PRESUMPTIONS
REGARDING STATUTES
AFFECTING THE CROWN
U.K
- There is a rule called ( the rule of common law “
Roy niest lie par ascun si ne soit expressmenet
nosme”
- It means that the statutes are enacted for the
subjects and not for the king. Thus the crown is
not bound by any statute.
- One exception to it :
- 1. if the intention of the legislature is clear that ,
the crown has to be bound by the statute , then
he will be bound by necessary implications.
2. In such cases by giving his assent, the
king agrees to be bound by it.
3. Crown can be bound by express words
or necessary implications
- To know if the crown is bound by
necessary implication the safest way is
to read the statute as a whole and to
ascertain the legislature.
Extent of the Rule :
1. The presumption that the crown is not bound by
statutes extends to the following class of people.
a. Sovereign personally
b. servant /agents of the crown directly
c. Person’s who though not strictly servants/agents
of the crown are considered to be “Consimili
casu”( these persons independent of the crown,
perform the limited degree of the government
such as : administration of justice, carrying of
wars, etc)
Case Laws
1. Cooper v Hawkins
- An Army enigne driver who drove a
locomotive on crown service at a speed
exceeding the limit fixed by regulations
under a statute claimed crown privilege
of the same.
- The crown granted it as the diver was a
servant of the crown and hence a class –
ii person to whom the immunity extends
2. Coomber v Berkshire Justices
- Justices of the courts of Assize claimed
immunity from the payment of tax for the
premises occupied by the courts of Assize.
- House of lords granted the same because
administration of justice is an act perofrmed
by person in “Consimili Casu” and there by
such persons belong to class III to whom
the crown privileges extend.
In India :
- The same rule as of U.K was followed in
India before and after the constitution.
- But soon this rule was over ruled in
a. State of West Bengal v Corporation of
Calcutta
- It was held that in India a general act applies
to citizens as well as to the state unless it
expressly or by necessary implication
exempts the state form its operation.
- It is also stated that this rule would most
compatible with the doctrine of equality
enshrined in the constitution and also with the
democratic principles of this nation.
2. State of Bihar v Sambati Kumari
- It was held that the state is bound by the CPC.
- The scheme of the code being that subject to
any provision made in this regard to
government .
- It occupies the same position as any other
party to a proceeding before the court.
- Exceptions : expressly exempted or by necessary
implication
- it depends on the fair construction of the act.
- - because it application leads to some absurdity
that it may be ground for holding state is excluded
from its operation.
- Eg: union is not bound by central income tax act
because if it is paid I.T it would become both payer
and receiver.
- Article 285 of the constitution provides for the same
through necessary implication and express
exemption.
3. British Broadcasting Company v Johns
- It was established by a royal charter and
operated under a license granted by the
post master general and to a large
extent was under his control claimed
immunity from taxation under I.T Act
1952 ( under class III person ).
- It was held that the corporation was not
entitled to the crown exemption from
taxation because
a. Broadcasting was not a province of the
govt.
b. Corporation was an independent corporate
body.
c. Corporation was not exercising functions
required and created by the government.
d. BBC was a Commercial Corporation.
Independent India
- It continued to follow the state of affiars prior to
independence .
- Most states had the legislature practice of
expressly exempting the state from the
application of certain statutes.
- In certain circumstances the common law rule
was also applied whereby the state was not
bound as such but was made so by necessary
implication.
- The application of the same rule was not
uniform.
Special Rule
- In cases where an Act does not apply to
the government, an agent or
instrumentality of the govt. which is not a
department of the government may be
bound by an Act.
- Especially where it’s a welfare
legislation.
Case Law:-
1. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd
v State of Kerala
- It was company which was fully owned
by the central government and it was
bound by the Kerala Construction
Workers Welfare Funds Act 1939.
- Even though the Act has no application
to the Central Government.
