Page 219 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] ALCATEL SUBMARINE NETWORKS UK LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 201

rules of law and the Act in the latter case will only be amending the
law and will not necessarily be retrospective. In determining, there-
fore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance ra-
ther than to the Corm. If a new Act is ‘to explain’ an earlier Act, it
would be without object unless construed retrospective. An explan-
atory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to
clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well-
settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the pre-
vious law retrospective operation is generally intended. The lan-
guage ‘shall be deemed always to have meant’ or ‘shall be deemed
never to have included’ is declaratory, and is in plain terms retro-
spective. In the absence of clear words Indicating that the amending
Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the amended
provision was clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be
purely clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the princi-
pal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of
this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the prin-
cipal Act was existing law when the constitution came into force,
the amending Act also will be part of the existing law.”
20. In Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2004 (8) SCC 1), it was
observed as follows :
“13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is
prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implica-
tion made to have a retrospective operation. But the rule in general
is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights
or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless
there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the
legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective
only -- “nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis” -
- a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. (See
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th
Edn., 2004 at p. 438.) It is not necessary that an express provision be
made to make a statute retrospective and the presumption against
retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially
in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil
for the benefit of the community as a whole (ibid, p. 440).
14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not appli-
cable to declaratory statutes.... In determining, therefore, the nature
of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the
form. If a new Act is “to explain” an earlier Act, it would be without
object unless construed retrospectively. An explanatory Act is gen-
erally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts
as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well-settled that if a stat-
ute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospec-
tive operation is generally intended.... An amending Act may be
purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal
Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this
nature will have retrospective effect (ibid, pp. 468-69).
15. Though retrospectivity is not to be presumed and rather there

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  219