Use of Pari Materia As An External Aids

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.
Continued:
 It is an ordinary rule of interpretation of statutes that the
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
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.

Use of Pari Materia As An External Aids

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Pari Materia As An External Aids

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Pari Materia As An External Aids

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Pari Materia as an

 In District Mining Oﬃcer and others v Tata Iron & Steel

You might also like