Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Precedence and Limitations
Limitation of Special Laws to Override Common Statute The general principle of statutory interpretation is that a special law (lex specialis) generally prevails over a general or common statute (lex generalis) when both deal with the same subject matter and contain conflicting provisions. This principle is expressed by the Latin maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant, meaning that general provisions do not derogate from special provisions. Meaning A special law is enacted to regulate a particular subject, class of persons or specific situation, whereas a general statute applies more broadly. When both laws apply to the same matter, the special law ordinarily takes precedence over the general statute, provided that the legislature has not indicated a contrary intention. Limitations on the overriding effect of special laws The overriding effect of a special law is subject to several limitations. Legislative intention: A special law does not automatically override a general statute in every situation. The intention of the legislature must be considered. Absence of conflict: If the provisions of the special law and the general statute can operate harmoniously, both should ordinarily be given effect. Express overriding provisions: If the general statute contains an express non obstante clause, such as “notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law,” the court must examine its scope and the legislative intention behind it. Subsequent legislation: A later general statute may override an earlier special law if the legislature clearly intends to do so. However, a general amendment does not ordinarily repeal a special law by implication. Different fields of operation: Where the special law and general statute govern different aspects of a matter, the special law does not necessarily displace the general statute altogether. Constitutional supremacy: Neither a special law nor a general statute can override the Constitution. Both remain subject to constitutional limitations. Important judicial decisions LIC v. D.J. Bahadur (1981) The Supreme Court of India explained the relationship between special and general laws and recognized that a special statute ordinarily prevails over a general statute dealing with the same subject. The Court also considered whether a subsequent general enactment was intended to override the special legislation. LIC v. D.J. Bahadur establishes that the special-versus-general distinction is contextual, not absolute. A special statute does not automatically override every other statute, and the courts must examine legislative intention, inconsistency and the possibility of harmonious construction. Applied to MOFA, the decision supports a careful examination of the limits of Section 11. It does not, on its own, establish that freehold deemed conveyance is impermissible. Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. (2001) Solidaire India establishes that a later special statute may prevail over an earlier special statute where their overriding provisions conflict and the legislative intention supports that result. It does not establish that Section 11 of MOFA automatically overrides leasehold restrictions or independently authorises conversion into freehold ownership. Its relevance to a MOFA dispute is principally interpretive: the court must identify the actual statutory conflict, consider legislative intention and distinguish statutory priority from the separate question of whether the society has a substantive right to freehold title. The Supreme Court considered the conflict between […]
Read more
SETTING ASIDE AND OR MODIFICATION OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD BE PERMITTED?
The above issue is sub-judice in the matter of GAYATRI BALASAMY Versus M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED| SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021 While writing this blog there is no intention to impress upon views but this is just a small educational analysis. I am not in possession of the reference papers but expressing my views on Section. 33 of the Act. This I am writing solely on basis on press reports available. Let us first see the concerned provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1996. Once the Award is made affecting party has remedy under Section 34 of the said 1996 for setting aside the Award. It reads as under: CHAPTER VII Recourse against arbitral award (1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if– (a) the party making the application 1[establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that]– (i) a party was under some incapacity, or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or (b) the Court finds that– (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India. 1[Explanation 1.–For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,– (i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or (ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice. Explanation 2.–For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of […]
Read more
LEAKING A VIDEO OF AN OFFICER COUNTING BALLOT PAPERS DURING THE VOTING PROCESS OF CHANDIGARH MUNICIPALITY TO SOCIAL MEDIA IS IN BREACH OF DATA PRIVACY?
Data privacy is a law and it’s in force. It came into force on 11th August 2023. Recently an election process was held for electing a Mayor in Chandigarh Municipality. The issue started with Presiding Officer Anil Mansinh looking at surveillance camera and mainly ruling Aam Adami Party lost Mayoral post. Hence an issue is raised that returning officer defaced the ballot papers. The AAP approached the Supreme Court and upon seeing the video a judgment is drawn that returning officer Anil Mansinh tempered the ballot paper. There are two issues: The video presented in court is available on social media platform and all are interpreting the way they want. This is breach of #dataprivacy. How we will discuss here. Can court become judgmental by declaring returning officer guilty without scrutinizing the records? Is court pre-decisive and judgmental in this case? DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: [A] The video presented in court is available on social media platform and all are interpreting the way they want. This is breach of #dataprivacy. While answering point No.i let us go back to recent history of constitution bench judgment in which current CJI was a part of it. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017), also known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, held that, the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A nine-judge bench of J. S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, S. A. Bobde, R. K. Agrawal, R. F. Nariman, A. M. Sapre, D. Y. Chandrachud, S. K. Kaul, and S. A. Nazeer unanimously held that “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.” It explicitly overruled previous judgements of the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh vs. State of UP and M.P. Sharma vs. Union of India, which held that there is no fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution. This judgment settled this position of law and clarified that the Right to Privacy could be infringed upon only when there was a compelling state interest in doing so. This position was the same as with the other fundamental rights . Supreme Court ruled that Right to Privacy is “intrinsic to life and personal liberty” and is inherently protected under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. DATA PROTECTION: Central Government passed an Act to provide for the processing of digital personal data in a manner that recognises both the right of individuals to protect their personal data and the need to process such personal data for lawful purposes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The definition of the term data under this Act is as under : (h) “data” means a representation of information, facts, concepts, opinions or instructions in a manner suitable for communication, interpretation or processing by human beings or by […]
Read more
Collectors Land in Mumbai and Transfers
An interesting question was asked on Twitter on collectors’ land. The question was whether it is legal to ask for transfer charges by Collector Mumbai for issuing NOC of flats in Society standing on land belonging to Collector? In Mumbai Collector owns nearly 1282 properties on which development is permitted and sanctioned on Lease. As per the latest data available about 517 properties’ Lease has been expired and in Mumbai leases of about 149 properties have been expired. The government has given this land on meager yearly lease rent. So the Government prescribed a policy for the increase in ground rent on 5th October 1999. Which was challenged and directions were given to give a hearing to those whose lease has been expired and also give an opportunity to convert occupancy to Class II occupants on one-time payments as specified in the Circular. The lease of land for purposes other than Agriculture is granted under provisions inter-alia of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (“ Said Code” ) and the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 ( Said “ Rules”) . The Said Rule B-26 -27 empowers Collector to Grant Land for Residential use. It reads as under B. Grant of land for residential use 26. Disposal of building sites :- (1) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the occupancy rights in building sites shall be disposed of by the Collector under Section 20 read with Section 31 by publication to the highest bidder, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Collector thinks that in any particular case, there is reason for granting the land without auction. (2) Where a building site is to be disposed of without auction under sub-rule(1), the Collector shall dispose of the site in occupancy right under Section 20 read with Section 31 on inalienable tenure [If the occupancy price determined under sub-rule(3) does not exceed Rs. 25,000 and with sanction of the Commissioner, if the occupancy price exceeds Rs. 25,000 but does not exceeds Rs. 1,00,000 and with the sanction of the State Government, in other cases.] (3) The Collector shall determine the occupancy price of the site, regard being had to the following factors that is to say, (a) the sale prices of similar lands in the locality; (b) the situation of the building site; (c) the availability of, and demand for, similar lands; (d) factors which are taken into account in determining the value of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 27. Grant of land housing schemes :-Building plots may be granted by the State Government for various housing schemes undertaken by any housing board, local authority or co-operative housing society constituted under any law for the time being in force, in occupancy rights under Section 40 on inalienable and impartible tenure on payment of such concessional occupancy price as the State Government may, from time to time fix, regard being had to the nature of the scheme, and in the case of a co-operative housing society, to the income of the members, thereof, such income being ascertained after making such inquiries […]
Read more
MAKING AND REPEAL OF LAWS A FAILED STRATEGY OR STRATEGY TO FAIL CONSTITUTION?
Today Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi in an address to the Nation has withdrawn three Farm Laws which were made after following due process of law as envisaged in Constitution of India. BRIEF HISTORY OF LAWS THAT WERE EITHER ABANDONED /WITHDRAWN OR STAYED BY A COURT OF LAW IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS. THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 (also Land Acquisition Act, 2013) passed by the Indian Parliament that regulates the land acquisition and lays down the procedure and rules for granting compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement to the affected persons in India. The Act has provisions to provide fair compensation to those whose land is taken away, brings transparency to the process of acquisition of land to set up factories or buildings, infrastructural projects, and assures rehabilitation of those affected. The Act establishes regulations for land acquisition as a part of India’s massive industrialization drive driven by a public-private partnership. The Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a nearly 120-year-old law enacted during British rule. HOW PASSED? The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 7 September 2011. The bill was then passed by Loksabha on 29 August 2013 and by Rajya Sabha on 4 September 2013. The bill then received the assent of the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee on 27 September 2013. The Act came into force on 1 January 2014. In May 2014, the present Narendra Modi NDA government promulgated an Ordinance to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013, which was enacted during the previous UPA regime referred to hereinabove under the caption titled which came into effect from January 1, 2014. The new law replaced /repealed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which had been in force for over a century. On December 31, 2014, exactly one year after the new law had come into effect, the present NDA government sought to amend it by promulgating the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014. An amendment bill was introduced in Parliament to endorse and validate the Ordinance. Lok Sabha passed the bill but the same couldn’t be passed in Rajya Sabha as the present NDA government had no majority numbers to pass the said Bill. On 30 May 2015, the President of India promulgated the amendment ordinance for the third time HOW WAS IT EVENTUALLY WITHDRAWN? Considering continuing anger against the amendment, Prime Minister Modi announced the decision to withdraw the Ordinance in his Mann Ki Baat program broadcast on August 31, 2015, and the said Ordinance has lapsed. (Courtesy India Times) CCA- NRC THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Parliament of India on 11 December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act, 1955 by providing a gateway to Indian citizenship for persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, or Christians, and arrived in India before the end of December 2014. The law does not grant such eligibility to Muslims from these Muslim-majority countries. […]
Read more