1. “We are of the clear opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioning Trust, of the Hon’ble Minister having made certain statements in course of parliamentary debates on the Bill that preceded the 2019 Act, is of little relevance. From the pleadings it is found that ‘health care’ was initially included in the definition of the term “service” appearing in the Bill but after extensive debates, the same was deleted. Mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act would not result in exclusion of ‘health care’ services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of the term ‘service’”Held by Supreme Court 

2. “Merely because of enactment of the 2019 Act upon repeal of the 1986 Act as well as the parliamentary debates, the efficacy of the law laid down in the decision in Indian Medical Association (supra) as a binding precedent would not stand eroded.”

3. “The definition of “Service” is wide enough under the Act. If the Parliament wanted to exclude, they would have said it expressly,” “Reason why healthcare was deleted was because the definition of the expression of service was wide enough. The Minister’s speech in the house cannot restrict the ambit of the Act. while laying emphasis on the word, “Service of any description.”

Medicos Legal Action Group v Union of India| SLP (Civil) 19374/2021

4. “ a speech made in the course of debate on a bill could at best be indicative of the subjective intent of the speaker, but it would not reflect the inarticulate mental process lying behind the majority vote which carried the bill, nor is it reasonable to assume that the minds of all those legislators were in accord.”

State of Travancore-Cochin vs. Bombay Co. 11-PIL-58-2021 8 Ltd., reported in AIR 1952 SC  Hon’ble Patanjali Shastri, CJI held

5.  “Speeches made on the floor of the Parliament are not admissible as extrinsic aids to the interpretation of statutory provisions

Aswini Kumar Ghose vs. Arabinda Bose, reported in AIR 1952 SC 369 Ruled

6. “A statute is the expression of the collective intention of the Legislature as a whole and any statement made by an individual, albeit a Minister, of the intention and object of the Act, cannot be used to cut down the generality of the words used in the statute”

State of West Bengal vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1241, Hon’ble B.P. Sinha, CJI 

Enquire Now

    Enquire Now