VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

CASE ANALYSIS

SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT versus DR. MANU

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3752 OF 2023 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.22633 of 2017)

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Ma’am Purva Kaushik Pranjul Jain – 7L
Assistant Professor, 09817703520
VSLLS, VIPS
CASE TITLE: Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. Vs. Dr. Manu & Anr.

CASE NO.: Civil Appeal No. 3752 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B. V. Nagarathna Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph

FILED UNDER: Article 136 ~ Special Leave Petition

FACTS

The respondent 1 had joined the service of the Appellant-University on 14-07-1999, as a

Lecturer in the Hindi language department. Respondent 1 had previously rendered over eleven
years of service as a Lecturer of Hindi in Mahatma Gandhi Government Arts College, Mahe,
Pondicherry for the period between 23-12-1988 and 13-07-1999.

By an order dated 25-11-2004, the respondent 1 was placed on the senior scale. Further, he was
granted four advance increments by virtue of Clause 6.16 of the University Grants Commission
(‘UGC’) Scheme, 1998, which provides that candidates who hold Ph.D. degree at the time of
recruitment as lecturers would be eligible for four advance increments.

Thereafter, by an order dated 20-10-2011, the respondent 1 was placed as a Selection Grade
Lecturer and consequently, his pay was fixed by order dated 12-01-2012. In fixing the pay, two
advance increments, payable on placement of a Lecturer holding a Ph.D. degree as a Selection
Grade Lecturer, as per Clause 6.18 of the UGC Scheme dated 21-12-1999, were not granted.
The Government Order dated 29-03-2001 had clarified that teachers who had already got the
benefit of advance increments for having a Ph.D. degree, would not be eligible for advance
increments at the time of their placement in the selection grade.

The respondent 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders of the
Appellant-University dated 20-10-2011 and 12-01-2012, on the ground that two advance
increments, payable to him on placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer were erroneously
withheld. The Single Judge of the High Court directed the Appellant-University to pay
respondent 1 and 2 their advance increments in terms of Clause 6.18 of the Government Order
dated 21-12-1999.

While hearing the appeal against the decision of the Single Judge, the Division Bench of the
High Court confirmed the decision of the Single Judge. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the
Division Bench, the appellant-University had filed an appeal before the Court. The question
before the Court was to determine that whether the Government Order dated 29-03-2001 was
a clarification of Clauses 6.16 to 6.19 of the Government Order dated 21-12-1999, or whether
it amended or modified the same.

DECISION OF APEX COURT

The Apex Court held that a literal interpretation should be avoided if it undermined the law's
intended purpose. The Court stated that if the amendment was not applied retrospectively, it
would be impossible to interpret the provision reasonably. Since there was an evident omission
in the provision, an amendment was necessary to clarify and declare the law retrospectively.

The principle that a clarificatory provision can be made applicable retrospectively is well-
established. However, it is essential to differentiate between a clarification/explanation and a
substantive amendment. Merely labelling a provision as an "Explanation" or a "clarification"
does not determine its true meaning and impact. The Courts must analyze the nature of the
amendment to determine whether it is genuinely clarificatory or declaratory, or if it intends to
change the law and applies to future periods.

The Supreme Court also emphasised that for an amendment to be considered clarificatory, the
pre-amended law must have been vague or ambiguous. If an amendment is required to interpret
a provision reasonably, it is regarded as a clarification or declaration of the previous law and
can be applied retrospectively.

The Supreme Court concluded that the subsequent Government Order was not merely
clarificatory but a substantial amendment that sought to withdraw the benefit of two advance
increments for a specific category of lecturers. As this benefit was not anticipated under the
previous scheme, the amendment cannot be given retrospective effect.

UNDERSTANDING CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENTS

Clarificatory amendments declare the meaning of the law already in place. Such regulations
aim to resolve ambiguities in the existing statute by providing a definitive meaning. Unlike
regular amendments, they do not substantively change the law; they merely clarify it. There
usually exists a presumption of prospective application of statutes dealing with substantive
rights (as opposed to merely procedural). However, clarificatory amendments are treated
differently. Since they merely clarify or reinstate the existing law, they are given effect from
the date of operation of the parent statute. This has been the trend across common law countries.
For instance, Australia also recognises clarificatory amendments. This is evident from the
amendments to the Australian Education Act 2013. Ambiguities in this statute had led to errors
in calculation of funding entitlements for authorities. In pursuance of this, an amendment was
introduced a year later to correct such errors that had become apparent since the introduction
of the statute. This amendment was considered clarificatory and hence was applied
retrospectively.

In India as well, retrospective application of clarificatory amendments has been upheld by the
courts. The following cases are instances of when the amendments neither divested rights nor
imposed new duties on the public. Rather, they solely resolved underlying ambiguities for a
uniform application of the parent statute. In Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, an amendment to
a statute 12 years after its enactment was upheld as clarificatory by the Supreme Court. This
amendment had solely removed ambiguity and furthered the intention of the legislature behind
the parent statute, which could not have been done by the general reading of the statute prior
to the amendment. Further, in CIT v. Poddar Cement (Poddar), an amendment was held to be
clarificatory by the apex court because it clarified an omission in a section of its parent statute.
Adding on, in Government of India and Others v. India Tobacco Association, an amending
notification for a central government scheme was applied retrospectively by the Supreme
Court. This is because the notification neither enforced any penal consequences nor produced
any substantive changes; it had only clarified an obvious mistake.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

It is a cardinal rule of construction that an Act/Legislation/Statute comes into operation from

the date of publication, unless, the contrary is specifically provided for. The said principle also
emanates from Section 51 of the General Clause Act, 1897.

“A new law ought to be prospective, not retrospective in its operation.” ~ Coke Maxim

However, the said principle of prospective application of the law is not applicable to curative,
clarificatory, declaratory, explanatory or retroactive/retrospective statutes.

1
The General Clause Act, 1897 (Act No. XX of Samvat 1977)
Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition, defines curative statute as ‘an act that corrects an
error in a statute’s original enactment’ as opposed to an amending statute which is defined as
‘a law that alters the operation of an earlier law, often by inserting or deleting words or
provisions of the original text’.

It is assumed that a law which takes away the vested right acquired under the prevailing laws
or creates new obligations and duties must not have a retrospective effect. ‘Nova constitution
futuris forman imponere debet non praeteritis’ which means a new law shall regulate what is
to follow, not the past. Whereas, legislation that clarifies or explains the meaning of the
prevailing law is retroactive, i.e., that looks back/writes back.

The Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition defines Vested Right as ‘Having become a
completed, consummated right for present or future enjoyment; not contingent; unconditional;
absolute’.

In Hough v. Windus2,“statutes should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect vested right.“

There is a plethora of judgements of the Supreme Court which explain when legislation can
have a retrospective effect.

In Principles of Statutory Interpretation3, it has been stated that “the rule against
retrospective construction is not applicable to a statute merely because “a part of the requisites
for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing”. If that were not so, every statute
will be presumed to apply only to persons born and things which come into existence after its
operation and the rule may well result in virtual nullification of most of the statutes.”

In Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. v. CIT4, the Supreme Court has laid emphasis on analysing the
nature of the amendment to understand its true scope and meaning and a mere statement
describing the nature of the legislation is not sufficient to categorize the legislation as
declaratory or clarificatory.

It is necessary to understand the scope and ambit of an act and its retrospective operation as
detailed in the aforesaid case, where in 4 principles have been laid out by placing reliance on
CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd.5; Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT6; Bihta Cooperative

2
(1884) 12 Q.B.D. 224,
3
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh (14th edition, 2016 at page 583)
4
(2007) 9 SCC 665
5
(1997)226 ITR 625 (SC)
6
(1997)224 ITR 677(SC)
Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar7; Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. v.
CIT,8; Union of India v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd.9, namely,:

1. if a statute is curative/clarificatory of the previous law the said law can operate
retrospectively;
2. for a subsequent law to be deemed as clarificatory, there is a need for the previous/pre-
amended law to be vague/ambiguous;
3. the explanation or clarification shall not expand or alter the scope of the original
position;
4. No court is bound by the statement in the statute describing a provision as a
clarification/explanation and the court must proceed to analyse the nature of said
provision in order to conclude as to whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory
provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law
and which would apply prospectively.

Clarificatory amendments, intended to simply explain existing laws in India, are increasingly
being used to introduce substantive changes. This practice creates significant uncertainty for
individuals and businesses navigating the legal system. The Indian judiciary is attempting to
mitigate this issue by examining the actual effects of amendments, not just the labels legislators
assign them. This concern over the misuse of clarificatory amendments is not unique to India,
with similar issues documented in common law countries. The frequent enactment of
amendments, particularly in tax law, further undermines legal stability and discourages foreign
investment due to the resulting unpredictability. To maintain a robust and predictable legal
system, a more cautious approach to clarificatory amendments is necessary.

CONCLUSION

The Courts have emphasized the significance of thoroughly examining the nature of the
legislation in order to analyse its effects on the vested rights that existed prior to the coming of
the said legislation. Needless to say, legislations which clarifies or explains the position of the
existing law are applicable from the date of enactment of the said existing law, i.e.,
retrospectively. However, if the vested rights of the party are taken away which existed before

7
AIR 1967 SC 389
8
(2007) 9 SCC 665
9
(2009) 12 SCC 209
the legislation or if a new obligation/duty emerges from the application of the said legislation,
the legislation is deemed to be prospective.