HOW THE COURTS MAKE LAW –PART-2
QUOTATIONS FROM LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
(June-2022)
1. “We
are of the clear opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioning Trust, of the Hon’ble Minister having made certain statements
in course of parliamentary debates on the Bill that preceded the 2019 Act, is
of little relevance. From the pleadings it is found that ‘health care’ was
initially included in the definition of the term “service” appearing in the
Bill but after extensive debates, the same was deleted. Mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act would not result in
exclusion of 'health care' services rendered by doctors to patients from the
definition of the term 'service'”Held by Supreme Court
2. “Merely
because of enactment of the 2019 Act upon repeal of the 1986 Act as well as the
parliamentary debates, the efficacy of the law laid down in the decision in
Indian Medical Association (supra) as a binding precedent would not stand
eroded.”
3. "The
definition of "Service" is wide enough under the Act. If the
Parliament wanted to exclude, they would have said it expressly,"
"Reason why healthcare was deleted was because the definition of the
expression of service was wide enough. The Minister's speech in the house
cannot restrict the ambit of the Act. while laying emphasis on the word,
"Service of any description."
Medicos Legal
Action Group v Union of India| SLP (Civil) 19374/2021
4. “
a speech made in the course of debate on a bill could at best be indicative of
the subjective intent of the speaker, but it would not reflect the inarticulate
mental process lying behind the majority vote which carried the bill, nor is it
reasonable to assume that the minds of all those legislators were in accord.”
State
of Travancore-Cochin vs. Bombay Co. 11-PIL-58-2021 8 Ltd., reported in AIR 1952
SC Hon’ble Patanjali Shastri, CJI held
5. “Speeches made on the floor of the Parliament
are not admissible as extrinsic aids to the interpretation of statutory
provisions
Aswini
Kumar Ghose vs. Arabinda Bose, reported in AIR 1952 SC 369 Ruled
6. “A
statute is the expression of the collective intention of the Legislature as a
whole and any statement made by an individual, albeit a Minister, of the
intention and object of the Act, cannot be used to cut down the generality of
the words used in the statute”
State
of West Bengal vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1241, Hon’ble B.P.
Sinha, CJI
Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.
Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,