INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
MODULE 06
Dr. Pandhare Balasaheb Dashrath
LL.M. Ph.D
Interpretation of Statutes affecting Jurisdiction of Courts:
1. General principles
2. The extent of exclusion
3. Exclusion of jurisdiction of superior Courts
1. General principles
Exclusion must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied
There is a strong presumption that civil courts have jurisdiction
to decide all questions of civil nature.
The exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts is therefore not to be
readily inferred and such exclusion must either be "explicitly
expressed or clearly implied“
Therefore provisions excluding jurisdiction of civil courts. and
provisions conferring jurisdiction on authorities and tribunals
other than civil courts. are strictly construed
The existence of jurisdiction in civil courts to decide questions of
civil nature being the general rule and exclusion being an
exception, the burden of proof to show that jurisdiction is
excluded in any particular case is on the party raising such a
contention
Ramrao v State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 827
a suit for possession of certain properties on the ground that a
purported sale of those properties for arrears of revenue under the
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, was void not being a sale by
public auction as required by section 167, was held to be
maintainable in civil courts
and not barred under section 4(c) of the Bombay Revenue
Jurisdiction Act, 1876, which provides that no civil court shall
exercise jurisdiction as to claim to set aside, on account of
irregularity, mistake or on any other ground except fraud,
sales for arrears of land revenue.
It was pointed out that the provision under section 4(c) only
covered a case where there was a sale in existence though
irregular and was not applicable to a case of purported sale
which was wholly void
Musamia Imam v Rabari Govindbhai, AIR 1969 SC 439
Exclusive jurisdiction conferred on a Mamlatdar by section 70
read with section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948, to decide whether a person is a tenant has been
held not to exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide
whether a person who had ceased to be a tenant was or was not a
tenant in the past.
Margret Almedia v Bombay Catholic Co-op Housing Society d.,
Lt, (2012) 5 SCC 642
Reading different provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960, together, the Supreme Court has held that the
intention of the Legislature was not to oust the jurisdiction of a
civil court to decide a dispute arising out of a decision of a co-
operative society to alienate the property of the society in
favour of a third party
Haldiram Bhujiawala v Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar, AIR
2000 SC 1287
Sections 69(2) and 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932, which
deprive the court of its jurisdiction to entertain a suit or other
proceeding "to enforce a right arising from contract" has been
strictly construed.
A suit to evict a tenant whose tenancy has expired by efflux of
time is also a suit to enforce a right under section 108(q) of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and is not a suit solely arising
from a contract and is not barred.
State of Rajasthan v UOI, AIR 1977 SC 1361
Article 356 of the Constitution provides that if the President "is
satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the
State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution" the President may by proclamation:
(a) assume to himself the functions of the Government of the State;
(b) declare that the powers of the State Legislature shall be
exercised by Parliament; and
(c) make such incidental or consequential provisions as may be
necessary to give effect to the objects of the Proclamation.
The Article before the Constitution 44th Amendment Act further
provided that, the satisfaction of the President "shall be final and
conclusive and shall not be questioned in any court of law".
Interpreting this provision the Supreme Court held that if the
satisfaction of the President is based on wholly extraneous grounds
which have no nexus with the action taken, the Proclamation can be
challenged in a court of law on the ground that the President acted
without the required satisfaction in issuing the Proclamation for
satisfaction based on wholly irrelevant grounds amounts to no
satisfaction.
But if there are some grounds which bear some relevance or nexus to
the action taken the propriety or sufficiency of satisfaction cannot be
challenged in a court of law.
SR Bommai v UOI AIR 1994 SC 1918
Article 356 again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court
after deletion of the clause barring judicial review.
It has been reiterated that Article 356 confers a conditional power on
the President and the Proclamation issued by him is open to judicial
review on the grounds that it was a mala fide exercise of power; that it
was based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds; that there was
no material in support thereof; and that the material relied upon was
irrelevant to the action taken.
applying these principles imposition of President's rule, on the
basis of the reports of the Governors, in Nagaland, Karnataka and
Meghalaya was declared unconstitutional and imposition of
President's rule in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal
Pradesh was upheld.
The Legislature being, however, competent to curtail the
jurisdiction of civil courts, and to confer the same on any other
tribunal or authority, it is only a question of construction of a
particular statute whether the same by express words or by
necessary implication excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts.
The nature of the rights and liabilities dealt with by the statute and
the remedies provided thereunder, may, in case of doubt, be taken
into account for determining as to how far the jurisdiction of civil
courts is excluded
EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURTS
The jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution (Articles 131 to 134,
136, 142, 143 and Articles 32 and 129; regarding High Court,
Articles 215, 226 to 228..) can be taken away only by amending the
Constitution and not by statutory enactments. Re Kerala Education
Bill, 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956 Union Carbide Corp v UOI, AIR
1992 SC 248
The only exception in this respect is Article 262(2) of the
Constitution which enables Parliament to provide by law that
"neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise
jurisdiction" in respect of any dispute relating to waters of inter-
state rivers or river valleys.
The law enacted by Parliament in this context is Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956 which provides for constitution of Water
Disputes Tribunal for adjudication of such disputes and section 11
of which bars the jurisdiction of all courts including the Supreme
Court in terms of Article 262(2).
Interpreting this provision it has been held that the bar under
section 11 will come into play when a Tribunal is constituted and
till then the Supreme Court can issue interim order preserving the
status quo State of Orissa v Govt of India, (2009) 5 SCC 492
Even a provision in the Constitution conferring finality to the
decision of an authority is not construed as completely excluding
judicial review under Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution
Kihota Hollohan v Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412
L Chandra Kumar v UOI, AIR 1997 SC 1125
As the powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136 and
that of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution are parts of its basic structure, it is impossible even by
Constitution Amendment to create a Tribunal making its orders
immune from challenge under the aforesaid provisions of the
Constitution.
But a Constitution Amendment (Article 323A added by
Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976) can authorise
constituting a Tribunal which has jurisdiction to examine the
validity of enactments in certain subjects and exercise also power of
judicial review on those subjects under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution and to that extent direct filing of a petition to the High
Court may be excluded.
But orders of such a Tribunal will be subject to scrutiny by a
Division Bench of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227.
