Unit 3 of Interpretation of Statutes (syllabus: The presumptions a court brings to a statute — validity, territorial operation, jurisdiction, against inconvenience or absurdity, against intending injustice, and against impairing obligations or permitting advantage from one’s own wrong). Below: what the unit covers, the provisions it turns on, and the cases an examiner expects you to name.
What this unit covers
- What is a presumption in statutory interpretation, and what are its two defining features?
- How does the presumption that statutes are valid operate, and what techniques give effect to it?
- What is the presumption that statutes are territorial, and how does the doctrine of territorial nexus qualify it?
- How strong is the presumption against ouster of the jurisdiction of courts, and what does a finality clause achieve?
- When will a court reject a reading because it is inconvenient or absurd?
- What is the presumption against intending injustice, and what are its limits?
- How does the presumption against impairing existing rights and obligations work?
- Why may no one take advantage of his own wrong, and how far does that presumption reach?
Treat that list as a self-test: recite each topic's rule from memory before you open its cases.
Provisions
- Constitution of India, s. Article 245
- Code of Civil Procedure, s. Section 9
- Constitution of India, s. Article 14
- General Clauses Act, 1897, s. Section 6
Leading cases
- R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628
- State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla
- Dhulabhai v. State of M.P.; Lachman Das v. State of Punjab
- The Empress Mills
- Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990) 1 SCC 277
- Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 3609
- CIT v. Kurji Jinabhai Kotecha AIR 1977
Full case summaries
- State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla
- Dhulabhai v. State of M.P.
- All Saints High School, Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh