Use of Pari Materia as an

External Aids to Construction

Prof. (Dr.) S. P. Srivastava
Department of Law and Governance
Meaning & Concept
Pari materia means when two provisions of two different
statutes deal with the same subject matter and form part
of the same subject matter. It is a latin word.
where statutes are parimateria that is to say, are so far
related as to form a system or code of legislation, such
Acts are to be taken together as forming one system and as
interpreting and enforcing each other.
Lord Mansfield has observed that:
“Statues in parimateria are to be all taken as one system to
suppress the mischief..... The two laws are only parts of
the same provision”.
Continued:
Where a term is used without definition in one Act, but
is defined in another Act which is in parimateria 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.
Pari materia will be used only when the subject matter
of the statutes is similar. The principle underlying the
treatment of Acts which are in pari materia is based on
the idea that there is continuity of legislative approach
in such Acts, and common terminology
Condition Precedent for Application
 In Raees-Uz-Zama and Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi, High Court laid down following
conditions:
1. Acts which have been given a collective title. This is a recognition by
Parliament that the Acts have a single subject matter.
2. Acts which are required to be construed as one. Again there is
parliamentary recognition of a single subject matter.
3. Acts having short titles that the identical (apart from the calendar
year).
4. Other Acts which deal with the same subject matter on the same
lines. Here it must be remembered that the Latin word part or paris
means equal, and not merely similar. Such Acts are sometimes
described as forming a code. This does not mean that the Acts are
codifying Acts however.
Reason for Evolution of this Concept
If the Acts are in parimateria it is assumed that
uniformity of language and meaning was intended,
attracting the same considerations as arise from the
linguistic canon of construction that an Act is to be
construed as a whole.
To avoid contradiction or conflict between/ among
statutes dealing with the same subject matter.
It helps to interpret the words of the later statute in
the light of earlier statutes in the same context.
It is an ordinary rule of interpretation of statutes that the
Continued:
words of a statute when there is a doubt about their
meaning are to be understood in the sense in which they
best harmonize with the subject of the enactment and the
object which the legislature has in view. The doctrine helps
in harmonizing the aim and subject of the legislations.
If the words of a statute has been recognized and
interpreted by the Judiciary in a particular way and it has
already gained an authoritative value, then it is obvious
that the statue(s) having similar words/ context will be
dealt in the same manner.
It is to be inferred, that a code of statutes relating to one
subject was governed by one spirit and policy and, intended
to be consistent and harmonious in its several parts and
provisions.
Application of the doctrine

In District Mining Officer and others v Tata Iron & Steel
Co. and another, it was established that pari materia can be
used as an external aid of interpretation.
The General clauses Act 1897 is an example of pari materia.
Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 read with
General clauses Act 1897 gives interpretation for the phrase
“immovable property”. Pari materia will be used only when
the subject matter of the statutes is similar. The principle
underlying the treatment of Acts which are in pari materia
is based on the idea that there is continuity of legislative
approach in such Acts, and common terminology.
Different Acts having same subject matter
In Board of trustees of the Port of Bombay v Sriyanesh Knitters,
AIR 1999 SC 2947.
Held “The Supreme Court read the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 along
with the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are held to be in pari materia
with each other. Different socioeconomic plans are need to be read
together so that they do not create any contradiction while opening
in the same field. The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions
and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 has to be read
with other labour law in force i.e. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and
Contract ( Regulaton and Abolition) Act 1970.
In Phillips v Parnaby, Weight and Measures Act 1889 was read with
the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act 1929.
Continued:
In the matter of J.K. Steal Ltd. v. Union of India and
Ors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering
parimateria provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act,
held that Acts being in parimateria must be taken
together as forming one code and as interpreting and
enforcing each other.
Assistance of an earlier statute
When same words are used in similar context in a later
statute, it is presumed that they have same meaning as in the
earlier statute. When the words of an earlier statute has got
an authoritative exposition by a superior court, use of same
words in similar context in a later Act gives rise to a
presumption that Parliament intends that the same
interpretation should also be followed for construction of
those words in later statutes.
Court while interpreting Article 245(1) and 246 of the
Constitution of India in Bengal Immunity Co Ltd v State of
Bihar10 referred to sec 99(1) and 100 of the Government of
India Act 1935.
Different statutes are in pari materia
Where there are different statutes are in pari materia
though made at different times, or even expired, and
not referring to each other, they shall be taken and
constructed together, as one system, and as
explanatory of each other.
Object is same
In State of Madras v A Vaidyanath Aiyer, section 4 of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was held pari
materia with the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The phrase
“shall presume’ of Indian Evidence Act was utilized to
construe the meaning of “it shall be presumed” of
section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.
Later statutes in pari materia with earlier
Act
Subsequent laws are regarded as supplementary or
complimentary to the earlier enactment.
Later Act will become relevant only when there is
some ambiguity or confusion with the meaning of the
earlier Act.
State of Bihar v S. K. Roy. In this case confusion arose
regarding the definition of “coal mine” under the Coal
Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act 1948
before its 1948 amendment. Court took the assistance
of the amendment Act 1948 to define “coal mine”.
Statute is in pari materia with delegated
legislation
statutes are used to construct statutes which are in
pari materia delegated legislations.
Situations where Acts are not in pari
materia
When a new statutory provision is used in the text of
existing statute, it should be read as one.
When the new legislation although re-enacting many
provisions from earlier statutes, contains a good deal
of fresh materia and deals with a subject on which
social views have drastically changed.
Use of one state legislation to construe another state
legislation on the same subject matter is not
commendable because there can be variation in the
language.
Continued:
When the two Acts are not in pari materia, then
decision rendered with reference to one Act cannot be
applied with reference to the provisions of another
Act.
In the matter of C.A. Abraham v. I.T.O., Kottayam it
was observed that “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.”
Continued:
In Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras v. S.M.
Sriramulu Naidu,
Held: it was held that this doctrine could not be used to say that the
Factories Act and the Employees State Insurance Act are, in
parimateria, though they were enacted in the same year and both of
them were intended to benefit the wage earners. The Court said that
the Employees State Insurance Act was essentially concerned with
the regulation of the safety of the worker, a person employed in the
manufacturing process or in any work incidental thereto. Whereas
the Factories Act was essentially concerned with the regulation of
the factory in the interests and for the safety of the worker, a person
employed in the manufacturing process or in any work incidental
thereto. Thus, both could not be treated to be in the same genre.