UNIT – 6 – Repeal and Expiry of Statutes

- Repeal means to cancel, revoke/abrogate particularly a statute Repeal of the statute in

whole/part-expressly
- Repeal may be done impliedly by enacting matter contrary to/inconsistent with the prior
legislation i.e. the court will treat matter as repealed by implication- if the earlier statute
and later statute are clearly inconsistent
- Every legislature has power to repeal laws as it has power to enact
- Repeal may be by express provision/by necessary implication
- Repeal of a repealing provision does not revive the initially repealed provisions unless
the intent to revive it is apparent. It may however allow common law principles to apply
- Repeal Simpliciter/ accompanied with a fresh legislation
- Perpetual Statute – duration not fixed – remains in force until repealed

Effect of Expiry of Statutes

- When a temporary Act expires, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which in
terms is limited to repeals, has no application. The effect of expiry, therefore, depends
upon the construction of the Act itself
- The section is regarding effect of repeal- applies to all kinds of repeal- also applies when
temporary statute is repealed before its expiry
- The effect of expiry depends upon the construction of the Act itself
- The normal rule is that the proceedings taken against a person under a temporary statute
terminate, ipso facto, as soon as the statute expires. This shows that a person cannot be
prosecuted and convicted for an offence against the Act after its expiry, in absence of a
saving provision.
- If the prosecution has not ended before the date of expiry of the Act, it will terminate of
its own, automatically, as a result of the termination of the Act. Penal provisions creating
legal fiction must receive strict construction.
- In short, after an Act is expired, a person cannot be prosecuted and convicted for an
offence against the Act unless there is a saving provision. If the prosecution has not
ended before the date of expiry of the Act, it will automatically come to an end as the Act
is expired.
 - On expiration or repeal of a temporary Act, normally, any appointment, rules, orders,
notifications, schemes, forms or bye-laws made or issued will come to an end. Even if the
expired Act is re-enacted, these will not be continued. In this regard, Section 24, General
Clauses Act, 1897 makes the position clear.
- As observed in S. Krishnan v. State of Madras, a person's detention under a temporary
statute relating to preventive detention will automatically come to an end on the expiry of
the statute.
- Expiry of a statute does not make the statute dead for all purposes. It is a question of
construction. A person, who has been prosecuted for violating the provisions of the
temporary Act and sentenced while the temporary Act was in force, cannot be released
before he serves out his sentence. This is so, even if the temporary Act expires before the
expiry of the full period of the sentence.
- However, offences which are punishable under the ordinary laws but were being tried by
special courts, being connected with the offences under the expired Act, could still be
tried by ordinary courts without the necessity of a de novo trial
- A person's detention under a temporary statute relating to preventive detention will
automatically come to an end on the expiry of the statute.

Repeal by a temporary statute

- Whether a statute which is repealed by a temporary statute will, on the expiry of the
repealing statute, revive or not, is a question, answer to which must be found in the
construction of the repealing statute.
- If the repealing section in a temporary statute expires with the expiry of the Act, the
repeal will be construed only as a temporary repeal. As observed by Gajendragadkar J in
State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose, "the intention of the temporary Act in
repealing the earlier Act will have to be considered and no general or flexible rule in that
behalf can be laid down."
- The Privy Council observed to the same effect in Gooderham and Worts Ltd. v.
Canadian Brodcasting Corpn, when it said that the repeal effected by the temporary
legislation was only a temporary repeal. When by the fiat of Parliament, the temporary
repeal expired; the original legislation automatically resumed its full force. No enactment
of it was required.
Repeal
- After an Act is expired, a person cannot be prosecuted & convicted for an offence against
the Act, in the absence of a saving provision
- In the absence of a saving clause no prosecution for infringement of its provisions could
be commenced after the expiry of the life of the Act ( State of UP v. Jagamanderdas
AIR 1954 SC 683)
- Example – JJ Act 2015, repeals JJ Act 2000 – S. 111(1) but S. 111(2) has a savings
clause that allows action taken under JJ Act 2000 to be considered to have been done
under the corresponding sections of JJ Act, 2015
- A legislature which has power to enact a law on a particular subject matter has also
power to repeal the same
- Repeal may be by express provision / necessary implication
- Express Repeal
 No special words necessary to bring about an express appeal.
 The words must show an intention to abrogate the provisions /Act
a) is or are hereby repealed
b) Shall cease to have effect
c) Shall be omitted
d) All provisions inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed
e) Shall to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Act be
deemed to have been repealed/ modified
 When the object is to repeal only a portion of an Act words shall be omitted used
 The legislative practice in India- omission of a provision is treated as amendment –
which signifies deletion of provision & is not different from repeal ( Sec 6A of the
General Clauses Act, 1897)
 No real distinction between repeal and amendment ( Attorney General v. Margaret
(2003) 78 ALJR 105)
 Where a provision of an Act is omitted by an Act- said Act simultaneously re-enacts
a new provision ( repealed provision with modification)- modification /changes are
treated as amendment coming into force from the date of enforcement of re-enacted
provisions
Repeal by Implication
 Is not favoured by courts.
 There is always a presumption against implied repeal
 The rule – based on the theory- the Legislature while enacting law has complete
knowledge of the existing laws on the subject matter
 When a new Act contains a repealing section ( mentioning the Act which it expressly
repeals)- the presumption is against implied repeal strengthened on the principle
expression unius est exclusion alterius
 May be inferred when
a. Where there is direct conflict between two provisions
b. When the legislature intended to lay down an exhaustive code replacing the earlier law
c. When two laws occupy the same field
1. Later law prevails earlier law
2. Special law prevails over General law
- Prior Particular/Special Law & Later general law
 Intention of later general law is clear to repeal/modify a prior particular law – the general
law will prevail over the particular law
 If the general law by its own terms recognises the existence or continuance of special law
on the subject, no question of inconsistency with or repeal of the special law can arise.
 Thus, section 5 of the CrPC, 1973, recognises the continuance of special form of
procedure under any law for the time being in force and hence it was held that the
Haryana Childrens Act, 1974, which came into force on 1 March 1974, was not repealed
by the Code which came into force on 1 April 1974 ( Rohtasv.Stateof Harayana)
 A later general law may abrogate a prior special law by express repeal/ making provisions
inconsistent with it- later general law will prevail over the earlier special law (Ajay
Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India 1984 3 SCC 126)
- Prior General Law and Later Particular/Special Law
 A prior general law may be affected by a subsequent particular/special Act
 May repeal the general Act/ curtailing its operation
 A general Acts operation may be curtailed by a later special Act even if the general Act
contains a non-obstante clause ( Damji V Shah v. LIC AIR 1966 SC 135)
 Ratan Lal Adukia v UOI
 Whether new Section 80, Indian Railways Act 1890 constituted a complete and self-
contained special law as to the place of suing respecting suits envisaged by that Section
derogating from the generality of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure or Whether there is an implied repeal of Section 20 of CPC.
 Section 80 of the Railways Act, 1890, substituted in 1961, provides for the forum where
a suit for compensation for the loss of life of, or personal injury to, a passenger or for
loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods against a
railway administration may be brought.
 It was held that the said section was a special provision and a self contained code and
that it impliedly repealed in respect of suits covered by it the general provisions of
section 20 of the CPC, 1908.
 Ajay Kumar Banerjee & Others etc. v. Union of India & Others etc
 The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between two statutes is that the later
abrogates the earlier one.
 A prior special law, would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following
conditions is satisfied:
(i) The two are inconsistent with each other
(ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment
 If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would
prevail
- If a later statute describes an offence created by an earlier one & provides for different
punishment /varies procedure- earlier statute is repealed by implication( Zaverbai v. State
of Bombay AIR 1954 Cri LJ 1822)
- The principle cannot be applied when the offence in the later Act is not the same as the
one in the earlier Act i.e. when their ingredients are not the same ( Om Prakash v. State
of UP AIR 1957 SC 458)
 Delhi Municipal Corporation v Shiv Shankar
 Whether the respondent is liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated vinegar when the vinegar is being sold
 under a licence granted under the Fruit Products Order, 1955 made by the Central
Government under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
 But, if the two may be read together and some application may be made of the words in
the earlier Act, repeal will not be inferred.
 Thus the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 made thereunder
relating to vinegar were not held to be impliedly repealed by the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 and the Fruit order made thereunder although both contained regulatory
provisions and laid down certain standards of quality and composition for vinegar for it
was not possible to say that the two could not stand together.
 In the words of the court: "If the Adulteration Act or rules impose some restrictions on
the manufacturer, dealer or seller of vinegar then they have to comply with them
irrespective of the fact that the fruit order imposes lesser number of restrictions in
respect of these matters. The former do not render compliance with the latter
impossible, nor does compliance with the former necessarily and automatically involve
violation of the latter."
 S. 26 of GC Act prevents Double Jeopardy