Use of Pari Materia as an External Aids-1.pptx

Vnnvnm

1. Use of Pari Materia as an External Aids to Construction Prof. (Dr.) S. P. Srivastava Department of Law and Governance

2. Meaning & Concept Pari M ateria means when two provisions of two different statutes deal with the same subject matter and form part of the same subject matter. It is a latin word. where statutes are P ari M ateria that is to say, are so far related as to form a system or code of legislation, such Acts are to be taken together as forming one system and as interpreting and enforcing each other . Lord Mansfield has observed that: “Statues in P ari M ateria are to be all taken as one system to suppress the mischief..... The two laws are only parts of the same provision ”.

3. Continued: Where a term is used without definition in one Act, but is defined in another Act which is in P ari M ateria with the first Act, the definition may be treated as applicable to the use of the term in the first Act. This may be done even where the definition is contained in a later Act . Pari M ateria will be used only when the subject matter of the statutes is similar. The principle underlying the treatment of Acts which are in P ari M ateria is based on the idea that there is continuity of legislative approach in such Acts, and common terminology

4. Condition Precedent for Application   In   Raees - Uz -Zama and Anr . v. State NCT of Delhi, High Court laid down following conditions: Acts which have been given a collective title. This is a recognition by Parliament that the Acts have a single subject matter. Acts which are required to be construed as one. Again there is parliamentary recognition of a single subject matter. Acts having short titles that the identical (apart from the calendar year ). Other Acts which deal with the same subject matter on the same lines. Here it must be remembered that the Latin word part or paris means equal, and not merely similar. Such Acts are sometimes described as forming a code. This does not mean that the Acts are codifying Acts however.

5. Reason for Evolution of this Concept If the Acts are in P ari Materia it is assumed that uniformity of language and meaning was intended, attracting the same considerations as arise from the linguistic canon of construction that an Act is to be construed as a whole . T o avoid contradiction or conflict between/ among statutes dealing with the same subject matter. It helps to interpret the words of the later statute in the light of earlier statutes in the same context.

6. Continued: It is an ordinary rule of interpretation of statutes that the words of a statute when there is a doubt about their meaning are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonize with the subject of the enactment and the object which the legislature has in view. The doctrine helps in harmonizing the aim and subject of the legislations . If the words of a statute has been recognized and interpreted by the Judiciary in a particular way and it has already gained an authoritative value, then it is obvious that the statue(s) having similar words/ context will be dealt in the same manner. It is to be inferred, that a code of statutes relating to one subject was governed by one spirit and policy and, intended to be consistent and harmonious in its several parts and provisions.

7. Application of the doctrine In District Mining Officer and others v Tata Iron & Steel Co. and another, it was established that pari materia can be used as an external aid of interpretation. The General clauses Act 1897 is an example of pari materia . Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 read with General clauses Act 1897 gives interpretation for the phrase “immovable property”. Pari materia will be used only when the subject matter of the statutes is similar. The principle underlying the treatment of Acts which are in pari materia is based on the idea that there is continuity of legislative approach in such Acts, and common terminology.

8. Different Acts having same subject matter In Board of trustees of the Port of Bombay v Sriyanesh Knitters, AIR 1999 SC 2947. Held “The Supreme Court read the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 along with the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are held to be in pari materia with each other. Different socio-economic plans are need to be read together so that they do not create any contradiction while opening in the same field. The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 has to be read with other labour law in force i.e. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and Contract ( Regulaton and Abolition) Act 1970. In Phillips v Parnaby , Weight and Measures Act 1889 was read with the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act 1929.

9. Continued: In the matter of  J.K. Steal Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering parimateria provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, held that Acts being in parimateria must be taken together as forming one code and as interpreting and enforcing each other.

10. Assistance of an earlier statute When same words are used in similar context in a later statute, it is presumed that they have same meaning as in the earlier statute. When the words of an earlier statute has got an authoritative exposition by a superior court, use of same words in similar context in a later Act gives rise to a presumption that Parliament intends that the same interpretation should also be followed for construction of those words in later statutes. Court while interpreting Article 245(1) and 246 of the Constitution of India in Bengal Immunity Co Ltd v State of Bihar referred to sec 99(1) and 100 of the Government of India Act 1935.

11. Different statutes are in pari materia Where there are different statutes are in pari materia though made at different times, or even expired, and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and constructed together, as one system, and as explanatory of each other.

12. Object is same In State of Madras v. A Vaidyanath Aiyer , section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was held pari materia with the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The phrase “shall presume’ of Indian Evidence Act was utilized to construe the meaning of “it shall be presumed” of section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.

13. Later statutes in pari materia with earlier Act Subsequent laws are regarded as supplementary or complimentary to the earlier enactment. Later Act will become relevant only when there is some ambiguity or confusion with the meaning of the earlier Act. State of Bihar v S. K. Roy. In this case confusion arose regarding the definition of “coal mine” under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act 1948 before its 1948 amendment. Court took the assistance of the amendment Act 1948 to define “coal mine”.

14. Statute is in pari materia with delegated legislation statutes are used to construct statutes which are in pari materia delegated legislations.

15. Situations where Acts are not in pari materia When a new statutory provision is used in the text of existing statute, it should be read as one. When the new legislation although re-enacting many provisions from earlier statutes, contains a good deal of fresh materia and deals with a subject on which social views have drastically changed. Use of one state legislation to construe another state legislation on the same subject matter is not commendable because there can be variation in the language.

16. Continued: When the two Acts are not in pari materia , then decision rendered with reference to one Act cannot be applied with reference to the provisions of another Act. In the matter of  C.A. Abraham v. I.T.O., Kottayam  it was observed that “In interpreting a fiscal statute the Court cannot proceed to make good deficiencies if there may be any; the Court must interpret the statute as it stands and in case of doubt in a manner favourable to the tax payer.”

17. Continued: In  Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras v. S.M. Sriramulu Naidu , Held: it was held that this doctrine could not be used to say that the Factories Act and the Employees State Insurance Act are, in parimateria , though they were enacted in the same year and both of them were intended to benefit the wage earners. The Court said that the Employees State Insurance Act was essentially concerned with the regulation of the safety of the worker, a person employed in the manufacturing process or in any work incidental thereto. Whereas the Factories Act was essentially concerned with the regulation of the factory in the interests and for the safety of the worker, a person employed in the manufacturing process or in any work incidental thereto. Thus, both could not be treated to be in the same genre.