Author: TYC

ISSUE:

Whether a general word should include a specific item even when such specific item is/was separately mentioned?

Whether betel leaves should be considered "vegetables" under the Central Province and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947?

Whether the legislature wanted to make betel leaves taxable or not?

RULE:

Words not defined in the Act itself and being words of everyday use must be construed in its popular sense, meaning which people conversant with subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it.

If the legislature has classified two items separately than then it, clearly indicates that they belong to different categories.

ISSUE:

Whether the first Respondent (a non-graduate) was qualified to stand for election to the Graduates Constituency on all or any of the grounds set out by the petitioner or not?

Whether it is inconsistent or undermines representative principles if the elected candidate lacks the essential qualifications possessed by the electors?

Whether the Constitution, being an organic instrument, requires broad interpretation to uphold the intent of functional representation?

Whether Courts should rely on literal interpretation in the absence of ambiguity and avoid assuming unexpressed qualification?

RULE:

Methods other than literal construction of extracting the meaning can be resorted to only if the language used is contradictory, ambiguous, or leads really to absurd results.

It may be possible to look for legislative intention in materials outside the four-corners of a statute where its language is really ambiguous or conflicting.

Where no such difficulty arises, the mere fact that the intentions of the law makers, sought to be demonstrated by what was said by some of them or by those advising them when the Constitution was on the anvil, were really different from the result which clearly follows from language used in the Legislative provisions under consideration, could not authorize the use of such an exceptional mode of construction.

ISSUE:

Whether green ginger qualifies as a “vegetable” within the common understanding of the term as per the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, despite it being primarily used as a flavouring agent rather than a primary food item?

Whether the terms “sabji,” “tarkari,” and “sak,” used in the Act to describe vegetables should influence the classification of green ginger as a vegetable, given the High Court’s findings based on local language nuances?

Whether the term “vegetable” under item (6) intended to cover the everyday use of vegetables, as understood by common people, or should it be understood in its strict scientific sense?

RULE:

In taxing statutes, terms not specifically defined in the Act, should be interpreted in their ordinary, common sense as understood by the general public, not in technical or scientific terms.

Local language usage is a valid interpretative aid for determining the intended meaning of terms in legislation.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondents to the suit have immunity for the statements made on the floor of the Parliament under clause (2) of Article 105 of the Constitution of India?

Whether the said immunity is against an alleged irregularity of procedure only and not against illegality?

What is the scope of the term “anything said” in Parliament as used in Article 105(2)? Does it encompass all statements, even if irrelevant to the topic under discussion?

What are the limitations of judicial oversight about parliamentary privileges, particularly in cases where individuals feel aggrieved by statements made in Parliament?

RULE:

Once it is proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was being transacted, anything said during that business is immune from proceedings in any court.

Judicial interference in parliamentary proceedings is not permissible. The role of courts is limited when it comes to matters of parliamentary privileges, as MPs should have the freedom to express themselves without fair litigation.

The term “anything said” in Parliament includes everything said during the transaction of parliamentary business. Irrelevant, undignified, or even unparliamentary statements are also covered by this immunity.