Principles and Methods of Legislation

and Interpretation of Statutes

Consolidating and Codifying

Statutes

Submitted to: Submitted by:Dr. Arti Puri

Iti Jhanji

Asso. Professor in Laws

LL.M. 1st Semester
1

Panjab University Regional Centre

No - 2/15 Ludhiana

Roll

Acknowledgement
Upon the successful completion of this project, I would wish to
thank everyone who has been a part of it. First and the foremost I
thank Prof. Harmeet Singh Sandhu, Director, Panjab
University Regional Centre, Ludhiana for providing me with
the esteemed opportunity of presenting a project report on
Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation and
Dr. Arti Puri for the clear concepts which she provided me about
the Consolidating and Codifying Statutes which rendered
great support during the drafting of this submission.
And lastly, my heartiest gratitude towards all the respected
authors of the numerous books I referred to, during the research
process for this submission. It is truly said, Books are our best
friends.

Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Codifying Statutes
Lord Herschell Rule
Features of Codifying Statutes
Construction of Codifying Statutes
Consolidating Statutes
Features of Consolidating Statutes
Construction of Consolidating Statutes
Differences between Codifying and Consolidating Statutes
Bibliography

Codifying Statutes
A Codifying Statute presents an orderly and an authoritative statement of the leading rules of law
on a given subject, whether those rules are to be found in a statue law or common law 1. The
1 Halsbury: Laws of England (4th Edition), Vol. 44, p. 489 (para 809). Codification
Systematizes Case-Law as well as Statuts; Paton: Jurisprudence, 3 rd Edition, p.
215.
3

Codifying Statute exhaustively states the entire law on a particular subject, the draftsman
attempting to subsume in his code both the pre-existing statutory provision and also the common
law rules relating to the matter. These acts are passed to codify the existing law. The indication
that the Act is a Code will generally be found in the preamble, if any or in the long title 2. It has
been said that a Codifying Act is presumed not to alter the law unless a contrary intention
appears3. But the presumption will be of help only after the language of the Statute is first
construed according to normal canons of construction and is found to be of doubtful impact. For
example, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Lord Herschell Rule

A Codifying Act is approached in quite a different spirit from a Consolidating Act. The principles
applicable to the construction of such a statute are well stated in an oft-quoted passage of Lord
Herschel: I think the proper course is, in the first instance, to examine the language of Statute
and to ask what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by any considerations derived from the
previous state of the law, and not to start with inquiring how the law previously stood, and then,
assuming that it was probably intended to leave it unaltered, to see if the words of the enactment
will bear an interpretation in conformity with this view. If a Statute intended to embody in a
Code a particular branch of the law is to be treated in this fashion, it appears to me that its utility
will be almost entirely destroyed and the very object with which it was enacted will be frustrated.
The purpose of such a statute surely was that on any point specifically dealt with by it, the law
should be ascertained by interpreting the language used, instead of, as before, by roaming over a
vast number of authorities in order to discover what the law was, extracting it by a minute critical
examination of the prior decisions. I am of course, far from asserting that recourse main never be
had to the previous state of the law for the purpose of aiding in the construction of provisions of
the code. If, for example, a provision be of doubtful import, such resort would be perfectly
legitimate. Or, again if in a Code-words be found which have previously acquired a technical
meaning, are being used in a sense other than their ordinary one-the same interpretation might
well be put upon them in the Code. I give these as examples merely. They, of course, do not
exhaust the category. What, however, I am venturing to insist upon is, that the first step taken
should be to interpret the language of the statute and that an appeal to earlier decisions can only
be justified on some special ground.4

Features of Codifying Statutes

2 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Sriyanesh Knitters, AIR 1999 SC 2947
p. 2952: (1999) 7 SCC 114.
3 Ibid.
4 Bank of England vs. Vagliano Brothers, (1891) AC 107, pp. 144, 145 (HL)
4

Following are the features of Codifying Statutes:

a) A Codifying Statute may be a Code only with respect to a particular branch of a subject.
It may not cover other branches of the same subject.
In Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay vs. Abdullbhai Faizullabhai 5, it has been held that the
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 does not cover all categories of bonus and is restricted to the
subject of profit bonus. The result is that the Act speaks as a complete code on the subject of
profit bonus and does not annihilate by implication other different and distinct kinds of bonus
such as customary bonus.
b) In contrast to an ordinary enactment, a Code is self contained and complete.
In Gokul Mandar vs. Pudmanund Singh6, it was held that the essence of a Codifying Statute is to
be exhaustive on matters in respect of which it declares the law and it is not the province of the
judge to disregard or go outside the letter of enactment according to its true construction. A Code
is self contained and complete and that marks the distinction between a Code and an ordinary
enactment.
c) When the Code covers a situation, it is not permissible to apply general principles. The
court has to proceed on the mandate of the Code only.
In Pioneer Aggregates (U.K.) Ltd. vs. Secretary of State for the Environment 7, it was held that
when the Code was silent or ambiguous, resort to the principles of private law may be necessary
so that the courts may resolve difficulties by application of common law or equitable principles.
But such cases will be exceptional. And if the statute law covers the situation, it will be an
impermissible exercise of the judicial function to go beyond the statutory provision by applying
such principles merely because they may appear to achieve a fairer solution to the problem being
considered.
On this principle, it was held in King Emperor vs. Dahu Raut8, that a matter concerning
admission and disposal of criminal appeals has to be dealt with in terms of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and not outside those provisions.

5 AIR 1976 SC 1455.

6 ILR 29 Cal 707 (PC)
7(1984) 2 All ER 358 (HL).
8AIR 1935 PC 89.
5

Similarly, in L. Janakirama Iyer vs. P.P.M. Nilkanto Iyer9, it was observed that a question of res
judicata in relation to a suit has to be decided solely on terms of Section 11 of Civil Procedure
Code and not on general principles of res judicata.

Construction of Codifying Statute

While construing a Codifying Act, first the language used in the Act should be examined without
any reference or influence of previous law.
Lord Herschel said that the principles applicable for construction of Codifying Statutes are that at
the first instance, the language of Statute is to be examined and its natural meaning is to be
looked for without getting influenced by any considerations as to previous state of law.

Consolidating Statutes
Consolidating Statute is a Statute which presents whole body of statutory law on the subject in
complete form repealing the former Statute. In other words, it is a Statute which consolidates
various laws on a particular subject at one place. It collects all statutory enactments on a specific
subject and gives them a shape of one Statute. The Companies Act is an example of a
Consolidating Statute.
According to Watson, the very object of consolidation is to collect the statutory law on a
particular subject and bring it down to date, in order that it may form a useful Code applicable to
the circumstances existing at that time when Consolidating Act was passed.

Features of Consolidating Statutes

a) A Consolidating Statute is not intended to alter the law and therefore it is relevant to refer
to the previous state of law or to judicial decisions interpreting the repealed acts for the
purposes of construction of corresponding provisions in Consolidating Act.
b) A Consolidating Act maybe an Amending Act. This additional purpose is usually
indicated in the preamble of long title by use of words An Act to consolidate and
amend.

Construction of Consolidating Statutes

The provisions in a Consolidating Act may have their origin in different legislations. If there is
any inconsistency between two such provisions, respective dates of their first enactment may be
referred to.
When a question arises as to construction of a section in a Consolidating Statute, it may actually
be a question of construction of an earlier act in which that section first appeared.
9 AIR 1962 SC 633.
6

However, the rule for construction of Consolidating Act is to examine the language used in the
Act itself without any reference to repealed statutes. If Consolidating Act fails to provide
guidance as to its proper interpretation, the repealed enactments maybe looked to.
The presumption that same words employed in the same act at different places bear the same
meaning has no application to Consolidating Acts when it is shown that different provisions
where same words occur had their origin in different legislations. For arriving at correct
interpretation of a section in a Consolidating Statute, courts have consulted the earlier repealed
acts in which that section had its origin.
In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Schildkamp 10, the question related to the construction of
Section 332(3) of Companies Act, 1948. This section, prior to Consolidating Act coming into
force, was enacted in Companies Act, 1928 as Section 75 (3). Therefore Section 332 (3) was
construed in the light of the provisions of the original 1928 Act.
In General Electric Co. v. General Electric Co. Ltd. 11, in construing certain provisions of Trade
Marks Act, 1938, all the previous act beginning from 1875 and common law existing were
considered by the court.

Difference between Codifying and Consolidating Statutes

Codifying Statute
1.
2.
3.
4.

It presents an orderly statement of leading rules of law on a given subject.

Former statute survives.
It is self contained and complete.
Unless the Code is ambiguous or silent on an issue, the court cannot go outside the letter
of law.
5. Presumption that the same words when used at different places in same act would bear
same meaning holds good and applicable.

Consolidating Statutes
1.
2.
3.
4.

It presents whole body of statutory law on the subject repealing former statute.
Former statutes are repealed.
It is not self contained and complete.
Judges may refer to earlier state of law and the judicial decisions interpreting repealed
acts.
5. Presumption has no application.
10 (1969) 3 All ER 1640 (HL).
11 (1972) 2 All ER 507 (HL).
7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bhattacharyya, Prof. T. The Interpretation of Statutes. Central Law

Agency. Allahabad. 7th Edn.

Mathur, D.N. Interpretation of Statutes. Central Law Publications.
Allahabad. 1st Edn.