1

UNIT 4

1. Presumption of Validity

In legal interpretation, there is a presumption that statutes are valid and do not violate the
Constitution. Laws enacted by the Parliament, State legislatures or their subordinate bodies
should adhere to constitutional boundaries and not contradict the provisions and spirit of
the Constitution. When faced with two possible interpretations, one that upholds the
constitutionality of the statute and another that renders it void, the interpretation that
preserves the constitutionality of the law should be followed.

There is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enacted law. If someone claims

that a law is unconstitutional, they must demonstrate a violation of constitutional boundaries.
When the validity of a statute passed by a competent legislature is challenged, the court
assumes its validity.

However, if the law appears arbitrary and discriminatory, the presumption of constitutionality
cannot be upheld. In cases of doubt regarding the constitutional validity of a law, the benefit of
the doubt should lean towards its constitutionality. The court should assume that the
legislature acted intentionally and expressed its intention appropriately in the law. Every word
used by the legislature carries significance and unless it is proven that the legislation has
crossed constitutional limits, it is presumed to be constitutionally valid.

2. The Territorial Operation of the Act is within the Country

The general principle regarding acts of parliament is that they are applicable within the
territories of the country in which they are enacted unless stated otherwise. Statutes passed by
parliament are binding within the boundaries of the country and do not have extra-territorial
operation.

However, Article 245(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no act made by parliament
shall be deemed invalid on the ground of having extra-territorial operation. Courts are
obligated to enforce such legislation.

For instance, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has extra-territorial application. Section 3 states
that any person bound by Indian law who commits an offence outside India shall be tried in
India as if the offence was committed within the country. Section 4 further extends the
application of the IPC to offences committed by Indian citizens in any place outside India or by
any person on a ship or aircraft registered in India, regardless of its location in the world.

State legislatures in India have the power to enact laws for the entire state or any specific part
of the state. These laws are applicable only within the territory of that particular state and do
not have extra-territorial operations.

To establish a territorial connection, two factors must be considered:

i) The territorial connection should be real and factual, rather than illusory.

ii) The liability under the Act being enforced must be related to that territorial connection only.

3. Interpretation That Takes Away Jurisdictions of Court Must Not Be Enforced

There is a presumption in statutory interpretation that an interpretation of a statute that

restricts or takes away the jurisdiction of the courts should not be given effect unless the words
of the statute clearly and explicitly provide for it.

In both civil and criminal cases, there is a strong presumption that civil courts have
jurisdiction over matters of a civil nature. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts
should not be readily inferred. This presumption is based on the principle that courts should
be accessible to all seeking justice and that the existing state of the law should be maintained.

Unless the legislature clearly and expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the courts or it can be
inferred by necessary implication, the courts should be presumed to have jurisdiction. Statutes
should be construed in a manner that avoids taking away the jurisdiction of superior courts or
extending jurisdiction through the right to appeal.

Statutes that confer jurisdiction on subordinate courts, tribunals or government agencies

should be strictly construed. Unless the construction of an act clearly indicates the intention of
the legislature to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of
 2

judicature is not taken away. When jurisdiction is conferred by a statute, it is implied that the
act also grants the power to perform all acts necessary for its execution.

Special powers granted by an act must be limited to the purpose for which they are granted.
The power of control by superior courts cannot be taken away unless expressly provided by the
statute. In the absence of clear statutory provisions, it is presumed that new jurisdiction is not
created or existing jurisdiction is not enlarged.

Since legislation grants jurisdiction to the courts, only legislation can take away that
jurisdiction. If an interpretation of an act allows for two constructions, one giving jurisdiction
to the court and the other taking it away, the construction that grants jurisdiction to the court
should prevail. Parties to a dispute cannot, by mutual consent, create or take away jurisdiction
from the court where their dispute can be adjudicated.

There is a general presumption that civil courts have jurisdiction to hear all civil matters. The
exclusion of civil jurisdiction must be expressed in clear terms or by necessary implication. The
general rule is that courts have jurisdiction over civil matters and the burden of proof lies on
the party alleging the exclusion of civil jurisdiction. In cases where the jurisdiction of courts is
excluded, civil courts have the power to examine whether the provisions of the statute have
been complied with and whether the prescribed legal procedures have been followed by
tribunals established by the statute.

Non-compliance with the statute or procedural requirements can be challenged in a court of

law. This principle is based on the presumption that an aggrieved person should always have
recourse to ordinary civil courts, in addition to any remedies provided by the statute, unless
expressly excluded by the language of the statute or necessary implication.