Smt. Sadhna Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 January, 2017
The guidance on the question as to when
an old statute can apply to new state of affairs not
in contemplation when the statute was enacted
was furnished by Lord Wilberforce in his
dissenting speech in Royal College of Nursing of
7 McCartan Turkington Breen (a firm) v. Times Newspapers Ltd., (2000) 4 All
ER 913, p. 926 (HL) (LORD STEYN)
8 Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxminarayan Chopra, AIR 1962 SC 159, p.
162 : 1962 (3) SCR 146
9 Randal N. Grahm, A Unified Theory of Statutory Interpretation, (2002) 23
Statute Law Review 91, p. 134
10 Birmingham City Council v. Oakley, (2001) 1 All ER 385, p. 396 (HL)
W.P.(S)No.4927/2016
Page 12 of 24
the U.K. v. Dept. of health and Social Security 11.
Which is now treated as authoritative12. Lord
Wilberforce said: "In interpreting an Act of
Parliament it is proper, and indeed necessary, to
have regard to the state of affairs existing, and
known by Parliament to be existing, at the time. It
is a fair presumption that Parliament's policy or
intention is directed to that state of affairs.
Leaving aside cases of omission by inadvertence,
this being not such a case when a new state of
affairs, or a fresh set of facts bearing on policy,
comes into existence, the courts have to consider
whether they fall within the parliamentary
intention. They may be held to do so, if they fall
within the same genus of facts as those to which
the expressed policy has been formulated. They
may also be held to do so if there can be
detected a clear purpose in the legislation which
can only be fulfilled if the extension is made.
How liberally these principles may be applied
must depend on the nature of the enactment, and
the strictness or otherwise of the words in which it
has been expressed. The courts should be less
willing to extend expressed meaning if it is clear
that the Act in question was designed to be
restrictive or circumscribed in its operation rather
than liberal or permissive. They will be much less
willing to do so where the new subject matter is
different in kind or dimension from that for which
the legislation was passed. In any even there is
one course which the courts cannot take under
the law of this country: they cannot fill gaps; they
cannot by asking the question, 'What would
Parliament have done in this current case, not
being one in contemplation, if the facts had been
before it?' attempt themselves to supply the
answer, if the answer is not to be found in the
terms of the Act itself13".