1. Interpretation of Statutes - An amendment of a substantive provision is always prospective unless either expressly or by necessary intendment it is retrospective - There is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956) S. 6 - Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005). (S.C.)(180) P.L.R. 
  2. Interpretation of statutes - As a matter of fact, there is presumption against retrospectivity of a statute until and unless it is expressly provided but where the statute takes away or impair existing rights or create new obligations or impose new duties or attach new disabilities or which impose new burden, it ordinarily regarded as prospective. (174) P.L.R. 
  3. Interpretation of Statutes - Binding precedents of Supreme Court - That the basic rule of interpretation is that the words should be given their ordinary natural grammatical meaning subject to the rider that in construing words in a constitutional enactment conferring legislative power the most liberal construction should be put upon the words so that the same may have effect in their widest amplitude - The beneficial legislation should receive liberal interpretation so as to advance the object of the statute. (F.B.)(177) P.L.R. 
  4. Interpretation of Statutes - Court shall always presume that while amending or bringing a new enactment, the Legislature was fully aware of the provisions of the existing Statute. (173) P.L.R. 
  5. Interpretation of Statutes - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956) S. 6 (Amended by Act 39 of 2005) - Amendment should be read as retrospective being a piece of social legislation cannot be accepted - Even a social legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless so provided for or so intended by the legislature - In the present case, the legislature has expressly made the Amendment applicable on and from its commencement and only if death of the coparcener in question is after the Amendment - Thus, no other interpretation is possible in view of express language of the statute - The proviso only means that the transactions not covered thereby will not affect the extent of coparcenary property which may be available when the main provision is applicable - Similarly, Explanation has to be read harmoniously with the substantive provision of Section 6(5) by being limited to a transaction of partition effected after 20th December, 2004 - Notional partition, by its very nature, is not covered either under proviso or under sub-section 5 or under the Explanation. (S.C.)(180) P.L.R. 
  6. Interpretation of Statutes - Indeed the question as to which Act shall prevail must be considered with respect to the purpose of the two enactments; which of the two Acts is the general or special; which is later - It must also be considered whether they can be harmoniously construed - Sick Industrial Companies (Special) Provisions Act, 1985 (1 of 1985) S. 22 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) S. 34. (S.C.)(179) P.L.R. 
  7. Interpretation of Statutes - Proviso, Explanation - Interpretation of a provision depends on the text and the context - Normal rule is to read the words of a statute in ordinary sense - In case of ambiguity, rational meaning has to be given - In case of apparent conflict, harmonious meaning to advance the object and intention of legislature has to be given - Normal rule is that a proviso excepts something out of the enactment which would otherwise be within the purview of the enactment but if the text, context or purpose so require a different rule may apply - Similarly, an explanation is to explain the meaning of words of the section but if the language or purpose so require, the explanation can be so interpreted - Rules of interpretation of statutes are useful servants but difficult masters - Object of interpretation is to discover the intention of legislature. (S.C.)(180) P.L.R. 
  8. Interpretation of Statutes - Settled principle of law that the Courts cannot add or subtract anything in the expressed provisions of the statute in the absence of any ambiguity - As such, the Court has to interpret the law or provision as it is unless and until the ambiguity in the provision requires the Court to interpret the law or the provision in such a way to advance real import statute so as to prevent failure of justice and eschew that any such ambiguity may not defeat the purpose of the statute - Court may apply golden rule of interpretation. (182) P.L.R.
  9. Interpretation of statutes - The law is well settled that when the wordings of the Stature are clear, no interpretation is required unless there is a requirement of saving the provisions from vice of unconstitutionality or absurdity. (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 520
  10. Interpretation of Statutes - There shall be a duty for a court to examine the bare provisions of law and if there is an area of ambiguity, the scales of judicial reasoning brought through judgments would be appropriate guides. (177) P.L.R.  


Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.