RMD Chamarbaugwalwa Vs UOI Kesvananda Bharati v. UOI Muthammal v. Sec of State

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Introduction to Interpretation of Statue

1. UOI v. Elphinstone spinning and weaving co – literal and purposive approach.


2. Jugal Kishor Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co – cardinal rule of construction; literal interpretation (O22 R10, O21
R16 CPC – transfer of decree for asset recovery)
3. RMD Chamarbaugwalwa vs UOI; Kesvananda Bharati v. UOI – legislative intent
4. RBI v. Pearless General Finance and Investment Co. – ‘why a statute is enacted?’
5. Muthammal v. Sec of State – reading statute as a whole and harmonious construction
Aids to Interpretation of Statues
1. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala – long title of Kerala Hindu place of public worship
act interpreted to understand the legislative intent and purpose which was inclusion of all.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Reliance Industries Ltd – ‘land’ definition looked into.
3. Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of Maharashtra – illustration (b) of S. 114 of the IEA constructed harmoniously
with S. 133 of IEA on accomplice.
4. Sonu Bariwa v. State of M.P – NSA s. 3(2) explanation looked into to exclude certain black-market related
provision wrt certain commodities.
External Aids
1. Azeez Basha Case – legislative history of AMU looked into.
2. 1st Judges case (ultimate power of appointment by P consulting CJI), 2nd Judges Case (CJI more power than P),
3rd Judges Case (guidelines for functioning of collegium and appointment), NJAC (collegium replace by parliament,
CJI+5 members), SC struck down NJAC – contemporaneous exposition principle applied.
3. Massimilano Latorre vs. UOI (Italian Marines Case) – foreign case usage, UNCLOS used to criminal
investigation and remedy (2 Italian marines charged of shooting down 2 fishermen).
4. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal – use of dictionary to interpret ‘otherwise’ Rule 8A of AOR.
Presumption
1. State of Kerala v. M.K Krishna Nair – bifurcation of judiciary at magistrate level into Civil and Criminal,
challenged on A. 14 & 16, SC reasonable construction of ‘only’ to make law intra-vires.
2. Indra Das v. Assam & Arup Bhuyan v. Assam – departure form literal rule, murder, suspected accused
arrested under TADA S. 3(5) and UAPA S. 10 – upheld basis reasonable restrictions doctrine of articles on COI.
Court reliance of US case termed faulty.
3. Elfbrundt v Russell – US case, mere membership does not amount to criminality wrt to above.
4. Mobarak Ali Ahmad v. State of Bombay – Territorial jurisdiction presumption, Pakistan defrauded India, SC
said offence in India, can be tried.
5. D Saibaba v. Bar Council of India – legislature does not waste words, handicap man – booth and AOR, S.
48AA of adv. Act, date of order means date of communication/knowledge of order.
6. PUCL v Union of India – Int. law, appointment of NHRC member, Paris principle wrt to S. 3 cop. Law not
applicable since domestic law clear.
7. Ahmedabad Private Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer –pari materia doctrine, Teacher
gratuity, other labour acts wrt to employee definition looked into account – 2009.
8. Independent Schools' Federation of India (Regd.) v. Union of India – entitled to gratuity wrt to 2009
amendment to gratuity act to include ‘any kind of work’.
Precedents and Interpretation
1. Some 2024 ruling which overturned this Asian Resurfacing ruling - Six Months Cap on interim stay
order will not be applied to Supreme Court Orders.
2. Bengal Immunity Co vs State of Bihar – law by SC binding on all lower courts.
3. Wamanrao v Union of India – doctrine of stare decisis, A. 31A, 4 reasons (own vitality drawing substance from
BS, no previous judgment challenging validity, limited application of doctrine, J. trakunde upholing constitutionality of
devices like 31A,B,C, to protect past and future laws).
a. Golaknath , b. Keshwannanda Bharti, c. Dattaraya Govind
4. Golak Nath v Union of India – prospective overruling can only be done by SC for consti cases.
5. Krishna Kumar v Union of India – setting facts & reasons for conclusion to make order binding.
Rules of Interpretation
1. Heydon’s Case – 4 principles (the common law before the act, mischief/defect act addresses, remedy sought by
parliament, true reason of remedy)
2. Sora Devi’s Case – heydons case only applicable when words are ambiguous and is reasonably capable of more than
one meaning.
3. Umed Singh v Raj Singh – if natural plain interpretation possible, no application of mischief rule.
4. Raj Krishna v Pinod Kanungo – duty of court to avoid head on clash btw two provisions of act.
5. K.M. Nanavati v State of Bombay – harmonious construction, A. 72/161 power of P & G conflict with A.
142, former does not impinge on the power of court. Executive empowered to pardon, judicial proceedings u/o court.
6. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. The State of Mysore – harmonious construction, A. 25 & wrt religious
denomination rights.
7. Ramesh Thappar v State of Maharashtra, Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi, Abbas Ali v Union of
India, Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v State of Kerala, Sakal Papers v UOI, Bennet Coleman v UOI,
Indian Express v UOI, Shreya Singhal v UOI – freedom of speech & exdpression and rule of reasonable
construction.
8. Nirma Industries v SEBI, Shanta Bai v. University of Madras – ejusdem generis, A. 12 other authorities.
9. State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha – Noscitur a Sociis (word is known by its accompanying or
associating words), hospital ~ industry? S. 2(j) of IDA def, of Industry wrt. Business, trade, undertaking etc.
Mandatory Directory Provisions
1. Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar – Bihar took multiple ordinances wrt to takeover of education
institutions, ordinance not placed before state legislature, SC - mandatory to furnish to SL, validity, legitimacy, etc. of
ordinance. Re-promulgation of ordinance against basic spirit of Consti.
2. Amardeep Singh v Harveen Kaur - Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage act 1955, Divorce by mutual consent,
Cooling of Period off 6 Months are Mandatory or Directory – declaratory provision.
Judges Role is to interpret and not to legislate
1. Union of India v Deoki Nandan Agarwal – court cannot legislate, only interpret.
2. Suresh Seth v Indore Municipal Corp – court cannot direct legislature to legislate.
3. Raj Narain v Indira Gandhi – separation of powers is basic structure of constitution.
4. P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka – corruption case, failure to commence trial, bar on limitation
deleted on 2 grounds (amounts to judicial legislation – not allowed, doctrine of biding precedence)
5. Common Cause v UOI & Raj Deo Sharma v State of Bihar - bad judgments, do not adhere to doctrine of
precedence.
6. AR Antuly Case
Expiry and Repeal of Statute
1. State of Orissa v. Bhupendra kumar – Cuttack elections challenged, ordinance to invalidate judgment, SC said
can, only acts can work retrospectively, decided cases cannot be annulled.
2. Municipal Council V. TJ Joseph, D Municipality vs Shivshanker – presumption against implied repeal.
3. Ratanlal Adukia v UOI 1990 – implied repeal, repeal not inferred when two acts can read together.

You might also like