It is an identified rule of interpretation there is no hesitation, that where statutes are parimateria that is to say,as long as related to make a code of legislation or system, this kind of Acts are taken jointly as to form 1 system & as rewrite and applying together. It is allowed to study the proviso’s of the 2 Acts combinedly when the same are harmonious to each other. The concept of parimateria is built on the object of a continuation of legislative method in those acts & regular terms had been utilize. No meaning change must be given unless this used to be meant.
Lord Mans field has been noticed that “Statues in pari materia are to be all taken as 1 system to defeat the mischief. Those 2 laws are only the elements of the same proviso”.
It noticed that “Where a term is used without definition in one Act, but is defined in another Act which 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.”
To applying this doctrine is either,to take the word, Parliament as well planned to take its earlier method. It is very difficult to regulate. 1 test is either the 2 Acts are 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 to 1 subject was controlled by 1 spirit & policy,considered to be an essential & amicable in its various kinds & proviso’s. If there was only 1 Law & all Acts in pari materia are combindely taken & they are instructed to contrast in the making of statutes because they are noted to created upon 1 system & utilize 1 object in the view.
Application of the doctrine of pari materia
This doctrine gives all regulations concerning to labour administrative authorities or taxation, interalia, others can be used to analyse the regulations attach to the same genre.
In this case J.K Steal Ltd V UOI & Ors while observing pari materia proviso’s of Central Excises & Salt Act, the SC said that Acts being in pari materia should be taken combindely 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 gave an opinion on 2 main elements which are there in that case, i.e both the record kept in the statutes on 1 &the same day the situations appeared that they were combined for a usual resolution.
In the case of Employees State Insurance Cor v S.M Sriramulu Naidu it said that doctrine of pari materia has not been used to say that the Factories & Employees State Insurance Act are, in pari materia, however it was passed in same year & both of them profit the wagers.The Court stated that Factories Act was necessarily covered with the control of the factory & worker safety,people who are employing in manufacture or any work subsidiary to that. hence both couldn’t considered in same kind.
In Shah & Co v State of Maharashtra & Anr, the Rent & Requisition Act weren’t considered to be para materia as the Rent Act was enacted for the reason of revising & integrating the law making to the control of repairs & rents of particular establishments, hotels rates & lodging houses & evictions. The Requisition Act was enacted to allow for the requisition of land, for continuation order of land & for particular purposes. hence this Act dealt with a matter, fully unlikely from the Rent Act. There is completely no difference b/w the 2 legislation; & can’t control the Requisition Act describes the same person / same class of people or things, as the Rent Act. thus 2 Acts weren’t noted in pari materia.
In case of St of Madras v Vaidyanatha Iyer, the def of “shall presume” in Evidence Act & the words “it shall be presumed” in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were examined the same. In St Of Assam & anr V Deva Prasad Barua & anr, Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act,1939 sec 19 was stated that it related to IT Act,1922 sec 22. In Dy.Chief Controller Of Exports & Imports V K.T Kosalram, the Indian Tariff Act 1934, Import & Exports Act 1947, were examined to push some light on both statutes created piece of govt Import Control Scheme.
hence the doctrine plays a crucial role in filling the space to enact the various regulations. The laws seeking the goals have to study combinedly in process to effect the proviso’s in the regulations. A set of rules given to Courts to implement & execute meaning from functional rules for same aim & objectives. The case laws examined clearly states that the Court examine into the functioning & seeking of several laws in process to frame Acts as para materia. therefore, this doctrine is a crucial instrument to revise & essentially apply the laws.
Contributed by: V. Mohan Vinay and K. Bhanu Sireesha