“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

50

(..6..)

Maxims of Statutory Interpretation and Statutes in Pari Materia

Question Bank

Q.1. Explain various maxims of statutory interpretation.

Q. 2 Explain the rule of restrictive and beneficial construction. Cite

examples.

Q.3 What is the Statue of part material? How are they interpreted?

Q.4 Explain the following maxims - a) Statues in Pari Materia b) Expressio

unius exclusio alterius. c) Generalia specializes non-derogant d) Delegates

non protect delegare.

Short Notes

a) Statutes in Pari Materia

b) Expressio unius exclusio alterius.

c) Generalia specialises in non-derogant

d) Delegatus non protect delegare..

I. Introduction:-

Maxims play an important role in all fields, including the legal field. They are very

important tools for interpretation. However, with an increasing codification of laws, they

have lost their importance.

Maxim is a brief expression of a general truth, fundamental principle, or rule of

conduct. It is a saying which is widely accepted on its own merits. A legal maxim is “a

“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

51

well-established legal idea, proposal or doctrine, generally expressed in the Latin

language”. They are articulated principles of law applied for centuries. The maxims played

an important role in the uncodified field of law. However, in the field of codified laws, it

has little scope. According to Thomas Hobbes¹, “Maxims have the same force as deeds

and legislation.”.

Most maxims were developed in the middle ages in Europe when their language was

Latin. These maxims help courts in applying current laws in a fair and reasonable manner.

However, the maxims have no legal force unless they are used by the legislatures or courts.

In this topic, we will discuss some important maxims of statutory interpretation, their

usage, and their application in the construction of statutes.

II. Maxims of Statutory Interpretation:-

(A) Delegatus non potest delegare:-

Delegates non-potest delegate is a principle in constitutional, administrative law, and

the law of agency it means "delegated powers cannot be further delegated”. In other words,

"one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power". It is because

power is entrusted or delegated to the person or authority to exercise those functions

delegated.

The principal chooses a particular authority/body/agent because he has trust and

confidence in his integrity and competence. Ordinarily, therefore, the authority/body/agent

can not further delegate the work which has been delegated to him by his principal.

However, in the exceptional case, if authorised by enabling Act, or authority, the power

may be further delegated.

The maxim was first time cited by the US Supreme Court in United States v. Sav.

Bank², which observed that the duty imposed by statute on the commissioner cannot be

delegated to a collector.

In India, in A. K. Roy v. State of Punjab³,

The Supreme Court held that sub-delegation of delegated power is ultra vires to the

enabling Act.

However, in today's time, it has become necessary to delegate powers. Therefore,

there are some exceptions to this maxim.

In Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation⁴,

¹In his work ‘Doctor and Student’.

²104 U.S. 728 (1881)

³(1986) 4 SCC 326,

⁴(1994) 5 SCC 346

“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

52

The Court observed that “The courts are normally rigorous in requiring the power to

be exercised by the persons or the bodies authorised by the statutes. It is essential that the

delegated power should be exercised by the authority upon whom it is conferred and by no

one else…..Due to the enormous rise in the nature of the activities to be handled by

statutory authorities, the maxim delegates non-potest delegate is not being applied

especially when there is a question of exercise of discretionary administrative power.”

There are the following expectations:-

The maxim does not apply or lose its importance in the administrative field-

1. Where the principal/enabling Act himself authorises the delegation.

2. Where the delegation is necessary.

3. where the custom and practice require or allow delegation.

Conclusion-

The legal maxim ‘Delegates Non-Potest Delegare’ does not lay down the rule of law.

It merely states a rule of construction of a statute.

Generally, sub-delegation of legislative power is impermissible, yet it can be

permitted either when such power is expressly conferred under the statute or can be

inferred by necessary implication. This is so because there is a well-established principle

that a sub-delegate cannot act beyond the scope of power delegated to him.

(B) Expressio unius est exclusion alterius:-

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius means express mention of one thing excludes all

others. This is one of the rules used in the interpretation of statutes. The phrase indicates

that items not mentioned in the list are presumed not to be covered by the statute. When

something is mentioned expressly in a statute it leads to the presumption that the things

not mentioned are excluded. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative and not

exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as."

General words in a statute must receive a general construction . Whenever something

is added in the statute, it is added with due consciousness. It is assumed that if something

is not added to the statute, there is a reason behind it, which is to exclude that from the

particular statute.

For example, if a Statute refers to Lions and Tigers, it only refers to them and will

not include Leopards, hyenas or any other wild animals.

In R. V. Secretary of State for the Home department⁵

In this case, the decree of the court excluded the father of an illegitimate child from

rights under immigration law at the time because the statute specifically mentioned the

5

[1988] AC 958

“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

53

mother alone.

R. V. Inhabitants of Sedgley⁶

The statute raised taxes on 'lands, houses and coalmines'. The court held that it did

not apply to limestone mines, as these were not specifically mentioned nor did the statute

suggest that it would apply to other types of mines.

However, in Prabhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Regional

Transport Authority, Aurangabad⁷

The Supreme Court observed that if the words of the Statute are plain and its meaning

is clear, then there is no scope for applying this rule.

(C) Generalia specialises in non-derogant:-

The maxim generalia specialises non-derogant means ‘where there is a special

provision specifically dealing with a subject, a general provision, howsoever widely

worded, must yield to the former’.

The maxim has been widely used in cases where there is a conflict between general

and special laws. It has helped the judiciary in the interpretation of statutes.

R. v. Greenwood⁸,

Justice Griffith observed that “The maxim generalia specializes non-derogant means

that, for interpretation of two statutes in apparent conflict, the provisions of a general

statute must yield to those of a special one”.

In State of Gujarat vs. Ramji Bhai⁹

The Supreme Court observed that “the maxim generalia specializes non-derogant is

a cardinal principle of interpretation. It means that the general provisions must always yield

to the special provisions. Construed in accordance with this fundamental principle the

special class of unregistered dealers covered by Section 33 (6)(of the Bombay Sales Tax

Act, 1959) must be taken to have been excluded from the purview of the general provisions

in Section 35. Thus considered, it is clear that in the case of an unregistered dealer who

evades tax by committing the double default specified in Section 33(6), action can be taken

only under that Section and not under Section 35.

The same observations are also made in Gujarat State Co-operative Land

Development Bank vs. P. R. Mankad¹⁰

⁶(1831) 2 B & Ad 65

⁷1960 SCR (3) 177

⁸[1992] 7 O.R. (3d) 1

⁹1979 AIR 1098

¹⁰1979 AIR 1203

“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

54

(D) In pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis:-

The Latin Maxim “in pari delicto potior est conditio presidents”, means ‘when the

parties are equally in the wrong, the condition of the possessor is better. It is a legal term

used to refer to two persons or entities who are equally at fault, whether the malfeasance

in question is a crime or tort.

In other words, the maxim means where both parties to a dispute are equally in the

wrong, the defendant holds the stronger ground. The law will take notice of an illegal

transaction to defeat a suit, but not to maintain one. The maxim is mostly used by courts

when relief is being denied to both parties in a civil action because of equal wrongdoing

by both parties or greater culpability on the part of the plaintiff. It means if both parties are

equally at fault or the plaintiff is at greater fault, the court will not involve itself in resolving

one side's claim over the other, and whoever possesses whatever is in dispute may continue

to do so in the absence of a superior claim.

In Taylor v Chester¹¹

Facts:- The plaintiff deposited money as a security for spend for wine and dinner supplied

to the plaintiff by the defendant in a brothel kept by her.

Held:-plaintiff failed to recover money applying the maxim.

The doctrine is subject to a number of exceptions, including that the plaintiff must be

an active, voluntary participant in the wrongful conduct, the plaintiff's wrongdoing must

be at least substantially equal to that of the defendant, the "adverse interest" exception, and

the "innocent insider" exception. The phrase is most commonly used by courts when relief

is being denied to both parties in a civil action because of equal wrongdoing by both

parties. The phrase means, in essence, that if both parties are equally at fault, the court will

not involve itself in resolving one side's claim over the other, and whoever possesses

whatever is in dispute may continue to do so in the absence of a superior claim. It is an

equitable defence.

This maxim has much relevance in the cases where money is paid by mistake, and

the refusal to refund results in unjust enrichment.

In Mahabir Kishore v. State of MP¹²

The Supreme Court held that the money may not be recoverable if, in paying and receiving

it the parties were in pari delicto.

In Immani Appa Rao v. Collapalli Ramalingamurthi¹³

¹¹(1889) LR 4 QB 309

¹²[1989] 2 CLA 228

¹³[1962] 3 SCR 739

“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

55

The Supreme Court observed that where each party is equally in fraud, the law favours

him who is actually in possession, or where both parties are equally guilty, the estate will

lie where it was.

(E) Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat:-

The maxim “Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat” is a rule of construction which

literally means ‘the construction of a rule should give effect to the rule rather than

destroying it’. It means when there are two constructions possible from a provision, of

which one gives effect to the provision and the other renders the provision inoperative, the

former, which gives effect to the provision, is to be adopted and the latter is to be discarded.

It means an enacting provision or a statute has to be so construed to make it

effective and operative.

Farwell J¹⁴said, "Unless the words were so absolutely senseless that I could do

nothing at all with them, I should be bound to find some meaning and not to declare them

void for uncertainty."

It generally starts with a presumption in favour of constitutionality than the

unconstitutionality of the statute. But it is to be noted that when the presumption of

constitutionality fails, then the statutes cannot be rendered valid or operative accordingly.

In Sawhney Etc. Vs. Union Of India¹⁵

The Supreme Court struck down the state legislation as it was violative of the Constitution

and ultra vires of the legislative competency.

The proposition laid down by the above maxim states the following prominent rules:

(a) Unless and until a provision is in flagrant violation of the Constitution,

the constitutionality of a provision shall be presumed.

(b) While interpreting any provision/law, if there are two interpretations possible: one

which is intra vires while another which is ultra vires, then the former interpretation shall

always prevail over the latter¹⁶.

(c) While presuming the constitutionality of any provision, the unnecessary extension

should not be given to the words of the provision.

In The Executive Engineer v. M/s Sri Seetaram Rice Mill¹⁷

The Supreme Court observed, referring to the other judgments, “the courts should strongly

lean against any construction that tends to reduce a statute to a futility. The provision of a

statute should be so construed as to make it effective and operative”.

¹⁴In Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Racecourse Co (1900) 2 Ch 352

¹⁵AIR 1993 SC 477

¹⁶Held in Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinemas AIR 1965 SC 1107.

¹⁷CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8859 OF 2011

“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

56

(F) Expressum facit cessare tacitum:-

‘Expressum facit cessare tacitum’ means “what is expressed, makes what is implied

silent.” The maxim is used while interpreting statutes, contracts and deeds. When a matter

is clearly provided in a document, the clear and precise meaning is to be adopted, there is

no need to import any new interpretation. In other words, the implied meaning need not be

adopted when a clear meaning is provided. For example, when a condition in a contract

provides that a contract should be fulfilled on a certain date, the implied construction that

the contract should be fulfilled within a reasonable time need not be adopted. When an

express date is provided for repayment of a debt by the debtor, the creditor cannot demand

payment before that date. This maxim is based on a principle of logic and common sense

and not only a technical rule of construction.

In Shankara Rao Badami v. State of Mysore¹⁸The Constitutional provisions are

read under the light of this maxim, and the Supreme Court denied importing any new

interpretation when the provisions were clear.

In Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra¹⁹

The Supreme Court observed that “Since Art. 217²⁰sets out a complete machinery with

regard to the resignation by a judge, the right to withdraw a resignation cannot be implied,

….recognition of a right of withdrawal will leave the door wide open to abuse and offend

public policy”.

(G) In bonam partem-

The term ‘Bonam Partem’ is known to mean ‘words used in a statute are to be taken

in their lawful sense’. Thus, ‘ lawful ‘ means what is not prohibited by law. In other

words, the words must be construed in their lawful sense.

For example, in the case of a seizure of a debtor’s goods, they must be lawfully seized.

Similarly, when the demolition of a part of a building is ordered by the corporation, it must

be demolished lawfully.

In UOI Vs. Kurukundu Balakrishna²¹

The Larger Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that it is a basic

principle of legal policy that law should serve the public interest, and on this principle, the

courts have evolved the technique of construction in bonam partem i.e. in good faith (to

come to a lawful and rightful interpretation). And where a statutory benefit has been given

¹⁸AIR 1969 SC 453

¹⁹1978 AIR 694

²⁰Constitution Of India

²¹[II(2004) ACC 591]

“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

57

on a specified condition has been satisfied, it presumes that the legislators intended the

benefit to operate only when the required act was performed in a lawful manner.

In Jamunabai Motilal Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra²²

Bombay High Court:- To the construction of the provisions conferring such salutary

jurisdiction we must apply the rule of interpretation in bonam partem, so as to give effect

to the terms of law and to subserve the object of the provisions itself.

Note:-

1. Pari Materia:-

a. https://bnblegal.com/pari-

materia/#:~:text=The%20conditions%20are%20as%20per%20the%

20following%3A&text=This%20is%20a%20recognition%20by,apart

%20from%20the%20calendar%20year ).

I. Introduction:-

Pari materia is a Latin term. Statutes are in pari materia if they relate to the same

person or thing or the same class of persons or things²³. With reference to interpretation,

‘Pari material means when two provisions of two different statutes deal with the same

subject matter and form part of it. Such Acts are to be taken together so as to form one

system and as interpreting and enforcing each other if a problem relating to the

interpretation of any word or provision arises. The use of pari materia is well established

by the Judiciary. Lord Mansfield²⁴has observed that: “Statues in pari materia are to be all

taken as one system to suppress the mischief..... The two laws are only parts of the same

provision”. The rational behind this rule is based on the interpretative assumption that

words employed in legislation are used in an identical sense. Where a term is used without

definition in one Act, but is defined in another Act which is in pari materia with the first

Act, the definition may be treated as applicable to the use of the term in the first Act.

In District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & Steel Co,²⁵it was held that Pari

material could be used as an external aid of interpretation. It is permissible to read the

provisions of the two Acts together when they same are complementary to each other. The

principle of primavera is based on the idea that there is a continuity of legislative approach

in such acts, and common terminology is used.

²²AIR 1978 Bom 200

²³An American judge, in 1829, -Cross, Statutory Interpretation, 3rd Ed, p 171

²⁴In Timmins v. Rowlison (1764) 1 Wm B1 533,

²⁵(2001) 7 SCC 358,

“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

58

In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd v Union of India²⁶Sec. 20(c) of the Code of Civil

Procedure and Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, they are held to be in pari

materia with each other. Decisions interpreting the former have been held to apply to the

latter.

II. Conditions to applying pari materia rule:-

The Dehli High Court in Raees-Uz-Zama v. State of NCT of Delhi²⁷referred to the

conditions of pari materia discussed in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation. The issue

before the Court²⁸was whether, by borrowing the word of one Act into another Act, the

Parliament has intended to borrow its previous processing/meaning. One Act is said to be

in pari materia if -

(a) Acts which have been given a collective title. This is a recognition by the Parliament

that the Acts have a single subject matter.

(b) Acts which are required to be construed as one. Again there is parliamentary

recognition of a single subject matter.

(c) Acts having short titles that the identical (apart from the calendar year).

(d) 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. If the statutes are in pari materia, it is

presumed that uniformity of language and meaning is intended. To be in pari materia,

statutes need not have been enacted simultaneously or refer to one another. Sutherland, in

'Statutory Construction²⁹', states, "Statutes are considered to be in pari materia- if they

pertain to the same subject matter, the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons

or things, or have the same purpose or object."

30

In J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India

The Supreme Court observed that Acts being in pari materia must be taken together as

forming one code and as interpreting and enforcing each other.

III. Limitations on the applicability of the maxim:-

The statutes cannot be held pari materia with each other if-

1. If the status does not apply to the same subject matter or person:-

In Shah & Co., Bombay vs The State of Maharashtra³¹The Supreme Court

²⁶(2004)6 SCC 254

²⁷CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 166/2011

²⁸The twelve, judges in Palmer's Case [(1785) 1 Leach C.C. 4th ed.. 355]

²⁹3rd Edition, Vol. 2, at p. 535,

³⁰1970 AIR 1173

³¹1967 AIR 1877

“Law Master’s Publications

‘Maintenance of Wife, Children etc’

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

59

observed that there is absolutely no similarity between the two enactments, and we cannot

hold that the Requisition Act relates to the same person or thing, or to the same class of

persons or things, as the Rent Act. Hence the two Acts cannot be considered to be in pari

materia.

2. If the scope of two statuses is different:-

3. If the interpretation given to the words is one statute is different than the

subsequent statute.

4. Statute of one state legislature cannot be used to interpret legislation of

another state;-

In R. Arora vs State Of U.P³².

The Supreme Court held that “we do not think it necessary to examine the American cases

cited before us because the words in our statute are not part material with the words used

in the fifth amendment to the American Constitution”.

References-

a. https://www.bing.com/search?q=UNIT-

III+Maxims+of+Statutory+Interpretation&form=ANNTH1&refig=27dc79383

3464294b4b7efe9efe11afa

b.

I

nterpretation of Statutes Unit 3 - CLASS NOTES INTERPRETATION OF

STATUTES UNIT-III - Maxims of - Studocu

c.

E

xpressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius Law and Legal Definition | USLegal,

Inc.

d.

S

E

tatute Interpretation: Everything important to know about it (ipleaders.in)

e.

xpressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius - Black n' White Journal

(bnwjournal.com)

f.

h

ttps://legalraj.com/articles-details/doctrine-of-proportionality

g.

ttp://avadhlawcollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Interpretation-of-

Statutes-Unit-3.pdf

https://www.thenextadvisor.com/construction-in-bonam-partem/

*****

³²AIR 1962 SC 764