Doctrine of Desuetude –Addressing the Constitutional Minefield
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.8.3Abstract
Ever since India became independent in 1947, major reforms have taken place with respect to many aspects of our day-to-day life. Despite this, several of the laws so passed have not adequately led to the advancement of our country. In addition, statutes are often complex, and therefore cannot be understood by the common man. Ironically, the laws that are enacted for the betterment of the citizens are structured and compiled in such a manner, so as to lead to circuitous statutes laden with several technical terms, discouraging the same very people of the country from taking any legal recourse. The law commission has come out with many far-reaching reports to repeal numerous irrelevant laws, which have given rise to considerable confusion in the minds of citizens as well as the litigants. However, the government has not been very proactive on this front, taking shelter under Article 372 of our Constitution which provides the basis for the continuation of such redundant laws. Most of these laws no longer serve their original purposes, given the change in context. This article highlights the problems that are caused by such laws. Further, it gives an insight into the applicability of the doctrine of desuetude and how the judiciary has favoured its applicability to simplify matters relating to the functioning of these laws.References
The Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2015, available at http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Repealing%20and%20amending/Repealing%20and%20amending%20second%20act,%202015.pdf.
The Repealing and Amending (Third) Act, 2015, available at http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Repealing%20and%20amending/Repealing%20and%20Amending%20(3rd)%20Bill.pdf.
Amol Parth, Narendra Modi should repeal these obsolete laws, (Oct. 2014), available at http://www.niticentral.com/2014/10/31/narendra-modi-repeal-obsolete-laws-240252.html.
Id.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 479 (West Group, 8th ed. 2004).
Justice Jitendra N. Bhatt, Dynamics and Dimension of Doctrine of Desuetude, (2004) 4 SCC (Jour.) 21.
Brown v. Magistrate of Edinburgh, 1931 SLT 456.
Desuetude, 7 HARV. L. REV, 119 (2006), available at, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4093616.
Id.
Mark Peter Henriques, Desuetude and Declaratory Judgment: A New Challenge to Obsolete Laws, 5 VA. L. REV, 76 (1990), available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1073157.
Supra note 9 at 3.
Judicial Abrogation of the Obsolete Statute: A Comparative Study,7 HARV. L. REV, 64 (1951), available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1336505.
Id.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Art. 372(1).
DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , 537 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 8th ed, Vol. 10).
Kerala State Electricity Board v. The Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., AIR 1976 SC 1031.
Hemlata P, AIR 1976 AP 375.
Jatindra v. Lala Prasad, AIR 1956 Pat. 469.
Patankar v. Sastry, AIR 1961 SC 272.
C K ALLEN, LAW IN THE MAKING, 452 (Oxford Clarendon Press, 5thed.).
Supra note 9 at 3.
Narayan ShamraoPuranik, (1982) 3 SCC 519.
The Planters Association of Tamil Nadu v. The Secretary to Government, Labour& Employment Department, In The High Court Of Madras, W.P.No.30368 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007, Decided on 5/6/2012.
Bijitsawa Rout v. State of West Bengal &Ors., (2013) 1 CALLT 652 (HC).
Seth Srenikbhai Kasturbhai, AIR 1997 Pat. 179.
Mark, supra note 11 at 3.
Committee of Legal Ethics, 416 SE 2d 720 (W. Va. 1992).
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003).
Chockalingam Chettier, AIR 1960 Mad. 548.
Bharat Forge Co. Ltd, 1995 SCC (3) 434.
Haryana State Lotteries &Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi &Ors., 1998 (46) RJ397.
Abdul Hai Khan v. Subal Chandra Bose, AIR 2002 SC 1742.
NawabShafath Ali Khan v. The District Collector, The Sub Registrar Gudalur, The District Registrar Udhagamandalam and State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government Environment and Forest Department, (W.P. No. 24575 of 2009 Decided On: 12.07.2011).
th Law Commission of India Report on the Repeal of Certain Pre-1947 Acts, (1993); 20th Law Commission of India Report on Identification of Obsolete Laws, (1960).
th Law Commission of India Report on Identification of Obsolete Laws, (1960).
Adkins v. Children's Hospital,26I U. S. 525 (I923).
Law Commission of India, Obsolete Laws: Warranting Immediate Repeal” (Third Interim Report), Report No. 250 (2014), available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report_No.250_signed_copy.pdf.
N.C.L REV. 346, 348 (1935).
Reid v. Wilson, [I895] QB 315.
th Law Commission of India, Report on Identification of Obsolete Laws, (1960).
Sarla Mudgal, AIR 1995 SC 1531.
N.V. Sankaran, 2013 (1) CTC 686.
th Law Commission of India Report on Obselete laws: Warranting immediate repeal, (2014).
COURTNEY ILBERT, THE MECHANICS OF LAW MAKING 150(Columbia University Press, 1914).
