After going through the rulings of the courts of various countries, it is concluded that all the legislations are to be in consistence with the constitution.If there are two competing interpretations of any provision then the one that is in sync. with the constitution, should be adopted if the other is not as per the constitution. It is based on many presumptions one of which is that Parliament/legislature does not enact invalid laws or the other presumption is that Parliament acts reasonable. The following paragraph is taken from ruling of Constitutional bench: South Africa.[Blogger]
It is a fundamental tenet of our constitutional jurisprudence that all law, whether statute, common law, customary law or regulation must be read in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution. This principle is not limited to consistency with the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights as required by section 39(2), it is an implied principle of the Constitution as a whole that a constitutional interpretation should always be preferred to a non-constitutional interpretation. The principle has been stated by this Court as follows:
“The purport and objects of the Constitution find expression in s 1, which lays out the fundamental values which the Constitution is designed to achieve. The Constitution requires that judicial officers read legislation, where possible, in ways which give effect to its fundamental values. Consistently with this, when the constitutionality of legislation is in issue, they are under a duty to examine the objects and purport of an Act and to read the provisions of the legislation, so far as is possible, in conformity with the Constitution.”
No comments:
Post a Comment