Page | 1

REPEAL AND REVIVAL OF STATUTES

INTRODUCTION
For the purpose of law reforms official bodies exist or may be
constituted from time to time and the work of these bodies can
have considerable influence on the development or reforms of
statute law. The most important of these bodies is the Law
Commission of India, which has a significant contribution in
criminal, civil and other law reforms in India. After the
commencement of the Constitution of India it became
absolutely necessary to review the existing laws.
Recommendations of such official bodies for law reforms are a
continuous process, but law making is the power of the
competent legislative authority. It is to be noticed that power to
make law with regard to any subject carries with it allancillary
and incidental powers to make it effective and workable, to
prevent its evasion, to amend and even to repeal it.1

MEANING OF REPEAL
Repeal means to revoke, abrogate or cancel particularly a
statute. Any statute may repeal an Act in whole or in part,
either expressly or impliedly by enacting matter contrary to and
inconsistent with the prior legislation. Thus a statute frequently
states that certain prior statutory provisions are thereby
repealed. The courts will treat matter as repealed by
implication only if the earlier and later statutory provisions are
clearly inconsistent. When a repealing provision is itself
repealed, this does not revive any provision previously repealed
by it, unless intent to revive is apparent, but it may allow
common law principles again to apply.

1 Ab kafaltiya, Interpretation of Statutes, pg.- 307.

 Page | 2

According to General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 6 Repeal

connotes abrogation or obliteration of one statute by another,
from the statute book as completely as if it had never been
passed. When an Act is repealed it must be considered
(except as to transactions past and closed) as if it had never
existed.

Modification is no repeal

Repeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance,

depending upon the intention of the legislature. This intention
may be of total or protanto repeal or it may be merely to
modify the former enactment by engrafting an exception or
granting an exemption or by super adding conditions, or by
restricting, intercepting or suspending its operation. Such
modification would not amount to repeal.2 Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act applies even in case of a partial repeal or
repeal of part of an Act applies even in case of a partial repeal
or repeal of part of an Act.3

PERPETUAL AND TEMPORARY STATUTES

A statute may be perpetual or temporary. A perpetual statute is
one for the duration of which no time is fixed. It remains in
force until it is repealed. Perpetual statute is so known not
because it cannot be repealed but because it is not abrogated
by efflux of time or by non-user. A statute is temporary when its
duration is only for a specified time and such a statute expires
on the expiry of the specified time unless it is repealed earlier.
Simply because the purpose of a statute, as mentioned in its
preamble, is temporary, the statute cannot be regarded as
temporary when no fixed period is specified for its duration.
The duration of a temporary statute may be extended by a

2 India Tobacco Co. Ltd. V. CTO, (1995) 3 SCC 512, 517-518.

3 G. Ekambarappa v. Janpad Sabha, AIR 1962 SC 1281.

 Page | 3

fresh statute or by exercise of a power conferred under the

original statute.

POWER TO REPEAL
A power to make a law with respect to the topics committed to
Parliament or State Legislature carries with it a power to repeal
a law on those topics. In Ramakrishna v. Janapadad Sabha,4
the Supreme Court had laid down that subject to any
constitutional restriction, the general rule is that the power of
a legislative body to repeal a law is co-extensive with its power
to enact such a law and a Legislature which has no power to
enact a law on a particular subject-matter has also no power to
repeal the same. A Legislature, however, has no power to bind
itself or its successor as to the course of future legislation for to
acknowledge such a power will remain that a Legislature can
curtail its own or its successors powers which are conferred by
the Constitution and which cannot be restricted or taken away
except by an amendment of the Constitution. It is an axiom of
British Constitutional law that Acts of Parliament derogatory
from the subsequent Parliament bind not. Because the
Legislature being in truth the sovereign power is always of
equal and always of absolute authority. It acknowledges no
superior upon earth, which the prior Legislature must have
been, if its ordinances could bind a subsequent Parliament.

OBJECT OF REPEALING ACTS

Repeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance,
depending upon the intention of the Legislature. If the intention
indicated expressly or by necessary implication in the
subsequent statute was to abrogate or wipe out off the former
enactment, wholly or in part then it would be a case of total or
pro tanto repeal. Broadly speaking the principal object of a
repealing statute and amending Act is to excise dead matter,
prune off superfluities and reject clearly inconsistent

4 (1962) Supp 3 SCR 70; AIR 1962 SC 1073.

 Page | 4

enactments. A repealing Act is an enactment which otherwise

expressly or by necessary implication revokes another statute.
It can be said an edited revision of law intended to excise dead
matter from the statute book and so to reduce its volume.
Repealing Acts may have purposes such as to remove
inconsistencies in law, to revise Acts, to strike out the
unnecessary enactments, to reduce the increasing spate of
legislation and to remove duality of law. In Jagannath
Barapatre v. Hemaji Hraman Bakde,5 the Bombay High
Court said that the sole object of repealing Act is to get rid of a
certain quantity of obsolete matter. Its normal effect is to
obliterate it from the statute book as completely as if it had
never been passed; it must be considered as a law that never
existed. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 however,
provides an exception to this rule.

The provisions of an earlier Act may be revoked or

abrogated by subsequent Act either by express language or
inference from the language used. Pre-existing laws may be
repealed by the enactment of new and independent legislation,
or by amendments, by revision and codification. Majority of
repealing Acts are those, which subsequently re-enact the law
on the same subject matter. In essence there is no distinction
between such laws and laws which merely profess to amend. If
the amendment of the existing law is small, the Act is
amending one, and if it is extensive, it repeals the previous law
and re-enact it. An amending provision can certainly give
guidance to interpretation of existing provisions. Thus, it is a
matter of construction as to what is repealed and what is
remaining there in the same subject. The words repeals, re-
enacts and the provisions so repealed occurring in Section 8
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 are important and very
significant, and limit the very operation of the rule of
construction of references only where any provision of a
former enactment is repealed and re-enacted. In such a case it

5 AIR 1958 Bom 507; (1959) 61 Bom LR 1141: ILR 1958 Bom 361.
 Page | 5

is only the particular re-enacted provision that can be read in

place of the repealed provision. The rule of construction laid
down in Section 8 does not authorize the substitution of any
provision whatsoever of the repealing enactment for the
provision repealed of a former enactment. 6

MODES OF REPEAL
Parliament has the power to make a law and to repeal any
existing law- be it temporary statute or a perpetual statute.
Repeal may be brought by the Legislature in the two following
ways:

The Legislature may enact a distinct repealing enactment

to declare that an earlier Act has been abolished. It is
called Express Repeal.
The Legislature may enact an enactment which is so
inconsistent with the earlier Act that no harmony between
the two is possible or it covers the entire subject matter of
the earlier statute. This is called Implied Repeal.

No repeal can be brought unless there is express repeal of an

earlier Act by a later Act or two Acts cannot stand together. 7

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 previous
provision in question. The usual from is to use the 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. The legislative practice in India shows that
omission of a provision is treated as amendment which
signifies deletion of that provision and is not different from

6 Vino C, & P. Works (P) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 2000 SC 1623.

7T. Bhattacharya, The Interpretation of Statutes, Pg. - 348.

 Page | 6

repeal. It has been held that there is no real distinction

between repeal and amendment. It has also been held that
where a provision of an Act is omitted by an Act and the said
Act simultaneously re-enacts a new provision which
substantially covers the field occupied by the repealed
provision with certain modification, in that event such re-
enactment is regarded having force continuously and the
modification or changes are treated as amendment coming into
force with effect from the date of enforcement of re-enacted
provision.

This type of repeal as the expression shows is always in so

many words clearly laid down as for example:-

a) Is or are hereby repealed,

b) Shall cease to have effect,
c) Shall be omitted,
d) All provisions inconsistent with this Act are hereby
repealed,
e) Shall to the extent necessary to give effect to the
provisions of this Act be deemed to have been repealed
or modified.

The last two types of repeal are in uncertain terms and require
to be construed by the Court as to what and how much is to be
repealed.

It is also noted that where a new provision is substituted by the

legislature in place of the existing provision, and the later new
provision was declared invalid due to the want of competency
of the legislature, such repeal shall have no effect.

In Indian New Papers v. Union Of India,8 the Supreme Court

observed that when repeal of an existing provision is
accompanied by enactment of a new provision, which is the
case when a new provision is substituted in place of an existing
provision, the declaration of invalidity of the new provision on
8 (1985) 1 SCC 641: AIR SC 515: (1984) 2 Comp LJ 853(SC): 1985(4) ECC 111:
1984 (2) SCALE 853: 2 SCR 287.
 Page | 7

the ground of want of competence will also invalidate the

repeal; but if the declaration of invalidity is on other grounds
e.g., arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, the repeal
speaking generally will be effective although the new provision
is declared invalid unless from the totality of circumstances and
the context it is found that there was no intention to repeal in
the event of the new provision being struck down.

Where no direct reference is made by the Legislature to a

particular Act or Section but merely stated all provisions
inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed, effect of such
general repeal can be determined by applying the principles of
construction governing the cases of implied repeal. In Abdul
Kadir v. State of Kerala,9 the Supreme Court has observed
that in interpreting such provisions if there is similarity or
correspondence between the repealed and repealing Act then
the repeal shall be effected, but where there is no
correspondence, both the Acts are substantially differing in
their scope, the repeal is ineffective.

When a Central Act has been adopted under Article 252 by a

State by a resolution passed by the House or Houses of the
Legislature of the State, the amendment or repeal of the
Central Act by the Parliament does not affect its continuance as
a State Act is also adopted under Article 252 by the State by a
resolution of the House or Houses of the Legislature. 10

Essentials of Express Repeal

The essential ingredients of an express repeal are as mentioned

below:-

9 AIR 1962 SC 922: (1962 Supp 2 SCR 741.

10 State of West Bengal v. Pronob Kr. Sur, AIR 2003 SC 2313.

 Page | 8

There must be a subsequent repealing Act.

Such subsequent Act must seek to repeal an earlier Act.
Specific words such as ..is hereby repealed, .shall
cease to have effect must be used in this subsequent
repealing Act showing clear intention to effect repeal of an
earlier Act.

IMPLIED REPEAL
In this case, the Legislature does not use the words to precisely
show its intention to repeal a law. Instead, it enacts a law which
is so contradictory to an existing law that both cannot be given
effect to. This implies abrogation of the existing law. Thus,
implied repeal is the result of inconsistent subsequent
legislation. The implied repeal takes place in the following two
ways:-

When subsequent Act is so inconsistent with earlier Act that

only one of the two can remain in force

When a subsequent Act covers whole subject matter of the

earlier Act and intended to be a substitute for the earlier Act

In Atal Tea Co. Ltd. V. Regional P.F. Commr.,11 it was held

that that a repeal may be express or implied. If provisions of a
later enactment are so inconsistent or repugnant with the
provisions of an earlier one that the two cannot stand together,
the earlier Act can be said to have been repealed by
implication. There is no real distinction in essence between
repeal and an amendment. In this case question was relating to
Section 14-B of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952. This Section was amended in 1988. By
way of amendment, power of Commissioner to levy damages
was curtailed. Formerly it was up to 100% and now it is as per
sliding table under Para 32-A of the scheme. Point is whether

11 (1998) 1 CALLT 257 HC, 1998 (79) FLR 372, 1997 LablC 1207.
 Page | 9

this curtailment of power is prospective or applied also in

connection with defaults prior to amendment for which no
action was initiated prior to amendment. It was held that there
is no saving clause. There is a presumption against
retrospectivity. This rule may be overcome not only by express
words in the Act but also by circumstances sufficiently strong to
displace it. The amended and unamended Section 14-B is really
incompatible and inconsistent with one another so far as rates
of levy of damages are concerned. By this amendment,
provisions of Section 14-B so far as it conferred the
discretionary power to determine the rates at which damages
would have to be levied can be said to have been repealed by
implication. The discretionary power to levy damages stands
curtailed by virtue of amendment.

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 a 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.

Implied repeal may operate on a part of statute or on its

entirety. If repugnancy relates to a part of statute, the part of
statute will stand repealed only to the extent of repugnancy.

Repeal shall not be inferred if two Acts can be read together

and some application may be made of words in earlier Act.

Presumption against implied repeal

There is a presumption against repeal by implication. Reason is

based on the theory that Legislature while enacting a law has
complete knowledge of 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 existing
legislation.12
12 G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Pg.- 638.
 P a g e | 10

TEST OF REPEAL BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION

Although law does not favor repeal by implication and it is only
in the last resort that Courts hold that one enactment is
repealed by another even without express words. Repeal by
implication is the consequence of contradictory or inconsistent
legislation. But it is not necessary for the legislature to repeal
always by express words, and if the repeal is not express, it
may flow from necessary implication in the following cases:-

A statute is repealed if its provisions are plainly repugnant

to those of a subsequent statute. In other words, if the
earlier and the later laws are in direct conflict with each
other.
If the previous statute and the subsequent statute
standing together would lead to wholly absurd
consequences.
If the entire subject-matter of the first is taken away by
the second.
Whether two laws occupy the same field. In Harish
Chandra v. State of M.P.,13 it was held that if two laws
operate in the same field without collision, they cannot
be said to occupy the same field and there will be no
inconsistency and no implied repeal, unless later law
intends to be exhaustive code.
If the Legislature intended to lay down an exhaustive Code
in respect of subject matter replacing earlier law.

Implied repeal could therefore be inferred only when the earlier

and later law operate in the same field and occupy the same
field but are so inconsistent with each other that both of them
cannot co-exist in harmony and only one can survive. Implied
repeal may also be concluded when legislative intent is to bring
exhaustive Code in respect of subject matter replacing earlier
law. In such cases, the earlier law is deemed to have been
repealed by implication.

13 AIR 1965 SC 932.

 P a g e | 11

In State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd. And

Others,14 is was observed that the doctrine of implied repeal is
based on the theory that the Legislature, which is presumed to
know the existing law, did not intend to create any confusion by
retaining conflicting provisions and therefore, when the Court
applies the doctrine, it does not more than give effect to the
intention of the Legislature by examining the scope and the
object of the two enactments and by comparison of their
provisions. The matter in each case is one of the construction
and comparison of the two statutes. The Court leans against
implying repeal. Unless two Acts are so plainly repugnant to
each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same
time, repeal will not be implied, or that there is necessary
inconsistency in the two Acts standing together. To determine
whether a later statute repeals by implication an earlier, it is
necessary to scrutinize the terms and consider the true
meaning and effect of earlier Act. Until this is done, it is
impossible to ascertain whether any inconsistency exists
between the two enactments.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF IMPLIED REPEAL

1) Only prior legislation is repealed by implication

Where the provisions of subsequent Act directly contradict the

provisions of the earlier Act and there is no possibility of
reconciliation between them or when the subsequent Act
covers whole subject matter of the earlier Act, implied repeal
may be inferred. It may be appreciated that in these
circumstances, it is the previous law which stands repealed by
implication, not the later one.

14 2004(1) Mh LJ SC 306.
 P a g e | 12

In Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala,15 it was held that the

rules of interpretation when a subject is governed by two sets
of Rules are well settled. When a provision of law regulates a
particular subject and a subsequent law contains a provision
regulating the same subject, there is no presumption that the
later law repeals the earlier law. The rule making authority,
while making the later rule, is deemed to know the existing law
on the subject. If the subsequent law does not repeal the earlier
rule, there can be no presumption of an intention to repeal the
earlier rule.

2) Implied repeal may not operate on entire statute

It is not necessary that the whole statute is impliedly repealed.

Implied repeal may affect only a part of the earlier Act, where
certain provisions of later enactment are similar to or are in
agreement with the earlier law and both can stand and operate
together, there is no implied repeal in respect of such
provisions,. The question of implied repeal in such cases shall
be confined to only those provisions of previous Act which have
been contradicted in the later Act.

3) Implied repeal of earlier law can be inferred only when

subsequent law occupies the same field, yet contradicts
the earlier one

Implied repeal cannot be inferred if the previous law and later

law can be read together and both of them can be applied, may
be to limited extend, without interference. There could be
implied repeal of earlier legislation when the later law operates
in the same field and occupies the same field, but cannot co-
exist with it due to inconsistency and contradiction.

In Delhi Municipality v. Shivshankar,16 it was held that the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules made

15 AIR 2010 SC : 2010 (3) SCC 34.

 P a g e | 13

there under relating to vinegar were not impliedly repealed by

the subsequent Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Although
both contained regulating provisions and laid down standards
of quality and composition of vinegar, it cannot be said that the
two laws could not stand together. The former does not render
compliance with latter impossible, nor compliance of former
involves violation of latter.

4) Implied repeal may be concluded when exhaustive Code is

intended

When legislative intent is to replace earlier law by an

exhaustive Code in respect of subject matter, implied repeal of
an earlier Act may be inferred. In such cases, the earlier law
stands repealed by implication.

In Nagar Mahapalika v. Vibha Shukla,17 the Respondent 1

was appointed under the 1959 Act but claiming benefit of
regularization under the 1921 Act. It was held that an Act
enacted later would prevail over the earlier one.

5) Prior special law is not repealed by later general law

Ordinarily, a prior particular law or special law is not readily

inferred to be repealed by a later general law. The basis of this
doctrine is the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant
which means that general things do not derogate from special
things. Therefore, in the absence of clear and unequivocal
words, a special law cannot be abrogated by a subsequent
general Act.

In Municipal Council Palai v. T.J. Joseph,18 the provisions of

Municipal Act were in question which empowered a Municipal
Authority to provide for bus stands. The subsequent Motor
16 AIR 1971 SC 815.

17 (2007) 15 SCC 161.

18 AIR 11963 SC 1561.

 P a g e | 14

Vehicle Act empowered the Government to do the same. It was

held that provisions of Municipal Act were not repealed by the
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Reason for reaching this
conclusion was that Municipal Act was special law which
applied to Municipal area but Motor Vehicles Act was general
Act applying to all areas in general. Both the provisions were
enabling ones and there could be no question of conflict till the
authority in later Motor Vehicle Act also provided for bus stand
in some areas for which bus stands had already been provided
under Municipal Act.

6) A prior general law may be affected by subsequent

particular Act

Where the subject matter of a later particular Act was being

governed by a general Act, such general law may be affected
by later special law. To law and subsequently the Legislature
enacts a special law on such matters, then earlier general law
is affected by the later special law. The basis of this doctrine is
the principle of generalibus specialia derogant which means
that special things derogate from general things. In such case,
operation of particular Act may have effect of partially
repealing general Act.

In Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo,19 it was held

that specific statutes which come later in time supersede the
prior general statutes by more recent and special statutes.
Consumer Protection and Carriage by Air Acts being more
focused and specific statutes and later to CPC, must be deemed
as special Acts with respect to cases covered by them.
Provisions of CPC have only limited applicability to them.

7) Affirmative enactment is not repealed by a subsequent

affirmative Act

One affirmative enactment is not easily taken to be repealed by

another later affirmative enactment. But if later Act is precise
19 (2011) 8 SCC 539.
 P a g e | 15

negative of whatever authority existed under earlier Act, the

repeal shall be inferred.

8) Conferral of similar powers under two enactments at

different levels does not result in implied repeal of earlier
Act

If the similar powers are conferred by two legislations at

different levels, then implied repeal of earlier Act cannot be
inferred

In Rachandra Mawalal v. State of Uttar Pradesh,20 the

Central Government made notification under Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 fixing higher rate of price of an
essential commodity. State Government issued an order under
Defence of India Rules clarifying that the higher rate could not
be charged in respect of the stock already existing since prior
to upward revision of rate. It was held that the State
Government was competent to issue the order. It was observed
that there is no legal bar to creating two sources of power to
achieve the same purpose and that there was no real
inconsistency as the order of state was supplementary to
Centres notification.

9) Implied repeal can be inferred if later law imposes

different punishments for same offence

Where an offence created by an earlier Act is again described in

a later Act and the later Act varies the procedure or imposes
different punishment for that offence, in such a case the earlier
Ac stands repealed by implication

But where offence described in later Act is different from

offence described in earlier Act, this principle has no
application.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Veereshwar Rao,21 Section

26 of General Clauses Act provides that where an act of
20 (1984) (Supp) SCC 28.
 P a g e | 16

omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments,

then the offender shall be liable to be punished under either or
any of those enactments; but shall not be punished twice for
the same offence. Article 20(2) of the Constitution directs that
no person shall be prosecuted and punished for same offence
more than once. Both these provisions apply only when two
offences are same. But if offence under two enactments is not
identical, none of these provisions shall apply.

EFFECT AND CONSEQUENCES OF REPEAL

General rule

Repeal of a statute completely obliterates it as if it never

existed or if it had never been enacted. Moreover, the
proceedings pending there understand discontinued, 22 and no
new proceeding can be started under it after repeal. As
observed in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. V. Union of
India,23 repeal of a statute or deletion of a provision, unless
covered by Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897 or a saving
provision, is totally obliterated from the statute book and the
proceedings pending there under discontinued. 24

A previous law may be repealed either expressly or by

implication. In both the cases, the consequences are the same.
Following are the effects of repeal of an enactment:

1) Later Act abrogates prior one.

2) Repealed Act ceases to exist and does not remain in force
with effect form the date of appeal.

21 AIR 1957 SC 592.

22 Om Prakash v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 458: 1957 SCR 423.

23 (2000) 2 SCC 536: AIR 2000 SC 811.

24 S. Krishnan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 301: 1951 SCR 621.

 P a g e | 17

3) As per general law, except in relation to the past and

closed transactions, a statute after repeal is completely
obliterated as if it had never been enacted. As such, all
rights and causes of action under repealed statute are
destroyed.

In Jayantilal Amrathlal v. Union of India, 25 it was held that

in order to see whether the rights and liabilities under the
repealed law have been put to an end by the new enactment,
the proper approach is not to enquire if the new enactment has
by its new provisions kept alive the rights and liabilities under
the repealed law but whether it has taken away those rights
and liabilities. The absence of a saving clause in the new
enactment preserving the rights and liabilities under the
repealed law is neither material nor decisive of the question.

4) When an Act is repealed, all laws passed under it stand

repealed unless there is a saving provision.

In Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. V.

Electricity Inspector,26 it was held that a notification which is
duly issued will continue to govern unless repealed. In case the
parent statute is repealed, the notification would also stand
repealed unless and to the extent, saved by the repealing Act.

5) No proceedings can be commenced or continued under an

Act after its repeal. However, those cases remain
unaffected by such repeal in which the proceedings have
been brought to finality prior to repeal of the statute. The
cases already completed shall not be reopened by the
reason of repeal of law under which prosecution was
made.
6) A law can be retrospectively amended to validate the
transactions made under it, even after its repeal.

25 AIR 1971 SC 1193.

26 (2007) 5 SCC 447.

 P a g e | 18

In State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal,27 there was a

rule which permitted the Government to effect compulsory
retirement of a government servant by paying three months
salary. This rule was subsequently repealed and in its place,
another rule was substituted. During the period earlier rule was
in operation, a government servant was retired on payment of
an amount as salary. When calculated later, the amount paid to
that government servant was found to be short of three
months salary. Meanwhile this rule, under which compulsory
retirement was give, came to be repealed. As per the terms of
the rule, the retirement was invalid because non-payment of
full amount of three months salary. Therefore, in order to
validate the action, an amendment was brought to the rule
after its repeal. This amendment was indeed retrospective but
was effective for the period during which the old rule remained
in operation. According to amendment, Government could
retire a government servant forthwith without paying him three
months salary but entitling him to claim salary after
retirement. The amendment was held to be valid.

7) When an existing statute is repealed by a temporary

statute, it is a temporary repeal. After expiry of such
temporary Act, the repealed Act revives.

In Gooderham and Worts v. C.B. Corporation,28 it was held

that the repeal effected by the temporary legislation was only a
temporary repeal. When by the fiat of Parliament the temporary
repeal expired, the original legislation automatically resumed
its full force. No enactment of it was required.

8) Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides the

effect of repeal as under:

S. 6 Effect of Repeal.Where this Act, or any central Act or

Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals
27 AIR 1996 SC 2181.

28 AIR 1949 PC 90.

 P a g e | 19

any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then

unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not

a. revive anything not in force or existing at the time at

which the repeal takes effect;

b. affect the previous operation of any enactment so

repealed or anything duly done or suffered there under, or

c. affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired,

accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

d. affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in

respect of any offence committed against any enactment
so repealed; or

e. affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in

respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability,
penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any
such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be
instituted, or continued or enforced and any such penalty,
forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the
repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.

REVIVAL OF STATUTES
The Common Law principle was that when a statute was
repealed and the repealing statute itself was repealed by
another statute, the repeal of the second statute itself was
repealed by another statute the repeal of the second statute
would automatically bring back or revive the first statute
provided there was no intention that the original statute would
remain repealed. Section 11 (1) of the Interpretation Act, 1889
of United Kingdom states that where an Act passed after 1850
repeals a repealing enactment, it shall not be construed as
reviving any enactment previously repealed, unless words are
added reviving that enactment.

In India, revival of statutes is governed by Section 7 of the

General Clause Act, 1887. The first clause of which states that
 P a g e | 20

in any Central Act or regulation made after the commencement

of this Act, it shall be necessary, for the purpose of reviving,
either wholly or partially, any enactment wholly or partially
repealed, expressly to state that purpose. The second clause
says that this section applies also to all Central acts made after
the third day of January, 1868, and to all regulations made on
or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887. Section 6 (a) of
the Act states that when this Act, or any Central act or
regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals
any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then
unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not revive
anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal
takes effect.29

In Ameer-un-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum,30 the

Supreme Court, while following Section 7 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 held that once a repealing statute is itself
repealed, that does not mean the revival of the repealed
statute unless the language of the repealing statute so provides
expressly.

29D.N. Mathur, Interpreta P 282.

30 AIR 1995 SC 352.

 P a g e | 21

CONCLUSION
In the end it can be concluded that Repeal means to revoke,
abrogate or cancel particularly a statute. Any statute may
repeal any Act in whole or in part, either expressly or impliedly
by enacting matter contrary to and inconsistent with the prior
legislation. Thus a statute frequently states that certain prior
statutory provisions are thereby repealed. The courts will treat
matter as repealed by implication only if the earlier and later
statutory provisions are clearly inconsistent. Repeal can be of
two types i.e., express repeal and implied repeal. Express
repeal is where the intention to repeal is expressed in the
subsequent Act by the Legislature whereas in implied repeal
the intention of the Legislature is implied when the subsequent
Act enacted is so inconsistent with the previous one that only
one of them can subsist. The provisions dealing with repeal and
revival of statutes is contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897.
 P a g e | 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A.B. Kafaltiya, Interpretation of Statutes, Universal Law

Publishing, New Delhi, 2010.
B.M. Gandhi, Interpretation of Statutes, Jain Book Agency,
2014.
D.N. Mathur, Interpretation of Statutes, Central Law
Publications, Allahabad, 2015.
G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Wadhwa
and Co., New Delhi, 2014.
T. Bhattacharyya, The Interpretation of Statutes, Central
Law Agency, Allahabad, 2015.