Facts in the Case
- A Section in a statute contains a legal provision that lays down a substantive rule.
- The Section is accompanied by an illustration intended to explain or clarify the provision.
- A conflict arises between the main provision (Section) and the illustration attached to it.
- The question is which should prevail—the Section or the illustration?
Issues in the Case
- If an illustration appended to a Section contradicts the textual content of the Section itself, which is legally binding?
- Can an illustration control or override the language and meaning of the substantive Section?
- What guidance have courts provided in interpreting such inconsistencies?
Principles Applied
1. Illustrations Are Not Enacting Parts of the Statute
- Illustrations are added to explain the application of the main provision, but they are not part of the operative law.
- They are aids to interpretation, not sources of law.
2. Main Provision Prevails Over Illustration
- If an illustration conflicts with the clear meaning of the Section, the Section will prevail.
- The main legislative text reflects the legislature’s intention and carries more legal weight.
3. Purpose of Illustration
- The primary purpose of an illustration is to clarify and guide understanding.
- It cannot be used to expand, restrict, or contradict the substantive provision.
4. Presumption of Consistency
- Courts will presume that illustrations are consistent with the Section.
- If inconsistency exists, the illustration is ignored, not the provision.
Judicial Precedents
Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 869
- The Supreme Court held that illustrations do not control the meaning of the Section. If there is a conflict, the provision must prevail.
Kali Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 817
- The Court reaffirmed that illustrations are not part of the law and are meant only to provide examples.
- They cannot override or alter the meaning or scope of the Section.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories, AIR 1998 SC 2456
- The Supreme Court clarified that illustrations may be useful guides but cannot be used to contradict the express language of the statute.
Judgment
- In case of inconsistency between a Section and an illustration under the same Act, the Section must prevail.
- Illustrations are expository, not normative; they explain, but do not govern the law.
- The interpretation must be based on the language of the Section, and illustrations should be ignored if they create confusion or conflict.
