1

Subject: Interpretation of Statute

B.A.LL.B-Xth Sem
Subject Teacher: Akhlaqul Azam
Study Material of Unit-IV(B)
Topic: Expiry and Repeal of Statutes

Expiry and Repeal of Statutes

A Statute is a formal written enactment of Legislative authority that governs a country, state,
city or county. In Simple words, it is the Law, Enactment Act. There are Several Types of
Statutes, Such as Temporary Statute, Perpetual Statute, Consolidating Statute, Codifying Status,
Fiscal Statute, Remedial Statute, Penal Statute, Declaratory Statute. Generally, Statute can be
classified with reference to its duration, Method, Object, and extent of Application.

A temporary Act (Statute) expires after a specified time unless its duration is extended by a
fresh enactment or under powers conferred under the Act. A statute is temporary when its
duration is only for specified time and such Statute expires on expiry of the specified time unless
it is repealed earlier.

After expiry of the temporary Statute, it cannot be made effective merely by amending the same.
The only remedy is to revive the expired Statute by and enacting a Statute in similar terms or by
enacting a Statute expressly saying that the expired Act is herewith revived.

Effects of Expiry of Statutes

When a Temporary Act expired Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897, which in terms is
limited to repeals, has no application. The effect of expiry, therefore, depends upon the
construction of the Act itself.

Legal Proceeding under Expired Statute

These type of questions often arises in connection with the legal proceeding in relation to a
matter connected with the temporary Act. The answer to such questions depends on the
 2

construction of the Act as a whole. The legislature very often and enacts in the Temporary Act a
saving provision similar in effect to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897. But in the
absence of such provision, the normal rule is that proceeding against the person under the
temporary statute ipso facto terminates as soon as stated expires, a person, therefore, cannot be
prosecuted and convicted for an offense against the act after its expiration in absence of the
saving provision, and if prosecution has not ended before the date of expiry of the Act, it will
automatically terminate as a result of termination of the Act.

District Mining Officer v.Tata Iron and Steel Co(2001)

In this case Certain State Acts imposed cess or other taxes on minerals which were declared void
in different cases by the Supreme Court. Thereafter Parliament enacted the Cess and other Taxes
on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992 which included the said Acts in a Schedule. Section 2 of the
Validation Act provides: 'The laws specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be, and shall be
deemed always to have been, as valid as if the provisions contained therein relating to cess or
other taxes on minerals had been enacted by Parliament and such provisions shall be deemed to
remain in force up to the 4th day of April 1991".

In holding that the Validation Act did not enable the States to collect the cess and taxes not
collected till 4th April 1991, one of the reasons given by the Court was that the effect of section
2 was that the Acts invalidated became temporary statutes expiring on 4thApril, 1991 and as
there was no saving clause in the Validation Act and as section 6 of the General Clauses Act had
no application to expiry of a temporary statute there could not be recovery and collection of cess
and taxes which may have become due but were not collected till4th April, 1991.

Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas(1994)

In this case Article 352 of the Constitution provides for proclamation of emergency in case of
war or external aggression or armed rebellion. Article 358 suspends the fundamental rights under
Article 19 and Article 359 enables the President to suspend enforcement of other fundamental
rights except Articles 20 and 21 during the period of emergency. The result is that a law made
during the emergency even if violative of any fundamental right (except Articles 20 and 21) is
not open to challenge on that ground. But such laws 'cease to have effect-except as respects
things done or omitted to be done' during their operation after the proclamation of emergency is
 3

withdrawn. During the period of emergency, when the fundamental right under Article 22 was
suspended by an order of the President under Article 359, Parliament added section 12A in the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). This
section which was to have effect only during the period of emergency enabled detention in
violation of clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22. Detention orders passed under section 12A
of COFEPOSA were withdrawn after the Emergency when the section itself expired. But such
orders were made the foundation for taking action under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange
Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). In proceedings to challenge the
notices under SAFEMA it was contended that the detention orders under section 12A
of COFEPOSA were void being violative of fundamental right under Article 22 and could not be
relied upon for SAFEMA.

This contention was negatived on the ground that the detention orders under section 12A
COFEPOSA were 'things done' under that section and could not be treated to be void after expiry
of section 12A because of the saving clause 1A of Article 359 'as respects things done or omitted
to be done' during the period section 12A was in operation.

Trust Mai Lachhmi Sialkoti Bradari v. Amritsar Improvement Trust(1962)

In this case the petitioner was facing detention under a temporary statute relating to preventive
detention. The statute got expired but some of its provisions were re-enacted.

The main issue was will detention automatically come to an end on the expiry of the statute?

Court held that a temporary Act expires, the normal rule is that any appointment, notification,
order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the Act will also come to an end with
the expiry of the Act and will not be continued even if the provisions of the expired Act are re-
enacted; the reason being that section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, does not apply to
such a situation.

Notifications, Orders, Rules etc made under temporary Statutes

In case a Temporary Act expired, the general rule is that any appointment, order, notifications
schemes, rule form or bye-law made or issued under the Temporary Act also comes to an end
with the expiry of such act and will not be continued even the provision of the expired Act are
 4

reenacted, the reason being that Section 24 of the General Clauses Act 1897 does not apply to
such a situation.

Expiry does not make the statute dead for all purposes

A temporary Statute even in absence of a savings provision like Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act 1897, is not dead for all the purposes. The nature of right and obligation resulting from the
provisions of a Temporary Act and their character may have to be regarded in determining
whether the said right or obligation is enduring or not. The person who has been prosecuted and
sentenced during the continuance of temporary Act for violating its provision cannot be released
before he serves out his sentence even if the temporary Act expires before the expiry of the full
period of sentence.

Wicks v.Director of Public Prosecutions

In this case it was held tha when a temporary Act expires, section 6 of the General Clauses Act,
1897, which in terms is limited to repeals, has no application, and the same has been held in the
case of. The effect of expiry, therefore, depends upon the construction of the Act itself.

Steavenson v.Oliver(1841) court held that the extent of the restrictions imposed and the duration
of its provisions, are matters of construction.

Repeal of Statutes

In general, the term repeal stands for to cancel or to revoke. But in the context of law, it means to
“abolish statutes”. Repeal of statutes means the abolition of the law, and once if any statute is
abolished then it is considered void and possesses no effects. In addition, there is no basic
difference between amendment and repeal. Both the term amendment and repeal is used for
stating a similar expression that is the substitution or omission or addition.

As per Halsbury’s Laws of England, the term repeal stands for revoking and abolishing an act
and all its effects which cause it to cease to be a part of statutes of books or body of law.

According to the Black’s law dictionary, the term repeal means a legislative act which abrogates
or obliterates an existing statute.
 5

There exist two types of statutes temporary and perpetual. Temporary statutes tend to have
effects for a specific period of time. They have no effects after the expiry of the specific period,
however, the permanent or the perpetual statute is the one in which the statute remains effective
until it is substituted or repealed by the legislative act. The power to repeal a statute is conferred
to the legislature is similar to the powers it has for the enactment of a statute. For example, the
Companies Act, 2013 repealed the Companies Act 1956, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
repealed the previous Criminal Procedure Code, etc. such power of repealing a statute is similar
and coextensive to the power of making or enacting a law. Both the union and the state
legislature are empowered with such power however they are restricted to delegate the power of
repealing.

When a repealing provision is itself repealed, this does not revive any provision previously
repealed by it, unless intent to revive is apparent, but it may allow common law principles again
to apply. Under General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 6 "Repeal" connotes abrogation or
obliteration of one statute by another, from the statute book as completely "as if it had never
been passed." When an Act is repealed "it must be considered (except as to transactions past and
closed) as if it had never existed."

Object of Repealing Acts

Repealing and amending Acts have no legislative effect, but are designed for editorial revision
being intended only to excise dead matter from the statute book and to reduce its volume.
Mostly, they expurgate amending Acts, because having imparted the amendments to the main
Acts, those Acts have served their purpose and have no further reasons for their existence. At
times, inconsistencies are also removed by repealing and amending Acts. The only object of such
Acts, which in England are called Statute Law Revision Acts, is legislative spring-cleaning and
they are not intended to make any change in the law. The primary object of this act is to bring
necessary changes in the existing law for changing socio-economic and cultural conditions from
time to time. The purpose of this Act is to remove the outdated or obsolete matter from the body
of law. After the removal of obsolete matter, it is the court that decides whether the new
provision meets its goal and has different intentions or not. This act is the editorial revision by
abolishing obsolete and unnecessary matter of the statute and adding new and proper information
in the books of the statute.
 6

Kinds of Repeal

There are two types of repeal:

1. Express repeal

2. Implied repeal

Express Repeal

Express repeal is an expression which means the abolition of the previously enacted statute by
the newly enacted provisions of a statute through expressed words embedded under the new
statute enacted. The statute which has been repealed is called repealed statute and the one which
replaces the earlier statute is called the repealing statute. In general, when an earlier statute or
some of its provisions are repealed through express words embedded under the newly enacted
statute stating that the provisions are now of no effect is called the express repeal.

Essential Features That Constitute Express Repeal

• The first and foremost feature is that there must be a repealing statute.

• The earlier statute must be repealed by the new enacting or repealing statute.

• The enacted statute must have clear intention showing the effect of the repeal.

So it is understood that any earlier statute or provision of the statute can be removed or repealed
by the enacted statute showing incompatibility with the previous one.

Ambala Ex-Servicemen T. Co-operative Society v. Punjab State (1959)

In this case on 10-10-1957, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, granted 5 public carrier
permits one each to Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 for a period of 4 months and directed the Regional
Transport Authority, Ambala, to issue the same. The Regional Transport Authority by their
resolution No. 13 passed on 17-10-1957, took exception to the aforesaid order and characterising
the same as illegal refused to comply with the same and resolved that the Chairman should
address the State Government on the subject in the light of the legal position.
 7

Issue involved in the case was whether the words of this resolution indicated an implied repeal.
If yes, then would it be valid? It was held that there is no reason to restrict the meaning of the
word ‘repeal’ merely to an express repeal and to exclude the implied one, as the objective of the
act has to be looked into and the words of the resolution must be seen in that light.

R. v. longmead, (1975)

In the instant case, it was held that the legislature in order to pass a repeal or continue any statute
is not restricted to use precise forms of words.

In Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India (1988) it was been held that "there is no real distinction
between repeal and an amendment." It has also been held that "where a provision of an Act is
omitted by an Act and the said Act simultaneously re-enacts a new provision which substantially
covers the field occupied by the repealed provision with certain modification, in that event such
re-enactment is regarded having force continuously and the modification or changes are treated
as amendment coming into force with effect from the date of enforcement of re-enacted
provision."

Implied Repeal

The term implied means implicit or hinted. So when a statute becomes obsolete and it is inferred
that it is no longer and shall be repealed with the newly enacted statute then this process of
repealing is called implied repeal.

For example, if we enter a car showroom it is intended that we are there to buy cars. It is implied,
similarly, if there arises any inconsistency in the statute and due to certain circumstances it
becomes necessary to repeal the statute with the new one though such situation is not expressly
stated, then it is implicit for the implication of repeal.

When the reference is not direct then the matter is decided through the meaning and nature of the
words enshrined under the repeal clause. During the absence of provisions relating to express
repeal the continuance of any statute or legislation is presumed.

In the case of implied repeal, the burden lies over the person who asserted the implication of
repeal. However, it has also been mentioned that if the newly enacted statute shows no clear
 8

intention or is inconsistent with the provisions of the earlier act then such an assertion or
presumption is rebutted and the act of repeal is done by inferring necessary implications.

The concept of implied repeal is loosely based on the following maxim “Leges posteriores
priores contrarias abrogant”. This means that the earlier or previously enacted law shall be
obliterated or abolished by the new one.

Under the following circumstances, the implied repeal is inferred

• The first circumstance is when both the subsequent and the earlier enacted acts are
inconsistent with each other one of the two can remain effective.

• When the subject of the earlier act is covered by the act and is intended to substitute.

Municipal Board, Bareilly v. Bharat Oil Co(1990)

In this case State Government had framed rules regulating the levy of octroi in general by all
municipalities. Thereafter, rules were framed by the State Government for levy of octroi by the
Bareilly municipality expressly providing that the new rules will apply in supersession of the
existing rules. Main issue as whether the rules framed by the state government amount to deemed
repeal. It was held that there was deemed repeal of the earlier rules in respect of Bareilly
municipality.

Test of the Implied Repeal

There is the assertion against the repeal by implication. The reason for making such an assertion
is that legislature while making or enacting the law has full knowledge about the current laws on
the subject matters. If the legislature has no provision regarding the repeal of the statute then it is
asserted that the legislature has no intention to repeal the existing statute.

Municipal council, Palari v. T.J. Joseph (1963)

In the instant case, it was held that if an act or provision enacted is inconsistent from the act
previously enacted and one of the acts must be obliterated. The presumption, in this case,
rebutted and the implied repeal is inferred.

For the implied repeal of a statute following points are to be considered:

 9

• Whether the previously enacted laws are in direct contradiction to the later enacted laws.

• The conflict between the laws is of such a nature that can’t be resolved and reconciliation
between the laws is not possible.

• Whether the newly enacted act is not consistent with the previously enacted act and one
has to be obliterated.

• When both the laws are of such a nature that occupy and deals with the same field.

Delhi Municipality V. Shivshanker,(1971)

In the instant case it was held by the supreme court of India that the test which is applied in case
of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Indian constitution while resolving the conflicts arising
between the laws enacted by the parliament and the laws created by the state legislature, this test
of determining repugnancy shall be applied in case of implied repeal of a statute. This test
includes:

• Whether there exists a direct contradiction between the two statutes or provisions.

• When the law tends to occupy the same field.

• When the legislature explicitly focused on the code of the particular subject matter
replacing the earlier law.

Ratanlal Adukia v Union of India(1990)

In the instant case, the Supreme Court stated that the doctrine of implied repeal is loosely based
on the statement that the legislature assumed the current state of the law did not intend to
generate any vagueness by retaining the conflicting provisions. The court while implicating this
doctrine examines the nature and scope of the two enactments by giving effect to the legislative
intent.

Damji V. L.I.C (1966)

In the instant case it was held that section 446 embedded under the companies act 1956 is a
general provision whereas the section 15 and 41 enshrined under the Life Insurance Corporation
 10

Act, 1956 are special provision so there exists a difference and the companies court is not
competent or have jurisdiction over the matters which falls under the ambit of Insurance
Corporation Act, 1956.

Presumption against Repeal

There is a presumption against a repeal by implication. The reason for the presumption is that the
legislature while enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the subject-
matter and therefore when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives out an intention not
to repeal the existing legislation. The burden to show that there has been a repeal by implication
lies on the party asserting it. Courts can lean against implied repeal.

In Harshad S. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) it was held that if by any fair interpretation
both the statutes can stand together, there will be no implied repeal. If possible, implied repeal
shall be avoided

Effects or Consequences of Repeal

The effects of the repeal of a statute have been described under the following heads:

• In respect of common law

• The general effect of repeal

• General clause Act, 1897

Effects or repeal with respect to common law

• Common law is commonly known as the law made by the judge. It contains the following
effect regarding the repeal of the statute.

• The first effect is that the statute repealed is abolished and obliterated and becomes dead
as if the enactment of the statute.

• All the rights created and enshrined under the repealed act is removed.

• The repealed portion gets resuscitate if the repealing act is repealed by the new
subsequent act and such an act shows its intentions.
 11

General consequences of repeal

• A newly enacted law repudiate the existing one.

• The statute after getting repealed becomes ineffective.

• Statute repealed is abolished by the repealing statute as if it had never been made by the
legislature.

• Except for a saving clause, each and every part of the statute is considered
unconstitutional.

• In order to validate a transaction made under a repealed statute, the law can
retrospectively amend the statute even after it is obliterated.

Effects embedded under the General Clause Act, 1987

If any act made after the incorporation and commencement of this Act, repeals any statute made
until now then until a different intention or object appears between the act and the repeal shall
not- effects the operation commenced under the provision of this Act.

It can be concluded that the Repeal of statutes means the abolition of the law, and once if any
statute is abolished then it is considered void and possesses no effects. In addition, there is no
basic difference between amendment and repeal. Both the term amendment and repeal is used
for stating similar expression that is the substitution or omission or addition. Both the union and
the state legislature are empowered with such power however they are restricted to delegate the
power of repealing. The primary object of this act is to bring necessary changes in the existing
law for changing socio-economic and cultural conditions from time to time. The purpose of this
act is to remove the outdated or obsolete matter from the body of law. After the removal of
obsolete matter, it is the court that decides whether the new provision meets its goal and has a
different intention or not. This act is the editorial revision by abolishing obsolete and
unnecessary matter of the statute and adding new and proper information in the books of the
statute.

Probable Questions
 12

1. Define Repeal and explain in detail rules relating to Repeal of Statute

2. Explain the general provision of expiry of temporary statute and its effect
3. Briefly explain the following:
i. Object of Repeal
ii. Repeal by Necessary Implications
iii. Effect of Repeal
iv. Kinds of Repeal