REPEAL OF THE STATUTE

A power to make a law with respect to the topics committed to Parliament or State Legislatures carries
with it a power to repeal a law on those topics.

if a general Act says that its provisions shall apply unless "expressly excluded" by any special law, it does
not mean that the exclusion must be by express words; and exclusion by necessary implication will be
equally effective. "

EXPRESS REPEAL

The use of any particular form of words is not necessary to bring about an express repeal. All that is
necessary is that the words used show an intention to abrogate the Act or provision in question. The
usual form is to use the words "is or are hereby repealed" and to mention the Acts sought to be
repealed in the repealing section or to catalogue them in a Schedule. The use of words "shall cease to
have effect", is also not uncommon. When the object is to repeal only a portion of an Act words "shall
be omitted" are normally used

An amending Act which limits the area of operation of an existing Act by modifying the extent clause,
results in partial repeal of the Act in respect of the area over which its operation is excluded.
Ekambarappa v EPTO

The Legislature sometimes does not enumerate the Acts sought to be repealed, and only says that "all
provisions inconsistent with this Act" are hereby repealed. With respect to such a repealing provision, it
has been said that it merely substitutes for the uncertainty of the general law an express provision of
equal uncertainty; and in determining whether a particular earlier provision is repealed by such a
repealing provision on the ground of inconsistency with it, the same principles which are applicable in
determining a question of implied repeal have to be applied.

IMPLIED REPEAL

There is a presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of this rule is based on the theory
that the Legislature while enacting a law has complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same
subject-matter, and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives out an intention
not to repeal the existing legislation. UOI v Venkatesan The continuance of existing legislation, in the
absence of an express provision of repeal, being presumed, the burden to show that there has been a
repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same.
The presumption is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary implication when the
provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act "that
the two cannot stand together". Basti Sugar Mills v State of UP

But, if the two may be read together and some application may be made of the words in the earlier Act,
a repeal will not be inferred. Thus, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 made
thereunder relating to vinegar were not held to be impliedly repealed by the Essential Commodities Act,
1955 and the Fruit order made thereunder although both contained regulatory provisions and laid down
certain standards of quality and composition for vinegar for it was not possible to say that the two could
not stand together. Delhi Municipality v Shivshanker

The Supreme Court has indicated that the test applied for determining repugnancy under Article 254 of
the Constitution, may be applied for solving a question of implied repeal and that it should be seen: (1)
Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether the Legislature intended to lay
down an exhaustive Code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the earlier law; (3) Whether the two
laws occupy the same field AB Krishna v State of Karnataka

Prior particular law and later general law

A general statute applies to all persons and localities within its jurisdiction and scope as distinguished
from a special one which in its operation is confined to a particular locality and, therefore, where it is
doubtful whether the special statute was intended to be repealed by the general statute the court
should try to give effect to both the enactments as far as possible RS Raghunath v State of Karnataka

section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides that a party cannot be represented by
a legal practitioner before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal except with the consent of the
other parties and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal is not affected by
section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which provides that every advocate shall be entitled as of right to
practise in all courts and before any tribunal. Paradip Port Trust v Their Workmen

Where, however, the intention to supersede the special law is clearly evinced the later general law will
prevail over the prior particular law.

Prior general law and later particular law

A prior general Act may be affected by a subsequent particular or special Act, if the subject matter of the
particular Act prior to its enforcement was being governed by the general provisions of the earlier Act.
In such a case the operation of the particular Act may have the effect of partially repealing the general
Act, or curtailing its operation, or adding conditions to its operation for the particular cases

the Supreme Court held that sections 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872, introduced by the
amendments made to the Evidence Act by the Information Technology Act, 2000, are special provisions
relating to proof of electronic records, and will prevail over the general law on secondary evidence
under sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act because of the principle generalia specialibus non
derogant Anvar PV v PK Basheer

Affirmative enactments

One affirmative enactment is not easily taken as repealed by another later affirmative enactment.
So, it was held that power conferred by section 22B of the Electricity Act, 1910, which was introduced in
1959, to regulate supply of electricity for securing equitable distribution of energy did not take away a
similar power conferred on the Board by section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Adoni Cotton
Mills Ltd. AP Electricity Board

EFFECT OF REPEAL

As a result of the principle of obliteration associated with repeal, the continuation of pending
proceedings under a repealed statute depends upon either under the savings contained in the repealing
Act or under section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Parliament has therefore the power to lay down
conditions for continuance of pending proceedings and to provide that in cases those conditions are not
satisfied the proceedings will terminate.

when a Code dealing with procedure is repealed and replaced by a new Code, the new Code would
speaking generally apply for investigations or trials pending under the old Code for no person has a
vested right in any matter of procedure, unless the new Code by an express saving clause preserves the
continuance of the old Code for pending investigations and trials. Natbar Parida v State of Orissa

SEC 6, GENERAL CLAUSES ACT

The question whether a right was acquired or a liability incurred under a statute before its repeal will in
each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case

The right of the State to take over land of a landholder in excess of the ceiling area prescribed by a
Ceiling Act with reference to an appointed date is an accrued right which survives the repeal of the Act
before quantification of the surplus area Bansidhar v State of Rajasthan

The right of a government servant to be considered for promotion in accordance with existing rules is
not a vested right and does not survive if the Government takes a policy decision not to fillup the
vacancy pending revision of the rules and the revised rules which repeal the existing rules do not make
him eligible for promotion Ramulu (Dr) v S Suryaprakash Rao (Dr)

REVIVAL OF STATUTE