UTRESMAGI

SVALEATQUAM PEREAT

Themax im“ UtResMagi sVal eatQuam Per eat”isar uleofconst ructi

on
whichl i
ter
al l
ymeanst heconst ructionofar uleshoul dgiveef fectt ot he
rulerathert handestroyingi t.i.e.
,whent herear et woconst ructi
ons
possiblefrom aprovision,ofwhi chnegi v
esef f
ecttot hepr ovisionand
theotherrendersthepr ovisi
oninoper ati
ve,thef ormerwhi chgi vesef fect
tothepr ovisi
onisadopt edandt hel att
erisdi scarded.Itgener all
yst arts
withapr esumptioninfav orofconst i
tuti
onalit
yandpr eferaconst ructi
on
whichembar ksthestatutewi t
hint hecompet encyoft helegislature.But
i
tist obenot edthatwhent hepresumpt ionofconst i
tuti
onfails, thent he
statut
es cannot be r endered v alid or oper ativ
e accor dingl y.The
l
andmar kcaseofIndraSawhneyv.Uni onofI ndi a,(
1992)Supp.( 3)SCC
217,wher et heSupremeCour tst ruckdownt hest atelegislationasi t
wasv iol
ativeofconsti
tutionandul tr
a-vir
esoft helegisl
ati
vecompet ency .

UtResMagi sValeatQuam Per eatisal egalmaxi m,usedinI ndia,wit

h
thef ol
lowingmeani ng:Itisbet terforat hingtohav eeff
ectt hant obe
madev oid,i.
e.,itisbettertov ali
dat eat hi
ngt hantoinv al
idateit.A
statuteissupposedt obeanaut henticr eposit
oryofthelegislati
vewill
andt hef uncti
onofacour tist oi nterpretit“accordi
ngtot hei nt
entof
them thatmadei t
.”From thatfunct i
ont hecour tisnottoresil
e, i
thasto
abidebyt hemax i
m utresmagi sv aleatquam per eat,l
estt
hei ntenti
onof
theLegi sl
aturemaygoi nv ai
norbel efttoev aporat
einthinair.(CSTv.
MangalSenShy am LalAIR1975SC1106. )

The courtshould asf aras possi ble av oidt hatconst r

uction which
att
ri
butesi r
rati
onalitytot he Legi slat ure.I tmustobv iousl
ypr efera
constr
uctionwhichr enderst hest atut orypr ovisionconst i
tuti
onall
yv ali
d
rat
herthant hatwhi chmakesi tv oid.( K.P.Var ghesev.I TO[ 1981]131
ITR597( SC)andSt ateofPunj abv.Pr em Sukhdas[ 1977]3SCR403. )I
t
i
sbecauset heLegislat
urei spr esumedt oenactal aw,whichdoesnot
contr
aveneorv i
olatetheconst it
utionalpr ovisions,( M.K.Balakri
shnan
Menonv.ACED[ 1972]83I TR162( SC).)andi spr esumednott ohav e
i
ntendedanexcessofi sownj urisdict i
on.( CWTv.Smt .Hasmat unnisa
Begum [ 1989]42Taxman133( SC).)Ther uleiswel l-
set
tledthata
construct
ionwhichi mput
est otheLegi sl
atur
et autol
ogyorsuper f
lui
tyi
n
theuseofl anguagemustasf araspossi ble,beav oided.TheCourt
shouldalway spreferaconstructi
onwhi chwillgivesomemeani ngand
effecttothewor dsusedbyt heLegi slat
ure,ratherthanthatwhichwill
reduceittofuti
l
ity.(CI
Tv.R.M.Ami n[
1977]106I TR368( SC).)

A const ructionwhi chr endersanypr ovi

sionint heActnugat or
yand
defeatst heobj ectofthepr ovi
sion,isav oi
ded,CI
( Tv.S.TejaSingh[1959]
35ITR408( SC) .
)eventhought hel anguageoft hestatutesuffer
sfrom a
sl
ighti nexact i
tude.Thuswhenahar moniousconst ructi
onispossi bl
e
which f urtherst he objects oft he Act ,the same i s pr
eferr
ed toa
construct i
onwhi chleadst oaconf l
ictbetweent hetwopr ovi
sionsinthe
Act.(CWTv.Yuvr ajAmr inderSingh[ 1985]156I TR525( SC).
)

Int
er pretati
onofmachi nerypr ovisionshoul dbesuchast omakesi t
wor kable.(CITv.Mahal iram Ramj idas[ 1940]8I TR442( PC) .
)Al lparts
ofasect ionshouldbeconst ruedt oget herandev eryclauset hereofwi th
reference t ot he contex tand ot hercl auses t hereof so t hatt he
const r
uct i
on puton t hatpar ti
cularpr ov i
sion makes a consi stent
enact mentoft hewhol est atute.(CI Tv.Nat ionalTajTr aders[1980]121
ITR535( SC).
)Nopar toft hest atutecanj ustbei gnoredbysay ingt hat
theLegi slatur
eenactedt hesamenotknowi ngwhati twassay i
ng.I ti
st o
beassumedt hattheLegi sl
atur edel iberat
elyusedt hatexpressionandi t
i
ntendedt oconv eythesamemeani ng.( CITv.Distributor
s( Baroda)( P.)
Ltd.[1972]83I TR377( SC) .)

WordsusedbyPar l
i
amentmustbegi ventheirordinar
ymeani CI
ng.( Tv.
Federati
onofI ndi
anChamber sofCommer ce&I ndust
ry[
1981]130ITR
186( SC).)Thedoct rineofutr esmagisv aleatquam per eatisalso
appl
icableintheinterpret
ati
onofaninstr
ument ,documentordeed.The
i
nterpret
ati
on whi ch upholds i
tsvali
dit
y should be preferr
ed.(Ram
LaxmanSugarMi l
lsv.CI T[
1967]66I
TR613( SC) .)

Adeedhastober eadasawholeandef fectisgiventoal lit

sparts,
unl
essapar
toft
hedeedissoinconsi
stentwithrestofi
tthatnoef f
ect
canbegi
ventoi
t.Thelawi
ntendstosavet hedeedifpossible.Thi
sis
somet i
mesex pressedi nt hemaxi m utr esmagi sv aleatquam pereat.If
byar easonabl econst ruction,theint
entionoft hepar t
iescanbear riv
ed
atandt hati ntentioncar r
iedoutconsi stentlywitht her ul
eofl aw,the
courtwilltaket hatcour se.( NarayanPr asadVi jaivargiy
av.CI T[1976]
102ITR748( Cal.).
)Thi sdoct ri
ne,howev er,cannotbepushedsof aras
toalt
ert hemeani ngoft heclearwor dsusedi nanenact mentandt o,in
eff
ect,repealst atutorypr ovisi
ons,bymaki ng theseusel esswi t
hout
hol
dingt hem void.( StateofPunj abv.Pr em Sukhdas[ 1977]3SCR403. )

Li
kewiseift
hewor dsofthestatuteonapr
operconst r
uctioncanber
ead
onl
yinapar ti
cul
arway,thenitcannotbereadinanotherwaybyacourt
ofconstr
uctionanxi
oust oav oidit
sunconsti
tut
ionali
ty.(CWTv.Smt.
HasmatunnisaBegum [1989]42Taxman133( SC) .
)