Write as a guest without Login
নিখিল বঙ্গ বিধিবেত্তা সম্মেলন
from
September 4, 2026 at 11:57 am
Supreme Court jurisprudence passage on the legal nature of a proviso👏
A proviso ordinarily operates as an exception or qualification to the main provision, but its legal character depends upon its substance and legislative purpose, not merely upon its form or placement. In appropriate cases, a proviso may itself constitute a substantive provision.
Qualification or exception — excluding certain matters from the main enactment.
Mandatory condition — prescribing conditions necessary to make the principal enactment operative.
Substantive provision — becoming so integrated with the enactment that it assumes the character of the substantive provision itself.
Explanatory or optional addendum — clarifying the true legislative intendment.
The authorities cited are:
Rhondda Urban District Council v. Taff Vale Railway Co., [1909] A.C. 253, 258
State of Rajasthan v. Leela Jain, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 15
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. [case referred to as supra]
DMRC v. Tarun Pal Singh, (2018) 14 SCC 161
S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591
Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 216
A proviso ordinarily operates as an exception or qualification to the main provision, but its legal character depends upon its substance and legislative purpose, not merely upon its form or placement. In appropriate cases, a proviso may itself constitute a substantive provision.
Qualification or exception — excluding certain matters from the main enactment.
Mandatory condition — prescribing conditions necessary to make the principal enactment operative.
Substantive provision — becoming so integrated with the enactment that it assumes the character of the substantive provision itself.
Explanatory or optional addendum — clarifying the true legislative intendment.
The authorities cited are:
Rhondda Urban District Council v. Taff Vale Railway Co., [1909] A.C. 253, 258
State of Rajasthan v. Leela Jain, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 15
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. [case referred to as supra]
DMRC v. Tarun Pal Singh, (2018) 14 SCC 161
S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591
Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 216
Admin Reply by: admin
Thanks for sharing