Doctrines of ‘Legislation by Reference’ and ‘Legislation by Incorporation’

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Introduction

The ‘Doctrine of incorporation’ and the ‘Doctrine of reference’ arise when a provision in a statute is referred to in another statute. The extent to which the earlier provision applies to the later statute is determined by these doctrines. They can be summarised as under:

  • 1. Doctrine of incorporation (only a restrictive and strict application) – subsequent change (amendment or repeal) of the referred provision does not affect the incorporating provision.  That is, the incorporated original provision alone applies, verbatim.
  • 2. Doctrine of reference or a citation (wider application) – future changes in the referred provision will also apply to the referring provision. The statute referred to is taken as it exists from time to time. Therefore, subsequent amendments to the referred statute will apply.

The effect of ‘repealing and re-enactment’ of an Act is set out in Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. That is: the re-enacted provision governs the field, and it is to be looked into.  Section 8(1) reads as under:

  • “8. Construction of references to repealed enactments: (1) Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears: be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted.”

The Decisive Factor is whether the Reference is ‘Specific or General

In Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India v. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu, BR Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ., AIR 2024 SC 2835; 2024-4 SCC 508, held that the decisive factor to determine whether a case is of ‘legislation by incorporation’ or ‘legislation by reference’ is whether “the reference is specific or general”.

In this case (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India), the reference considered was Section 236(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which reads as under:

  • “Offences under this Code shall be tried by the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013”.

At the time the Code was enacted, the Special Court referred to in Section 236 of the Companies Act consisted of a person who was qualified to be a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. Subsequent amendments to Section 236 of the Companies Act, however, made it possible to contend that offences under the Code could be tried only by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

The Apex Court found that the reference was ‘not general but specific’.  Therefore, it is held that the case is a case of ‘legislation by incorporation’ (i.e., subsequent change does not affect), and not a case of ‘legislation by reference’.

The Court also pointed out that the Code has also suffered two subsequent amendments, in 2015 and 2018; and if the legislative intent was to give effect to the subsequent amendments in the Companies Act to Section 236(1) of the Code, nothing prevented the legislature from amending Section 236(1) of the Code. The legislature having not done so, the provision regarding the reference in Section 236(1) of the Code to the Special Court, as mentioned in Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013, stood frozen as on the date of enactment of the Code.

The Apex Court referred following decisions:

  • Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Vijaykumar V. Iyer, 2024 SCC Online SC 4,
  • Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors, (2022) 2 SCC 401,
  • Embassy Property Developments P Ltd v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 13 SCC 308,
  • Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1,
  • Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 488 ,
  • Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCC 529,
  • Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1974) 2 SCC 777,
  • New Central Jute Mills Co. v. Asst Collector, (1970) 2 SCC 820,
  • Collector of Customs, Madras v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty, AIR 1962 SC 316 : (1962) 3 SCR 786,

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free 

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession: 

Adverse Possession

Land LawsTransfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Leave a Comment