Reports of Parliamentary Committees and Commissions

Reports of Parliamentary Committees and Commissions

Reports of Commissions including Law Commission or Committees including Parliamentary Committees preceding the introduction of a Bill can also be referred to in the Court as evidence of historical facts or of surrounding circumstances or of mischief or evil intended to be remedied. Obviously, courts can take recourse to these materials as an external aid for interpretation of the Act. Though, the Supreme Court of India refused to take recourse to the Report of the special Committee which had been appointed by the Government of India to examine the provision of the Partnership Bill for construing the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932 in CIT, A.P. v Jaylakshmi Rice and Oil Mills Contractor Co., AIR 1971 SC 1015, yet in another case Haldiram Bhujiawala and another v Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and another, (2000) 3 SCC 250, the Supreme Court took recourse to the very same report of the Special Committee (1930-31) for construing the provisions of section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The Supreme Court in the above case held that decision in CIT v. Jaylakshmi Rice & Oil Mills (supra) in this respect is no longer good law. Law Commission’s Reports can also be referred to where a particular enactment or amendment is the result of recommendations of Law Commission Report. (see Mithilesh Kumari v Prem Behari Khare, AIR 1989 SC 1247).

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Rosy and another v State of Kerala and others, (2000) 2 SCC 230 considered Law Commission of India, 41^st Report for interpretation of section 200 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898.

The above discussion obviously indicates that parliamentary material including committees and commission reports are admissible external aid for interpretation of statutory provisions.

Statment of Objects and Reasons

So far as Statement of Objects and Reasons, accompanying a legislative bill is concerned, it is permissible to refer to it for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. But, it cannot be used to ascertain the true meaning and effect of the substantive provision of the statute. (Devadoss (dead) by L. Rs, v. Veera Makali Amman Koil Athalur, AIR 1998 SC 750.

Let us see the common practices:

Objects and reasons of the Act.-The objects and reasons of the Act are to be taken into consideration in interpreting the provisions of the statute and not the debates in Parliament on the Bill.

The law is well settled that it is permissible to look into the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the law was passed and which necessitated the passing of that law to determine the purpose or object of the legislation.

The maxim“contemporanea expositio”- Application of.– The maxim “contemporanea ecpositio” as laid down by Coke is applied in construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern.Further, it has been observed that in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made and, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them

Back

Next Committee Reports