GOTTUMUKKALA VENKATA KRISHAMRAJU versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 07-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
39
GOTTUMUKKALA VENKATA KRISHAMRAJU
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 732 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2018.
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993:
s. 6 (as substituted/amended by Act 44 of 2016 w.e.f. September
1, 2016) – Term of office of Presiding Officer – Applicability of the
substituted/amended provision – To the Presiding Officers who were
appointed prior to the substitution of the provision – Petitioners
were appointed as Presiding Officers – Term of the office applicable
at the relevant time as per s. 6 (unamended) was for 5 years until
attaining 62 years of age, whichever was earlier – s. 6 was
substituted w.e.f. September 01, 2016 – As per the substituted
provision term of office was for five years till attaining the age of
65 – On September 01, 2016 the petitioners had not completed 35
years but were attaining 62 years of age – Writ petition claiming to
be governed by substituted s. 6 – Held: The amended /substituted s.
6 shall apply in the case of petitioners.
s.6 (as substituted/amended by Act 44 of 2016) – Interpretation
of – Held: Purpose of the amendment was to reduce the burden of
pendency by enhancing of age of Judges – In order to fulfill the
objective purposive interpretation is to be given to the statute –
Interpretation of Statute – Purposive interpretation.
Legislation:
Substitution of a provision – Effect of – Held: Whenever the
legislature uses the word ‘substitution’, it has the effect of deleting
the old provision and make the new provision operative – The words
‘substitution’ can be construed as an ‘amendment’, if it is found
that legislature intended otherwise.
Words and Phrases:
‘Substitute’, ‘Substitution’ – Meaning of.
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 39
39
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
Allowing the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. The amended provisions of Section 6 shall apply
in the case of petitioners as well and, therefore, if they have not
completed five years of tenure as Presiding Officers of the Debt
Recovery Tribunal they are entitled to continue to work as
Presiding Officers till they attain the age of 65 years or complete
five years’ term before attaining the age of 65 years. [Para
11][48-C]
2. Section 6 stands ‘substituted’ with the old Section.
Ordinarily wherever the word ‘substitute’ or ‘substitution’ is used
by the legislature, it has the effect of deleting the old provision
and make the new provision operative.  The process of
substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to
cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence
in its place. The rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an
earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of
itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be
read and construed as if the altered words had been written into
the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so
that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at
all.  No doubt, in certain situations, the Court having regard to
the purport and object sought to be achieved by the Legislature
may construe the word “substitution” as an “amendment” having
a prospective effect.  Therefore, it is not a universal rule that the
word ‘substitution’ necessarily or always connotes two severable
steps, that is to say, one of repeal and another of a fresh enactment
even if it implies two steps.  However, the aforesaid general
meaning is to be given effect to, unless it is found that legislature
intended otherwise.  [Paras 12, 14][49-G; 50-E-H; 51-A]
3. Insofar as present case is concerned, the legislative intent
was also to give effect to the amended provision even in respect
of those incumbents who were in service as on September 01,
2016. The effect, thus, would be to replace Section 6 as amended
with the intention as if this is the only provision which exist from
the date of introduction and the earlier provision was not there
at all. The effect of this would be that all those incumbents who
are holding the post of Presiding Officer on September 01, 2016
would be governed by this provision. [Paras 14, 15][51-A-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
41
4. The purpose of amending Section 6 was to reduce the
burden of pendency by enhancement of age of the Judges
concerned. This is apparent from the Report of the Lok Sabha
Joint Committee qua the Amendment and from the Statement of
Objects and Reasons to the amendment.  In order to fulfill the
afores

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.