Interpretation of Constitution – Statutes

  1. S. 4(1) & (2) of the Service Tribunal Act — The definition of words and phrases given in a statute would be attached in cases of all the provisions of the such statute, until and unless the application of the definition has been expressly excluded — Even cases falling within the ambit of sub-section 2 of section 4 only a civil servant was competent to prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal — Held: Un-amended definition of a ‘civil servant’ was applicable to the respondent and his appeal to the Service Tribunal was not competent. MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN KHAN vs. Raja HASHMAT ALI KHAN and 3 others 2002 SCR 393 (A)
  2. A pick and choose cannot be made while applying the provisions of the Constitutions to the proceedings other than those falling under section 42 by claiming that the said provisions will apply to certain petitions outside the scope of section 42, e.g., S.47, but not to the others (like petitions u/s 42-D) — Application of a section cannot be limited in its scope at the choice of a party, unless it is specifically limited by the statute itself. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another v. Prof. G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (H)
  3. The word ‘petition’ if limited in its application to the cases falling within the ambit and scope of Section 42(10)(11) and (12) only, not only that all the petitions but also the  appeals arising out of the judgments of the Administrative Tribunals u/s 47 of the Constitution will not be covered by the provisions of Section 42(13)(A)(B)(C) — In case of difference of opinion between the learned Judges comprising a Bench if there is no majority there will be no mode to resolve the controversy arising out of the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal — In such a case petitions or appeals filed u/s 47 of the Constitution will remain undecided and undisposed of — Which obviously cannot be the intention of legislature — In such an event the whole section 47 will become redundant and a surplusage. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another  v. Prof. G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (G)
  4. S.42(13) (B) & (C) — Word ‘petition’ cannot be limited in its application to petition for leave to appeal — The word ‘petition’ has not been defined anywhere in the Constitution or in the Supreme Court Rules — It has to be assigned its ordinary dictionary meanings — The word petition, according to its ordinary dictionary meanings, includes a written application to a Court requesting judicial action on certain matters — The review petition is very much included in the word ‘petition’ used in the aforesaid provision of the Constitution. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another  v. Prof. G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (D)
  5. S.42 (13(B)(C) of the Constitution if held not applicable to a case of difference of opinion in a review petition no other procedure is provided for disposal of the review petitions in the Constitution or the Supreme Court Rules — Disposal of review petition cannot be made on the basis of mere suggestions or opinions howsoever novel or fine the same may be — The question has to be resolved according to the provisions of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another  v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak 2002 SCR 476 (O)
  6. The provision of the Constitution or a statute are not only to be read as a whole but the same have to be interpreted and construed in a manner which may harmonize various provisions of the Constitution or a statute and may not cause any conflict or render any other provision inoperative and redundant. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (I)
  7. In the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 the words ‘petition’ and ‘application’ have been used interchangeably — Further the word ’petition’ has been used for all sorts of application filed under the Supreme Court Rules — If the word petition is restricted to petitions for leave to appeal only, the situations enumerated and many other will remain unresolved, which being absurd and  ridiculous situation, cannot be expected of or attributed to the legislature — The interpretation which creates harmony and is inconsistent with smooth working of the statute has to be adopted — If an established Court is provided as forum for a particular redress, ordinary incidents of procedure of that Court are to attach to it. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another  v. Prof. G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (J)
  8. Rule Noscitur a sociis has been held to be a treacherous rule which is not universally applicable. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another  v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak 2002 SCR 476 (K)
  9. The proviso is not to over-ride or control the provisions of the main section — It creates a special and limited class as an exception to the subject matter covered by main section — It will not be applicable to the review petitions and other petitions where there is no judgment of a subordinate Court under challenge. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another  v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (P)
  10. The Court while interpreting the provisions of a statute can neither add to nor subtract anything from any provision. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (E)
  11. Accordingly to well celebrated rule of interpretation of statutes, the provisions of a statute are to be read as a whole and one provision cannot be read in isolation to the others. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another  v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (F)
error: Content is protected !!