000			03118nam a22002297a 4500
003			OSt
005			20250221041048.0
008			240829b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
020			_a9789395116039
040			_c.
082			_a349.54 _bBIN
100			_aBindra, N. S.
245			_aThe Interpretation of Statutes/ _cby N. S. Bindra
250			_a13th ed
260			_aHaryana: _bLexisNexis Publications, _c2023.
300			_a997p.; _c24cm.
505			_aPart I : The Institutional Regime of Interpretation Chapter 1. Law Making Roles of the Legilature and the Judiciary Chapter 2. Relation between the Executive and the Legislature Chapter 3. The Relationship Between the Judiciary and the Executive Part II : Techniques, Tools and Rules of interpretation Chapter 4. Presumptions Chapter 5. Statute and its Parts Chapter 6. Rules of Interpretation Chapter 7. Internal Aids Chapter 8. Mandatory and Directory Provisions Chapter 9. Retrospective Operation of Statutes Chapter 10. Maxims used to aid Interpretation Chapter 11. External Aids to Interpretation Chapter 12. Repeal and Savings Part III : The Contextual Dimensaion on Interpretation Chapter 13. Interpretation of the Constitution Chapter 14. General and Special Statutes Chapter 15. Substantive and Procedural Laws, Amending, Codifying, Consolidating and Enabling Statutes Chapter 16. Beneficial and Welfare Statutes Chapter 17. Interpretation of Expropriating, Emergency, and Penal Statutes Chapter 18. Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes Part IV : Precedents and Interpretation Chapter 19. Precedents and Interpretation Appendix – The General Clauses Act, 1897 Index
520			_aThe landmark decisions in this edition assert a power to interpret the Constitution which moves beyond the text; even as the practice of expressing deference to legislative intention continues. The apex court has most openly embarked on the path of explicit lawmaking with all the attendant dangers of constitutional confrontation and discord. I refer here to the judgements on the constitutionality of the National Judaical Appointments Commission Act and the dismissal of the Arunachal Pradesh Government. In the former decision, the Court struck down the NJAC legislation on the reasoning that the so called eminent persons in the Judicial Commission could turn down the recommendations of the Chief Justice and his brethren on Commission, a consequence which was not in accord with the constitutional Commitment to independence of judiciary-a principle, which according to the Supreme Court should only come in to play whilst regulating the relations between the executive and the Judiciary. The majority on the bench seemed to accord little importance to the principle in overseeing the relations within the Judiciary. Justice Chelameshwar in his dissent alludes to this fact when he refers to the absence of transparency in the proceeding of the collegium.
650			_aLaw India States Interpretation and construction
700			_aDhanda, Amita _eEditor
942			_2ddc _cBK
999			_c1237 _d1237