free counters

The most comprehensive coverage on the construction of Statutes. It includes parts of statutes,Extrinsic-Aids,Intrinsic aids, Reading down, Amendments,Repeals,codifications,Quasi-Judicial agencies,Non-obstante clause,Mandatory/Declatory provisions,Tax ,Beneficial, Criminal,Fiscal Statute's Interpretation and sub-ordinate legislations.Besides it contains the Rules of Interpretation and the Role of Judiciary.Citations are in abundance.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Chapter-15 effect of International Laws and constitution-part-6

A contextual meaning to the statute is required to be assigned having regard to the constitutional as well as International Law operating in the field.[1] In Regina (Daly) Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department[2] Lord Stein observed that in the law context is everything in the following terms:

"28. The differences in approach between the traditional grounds of review and the proportionality approach may therefore sometimes yield different results. It is therefore important that cases involving Convnetion rights must be analysed in the correct way. This does not mean that there has been a shift to merits review. On the contrary, as Professor Jowell [2000] PL 671, 681 has pointed out the respective roles of judges and administrators are fundamentally distinct and will remain so. To this extent the general tenor of the observations in Mahmood [2001] 1 WLR 840 are correct. And Laws LJ rightly emphasized in Mahmood, at p 847, para 18, "that the intensity of review in a public law case will depend on the subject matter in hand". That is so even in cases involving Convention rights. In law context is everything."

It is permissible to take into consideration the entire historical background of the provisions of the Constitution and the Act as aid to interpretation[3].

[1] Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. vs M.V. Sea Success I & Another (2004) 9 SCC 512]

[2] Regina (Daly) Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532

[3] Bengal Immunity Company v. The State of Bihar, [1955] 2SCR 603 at 632 & 633; B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of AndhraPradesh, [1985] Suppl 2 SCR 573, referred to. Heydon's case: 76 E.R. 637; Eastman Photographic Material Company v. Comptroller General of Patents, LR. [1898]A.C. 571, referred to.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive