Scribd
Upload
16 views3 pages

M - 6 Ios

The document discusses the interpretation of statutes affecting the jurisdiction of courts, focusing on exclusionary clauses, cases of nullity, and the rule of conclusive evidence. It emphasizes that superior courts generally have jurisdiction unless explicitly or impliedly excluded by statute, and outlines the limits on such exclusions, particularly regarding constitutional powers. The document also references key case law that illustrates these principles and the strict construction approach courts take when interpreting exclusion clauses.

Uploaded by

HARSH KUMAR
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views3 pages

M - 6 Ios

The document discusses the interpretation of statutes affecting the jurisdiction of courts, focusing on exclusionary clauses, cases of nullity, and the rule of conclusive evidence. It emphasizes that superior courts generally have jurisdiction unless explicitly or impliedly excluded by statute, and outlines the limits on such exclusions, particularly regarding constitutional powers. The document also references key case law that illustrates these principles and the strict construction approach courts take when interpreting exclusion clauses.

Uploaded by

HARSH KUMAR
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

MODULE – 6 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AFFECTIONG JURISDICTION OF COURTS

The extent of exclusion:

The extent of exclusion can be interpreted with the help of the following three elements:

Construction of exclusionary clauses: The court of law must refer to the clause specifically talking about
the exclusion without any ambiguity. Any other construction contrary to the clause would lead to nullity.

In the case of United Bank of India vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal and Ors. (1999), it was held by the
Supreme Court of India that with the object of speedy adjudication of certain matters that are widely
defined, the jurisdiction is conferred on tribunals and the jurisdiction of normal courts is excluded, so
the wide language used can’t be narrowly construed.

Cases of nullity: This basically talks about the cases in which an order passed by a tribunal can be held
null. This issue was addressed by the Apex Court in Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961).
The Supreme Court of India held that an adjudication by a tribunal is void if:

 Action is taken under an ultra vires act.


 The subject matter is beyond its competence and it has no authority to pass the order.
 Jurisdiction is assumed by wrongly deciding jurisdictional questions of law or fact.
 Adjudication is in violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

Rule of conclusive evidence: The legislation has the power to enact a statute to declare something as
conclusive proof to such an extent that it becomes a non-justiciable matter.

E.g., if a legislative enactment proof of A is made conclusive evidence of B, then the court is bound to
consider the existence of B the moment it realises the existence of A. Such evidence cannot be
questioned in court as it becomes conclusive evidence.

In the case of Lilavati Bai vs. The State of Bombay (1957), the Supreme Court of India held that the
Bombay Land Requisition Act empowers the state government to requisition any building if the owner
or tenant is not residing in the building for a continuous period of six months and the state government
can make a declaration for such a requisition. In this case, the declaration so made is conclusive
evidence.

Exclusion of jurisdiction of Supreme Court

The exclusion of jurisdiction of superior courts under the interpretation of statutes is a nuanced area of
law, particularly in jurisdictions like India, where constitutional and statutory frameworks define the
scope of judicial authority.
1. Presumption of Jurisdiction

Superior courts, such as High Courts and the Supreme Court, are generally presumed to have jurisdiction
over civil and criminal matters unless explicitly or impliedly excluded by a statute. This presumption
stems from their role as courts of general jurisdiction and their constitutional mandate to uphold justice.
For instance, in India, the Constitution confers broad powers on High Courts under Article 226 (writ
jurisdiction) and Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction), and on the Supreme Court under Article 32 and
Article 136. Exclusion of such jurisdiction is not lightly inferred and must be clearly established.

2. Explicit and Implied Exclusion

Jurisdiction of superior courts can be excluded in two ways:

 Explicit Exclusion: A statute may expressly bar superior courts from adjudicating certain
matters. For example, Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, explicitly excludes civil court
jurisdiction (including superior courts in certain contexts) over matters handled by family courts.
 Implied Exclusion: Exclusion may be implied when a statute creates a specialized tribunal with
comprehensive powers and provides an alternative remedy. For instance, the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, establishes tribunals for labor disputes, impliedly excluding civil court jurisdiction.
However, implied exclusion requires strict construction, and the statute must clearly indicate
legislative intent to oust superior court jurisdiction.

3. Limits on Exclusion

The jurisdiction of superior courts, particularly their constitutional powers, cannot be entirely ousted by
statute. For instance:

 Constitutional Jurisdiction: The writ jurisdiction of High Courts (Article 226) and the Supreme
Court (Article 32) cannot be excluded by ordinary legislation, as these are constitutional
safeguards. Statutes may limit their scope in specific matters, but challenges to the vires of a
statute or violations of fundamental rights remain within their purview.
 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Under Article 227, High Courts retain supervisory powers over
subordinate courts and tribunals, which cannot be excluded unless expressly provided by
statute.
 Judicial Review: Superior courts can examine whether tribunals have complied with statutory
provisions or fundamental principles of judicial procedure, even when jurisdiction is excluded.

4. Strict Construction of Exclusion Clauses

Courts adopt a strict approach when interpreting statutes that exclude jurisdiction. Any ambiguity in the
exclusion clause is resolved in favor of maintaining jurisdiction. The burden of proving exclusion lies on
the party asserting it. For example, in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968), the Supreme Court
of India held that civil court jurisdiction is excluded only if the statute provides an adequate remedy
through a tribunal and explicitly or impliedly bars judicial review.
7. Case Law Insights:

Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford (1859): Established three categories of statutory
rights and remedies, clarifying when exclusion is implied. If a statute creates a new right and specifies a
remedy, that remedy is exclusive unless otherwise stated.

United Bank of India v. Debts Recovery Tribunal (1999): The Supreme Court of India emphasized that
exclusion clauses should not be narrowly construed when tribunals are designed to expedite
adjudication.

Provincial Government of Madras v. J.S. Bassappa (1964): Reinforced that exclusion of civil court
jurisdiction should not be readily inferred without clear statutory intent.

You might also like