commencement of this $ct repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made! then unless a di'erent intention appears! the repeal shall not revive anythin" not in force or existin" at the time at which the repeal takes e'ect.82 n AmeerBu#BNissa 0egum '. Ma&"" 0egum!- the +upreme Court! while followin" +ection / of the 0eneral Clauses $ct! (12/ held that once a repealin" statute is itself repealed! that does not mean the revival of the repealed statute unless the lan"ua"e of the repealin" statute so provides expressly.
82O.I. athur! nterpreta 9 818. - $% (22= +C -=8.
P a g e | 21
CONCLUSION n the end it can be concluded that %epeal means to revoke! abro"ate or cancel particularly a statute. $ny statute may repeal any $ct in whole or in part! either expressly or impliedly by enactin" matter contrary to and inconsistent with the prior le"islation. Thus a statute fre)uently states that certain prior statutory provisions are thereby repealed. The courts will treat matter as repealed by implication only if the earlier and later statutory provisions are clearly inconsistent. %epeal can be of two types i.e.! express repeal and implied repeal. >xpress repeal is where the intention to repeal is expressed in the subse)uent $ct by the Le"islature whereas in implied repeal the intention of the Le"islature is implied when the subse)uent $ct enacted is so inconsistent with the previous one that only one of them can subsist. The provisions dealin" with repeal and revival of statutes is contained in +ections 3 and / of the 0eneral Clauses $ct! (12/.
P a g e | 22
0I0LIOGRAP*
$.B. Kafaltiya! nterpretation of +tatutes! Nniversal Law 9ublishin"! Iew Oelhi! 8(. B.. 0andhi! nterpretation of +tatutes! ?ain Book $"ency! 8(@. O.I. athur! nterpretation of +tatutes! Central Law 9ublications! $llahabad! 8(=. 0.9. +in"h! 9rinciples of +tatutory nterpretation! *adhwa and Co.! Iew Oelhi! 8(@. T. Bhattacharyya! The nterpretation of +tatutes! Central Law $"ency! $llahabad! 8(=.
View more...
Comments
