(a) जनरेलिया स्पेशियेलिबस नॉन-डेरोगेन्ट Generalia Specialibus Non-derogant

 Answer- (a)

The maxim "Generalia Specialibus Non-Derogant" is a fundamental principle in statutory interpretation. It translates to "general provisions do not derogate from special provisions." Essentially, this means that when there is a conflict between a general rule or provision and a specific one, the specific provision should prevail. The rationale behind this maxim is that special provisions are presumed to address particular situations in greater detail, while general provisions may not fully cover the intricacies of a specific issue.

Explanation of the Maxim:

•             General provisions are those that apply broadly and are meant to cover a wide range of situations. They are often seen as secondary rules that can guide the application of the law in general circumstances.

•             Special provisions, on the other hand, are those that are more specific and apply to particular circumstances, situations, or groups. These are considered more precise and are tailored to a particular context.

Principle:

In situations where a statute contains both general and special provisions, the special provisions will override the general ones. This is because the special provisions are considered to reflect the legislative intent more closely, addressing specific needs or concerns.

Application in Decided Cases:

1.            State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. (2004) 10 SCC 201:

o             Facts: The case dealt with the interpretation of the term "industries" in the context of the West Bengal Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings, and Employments Act, 1979, where the question was whether a particular industry could be taxed under the general provisions of the Act.

o             Ruling: The Supreme Court applied the maxim "Generalia Specialibus Non-Derogant" and stated that when there is a specific provision dealing with certain industries, it would take precedence over the general provisions in the Act. In this case, the specific provisions for certain types of industries were given priority.

2.            Nikam Kazi v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCR 512:

o             Facts: This case concerned a conflict between two provisions in the same statute: a general provision related to compensation and a special provision for compensation in cases of land acquisition.

o             Ruling: The Court applied "Generalia Specialibus Non-Derogant" to uphold the application of the special provision over the general one, as the specific provision was more detailed and addressed the specific situation at hand.

3.            India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam (1983) 3 SCC 1:

o             Facts: The issue in this case was the interpretation of the Assam Sales Tax Act, where a conflict arose between a general exemption provision and a specific provision dealing with the taxation of certain goods.

o             Ruling: The Court held that the special provisions regarding the taxation of certain goods prevailed over the general exemption provisions, in line with the principle that special provisions should govern over general ones. Thus, the special provision for taxing specific goods took precedence.

4.            M/s. Navbharat Press v. Union of India (1969) 1 SCC 736:

o             Facts: The issue in this case was regarding the conflict between a general provision relating to income tax and a specific provision regarding the taxation of printing press businesses.

o             Ruling: The Court upheld the special provision regarding the taxation of printing press businesses over the general income tax provision. The application of "Generalia Specialibus Non-Derogant" ensured that the specialized provision would govern in this context, as it addressed the specifics of the business more appropriately.

5.            K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1954) AIR 529:

o             Facts: The case dealt with the interpretation of a general provision in the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, versus a specific provision in relation to the taxation of companies.

o             Ruling: The Supreme Court observed that when a specific provision applies to companies, it should take precedence over a general provision that deals with broader categories of taxation. This case reaffirmed the maxim "Generalia Specialibus Non-Derogant", emphasizing that special provisions should control the application of general ones.

Conclusion:

The maxim "Generalia Specialibus Non-Derogant" is crucial in the interpretation of statutes to ensure that specific provisions that address issues are not overridden by general provisions that may lack the depth or specificity needed. Courts consistently apply this principle to ensure that the law is interpreted in a way that gives effect to the legislative intent behind both general and special provisions, ensuring fairness and consistency in the legal system.