Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

An Act provides that a certain licence can be revoked if the holder has "been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude". Before the Act came into force, Sunil had been convicted of such an offence. The licensing authority revokes his licence after the Act commences. Sunil argues the Act is being applied retrospectively. Which position reflects the settled rule of interpretation?

The revocation can be valid. A law is not retrospective just because it uses past facts as a condition for future action. The revocation happens after commencement, so the Act operates prospectively, even though it relies on an earlier conviction.

  1. AThe revocation is invalid, because every statute is presumed to be prospective only and cannot refer to past events
  2. BThe revocation is valid only if the Act expressly says it is retrospective in the title
  3. CThe revocation can be valid, because a statute is not retrospective merely because it draws on antecedent facts for its future operationCorrect
  4. DThe revocation is valid only if Sunil has not yet appealed against the conviction

Explanation

A statute is not retrospective merely because part of the requirements for its action are drawn from a time before it was passed. Here the action (revocation) takes place after commencement, using a past conviction as a condition. Hence it operates prospectively. The first option wrongly treats any reference to past facts as retrospectivity.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Interpretation of StatutesFree diagnostic mock

More Interpretation of Statutes questions