Doctrine of pari materia

Meaning of pari materia

The concept of pari materia is built on the idea of a continuation of the legislative method in those acts and regular terms that had been utilize. No meaning change is required unless this was previously intended.

It is an established rule of interpretation; there is no uncertainty: where statutes are pari materia, that is, as long as they are related to make a code of legislation or system, this type of act is taken jointly as to form 1 system and as a rewrite and application together. When the provisions of the two acts are in sync, it is permissible to study them together.

Lord Mansfield observed that “statutes in pari materia are to be taken as a single system to defeat the mischief.” Those two laws are simply different aspects of the same provision.

It noted that “where a term is used without definition in one Act, but is defined in another Act that 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. This may be done even where the definition is contained in a later Act.”

Applying this doctrine is either to take the word “parliament” or,  as well-planned, to take its earlier method. It is very difficult to regulate. One test is to see if either of the two Acts is in pari materia.

Elements of pari materia act

• The Acts which have been given a collective title
• The acts need to be interpret.
• The acts that are being identical in brief titles.
• Some Acts which are dealt with same lines & subject matter

Reason behind the rule of pari materia

A code of statutes describing one subject was controlled by one spirit and policy, considered to be essential and amicable in its various kinds and provisos. If there was only one law and all acts in pari materia were combined, they would be instructed to contrast in the making of statutes because they are noted to be created on a single system and use a single object in view.

Application of the doctrine of pari materia

This doctrine gives all regulations concerning labour, administrative authorities, or taxation, inter alia, others can be used to analyse the regulations attached to the same genre.

In this case J.K Steal Ltd V UOI & Ors while observing the pari materia provisos of the Central Excises & Salt Act, the SC said that Acts being in pari materia should be taken together as making 1 code & as an understanding to implement each other.

It was observed in C.A Abraham V ITO “In interpreting a fiscal statute the Court cannot proceed to make good deficiencies if there may be any; the Court must interpret the statute as it stands and in case of doubt in a manner favourable to the tax payer.”

Justice Sirki, who gave the decision, observed that “I am not able to appreciate how the insertion of item No.63(36) in the First Schedule of the Tariff Act or the subsequent amendment of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, by Indian Tariff (Amendment Act) 1963, throw any light on the interpretation of item 26AA(i)”.

Justice Hegde, who issued an opinion on two main elements in that case, namely, the record kept in the statutes on January 1 and the same day the situations appeared to have been combined for a typical resolution,

In the case of Employees State Insurance Cor v S.M Sriramulu Naidu it was said that the doctrine of pari materia has not been used to say that the Factory and Employees State Insurance Acts are, in pari materia, they were passed in the same year and both of them profit from the wagers. The Court stated that the Factory Act was necessarily covered by the control of the factory and worker safety,people who are employed in manufacturing or any work subsidiary to that. As a result, they couldn’t be of the same kind.

The Rent & Requisition Act was not considered para materia in Shah & Co. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. because the Rent Act was enacted to revise and integrate the law governing the control of repairs and rents of specific establishments, hotel rates and lodging houses, and evictions. The Requisition Act was enacted to allow for the requisition of land, the continuation order of land, and for particular purposes. As a result, this Act dealt with a completely unrelated issue to the Rent Act. There is no distinction between the two pieces of legislation, and you have no control over whether the Requisition Act describes the same person, class of people, or thing as the Rent Act. As a result, two Acts were not mentioned in pari materia.

The definition of “shall presume” in the Evidence Act and the words “it shall be presumed” in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were both examined in the case of St. of Madras v. Vaidyanatha Iyer. It was stated in St. of Assam & Anr. V. Deva Prasad Barua & Anr., Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 sec. 19, that it related to IT Act, 1922 sec. 22. The Indian Tariff Act of 1934 and the Import and Export Act of 1947 were examined in Dy. Chief Controller of Exports and Imports v. K.T. Kosalram to shed some light on this piece of the government’s Import Control Scheme.

Conclusion

Hence, the doctrine plays a crucial role in filling the space needed to enact the various regulations. To put the provisions in the regulations into effect, the laws pursuing the goals must be studied together. a set of rules given to courts in order for them to implement and execute meaning from functional rules for the same goal and objectives. The case laws examined clearly state that the court must examine the functioning and seeking of several laws as para materia in the process of framing Acts. Therefore, this doctrine is a crucial instrument to revise and essentially apply the laws.

For more notes on Jurisprudence, click here.

Contributed by: V. Mohan Vinay and K. Bhanu Sireesha