B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation 2026 Jan Question Paper with Solutions

1. Express repeal. The later Act says so in words, for example "the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby repealed". Modern Acts carry a "repeal and savings" section near the end.
2. Implied repeal. The later Act says nothing, but its provisions are so inconsistent with the earlier Act that both cannot stand. The maxim is leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant: later laws repeal earlier contrary laws. Courts do not favour implied repeal. They try first to read the two Acts together.
3. Partial repeal. Only some sections are repealed and the rest of the Act survives.
4. Repeal with re-enactment. The old law is repealed and its subject is enacted afresh. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replacing the Indian Penal Code from 1 July 2024 is the recent example.

The consequence at common law

At common law a repealed statute was treated as if it had never existed, except for transactions already "past and closed". Pending prosecutions failed. Rights not yet enforced were lost. Every repealing Act therefore needed its own long saving clause. If the draftsman forgot it, people lost rights for no good reason.

The leading cases

State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 84, decided on 20 October 1954. An East Punjab Ordinance of 3 March 1948 asked refugees to register land claims. Mohar Singh filed a claim on 17 March 1948. The Ordinance was repealed on 1 April 1948 and re-enacted as Punjab Act XII of 1948. His claim was found false, and he was prosecuted in 1950. The Supreme Court held that section 6 applies even where the repeal is followed by re-enactment. The test is "not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them". The new Act showed no such intention, so the conviction was restored.

Isha Valimohamad v. Haji Gulam Mohamad and Haji Dada Trust, AIR 1974 SC 2061. A tenant sublet premises when the Saurashtra Rent Control Act forbade subletting. That Act was repealed in 1963 and the Bombay Rent Act applied. The landlord's right to recover possession had accrued when the tenants sublet. The Supreme Court held that this accrued right survived the repeal, and the appeal against the landlord's success failed.

What is not a repeal

Expiry of a temporary Act is not a repeal. Mohar Singh held that section 6 does not apply when a temporary statute expires by efflux of time. The temporary Act's own saving clause then decides what survives.

Conclusion. Repeal ends a law for the future and comes from the same power that made it. At common law it wiped out the law as if it had never been. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 reverses that result unless the repealing Act shows a different intention. Things done, accrued rights, liabilities, penalties and proceedings all survive, and proceedings may even be begun afterwards. Mohar Singh and Isha Valimohamad apply these rules, and sections 6A, 7, 8 and 24 complete them.