REPEAL OF A STATUTE :
A power to make a law with respect to the topics committed to parliament or state
legislature carries with it a power to repeal a law on those topics. Subject to any constitutional
restriction, the general rule is that “the power of a legislative body to repeal a law is co-extensive
with its power to enact such a law,” and a legislature which has no power to enact a law on a
particular subject-matter has also no power to repeal the same. If parliament chooses, in a
subsequent act, to make it perfectly plain that the previous one is being to some extent repealed
or abrogated, that must have effect, because it is the will of the legislature.
An act, therefore, may be repealed by a later “distinct and repealing enactment or an
enactment inconsistent and irreconcilable therewith”. In other words no repeal can be brought
about “unless there is an express repeal of an earlier act by the later act, or unless the two acts
cannot stand together”. A repeal may thus be by express words of a later statute, or may be
implied on considerations of inconsistency, or irreconcilability of the provisions of an earlier
statute, with those of a later statute. A power ‘to amend or repeal’ will, therefore, imply a power
to amend or repeal by implication, i.e., by making inconsistent laws.
Repeal by implication – A repeal by implication takes place when (a) the subsequent act
is so inconsistent or irreconcilable with an existing prior act that one of the two can remain in
force or (b) an act covers the whole subject of an earlier act and is intended to be substituted.
The validity of such a repeal is sustained on the ground that the last expression of the legislative
will should prevail.
It is a well recognized principle of interpretation of statutes that an enactment or rule
having the force of law cannot be held to be repealed by implication by a later enactment or
statutory rule unless the provisions of the earlier enactment or rule are plainly repugnant to
those of the subsequent enactment or rule and the entire subject-matter of the first is taken by
the subsequent enactment. Repeal by implication is the consequent of contradictory or
inconsistent legislation and should not be imputed to legislation or rule making authority unless
one is driven to do so. Where a later enactment or a subordinate legislation is so inconsistent
with or repugnant to an earlier enactment or subordinate legislation that the two cannot co exist,
then the latter one would effect repeal of the former by implication (Dharan Gadhara Chemical
Works v. Dhardngadhra Municipality and Another (1985 4 S.C.C. 91).
The general rule is that the repealing act are unless the contrary intention appears, (i)
not to affect the previous operation of any enactments so repealed or anything duly done under
any enactment so repealed (ii) not to affect any privilege, right, obligation or liability acquired,
accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed or (iii) not to affect any penalty, for failure
or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed”
or (iv) not to effect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right,
privilege, obligation; liability, penalty of forfeiture aforesaid.
The repeal of any act does not necessarily result in the repeal of the rules. The rules and
regulations do not lose their character as rules and regulations, even though they are to be of
the same effect as if contained in the act.
The general rule of repeal that when a parent act is repealed, all laws made thereunder
stand repealed does not apply to laws made under a constitution act, such a law has to be
expressly repealed. It has to be effected. In the case of subordinate legislation, the emanating
law dies unless saved, but a new law made under a constitution act survives will expressly
repealed.
A power to make a law with respect to the topics committed to parliament or state
legislature carries with it a power to repeal a law on those topics. Subject to any constitutional
restriction, the general rule is that “the power of a legislative body to repeal a law is co-extensive
with its power to enact such a law,” and a legislature which has no power to enact a law on a
particular subject-matter has also no power to repeal the same. If parliament chooses, in a
subsequent act, to make it perfectly plain that the previous one is being to some extent repealed
or abrogated, that must have effect, because it is the will of the legislature.
An act, therefore, may be repealed by a later “distinct and repealing enactment or an
enactment inconsistent and irreconcilable therewith”. In other words no repeal can be brought
about “unless there is an express repeal of an earlier act by the later act, or unless the two acts
cannot stand together”. A repeal may thus be by express words of a later statute, or may be
implied on considerations of inconsistency, or irreconcilability of the provisions of an earlier
statute, with those of a later statute. A power ‘to amend or repeal’ will, therefore, imply a power
to amend or repeal by implication, i.e., by making inconsistent laws.
Repeal by implication – A repeal by implication takes place when (a) the subsequent act
is so inconsistent or irreconcilable with an existing prior act that one of the two can remain in
force or (b) an act covers the whole subject of an earlier act and is intended to be substituted.
The validity of such a repeal is sustained on the ground that the last expression of the legislative
will should prevail.
It is a well recognized principle of interpretation of statutes that an enactment or rule
having the force of law cannot be held to be repealed by implication by a later enactment or
statutory rule unless the provisions of the earlier enactment or rule are plainly repugnant to
those of the subsequent enactment or rule and the entire subject-matter of the first is taken by
the subsequent enactment. Repeal by implication is the consequent of contradictory or
inconsistent legislation and should not be imputed to legislation or rule making authority unless
one is driven to do so. Where a later enactment or a subordinate legislation is so inconsistent
with or repugnant to an earlier enactment or subordinate legislation that the two cannot co exist,
then the latter one would effect repeal of the former by implication (Dharan Gadhara Chemical
Works v. Dhardngadhra Municipality and Another (1985 4 S.C.C. 91).
The general rule is that the repealing act are unless the contrary intention appears, (i)
not to affect the previous operation of any enactments so repealed or anything duly done under
any enactment so repealed (ii) not to affect any privilege, right, obligation or liability acquired,
accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed or (iii) not to affect any penalty, for failure
or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed”
or (iv) not to effect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right,
privilege, obligation; liability, penalty of forfeiture aforesaid.
The repeal of any act does not necessarily result in the repeal of the rules. The rules and
regulations do not lose their character as rules and regulations, even though they are to be of
the same effect as if contained in the act.
The general rule of repeal that when a parent act is repealed, all laws made thereunder
stand repealed does not apply to laws made under a constitution act, such a law has to be
expressly repealed. It has to be effected. In the case of subordinate legislation, the emanating
law dies unless saved, but a new law made under a constitution act survives will expressly
repealed.
