A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras vs Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Anr. (supra) has considered the distinction between ‘legislation by reference’ and ‘legislation by incorporation’. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case:
“………To consider that the decision of the Privy Council has any relevance to the construction of the legal effect of the terms of Section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is to ignore the distinction between a mere reference to or a citation of one statute in another and an incorporation which in effect means the bodily lifting of the provisions of one enactment and making it part of another so much so that the repeal of the former leaves the latter wholly untouched. In the case, however, of a reference or a citation of one enactment by another without incorporation, the effect of a repeal of the one “referred to” is that set out in Section 8(1) of the General clauses Act:
“8. (1) Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears: be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted.”
On the other hand, the effect of incorporation is as stated by Brett, L.J. in Clarke v. Bradlaugh [1881 8 QBD 63] :
“Where a statute is incorporated, by reference, into a second statute the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second.”
This is analogous to, though not identical with the principle embodied in Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act enacted to define the effect of repeals effected by repealing and amending Acts which runs in these terms:
“6-A. Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which the text of any Central Act or Regulation was amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal.”
We say “not identical” because in the class of cases contemplated by Section 6-A of the General clauses Act, the function of the incorporating legislation is almost wholly to effect the incorporation and when that is accomplished, they die as it were a natural death which is formally effected by their repeal. In cases, however, dealt with by Brett, L.J. the legislation from which provisions are absorbed continue to retain their efficacy and usefulness and their independent operation even after the incorporation is effected.”
It could thus be seen that the effect of incorporation means the bodily lifting of the provisions of one enactment and making it part of another so much so that the repeal of the former leaves the latter wholly untouched. However, in the case of a reference or a citation of the provisions of one enactment into another without incorporation, the amendment or repeal of the provisions of the said Act referred to in a subsequent Act will also bear the effect of the amendment or repeal of the said provisions.
In Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty [AIR 1962 SC 316 : (1962) 3 SCR 786] and New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise [(1970) 2 SCC 820 : AIR 1971 SC 454 : (1971) 2 SCR 92].
But where a provision of one statute is incorporated in another, the repeal or amendment of the former does not affect the latter. The effect of incorporation is as if the provision incorporated were written out in the incorporating statute and were a part of it. Legislation by incorporation is a common legislative device employed by the legislature, where the legislature for convenience of drafting incorporates provisions from an existing statute by reference to that statute instead of setting out for itself at length the provisions which it desires to adopt. Once the incorporation is made, the provision incorporated becomes an integral part of the statute in which it is transposed and thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute from which the incorporation is made and any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect on the incorporation statute. Lord Esher, M.R., while dealing with legislation in incorporation in In re Wood’s Estate [(1886) 31 Ch D 607] pointed out at p. 615:
“If a subsequent Act brings into itself by reference some of the clauses of a former Act, the legal effect of that, as has often been held, is to write those sections into the new Act just as if they had been actually written in it with the pen, or printed in it, and, the moment you have those clauses in the later Act, you have no occasion to refer to the former Act at all.”
Lord Justice Brett, also observed to the same effect in Clarke v. Bradlough [(1881) 8 QBD 63, 69] :
“.… there is a rule of construction that, where a statute is incorporated by reference into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third statute does not affect the second.”
This was the rule applied by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Secretary of State for India in Council v. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd. [58 IA 259] The Judicial Committee pointed out in this case that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 having been incorporated in the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 and become an integral part of it, the subsequent amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the addition of sub-section (2) in Section 26 had no effect on the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 and could not be read into it. Sir George Lowndes delivering the opinion of the Judicial Committee observed at p. 267:
“In this country it is accepted that where a statute is incorporated by reference into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute does not affect the second: see the cases collected in Craies on Statute Law, 3rd Edn. pp. 349, 350 … The independent existence of the two Acts is, therefore, recognised; despite the death of the parent Act, its offspring survives in the incorporating Act.
It seems to be no less logical to hold that where certain provisions from an existing Act have been incorporated into a subsequent Act, no addition to the former Act, which is not expressly made applicable to the subsequent Act, can be deemed to be incorporated in it, at all events if it is possible for the subsequent Act to function effectually without the addition.”
So also in Ram Sarup v. Munshi [AIR 1963 SC 553 : (1963) 3 SCR 858] it was held by this Court that since the definition of “agricultural land” in the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900 was bodily incorporated in the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the repeal of the former Act had no effect on the continued operation of the latter. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., speaking for the Court observed at p. 868-69 of the Report:
“Where the provisions of an Act are incorporated by reference in a later Act the repeal of the earlier Act has, in general, no effect upon the construction or effect of the Act in which its provisions have been incorporated.
In the circumstances, therefore, the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act of 1900 has no effect on the continued operation of the Pre-emption Act and the expression ‘agricultural land’ in the later Act has to be read as if the definition in the Alienation of Land Act, 1900, had been bodily transposed into it.”
The decision of this Court in Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1974) 2 SCC 777 : AIR 1975 SC 17 : (1975) 2 SCR 138] also proceeded on the same principle. There the question arose in regard to the interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as “the Taxation Act”). This section when enacted adopted the definition of “motor vehicle” contained in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Subsequently, Section 2(18) was amended by Act 100 of 1956 but no corresponding amendment was made in the definition contained in Section 2(c) of the Taxation Act. The argument advanced before the Court was that the definition in Section 2(c) of the Taxation Act was not a definition by incorporation but only a definition by reference and the meaning of “motor vehicle” in Section 2(c) must, therefore, be taken to be the same as defined from time to time in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This argument was negatived by the Court and it was held that this was a case of incorporation and not reference and the definition in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as then existing was incorporated in Section 2(c) of the Taxation Act and neither repeal of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 nor any amendment in it would affect the definition of “motor vehicle” in Section 2(c) of the Taxation Act. It is, therefore, clear that if there is mere reference to a provision of one statute in another without incorporation, then, unless a different intention clearly appears, Section 8(1) would apply and the reference would be construed as a reference to the provision as may be in force from time to time in the former statute. But if a provision of one statute is incorporated in another, any subsequent amendment in the former statute or even its total repeal would not affect the provision as incorporated in the latter statute. The question is to which category the present case belongs.”
REFER:
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA VS. SATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU & ORS.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1
2024 INSC 319
19 APRIL 2024
