....For the Nonce- in continuum >
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.com/2018/06/gst-back-drop.html
SIDE- dish > RERA v (X) REaltor
< https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/personal-finance/registration-of-projects-a-double-edged-sword-under-rera-2284971.html
RESOURCES
TG Art. On Law v Case law
< most -in - one @
https://taxguru.in/income-tax/law-and-vs-case-law-on-flats-a-critical-study.html
Q
It is presumed that Parliament intends the court to apply to an ongoing Act a construction that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since the Act was initially framed (an updating construction). While it remains law, it is to be treated as always speaking. This means that in its application on any date, the language of the Act, though necessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed in accordance with the need to treat it as current law.
<><><><>
Lawyers vs. the law(s)
A SUM-up
Propositions (to be addressed) :
Why the pressing NEED for an UPDATE of, -
Related Legislation
CASE LAW
Amendment (S) Of The constitution
An EXtended Principle of 'UPDATING'-
Original Concept:(see the Quote Above, from the SC Judgment )
SIDE- dish > RERA v (X) REaltor
< https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/personal-finance/registration-of-projects-a-double-edged-sword-under-rera-2284971.html
RESOURCES
TG Art. On Law v Case law
< most -in - one @
https://taxguru.in/income-tax/law-and-vs-case-law-on-flats-a-critical-study.html
Q
At this juncture, we can also refer to
the judgment cited by Mr. Syali regarding updating construction of the
words used in the statute. In State (through CBI /New Delhi) v. S.J. Choudhary,
AIR 1996 SC 1491, 1494; [1996] 2 SCC 428, this court has quoted the
following passage with approval in support of updating construction
(page 433 of [1996] 2 SCC):
Statutory interpretation by Francis
Bennion, 2nd Edn. section 288, with the heading ‘Presumption that
updating construction to be given’ states one of the rules thus (page
617):
It is presumed that Parliament intends the court to apply to an ongoing Act a construction that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since the Act was initially framed (an updating construction). While it remains law, it is to be treated as always speaking. This means that in its application on any date, the language of the Act, though necessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed in accordance with the need to treat it as current law.
In the comments that follow it is
pointed out that an ongoing Act is taken to be always speaking. It is
also, further, stated thus (pp. 618-19):
In construing an ongoing Act, the
interpreter is to presume that Parliament intended the Act to be applied
at any future time in such a way as to give effect to the true original
intention. Accordingly the interpreter is to make allowances for any
relevant changes that have occurred, since the Act’s passing, in law,
social conditions, technology, the meaning of words, and other matters.
UQ
(FONT supplied, for due focus )
The stated principle, in one's independent perspective, based on a logical thinking, is, to put it in the least offensive manner, too idealistic on one side, and too technical and confusing on the other, from a pragmatic and common sense viewpoint ; so as to be honestly invoked or fearlessly applied. Especially, in today's context /scenario, it is palpably far outdated or postdated. For, the premise on which the principle rests / its efficacy is dependent on, in one's conviction, could never ever be taken to exist or subsist.
Anyone , if were hell bent or is seriously intent upon and bold to venture, simple suggestion is to give at least a cursory glance through the wholesome literature as available @
http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/1990/1990-002-082-statute-law-pt2.pdf
Now, for the limited purpose herein, the points for incisive but anxious consideration , are briefly , these:
GENERAL
A) The judiciary's primary function of 'interpretation' has been rendered far most arduous, nay almost an impossible responsibility to discharge; in order to meet the ends of justice, as expected of. The main reason , more than obvious is that, the law/ the enactments do not any longer take place, with any predictable periodicity / frequency; but with no certainty or sustainability even in the short run.
B) Piecemeal , truncated, half-baked legislation, marked by impulsiveness has become the order of the times ; rather an exception to the rule of the game.
C) With multiple regulatory authorities having been brought in, whose powers to make 'rules' are not well defined /clearly specified , that has added to the woes haunting the entire 'legal system' .
D) The doctrine of 'PRECEDENT' is not uniformly followed/ strictly observed,both or either in letter or spirit;so much so, inconsistent judicial pronouncements has become an attendant perpetual melody.
For a recent instance, bearing out such an inconsistency, in.... look up > https://taxguru.in/income-tax/section-54-booking-of-flat-with-builder-purchase-or-construction.html
(The view taken, in favour of taxpayer, is to the effect that for purpose of sec 54 exemption, even a 'purchase' transaction could be construed as of 'construction'....)
In the foregoing and other like circumstances , and obtaining field reality, none whosoever , directly or indirectly concerned, in own interests, is ordinarily expected to be aware and reasonably know what is the rule of the game in force at any given point in time , is mostly oblivious and unwary of- it could be genuine, abject ignorance, or feigned ignorance.
(To EDIT- fine tune)
(FONT supplied, for due focus )
The stated principle, in one's independent perspective, based on a logical thinking, is, to put it in the least offensive manner, too idealistic on one side, and too technical and confusing on the other, from a pragmatic and common sense viewpoint ; so as to be honestly invoked or fearlessly applied. Especially, in today's context /scenario, it is palpably far outdated or postdated. For, the premise on which the principle rests / its efficacy is dependent on, in one's conviction, could never ever be taken to exist or subsist.
Anyone , if were hell bent or is seriously intent upon and bold to venture, simple suggestion is to give at least a cursory glance through the wholesome literature as available @
http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/1990/1990-002-082-statute-law-pt2.pdf
Now, for the limited purpose herein, the points for incisive but anxious consideration , are briefly , these:
GENERAL
A) The judiciary's primary function of 'interpretation' has been rendered far most arduous, nay almost an impossible responsibility to discharge; in order to meet the ends of justice, as expected of. The main reason , more than obvious is that, the law/ the enactments do not any longer take place, with any predictable periodicity / frequency; but with no certainty or sustainability even in the short run.
B) Piecemeal , truncated, half-baked legislation, marked by impulsiveness has become the order of the times ; rather an exception to the rule of the game.
C) With multiple regulatory authorities having been brought in, whose powers to make 'rules' are not well defined /clearly specified , that has added to the woes haunting the entire 'legal system' .
D) The doctrine of 'PRECEDENT' is not uniformly followed/ strictly observed,both or either in letter or spirit;so much so, inconsistent judicial pronouncements has become an attendant perpetual melody.
For a recent instance, bearing out such an inconsistency, in.... look up > https://taxguru.in/income-tax/section-54-booking-of-flat-with-builder-purchase-or-construction.html
(The view taken, in favour of taxpayer, is to the effect that for purpose of sec 54 exemption, even a 'purchase' transaction could be construed as of 'construction'....)
In the foregoing and other like circumstances , and obtaining field reality, none whosoever , directly or indirectly concerned, in own interests, is ordinarily expected to be aware and reasonably know what is the rule of the game in force at any given point in time , is mostly oblivious and unwary of- it could be genuine, abject ignorance, or feigned ignorance.
(To EDIT- fine tune)
Lawyers vs. the law(s)
A SUM-up
Propositions (to be addressed) :
Why the pressing NEED for an UPDATE of, -
Related Legislation
CASE LAW
Amendment (S) Of The constitution
An EXtended Principle of 'UPDATING'-
Original Concept:(see the Quote Above, from the SC Judgment )
No comments:
Post a Comment