good law
Baskaran Kanakasabai
(Querist) 30 June 2010
This query is : Resolved
A good law is one that needs little or no interpretation.
That's my view. Is it right?
Baskaran Kanakasabai
(Querist) 01 July 2010
of course. I am trying to make sure of various good and bad aspects of law, compile them in to a constructive presentation and forward it to our lawmakers and the law commission.
Thanks for your response!
Parthasarathi Loganathan
(Expert) 02 July 2010
Any Law needs interpretation and that is its basic structure. Law must address to the genuine and specific needs of the case giving little or no room for ambiguity though flexibility is acceptable for the benefit of the innocent.
Baskaran Kanakasabai
(Querist) 02 July 2010
Ambiguity leads to interpretation.
Where there is scope for interpretation, there is potential for difference of opinion, sometimes even diametrically opposite opinions, thereby providing for possibilities of delivering injustice through possible wrong interpretation.
Once a wrong interpretation becomes the basis for a judgment, the judgment itself becomes wrong.Subsequently the wrong judgment will become a precedent and it will be quoted in other cases and it could become "settled law" in course of time.
Therefore I am of the view that a good law should not have even an inkling of ambiguty and therefore will not require any one to interpret it.
For instance, the LA Act, 1894 does not specify as to whether the notification u/s 4(1) or the declaration u/s 6 or the award u/s 11(1) is compulsorily registrable or not. But the same law specifies that the agreement u/s 11(2) is not registrable. The same law specifies that no award or agreement made under this act shall be chargeable with stamp duty.
So the law is ambiguous about which instrument concerning this act is registrable compulsorily. That ambiguity leads to the need for interpretation.That leads to queries and questions. Even after posting queries and articles regarding this subject for a few months over the internet, I still receive expert opinions/interpretations of diametrically opposite nature. Some say LA is registrable after possession and some say no part of LA is registrable.
While in practice the LAO does not register any instrument regarding LA at any point of time during an LA project(atleast in the case cited in the presentation titled "the flaw in the law" wherein 500 registered alienations have been conducted by the SRO after 4(1) notification).
Queries sent to IG Regn/ District collectors/ Supreme court/Law Commission/ Law Minister/ Prime Minister/and practically every Tom, Dick and Harry remain unanswered for at least 10 weeks now.
On the other hand I have read LA laws of atleast 10 countries/states which without any ambiguity have expressly specified that notification under LA is compulsorily registrable and some have gone to the extent of saying that the acquisition is void without the registration of the notification. Whereas in India the Supreme Court is interpreting that an unregistered notification is notice to all and therefore the alienation after such unregistered notification is void.
One can see diametriaclly opposite judgments in similar cases in different countries. There arises the need for the law to be drafted unambiguously in such a way that it can be understood like the writing on the wall.
Moreover, the cost of ambiguity is catasrophic. Tens of thousands of people in India(and probably more in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar) have been deprived of their fundamental righ to property because of such ambiguity and subsequent interpretation by the court, which happens to be not in favour of such people.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 01 July 2010
