INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
Definition of statute and need for interpretation
Q. 1 (a). What do you understand by a statute? Is there any need for interpretation? Explain.
OR
Define the term ‘statute’. Discuss the reasons for the necessity of interpretation of statutes.
Ans. Statute-What does it mean? The word ‘statute’ is now synonymous with an ‘Act’ of a competent Legislature. The expression ‘statute’, is used in contradistinction to the ‘common law’ and to Ordinance.
Definition of Statute (English Law). According to Coke, ‘Statute’ differs from common law and Ordinance in this, that every statute must be made by the King with the assent of the ‘Lords’ and ‘Commons’, and if it appears by the Act that it was made by the two only, it is not statute, but merely an ‘Ordinance’. According to Prof. Plucknett, there is, however, no legal difference whatever in the effect or authority of statute, produced in these different modes in as much as they have always been accepted as unquestionably authentic, and according to Hawkins this establishes and confirms their authority, and this defect is solved by such universal reception (Hawkins-Preface to Statutes, 1735).
As per Crawford “A statute is written ‘will’ of the legislature according to the forms necessary to constitute it a law of the State and rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms and solemnities.” A statute or Act of Parliament is will of legislature.
Maxwell defines the term ‘statute’ as the will of the Legislature in his work ‘Interpretation of Statutes’, and according to Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edition) this definition remains sufficient provided that it is understood that the will of the Legislature must be expressed either by the agreement of its three parts (Queen, Lords and Commons) or by the agreement of the Queen and the Commons in accordance with the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1940. By these Parliament Acts, the need for consent of the House of Lords to certain Bills has been dispensed with.
Enacted law which is more familiarly known as statute law, is a written law as opposed to other forms being distinguished as unenacted. The word Statute’ is now synonymous with an Act’ of a competent legislature e.д. Parliament or State Legislature. Legislation, according to Salmond, is that source of law which consists in the declaration of legal rules by a competent authority. It is such an enunciation or declaration of legal rules by the appropriate organ of the State, ie, legislature or by the subordinate body or authority duly so empowered to make laws and is terned as delegated legislation.
According to Pollock, by a useful convention, the term ‘written law’ is confined to an enactment of a declaration which is authoritative not only in matter, but in form, so that its very words not only contain but constitute law. On the other hand, unwritten law is not made by the Legislature. though it owes its validity from the authority expressly or tacitly given by the sovereign or the State.
Common law, on the other hand, as Blackstone points out, is but a general custom, probably introduced by the consent of the people. Sir Carleton Allen. disagreeing with this view writes. “What is even more certain is that many of those things that we now take from common law were developed by the Sovereign’s Judges”. Hence, common law seems to nican judge-made law, often influenced by general custom and sometimes even by well-known rules, doctrines or even reason.
Definition of Statute (Indian Law).- The term statute has not been used by the Constitution of India. The term ‘Law’ is described as an exertion of legislative power. The Law is defined so as to include any ordinance, order, bye-laws, rule, regulation and notification etc. The term statute is generally used in the sense of ‘Law’, and it is in a prescribed form having the consent and approval of the two Houses and the Head of the State. In case of State Legislature where there is no Upper House (Vidhan Parishad) only Vidhan Sabha and the Governor’s consent would be sufficient but a state statute if it concerns other State or the Centre the approval of the President is also required.
Interpretation of statute law- What it means. By construc- tion of a statute is meant “the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the intention of the legislature through the medium of authoritative form in which it is expressed. The rule of construction, as per Parker, J., is ‘to intend the legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed. The object of all construction is to give effect to the statute according to the intent that made it, but while giving effect to the statute the intention of the Parliament should be deduced from the language used. In other words, it would be desirable to give that meaning to the words of the statute which is their natural import in the order in which they stand.
As per Cooley, there is a subile distinction between ‘Interpretation’ and ‘construction of a statute. Interpretation, is the art of finding out the true sense of the ‘words’ that is, the sense which their author intended to convey. Construction, on the other hand, is the drawing of conclusions from the statute which lie beyond the direct expressions of the text. Conclusions which are thus drawn are within the spirit though not within the letter of the law.
The above view of the Cooley has been subjected to adverse criticism The modern tendency is to narrow the distinction between these two expressions. In common usage these two expressions are usually understood as having the same significance. According to Dias, it is difficult to see where interpretation leaves off (or ends) and construction begins.
Normally, the word ‘interpretation’, in its widest sense, may be used to indicate the collective activities of the Judges, in so far as they may, in the exercise of their function, extend, restrict or modify the operation of the rule of law which is expressed in statutory form and when so employed, it is extensive interpretation. In its narrower sense, the word means the explanation by the Judges of the meaning of the words or phrases contained in a statute (Gutteridge-Comparative Law.).
The dividing line between interpretation and construction is very thin. The object of interpretation of a statute is to determine what intention is conveyed either expressly or impliedly by the language used, so far as is necessary for determining whether the particular case or state of facts presented to the interpreter falls with it. (Maxwell: Interpretation of Statute.) The second object of interpretation is to see whether the meaning determined by the interpreter has been given and used by the Court in any case.
Need for interpretation.- No interpretation is necessary in the case of customary or case law. But the case is different with the statute law. Because of the binding nature of statute law it is necessary to find out the legislative intention underlying the language of the statute, Particularly when there is an ambiguity in the expression, or there is faulty use of words or omissions due to bad draftmanship, the process of judicial interpretation or construction is necessary. Moreover, where two reasonable views of the expressions used in the statute are put before the court for implementation by interpretation the court advances that view which it think proper and appropriate in the given situation. If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, no need of interpretation would arise.
But the task is not so easy as it seems, because in the first instance (i) words used in a statute may convey more than one meaning, since words in any language have not any fixed or precise meaning; in different contexts words may mean different things; (ii) secondly, it is not possible for the legislators enacting a statute to foresee all the contingencies at the time of enaqtment and to cover all the situations and circumstances; and (iii) thirdly. the intention of the Legislature, in the words of Watson, is a very slippery phrase, which popularly understood, may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the Legislature probably would have meant, although there has been an omission to enact it or give a conspicuous place in the enactment.
In the case of K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Anumal, AIR 1997 SC 631. the Supreme Court observed that “A construction which would defeat or was likly to defeat the purpose of the Act has to be ignored and not accepted”.
Moreover, besides the above, there are different opinions of Courts on the same or similar matters. Therefore, it is rather a formidable task for a judge to give an appropriate meaning to words or phrases appearing in a statute where actually there is a doubt or confusion.
Purpose and broad principles of interpretation. The dominant purpose of interpretation is to determine what is expressly or impliedly expressed by the languge of the statute with reference to the words which have been used. Interpretation or construction is a judicial process mainly to discover how the legislature intends the court to act. In determining the intention, primarily the language used is the determining factor of intention Intention of the Legislature is a very slippery term as stated by Watson and the question is not, therefore, what may be supposed to have been intended but what has been said. | Brophy v. A.G.Manitoba, 1895 AC 202 (P.C.).J
The interpretation of statutes is the primary function of the Court. The Legislature can pass an enactment and its interpretation is entirely within the province of the judiciary. In this respect, Courts are to be guided by the well established canons of interpretation. The judiciary gives effect to intention of the legislature.
In the case of Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Mis. Pure Industrial Cook & Chem. AIR 2007 SC 2458 p. 2474, the Supreme Court observed that it is settled law that when the legislature uses the same word in similar connection the same meaning should be attached to the same words in absence of any context indicating the contrary context.
In Sadanand Pyne v. Harinam Sha, AIR 1950 Cal 179, Das Gupta, J., held that if we use our power to interpret law, to alter laws which we may not like and to make new laws which we think, should be made, that would be a corrupt use of our power. We have to observe constant vigilance against such corrupt use of power by ourselves.
In Common Cause. A Registered Society v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 3081, the Supreme Court struck down the arbitrary allotment of plots of land, petrol pumps, gas agencies, houses’ licences, contracts and mineral leases on the ground that benefits by the Government could not be disbursed in an arbitrary manner.
The Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Agarwal, AIR 1992 SC 961, observed that Courts have no power to legislate.
In the case of District Mining Officer v. TISCO, (2001) 7 SCC 358. the Supreme Court observed that a bare mechanical interpretation of words and application of legislative intent devoid of concept, objects and purpose will reduce most of the remedial and beneficial legislation to futility. Hence the purpose and objects should be secured and ensured. The beneficial interpretation should be made so as to eradicate the futility.
Q. 1 (b). What is the dividing line between interpretation and construction?
OR
“The dividing line between the interpretation and construction is very thin.” Explain.
OR
What do you understand by interpretation and construction? What is the difference between the two?
Ans. What is the dividing line between interpretation and construction. There is a close relationship between legislation and interpretation. The main function of the Courts is to ascertain the express or implied meaning of the words used in an enacted law. A statute may be defined as “the will of the Legislature” (Maxwell. 11th Ed., p. 1). The function of a Court is to interpret the statute according to the intention of the Legislature.
One of the important features of the enacted law is that the provisions of the law are incorporated in it. Those words through which the law is expressed are regarded as part of the statute. Those words have the same legal sanctity as the meaning of the statutory provisions. Therefore, in order to understand the meaning of the enacted provisions their construction becomes necessary. According to Salmond, interpretation is that process through which the Court tries to find out the established meaning in accordance with the express intention of the Legislature in an authoritative manner.
On the other hand construction, indicates seeking of conclusions, object or purpose of the statute by going beyond the words used and sometimes by filling up the gaps left by the draftsman but this is very rare and is treated as Judicial creativity or law making and is permissible where public interest or social demand is imperative and object of the statute so prescribed even if impliedly.
Prof. Cooley stating difference between interpretation and construction says that-
(1) In interpretation the exact meaning of the words used in the statutes is discovered, whereas in construction conclusion is made relating to the subject by going beyond the expressions of original texts of any Act.
(2) By means of interpretation attempt is made to remove the ambiguity or doubts of the language or words used in a statute and to make them discernable in order to find out their definite meaning But in construction the law is deduced on the basis of external aids by going beyond the words used in an Act or in a statute.
(3) In construction to find out the conclusion or object or purpose of the statute the gaps left or ill-conceived by the draftsman are fulfilled provided the social ends or public interest in the changing needs of the society so demands, whereas in literal, grammatical or strict type of interpretation this is not possible and to find out the way in beneficial, harmonious or liberal type of interpretation, the object of the statute is tried to be fulfilled by rectifying or overlooking the absurdities present in the statute
(4) Interpretation confines itself in removing or surmounting the absurdities present in the statute, whereas construction empowers itself from the spirit of the statute and seeks conclusions even beyond the written words of the statute.
(5) Construction in modern times is more related with judicial activism or judicial creativity or judicial law making, whereas interpretation confines itself in seeking the true intention of the legislature through the words used in the statute.
(6) Through construction the same word is given a wider meaning to cope with the changing needs of the society. As for example, the word ‘life’ used in Article 21 has been given the meaning to contain the facility of accommodation, food, education and medicine together with good. environment, going beyond the protection of physical body of a person. In strict interpretation this is not possible.
But majority of writers treat both the words ‘interpretation’ and construction as synonyms and use them interchangeably and regard difference between these two words as only academic.
To sum up, we can say that interpretation is art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words their natural and ordinary meaning. On the other hand, construction means drawing conclusions on the basis of the true spirit of the enactment even though the same does not appear if the words used in the enactment are given their natural meaning.
By the construction the object and purpose of statute is determined and the abuses which was aimed to be rectified is rectified. Under construction of a statute judges not only interpret the statutes but they make the law. Under the interpretation only the words used therein are given the appropriate meaning to determine the intent of the statutes.
In simple words it is submitted that for reaching a definite meaning of the legislation in interpretation the Courts confine themselves within the words and sentences used in an enactment while in construction, where the ambiguity prevails in giving meaning to the enactment, the spirit of the enactment and other extraneous aids are also touched to deduce the meaning so that the problem is solved as intended by the legislature.
Thus, the dividing line between the interpretation and construction is very thin.
Distinction between rules of law and rules for interpretation
Q. 1 (c). Point out distinction between rules of law and rules for interpretation. Give illustrations.
Ans. Distinction between rules of law and rules for interpretation. From the jurisprudential point of view, there is a distinction between the rules of law or substantive law and the rules of interpretation. It can be said that rules of law do not control the interpretation of a statutes. In Mexers. Keshavji v. Commissioner of Income-tax. AIR 1991 SC 1806, the Apex Court held that the rules of interpretation are not the rules of law. They merely help in the interpretation of laws and provide guidelines in certain cases. They have no mutual coordination between themselves as to what should be appropriate basis of interpretation in a particular circumstance. It is the function of the Court to decide what rules of interpretation are to be applied with respect to a particular circumstance.
The rules of law have a binding force, whereas the rules of interpretation are devoid of it. The rules of interpretation are merely of persuasive nature in L.N.W. Rly. v. Evans, (1893) 1 Ch. 16, it was laid down that when the language is clear and plain, the rules of interpretation do not override the language of the statute, they are only directory which enable us to understand what is inferential. In every case, the Act passed by the Legislature is omnipotent and when its meaning is express having no doubt in it, there is no need for the rules of interpretation.
In Mossel v. Ollins. (1975) All ER 16, it has been said that the rules of interpretation have no binding effect in their general sense. They are our servants, and not our master. They only assist in the interpretation and are in the form of guidelines.
The rules of interpretation are not similar to the rules of law. In Bale v. Municipal Commissioner, 25 M 457, Justice B. Aiyanger has opined that the commentaries dealing with the rules of interpretation may be regarded as merely containing guidelines for the interpretation of the statutes. These cannot be applied as if they are parts of a statute. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1967 SC 997, it was contended that the rules of the interpretation have the same binding force as the rules of law and therefore, they are “laws in force” within the meaning of this phrase in Article 372. But the Supreme Court did not accept this contention and laid down that the State is bound by the laws made by it in the same way as other persons unless excluded by the law itself. In United States v. United Mine Workers, 91 L ed 884, the Court refused to regard the rule of interpretation as law and said that the sovereign cannot be bound by the law made by him, unless there is provision in the Act having such intention.
It is one of settled principles that once the enacting process is over the legislature has no right to interpret it but legislature has right to amend, explain or repeal the statute. The task of the Court to determine the intention of the legislature is very difficult. There are two aspects (1) to determine meaning of the words used therein and (ii) to determine the object and purpose of the statute. There are various settled principles and rules of interpretation and they are applied by the Courts time-to-time according to need of interpretation. The duty of judicature is to act upon the true intention of the legislature.
The rules of interpretation have no continuity and they are not binding in nature. According to C.K. Allen, we come to the unsatisfactory conclusion in the ultimate analysis that every thing ends in the inpalpable and undefined substance of judicial spirit and point of view.
Rules of interpretation are uniform, known to judges and are used or may be used to clear the ambiguity even in substantive law. Judges sometimes, to meet the exigencies of justice coin new interpretative rules, g. Mr. Justice Subba Rao of Supreme Court did in Golak Nath v. State of Panjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643, by introducing ‘prospective overruling’ but in construction the conclusions are drawn by deducing the intent of the enactment when the words used in the said enactment tend to give a meaning which seems inappropriate, misleading and against the object sought for.
Q. 1 (d). Define interpretation. Discuss its utility in the field of law.
Ans. The word ‘interpretation’ has been defined by different writers giving emphasis to its different dimensions, but having place of its different functions in the mind, it may be said that interpretation is that art or mode by which Courts bring the true meaning of a given word in a statute with compatability of the intention of the legislature regarding the purpose or object of the statute. Sometimes, the Court expands the meaning of the word used as per needs of the changing society with its changing needs. As such the same word which conveyed a restricted meaning say 100 years back, may be allowed to convey an enlarged meaning covering the situation for which it was used. The enlarged meaning of ‘life’ used in Article 21 as per Supreme Court of India to cope with the changing aspirations of the people by the passage of time due to development in every field of life, is the best example to prove how interpretation works in implementing the intention and desire of the legislature.
When the provisions of a statute are very clear and there cannot be two different reasonable views of the same provision, there seems no need of interpretation and words are implemented as per clear meaning they convey provided they are in agreement with the intention of the legislature,
Utility of interpretation in the field of Law. The interpretation of statutes is mainly taken resort to by the lawyers and the judges to find out the true meaning of the words used in a statute as per intention of the legislature coping with the changing needs of the society.
In the adversary system of justice delivery system prevalent in the country, sometimes the two opposite lawyers present two equally reasonable views of a particular provision in contest, here the Judges, keeping the norm of equity, justice and good conscience choose the most appropriate view for judgement through the mode of interpretation of that provision which is in contest. Sometimes, the Judges to give an appropriate meaning of a provision which is absurd or ill drafted or ambiguous and where liberal interpretation is permissible the Judges may fill in the gap or give directions to do or not to do the required necessary obligation/duty for fulfilling the object of the provision in consonance with intention of the legislature. Sometimes, Judges make law where it is lacking or give new meaning to the same word to cope with changing needs with changing norms of the society. Thus Judicial Activism comes into being by the mode of interpretation. In Luxmikant Pandey v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 469. the Supreme Court directed the whole procedure to be adopted by foreigners in adoption of Indian children. In D. K. Basu v. State of West West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, the Supreme Court issued the detailed guidelines to investigators and security agencies to be followed in arrest and detention cases. The concept of compensation to rape victims, or in cases of fake encounter, custodial death and violation of Article 21 have also come into existence to cope with recent development and leaning towards victomology. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746, the Supreme Court awarded compensation to mother of the deceased who died in police custody.
As such Courts expand and enlarge the meaning of the provision to cope with the intention of the legislature in changing needs of the changing society through interpretation. Supreme Court of India is regarded as the interpreter of the Constitution of India and is empowered to declare those laws as void which do not conform to the provisions of the Constitution. In interpretation of the Constitution certain established norms including the spirit of the Constitution are followed.
Classification of Statutes
Q. 1 (e). Explain the various kinds of statutes in detail.
OR
Explain the classification of statutes.
OR
What are the various kinds of statutes? Examine.
Ans. Classification of statutes. Classification of statutes may be made with reference to their duration, object, method and extent of application.
A. Classification with reference to duration-From the point of view of duration of statutes, they may be classified as-
1. Temporary.
2. Permanent.
1. Temporary statute. Where the period of operation or validity of a statute has been fixed by the statute itself, it is called a temporary statute Such an Act remains in force until the time fixed, unless it is repealed earlier. After the expiry of the Act, a new Act is required for its continuance Finance Act passed every year may be cited as an example of a temporary statute.
2. Permanent statute. Where no period of operation or validity of a statute is fixed, the statute is called a permanent statute. Such a statute may be replaced or repealed or amended by another Act.
B. Classification with reference to object. From the point of view of the object, statutes may be classified as-
1. Codifying statute
2. Declaratory statute
3. Consolidating statute
4. Enabling statute
5. Remedial statute
6. Disabling statute
7. Penal statute
8. Taxing statute or fiscal statute
9. Explanatory statute
10. Amending statute
11. Repealing statute
12. Curative or validating statute
1. Codifying statute. A statute which codifies the law is known as a ‘codifying statute’. Such a statute purports to deal exhaustively with the whole of the law on a specific subject. For example, Transfer of Property Act may be cited as an example of a codifying statute, dealing with the rules relating to transfer of immovable property exhaustively.
2. Declaratory statute. A statute which is enacted with the purpose of removing doubts in the law is called a ‘declaratory statute’.
3. Consolidating statute.- A statute, which consolidates the law on a particular subject at one place is called a consolidating statute’. Consolidating statute collects all statutory enactments on a specific subject and consolidates them. According to Maxwell (Interpretation of Statutes, 14th Edition. Pp. 116-117) “In the case of a consolidating Act there is a particularly strong presumption that it does not alter the law contained in the statutes which it replaces.” He cites Beswick v. Beswick, 1968 A.C. 58, in which Lord Reid had observed that the reason is that “it is the invariable practice of Parliament to require from those who have prepared a consolidation Bill with an assurance that it will make no substantial change in the law and to have that checked by a committee.” Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an example of consolidaing statute.
4. Enabling statute. A statute which makes doing of something. which was previously unlawful. as lawful or which enables doing of something is called an ‘enabling statute
5. Remedial statute. A statute which confers new remedies which were not available before or after its enactment is called a remedial statute. The Workmen’s Compensation Act. 1923 is an example of a remedial statute.
6. Disabling statute. A statute which curtails or destroys or prohibits the previous rights or powers is called a disabling statute.
7. Penal statute. The penal statute provides redress to an individual who has suffered from the act of another and enforces obedience to the commands of the law by punishing the law breakers. A penal statute punishes certain acts. Some instances of such statutes are the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Arms Act, 1959 etc.
8. Taxing statute or fiscal statute. A taxing statute is one which imposes taxes on income or certain other kinds of transactions. Every taxing statute has a charging section and provisions laying down the procedure for assessment of the tax and penalties, procedure for collection and recovery of tax.
9. Explanatory statute. A statute which explains a law and is enacted with a view to supply an apparent omission or to clarify ambiguity as to the meaning of an expression used in a previous statute is known as explanatory statute.
10. Amending statute. An amending statute is one which makes an addition to or operates to change the original law so as to effect an improvement therein or to more effectively carry out the purposes for which the original law was passed.
11. Repealing statute. A repcaling statute is one which repeals an earlier statute.
12. Curative or validating statute. A curative or validating statute is one which is passed to cure defects in prior law or to validate iegal proceedings, instruments or acts of public and private administrative authorities which in the absence of such an Act would be void for want of conformity with existing legal requirements.
C. Classification with reference to method. From the point of view of method, statute may be classified as-
1. Mandatory Statute
2. Directory Statute
1. Mandatory Statute. A statute compelling the performance of certain things or compelling the doing of certain thing in a certain manner is called as a mandatory statute. A mandatory statute is to be observed and complied with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute H.V.Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque. AIR1955 SC233)
2. Directory Statute, Where the statute merely directs or permits a thing to be done, but does not compel its performance, such a statute is called a ‘directory statute’. In case of breach of a mandatory statute, the result leads to illegality hence to nullity while in breach of a Directory Statute simply irregularity creeps in, which may be regularised or ignored.
D. Classification with reference to the extent of application- From the point of view of extent of application of a statute, it may be classified as-
1. Public Statute.
2. Private Statute
1. Public Statute-A statute which relates to a matter of public policy and deals with the rights and dutios of general public is a public statute
2. Private Statute-A private statute is one which deals with matters which are not of public concern but which are individual in nature.
Q. 1 (f). Distinguish between-
(i) a statute and an Ordinance
(ii) a temporary statute and a permanent statute.
Ans. Distinction between a statute and an ordinance. (1) A statute comes into being after its passage by the two Houses or (by one House where in the State there is no Vidhan Parishad) and duly assented by the Head of the State, i.e., the President or the Governor as the case may be and comes into force from the date it finds assent of the Head of the State or from the date it is published in official Gazette as per provision of the statute.
Where as an Ordinance is promulgated by the Head of the State, i.e., the President or the Governor as the case may be and comes into force from the date mentioned in the Ordinance or from immediate effect.
(2) A statute is framed to cope with the public opinion by the legislature having full discussion of the problem to solve it whereas an Ordinance is promulgated to cope with an emergent problem when the legislature is not in session.
(3) Every Ordinance is to be laid before both Houses or one House (where Vidhan Parishad has not been constituted in case of a State) and shall cease to operate after six weeks from the date of re-assembly of the legislature or can be withdrawn before these six weeks by the Head of the State whereas a statute lasts till it is replaced, repealed or amended or upto the date provided in the statute itself.
(4) Usually an Ordinance if not withdrawn takes the shape of a statute after being passed by the legislature with due assent of the Head of the State, whereas a statute may be replaced by another statute or become a part of a consolidating statute.
(5) A statute before coming into existence faces the rigours of discussions, amendments etc. motioned by the members of the legislature whereas an Ordinance comes into existence by the promulgative authority of the Head of the State without any such discussions etc.
(6) In a statute the will of the elected members of the legislature is embodied covering many facets of problems while in an Ordinance the administrative and legislative will of the Head of the State is embodied to cope with an emergent situation when the legislature is not in session.
Distinction between a temporary and a permanent statute :
(1) A statute is permanent when no time is fixed for its duration whereas in a temporary statute some time is fixed after which it becomes non-operative.
(2) A permanent statute remains in force till it is repealed which may be express or implied whereas a temporary statute comes to an end after the expiry of the date mentioned in the statute for its operation.
(3) A permanent statute is not abrogated by efflux of time or non-user whereas a temporary statute lasts till the date mentioned for its operation.
(4) A temporary statute entails a specified time for its expiry unless it is repealed earlier whereas in permanent statute there is no such specified time and it continues till it is repealed.
(5) A statute is not regarded as temporary though the purpose as mentioned in its preamble is temporary when no fixed period is specified for its duration, as such it comes within the category of a permanent statute. For a temporary statute a fixed period for its duration is necessary.
(6) The duration of a temporary statute may be extended by a fresh statute or by exercise of the power grafted in the original statute. A permanent statute does not require such an exercise.
(7) When a temporary statute expires it cannot be revived by amendment. An expired temporary statute can be revived by re-enacting it in similar terms or by enacting a statute expressly mentioning therein that expired statute is being revived. There is no need of such exercise in case of a permanent statute though it can be merged in a consolidating statute if there is such a need.