General Clauses Act

• This act is not confined to a particular branch of the law, but applies to
all branches.
• The General Clauses Act makes provisions as to the construction of
General Acts and other laws of all India application.
• The General Clauses Act, 1897 contains ‘definitions’ of some words and
also some general principles of interpretation. This is an Act intends to
provide general definitions which shall be applicable to all Central Acts
and Regulations where there is no definition in those Acts or regulations
that emerge with the provisions of the Central Acts or regulations,
unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.
• The General Clauses Act has been enacted to shorten language used in
parliamentary legislation and to avoid the repetition of the same words
in the same course of the same piece of legislation. Act is meant to avoid
the superfluity of language in a statute wherever it is possible to do so.
• Example : Wherever the law provides that court will have the power to
appoint, suspend or remove a receiver, the legislature simply enacted
that wherever convenient the court may appoint receiver and it was
implied within that language that it may also remove or suspend him.
(Rayarappan V. Madhavi Amma, A.I.R. 1950 F.C. 140)
• The General Clauses Act, 1897 was enacted on 11th March, 1897 to
consolidate and extend the General Clauses Act, 1868 and 1887.
Objects of the Act
• (1) to shorten the language of central Acts;
• (2) to provide, as far as possible, for uniformity of, expression in
central Acts, by giving definitions of a series of terms in common use;
•(3) to state explicitly certain convenient rules the construction and
interpretation of Central Acts; and
• (4) to guard against slips and oversights by importing into every Act
certain common form clauses, which otherwise ought to be inserted
expressly in every Central Act.
• The General Clauses Act, or, for that matter, the Interpretation Act of
any other country, codifies all the ‘rules’ of statutory interpretation.
• The so- called rules of interpretation are really in the nature of guide-
lines, and are not to be treated as mathematical formula.
• In fact, even the definitions contained in the General Clauses Act
apply only where the context does not otherwise require.
The Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam
Chand Thapar
• It stated that the purpose of this Act is to place in one single Statute
different provisions as regards interpretation of words and legal
principles which would otherwise have to be specified separately in
many different Acts and regulations.
• The purpose of the Act is to avoid superfluity of language in statutes
wherever it is possible to do so.
• The General Clauses Act thus makes provisions as to the construction
of General and other laws of all-India application
STATE ACTS
• Every state has its own General clauses Act, which applies to State Acts.
• The lead in this matter was taken by the former presidencies of Bombay,
Bengal
• The earliest Act on the subject was Bombay Act 10 of 1866. The first
General Clauses Act in Madras and Bengal was enacted in 1867.
• The Central Act of 1897 has stood the test of time. Its value in avoiding
superfluity of language in statutes has been commended by courts
• There can be no better testimony of its utility than the fact that courts
have, on considerations of equity, justice and good conscience, thought fit
to extend its principles not only to subordinate legislation, but also to
private documents.
• The Act has also served as a model for all States General Clauses Acts.
• The Act has been expressly applied to interpretation of the
Constitution by Article 367 of the Constitution
Coming into operation of enactments
• Sections 5 to 13 – Sections 5 to 13 of the Act contains, general rules of
Construction, other than definitions.
• These sections fall under two broad groups. – First, there are sections
dealing with the commencement and repeal of enactments.–
Secondly, there are sections which provide for other general rules of
construction.
• The Act does not contain any detailed provisions relating to the use in
interpretation of marginal notes, headings, punctuations and the like.
REPEAL
• Section 6 of the Act deals with repeal.
• Its main object is to reverse the common law rule that a repeal
obliterates the, statute for all purposes for the future
• OTHER PROVISIONS
• BODY OF PERSONS: Whenever an enactment has to incorporate a
body of person, it has to expressly – provide, in a separate section, for
many matters dealing with the effect of incorporation.
• POWERS AND FUNCTIONARIES: – Provisions as to power and
functionaries are contained in sections 14- 19 of the Act.
• Construction of notifications, etc., issued under enactments,
• Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications,
orders, rules, or bye-laws
• Making of rules or bye-laws and issuing of orders between passing and
commencement of enactment
• Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous publication
• Continuation of orders, etc, issued under enactments repealed and re- enacted,
• Recovery of fines
• Provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments
• Meaning of service by post
• Citation of enactments
• Saving for previous enactment, rules any bye-laws,
• Application of Act to Ordinances
• Application of Act to Acts made by the governor-general
• Construction of references to Local Government of a Province
Hathibudi Anandar v. Govindan
• According to S.3(57) of the General Clauses Act, the expression “son” is
defined as “in the case of any one whose personal law permits adoption, shall
include an adopted son..”
• the tenant petitioner, who has occupied the non-residential building, refused
to vacate it. The landlord has required the building bona fide for establishing
retail business for his foster son. On the petitioner’s refusal, the landlord
obtained an eviction order under S.10(3)(a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961. But in the revision petition, the tenant
questioned the validity of the eviction order. He contended that he could not
be evicted to accommodate the land lord's foster son. The court examined
whether the “foster son” would be a 'member of the family' occurring in S.
10(3) (a) (iii)58 and S. 2(6-A), of the said Act.59 The Court observed:
• A son, in the generally accepted sense, is one who is begotten. Most
legal systems also recognize, as a son, one who is taken in adoption.
But a foster son is neither begotten, nor taken in adoption. He is
merely fostered, that is so say, brought up by his foster parent. He
lacks the vital element which attaches to a natural-born son. He lacks
too the legal cognition which is accorded to an adopted son. His
relationship to the foster parent is not a jural relationship; it is a
sentimental relationship, pure and simple.
• A foster son is thus no son at all. The suffix 'son' is permitted to him
only as a matter of common courtesy. It follows, therefore, that he
cannot be held to be a member of the landlord's family within the
meaning of Section 2(6-A) of the Act.
• Thus the Madras High Court did not include the “foster son” within
the meaning of “Son”. On the basis of this interpretation, it further
held that a landlord cannot invoke S. 10(3)(a) (iii) of the said Act to
compel his tenant to make way for his foster son
K.V.Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal,
• decision was reversed by the Supreme Court
• A similar question under S.2 (6A) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease
and Rent Control) Act came before the Supreme Court. In the instant
case, the deceased Thiruvannamalai Bakthar, who carried on the lime-
shell business, executed a will in favour of his wife (respondent) and
his foster son Arunachala Bakthar, who was the son of his real
brother. In order to carry on her husband business on the said
premises, she applied for an eviction order. The appellant took the
plea that Arunachala Bakthar was not the natural son of the deceased
Thiruvannamalai Bakthar.
• The Supreme Court made a reference to the ancient and modern Hindu Law
and Re Divi Dita. In the light of the above mentioned references, the court
found the term “son” to be a flexible one. It also resorted to dictionary
meaning of the following words: foster son, foster brother, foster mother
and foster sister
• the court interpreted that the “Foster Son” is a son who is not the real son
or direct descendant of a person after his marriage. Regarding the issue of
the instant case, the court found that the foster son was a blood relation of
the deceased and heir to his property. He was also very devoted to his
foster father and carried on his business. Based on the above facts, the
Supreme Court observed that Arunachala Bakthar was clearly a member.