The maxim "Ultimatum Potior Quam Portio" is derived from Latin and is an important principle in the interpretation of statutes. It translates to "The last will is better than the first," meaning that the later expression of intent (whether in a contract, will, or statute) overrides earlier provisions that might conflict with it. In the context of statutory interpretation, this maxim refers to the preference given to the later expression of legislative intent when dealing with provisions that seem inconsistent or conflicting.
Meaning and Application:
The maxim is applied when two provisions of a statute appear
to conflict with each other, and the courts must determine which provision
holds greater authority. It suggests that the most recent or later law,
statute, or amendment takes precedence over earlier ones unless there is a
specific indication to the contrary.
Key Principles:
1. Subsequent
Legislation Supersedes Previous Laws: If a statute is amended or supplemented,
the changes introduced by the later legislation are presumed to override the
earlier law.
2. Implied
Repeal: The later law may implicitly repeal or modify the earlier provision,
even without explicitly saying so.
3. Intention
of the Legislature: It reflects the assumption that the legislature, by passing
later provisions, intends to amend, clarify, or even negate previous
provisions.
Decided Cases Illustrating the Maxim:
1. In the matter of Ghafoor Khan v. State of Rajasthan
(1994)
• Facts:
The issue here was about the applicability of two different provisions of the
same statute, one of which had been amended. The court had to decide whether
the amendment (being the later expression of law) superseded the earlier
provision.
• Principle
Applied: The court applied the maxim Ultimatum Potior Quam Portio, noting that
the later law, being passed by the legislature, must take precedence over the
earlier provision. The amended law was held to be controlling.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Gopi Ram (1983)
• Facts: In
this case, there was a conflict between an earlier and a later provision under
the same Act regarding the procedure for appealing certain decisions. The later
law provided a new procedure, which was in conflict with the earlier statute.
• Principle
Applied: The court, in interpreting the statute, gave preference to the later
provision, applying the maxim Ultimatum Potior Quam Portio and held that the
latest provision reflected the legislature's current intent and therefore
should govern.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
• Facts:
The court was tasked with interpreting provisions of environmental laws where
earlier regulations had been superseded by later, more stringent laws. The
issue arose regarding the enforcement of the earlier provisions in light of the
more recent ones.
• Principle
Applied: The court relied on Ultimatum Potior Quam Portio, stating that since
the new regulations were passed after the older ones, they had the effect of
modifying or overriding the previous ones.
4. Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India (2003)
• Facts:
The issue here was whether a later statutory amendment applied to a case that
had been governed by the earlier law, where the conflicting provisions were
debated.
• Principle
Applied: The court used the principle of Ultimatum Potior Quam Portio to
determine that the latest legislative change was controlling and superseded the
earlier one, consistent with the maxim that later laws reflect the current will
of the legislature.
Conclusion:
The maxim Ultimatum Potior Quam Portio is significant in the
context of statutory interpretation because it reflects the doctrine that
subsequent provisions, laws, or amendments are presumed to express the most
recent intention of the legislature. Courts apply this maxim to resolve
conflicts between old and new provisions, ensuring that the later law governs
the matter unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The cases mentioned
above exemplify how courts use this principle to interpret the statute in line
with the most current legislative intent.
Comments
Post a Comment