Law Commission of India Report No. 96
Repeal of Certain Obsolete Central Acts
Forward to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India by K.K. Mathew, Chairman, Law Commission of India, on March 19, 1984.
New Delhi. March 19, 1984.Shri Jagannath Kaushal, Minister of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, My Dear Minister,
I am forwarding herewith the Ninety-Sixth Report of the Law Commission on "Repeal of Certain Obsolete Central Acts".
The subject was taken up by the Law Commission suo motu. The need for taking up the subject is explained in para. 1.3 of the Report.
The Commission is indebted to Shri P.M. Bakshi, Part-time Member, and Shri A.K. Srinivasamurthy, Member-Secretary, for their valuable assistance in the preparation of the Report.With regards, Yours sincerely, Sd./- K.K. Mathew.
Repeal of Certain Obsolete Central Acts
Introductory1.1. Scope.—This Report is concerned with the need for the repeal of certain Central Acts which have become obsolete in view of subsequent legislation, or which have become anomalous in view of changed conditions, and which therefore need to be repealed. The Law Commission has taken up the subject on its own. The reasons for taking up the matter for consideration will be apparent from what follows. 1.2. Periodical revision and repeal of statute law.—Every legislature is expected to undertake what may be called the periodical spring-cleaning of the corpus of its statute law, in order that dead wood may be removed and citizens may be spared the inconvenience of taking notice of laws which have ceased to bear any relevance to current conditions. This process, which is important in itself, assumes still greater importance in modem times when statute law is growing in bulk and magnitude. The statutes that are not obsolete are formidable enough in size and number. In order that the statute book may not grow out of all proportion, it is desirable that statutes that are obsolete should be removed from the statute book. 1.3. Need for repealing obsolete enactments.—At this stage, it may be useful to mention that a legislative enactment cannot be rendered ineffective by mere non-use or obsolescence. The long desuetude of a law does not amount to its repeal.1 This itself is a consideration for undertaking from time to time measures for expressly repealing enactments that might have become obsolete or spent. Moreover, the continuance of such enactments clutters the statute book and tends to create confusion in the minds of those who have an occasion to consult statute law. It is for this reason that most countries, as stated above,2 effect a periodic revision of their laws, so that the statute book is cleared of laws which are obsolete, unconstitutional or spent.3 1. Perrin v. United States, (1914) 58 Lawyers Ed. 691. 2. Para. 1.2, supra. 3. Note in (1930) 44 Harward Law Review 1309. 1.4. Function of statute law revision.—By tradition, such action, intended to revise the statute book, has come to be described as "statute law revision". The classical exposition of the function of Statute law revision is that of Lord Westbury, Lord Chancellor. In 1863, speaking in the debate on the Statute Law Revision Bill, Lord Westbury thus outlined the principles upon which statute law revision should be based:1
Principles Followed in Recommending Repeal of Enactments2.1. Considerations borne in mind.—In dealing with the question whether a particular Act should be repealed or should be allowed to continue on the statute book, we have kept before us certain considerations, which it would be useful to set out. In the first place, statutes which are no longer needed, should be repealed. Secondly, statutes which have practically been superseded or covered by subsequent legislation should be repealed. In the third place, statutes which, though not clearly conflicting with Fundamental Rights, are opposed to the Directive Principles of State Policy, should be carefully considered, and the question whether there are any weighty reasons for continuing them should be investigated. 2.2. Principles for Statute law revision in U.K.—The principles to be followed in the selection of enactments for inclusion in Statute Law Revision Acts afford an interesting topic for discussion. In England, these principles used to be set out in a memorandum that was prefixed to Statute Law Revision Bills.1 The memorandum was in the following (or substantially similar) terms:2
1. Expired—that is, enactments which having been originally limited to endure only for a specified period by a distinct provision, have not been either perpetuated or kept in force by continuance, or which have merely had for their object the continuance of previous temporary enactments for periods now gone by effluxion of time;
2. Spent—that is, enactments spent or exhausted in operation by the accomplishment of the purposes for which they were passed, either at the moment of their first taking effect or on the happening of some event or one the doing of some act authorised or required;
3. Repealed in general terms—that is, repealed by the operation of an enactment expressed only in general terms, as distinguished from an enactment specifying the Acts on which it is to operate;
4. Virtually repealed—Where an earlier enactment is inconsistent with, or is rendered nugatory by, a later one;
5. Superseded—Where a later enactment effects the same purposes as an earlier one by repetition of its terms or otherwise;
6. Obsolete—Where the state of things contemplated by the enactment has ceased to exist, or the enactment is of such a nature as to be no longer capable of being put in force, regard being had to the alteration of political or social circumstances.II. For the purpose of the schedules, enactments are considered unnecessary where the provisions are of such a nature as not to require at the present day statutory authority. Where any enactment, is comprised in the schedules on any ground not above explained, the ground of repeal sufficiently appears from the expression used in the third column of the schedule to the Bill, which is, however, not a matter for consideration by the courts."
Specific Central Acts Considered*It is now time to indicate the results of our examination of specific Central Acts. In the ensuing few paragraphs, we shall discuss not only the Central Acts that appear to require repeal as a result of our examination, but also certain other Central Acts which, at the first sight, may appear to be appropriate for repeal, but in respect of which repeal may create certain difficulties. Taking note of these difficulties, their repeal could not be recommended. Nevertheless it seemed to us desirable to record the conclusion (though negative) with regard to such Acts, alongwith the reasons for not recommending their repeal. Accordingly, the subsequent paragraphs of this Chapter cover not only Central Acts which are recommended for repeal, but also a few other Central Acts not recommended to be repealed, but examined for the purpose of the present Report.1 * In this Chapter, the paragraphs have not been numbered. 1. The Acts are dealt with in the alphabetical order. 1. Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949 The Act provides for the abolition of the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council and for connected matters. It was passed as Constituent Assembly Act 5 of 1949. Prima facie, it would appear that the Act, having no practical utility now, should be repealed. Article 395 of the Constitution while repealing the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and the Government of India Act, 1947 and the Government of India Act, 1935 as well as enactments supplementing these enactments, expressly excludes from its scope the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949. Probably, this was done at that time since appeals filed before the Privy Council before the commencement of the Constitution might (which were in some cases allowed to continue in the Privy Council by section 4 of the Act) be pending before the Privy Council, and it was not considered proper to repeal the Act until disposal of the pending appeals. This is not the position now. The Act may be regarded as spent. The subject-matter of the Act falls within the Concurrent List, Entry 11A (Administration of Justice) and the residuary entry. Reasons for recommending repeal.—As the Act is no longer required, it may be repealed, subject to what is stated in the next two sentences. Before repealing the Act it should be ensured that its repeal does not revive the jurisdiction conferred on the Privy Council by any Act of the U.K. Parliament which itself might not yet have been formally repealed after independence. In this context, it will be particularly necessary to consider—(a) enactments relating to the judicial Committee, passed by the U.K. Parliament between 1830 and 1850,1 and (b) to consider and examine whether these enactments have not already been repealed by the Central Act of 19602 that was enacted to repeal certain U.K. Acts.3 1. See the Law Commission of India, 5th Report (British Statutes Applicable to India). 2. The British Statutes (Application to India) Act, 1960 (58 of 1960). 3. Repeal to be considered subject to verification of the aspects mentioned in the paragraph in the text. 2. Continuance of Legal Proceedings Act, 1948 (38 of 1948) This Act authorises the continuance of certain proceedings against the (newly created) Dominion of Indian or (newly created) Provinces. Paragraph 12(3) of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, made a provision for the continuance of legal proceedings against the Government after the "appointed day" (15th August, 1947), but only in respect of any liability of undivided India or a part thereof. The paragraph did not cover proceedings in respect of any right of undivided India. Ordinance 12 of 1948 was promulgated to remove this defect. This Act replaces this Ordinance. It is enough to quote section 3 of the Act, which provides as follows:—
(a) were pending by or against the Secretary of State in any Court within the territories which as from the appointed day became the territories of India by virtue of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 (10 and 11 Geo., VI, C. 30), and (b) were in respect of any right of India or any part of India, shall
(i) if the right in question was that of the Governor-General-in-Council be continued by or against the Dominion of India;
(ii) if the right in question was that of the former province of Bengal or the Punjab, be continued by or against the Province of West Bengal or East Punjab, as the case may be; and
(iii) if the right in question was that of any Governor's Province other than Bengal, the Punjab, the North West Frontier Province, or Sind, be continued by or against that Province."
(i) in Province of East Punjab, any prisoner who, being a Muslim, is willing to be transferred to Pakistan under the provisions of this Act, and
(ii) in any other part of India, any prisoner of such category as the Central Government may specify by notification in the official Gazette who being a Muslim, is willing to be transferred to Pakistan under the provisions of this Act."
1. Short title.—This Act may be called the Federal Court Act, 1937.
2. Power of Federal Court to make rules.—The Federal Court may make rules for regulating the service of processes issued by the Court, including rules requiring a High Court from which an appeal has been preferred to the Federal Court to serve any process issued by the Federal Court in connection with that appeal."
(i)without the special leave of the Federal Court, if an appeal could have been brought to His Majesty in Council without special leave under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or any other law in force immediately before the appointed day; and
(ii) with the special leave of the Federal Court in any other case;(b) in any such appeal as aforesaid it shall be competent for the Federal Court to consider any question of the nature mentioned in sub section (1) of section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935; and (c) no direct appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council, either with or without special leave, from any such judgment."
(i) Clause (3) of Article 4 of the Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947, or (ii) Paragraph (5) or paragraph (6) of Article 13 of the High Courts (Bengal) Order, 1947, or (iii) paragraph (4) or paragraph (6) of the High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947,which has been or may hereafter be passed by a court in Pakistan and which imposes any liability or obligation on a Government of India."
(i) the law of limitation; and
(ii) the law regulating forum.As to the point of limitation, section 4 allows a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Act or date of decree, whichever is later. As to the question of forum, the section provides that the suit permitted by the Act can, notwithstanding section 20, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be instituted in a court (otherwise competent to try it), within whose jurisdiction the person instituting it voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The subject-matter of the Act seems to fall within the Concurrent List, entry 13 (Civil procedure.... Limitation) and Union List, entry 97 (residuary). Action to be taken.—At the first sight, it may appear that after 30 years of independence, the need for the Act under discussion should no longer exist. However, it is not possible to say with absolute certainty that no such suit as is governed by the Act can be filed at the present day. Disability, fraud or other special factors may extend the period of limitation for filing the proceedings in question. It does not, therefore, appear advisable to repeal the Act. 9. Indian Law Reports Act, 1875 (18 of 1875) The Act, in effect, provides that courts are not bound to hear cited any unauthorised series of law reports. The Act is the first legislative measure restricting the citation of unofficial reports. The Act (so far as is material) provides that no court shall be bound to hear cited, or shall receive or treat as an authority binding on it, the report of any case other than a report published under the authority of the government. The enactment of this Act, which can be described as an attempt at creating a partial monopoly in favour of official reports, was strongly opposed, Sir George Combell, the then Lt. Governor of Bengal, expressed his opposition in these words:
(1) The Marriages Validation Act, 1892 (2 of 1892).
(2) The Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937 (19 of 1937).
(3) The Part 'B' States Marriage Validation Act, 1952.
(4) The Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (7 of 1956).
(5) The Hindu Marriages (Validation of Proceedings) Act, 1960 (19 of 1960).
(6) The Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Constitution and Proceedings) Validation Act, 1958 (56 of 1958).The subject-matter of the Act does not fall within the State List, Entry 60, "Tax on Professions", but within Union List, Entry 97, (residuary entry), since the Act is intended to give protection against the supposed violation of an erstwhile prohibition of a constitutional character. The subject-matter of the Act falls within the Union List, Entry 43, "Incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations ........". It may be stated that State List, Entry 25, "gas and gas works" would not be appropriate for this particular legislation, in which the focus is on the aspect of incorporation. Reasons for recommending repeal.—Government may consider if this Act, and also the analogous later Act of 1867, are needed at all. After verification of the factual position, further action may be taken.1 1. This is subject to verification of the factual position. 15. Oriental Gas Company Act, 1867 (11 of 1867) By this Act, the Central Government is empowered to allow the Oriental Gas Company to extend its area of operation beyond Calcutta. Reasons for recommending repeal.—See above under the "Oriental Gas Company Act, 1857". 16. Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949 (22 of 1949) The Act prohibits certain transactions by way of transfer without payment of taxes. Section 2(i) of the Act is limited to transactions entered into during a particular post partition period. But section 2(h), taken literally, is not so confined, though perhaps that was the intention of the Legislature. Section 2(ii) leaves the decision (as to persons to whom the Act applies) to the Income Tax authority, the Custodian of Evacuee Property or other specified authority. The subject-matter of the Act mainly falls within Concurrent List, Entry 6, "Transfer of Property other than agricultural land: registration of deeds and documents". Action to be taken.—Government may consider whether the Act is needed, at the present day, in view of the presumably limited scope of the Act, as indicated by section 2. 17. Professions Tax Limitation (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1949 (61 of 1949). By section 142(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935,1 certain Provincial laws providing for the imposition of tax on professions etc., were saved, but it was provided that after 31st March, 1939 the tax payable in respect of any one person under any law (imposing such a tax) should not exceed rupees fifty per annum. At the same time, by section 142(2) and proviso, pre-existing taxes were to continue to be lawfully levied even on a higher rate than rupees fifty, unless a Provision to the contrary was made by the federal legislature. There was a widespread demand in the erstwhile Madras Presidency that the professions tax, levied by municipalities and local boards under Provincial legislation and based solely on income, should be subject to the maximum of rupees fifty per annum. The Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941 (120 of 1941) gave effect to that demand, and extended the limit laid down in sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Government of India Act, 1935 to those provinces in which, owing to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 142, applied. If today such an Act were to be passed to save past violations of the Government of India Act, 1935, the proper legislative entry would be the Union List, Entry 97 (residuary). Action to be taken.—In view of the legislative practice of retaining validating Acts on the statute book studied above, the Act will have to be allowed to continue. 1. Compare Article 276, Constitution of India. 18. Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 (44 of 1957) The operative provisions of the Act may be thus summarised: Section 2 repeals earlier laws imposing a requirement of residence in an area as a condition of employment in Government. Section 3 gives temporary protection to legislation imposing a requirement as to residence in a particular area as a condition of eligibility for public employment.1 The protection was limited to a period of 15 years. That period has now expired. But section 2 of the Act is still of importance, since it repeals earlier laws. The subject-matter of the Act falls within the exclusive competence of Parliament, by virtue of Article 35(a)(i) read with Article 16(3) of the Constitution. Article 16(3) of the Constitution provides that nothing in that article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government or any local or other authority within a State or Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union Territory prior to such employment or appointment. Under Article 35(a) (i) of the Constitution (so far as is material)—
(a) Parliament shall have and the Legislature of a State shall not have, power to make laws
(i) with respect to any of the matters which under clause (3) of Article 16—may be provided for by law made by Parliament."
(a) Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 422.
(b) Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Reddy, AIR 1973 SC 827.2. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 422. 19. Public Suits Validation Act, 1932 (4 of 1932) By section 2 of the Public Suits Validation Act, 1932, it is provided that where a suit relating to any of the public matters specified in sections 91 and 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (these sections relate to suits regarding public nuisances and public trusts) is pending at the commencement of this Act, the institution of such a suit shall not be deemed to be invalidated on the ground that the previous sanction of the State Government in respect of such suit has not been obtained as required by section 93 of that Code. The subject-matter of the Act falls within Concurrent List, entry 13, "civil procedure, including all matters included in the Code of Civil Procedure at the commencement of this Constitution............... Action to be taken.—Most suits of the nature to which the Act applies, i.e., Suits pending in 1932 (when the Act was enacted) would have been disposed of by now. However, one cannot assert with positive certainty that all such suits must have been disposed of by now. Hence the Act may continue on the statute book for the present. 20. The Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959 (29 of 1959) This Act extends the period of limitation in regard to suits to recover possession of immovable property forming part of public wakfs, where the dispossession took place between 14th day of August, 1949 and 7th day of May, 1954. The period of limitation was originally extended upto 15th August, 1967, but the date has been successively extended. It may also be pointed out that there could, in effect, be further extension of the period of limitation by reason of disabilities or other special factors which have the effect of extending limitation under the general law of limitation. The subject-matter of the Act falls within Concurrent List, entry 10, "Trust and Trustees" and entry 13, "Civil Procedure...................limitation............... Action to be taken.—It is possible that suits to which the Act applies can still be filed, or are pending. If so, its repeal may create avoidable controversies. Moreover, many States have (by local amendment) extended the period to a later date. In the circumstances, it is not advisable to repeal the Act. 21. Special Tribunals (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1946 (26 of 1946) This Act provides that where a special court established under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1943 ceases to exist, it shall be deemed to be the Court of Session. Apparently, this technical provision was considered necessary to deal with appeal, execution return of property, etc., and other incidental matters in respect of proceedings of the special courts in question. The subject-matter of the Act seems to fall within Constitution, Concurrent List, entry 5, "Criminal Law and Procedure" and Concurrent List, entry 11A, "Administration of Justice". Reasons for recommending repeal.—The Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1943 (with which the Act is linked) has been repealed1. Moreover, matters arising out of decisions of special tribunals constituted under that Ordinance must, by now, have been practically exhausted. The Act now can be repealed, subject to verification of what has been stated just now.2 1. Repealing and Amending Act, 1957 (36 of 1957). 2. Subject to verification. 22. Transfer of Evacuee Deposits Act, 1954 (15 of 1954) Consequent on the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, there was large scale migration of population between the two countries. The Governments of India and Pakistan entered into an agreement with each country regarding the manner of transfer of deposits belonging to displaced persons or evacuees. In pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, the Parliament enacted the legislation to provide for such transfer of deposits to Pakistan and reception of such deposits in India. The Act is still in force though section 18 was repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act (58 of 1963). The term "deposit" has been defined in the Act as-
(i) any movable property in the custody or under the control of any civil or Revenue Court in respect of any proceedings;
(ii) any movable property under the superintendence or in the custody of a Court of Wards;
(iii) any movable property in the custody or control of a manager;and it includes any securities, insurance policies and negotiable instruments; "securities" covers shares, scripts, stocks, bonds, debentures, debentive stocks and like marketable securities. "Displaced person" is a person who has migrated from Pakistan to India on or after 1-3-47 and "evacuee" is one who has migrated from India to Pakistan on or after 1-3-47. By the Act, the Central Government has taken power to appoint a Custodian of Deposits and also as many Assistant Custodians as required. The Custodian has power to transfer the deposits to an officer in Pakistan as the Central Government may specify by general or special order in this behalf. The Custodian has also power to transfer the records of the deposit to the officer in Pakistan so specified. If the transfer of the 'deposit' is prohibited under any other law, it is lawful for the Custodian to convert the deposit into money before the transfer. The Act has also laid down the procedure for the converse situation, namely, the receipt of deposits from Pakistan, and the procedure to be subsequently followed by the Custodian in making payment of such deposits to the claimants. If there are more than one claimant and all of them do not agree for the method of payment or distribution, the Custodian has been empowered—(i) to refer the matter to the principal Civil Court at Original Jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the claimants, or at least the majority of them reside, and (ii) to transfer the deposits to such Court for disposal. The subject-matter of the Act falls within Concurrentlist, entry 41, "Custody, management and disposal of property declared by law to be evacuee property", Union List, entry 10, "Foreign Affairs," all matters which bring the Union into relation with any foreign country", and Union List, entry 14 (Entering into and implementation of treaties). Reasons for recommending repeal.—It is presumed that by now, deposits governed by the Act would all have been transferred or otherwise finally dealt with. The Act may therefore be repealed, subject to factual checking,1 as to whether any such deposits still remain undisposed of. 1. Subject to factual checking.
Comments Received on the Working Paper4.1. Comments favouring the proposals.—As already stated in the first chapter of this Report1 Law Commission had circulated a Working Paper on the subject-matter of this Report for inviting informed comments as to the repeal of the Acts dealt with in this Report. The last date for forwarding the comments to the Commission was 30th November, 1983. The replies received upto the date of signing this Report are nine in number. Two are from High Courts, while the remaining seven are from Law Departments of State Governments. Of the High Courts, one agrees with the need for repeal of all the Central Acts under consideration, while the other states that it has no comments to make2. The comments received from the State Governments all agree with the proposal for repeal of these Acts3. Of these comments received from the State Governments, two have made certain additional suggestions or supplied additional information, which will be referred to presently.4 1. Paragraph 1.8, supra. 2. Law Commission File No. F.2(11)/83-L.C., Serial No. 7 and Serial No. 3, respectively. 3. Law Commission File No. F.2(11)/83-L.C., Serial Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11. 4. Paras. 4.2 and 4.3, infra. 4.2. Unconstitutional Laws (Suggestion of the Government of Punjab).—In its reply sent to the Working Paper of the Law Commission, the Government of Punjab1 has suggested that those statutory provisions which have been declared by the Courts as unconstitutional should also be regarded as fit for repeal. The Commission is aware of this consideration and has taken it into account while preparing its list of enactments to be repealed. It may also be useful to mention that whenever the Commission takes up individual enactments for consideration, the constitutional aspect is also kept in mind, with a view to recommending the repeal or suitable amendment of statutory provisions that are found to be in conflict with the Constitution. 1. Law Commission File No. F.2(11)/83-L.C., Serial No. 5. 4.3. Kazis Act of 1880 (Material sent by the Government of Maharashtra).—The Government of Maharashtra, in its comment on the Working Paper of the Law Commision,1 has supplied useful material as to the Kazis Act, 1880 as in force in the State of Maharashtra. It may be mentioned that the Commission is not recommending repeal of this Act.2 The material forwarded by the State Government also shows that the Act cannot, in the present state of legislation, be repealed. 1. Law Commission File Nc. F.2(11)/83-L.C., Serial No. 8. 2. Chapter 3, item 18, supra (Kazis Act, 1880).
Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations5.1. Acts to be examined and gist of action suggested to be taken on each Act.—On the basis of the discussion contained in the preceding Chapters, repeal of the Acts that we have identified as suitable for repeal appears to be desirable,1 subject of course, to verification of certain aspects which have been mentioned in the discussion relating to each Act, wherever applicable. For convenience, we give below a list of the Acts examined, and the gist of our recommendation on each Act. List of Acts2 examined and gist of proposal made with reference to each Act3-
1. The Abolition of Privy Council Act, 1949 (Constituent Assembly Act 5 of 1949). Repeal of the Act is recommended, provided if it could be ensured that its repeal does not create any legal complications (such as revival of the jurisdiction conferred on the Privy Council by any Act of the U.K. Parliament etc.).
2. Continuance of Legal Proceedings Act, 1948 (38 of 1948). Repeal of the Act is recommended subject to verification of the factual position.
3. Exchange of Prisoners Act, 1948 (58 of 1948). Repeal of the Act is recommended, subject to examination of the question whether the Act is needed at the present day.
4. Federal Court Act, 1937 (25 of 1937). Repeal of the Act is recommended.
5. Federal Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1947 (1 of 1948). Repeal of the Act is recommended.
6. Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 (38 of 1966). Repeal of the Act is recommended.
7. General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 (17 of 1971). Repeal of the Act is recommended, subject to verification of the position as to whether there is continued need for the Act.
8. Indian Independence Pakistan Courts (Pending Proceedings) Act, 1952 (9 of 1952). Repeal of the Act is not recommended.
9. Indian Law Reports Act, 1875 (18 of 1875). Repeal of the Act is recommended.
10. Indian Rifles Act, 1920 (23 of 1920). Repeal of the Act is recommended.
11. Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Act, 1955 (41 of 1955). Repeal of the Act is not recommended.
12. Kazis Act, 1880 (12 of 1880). Repeal of the Act is not recommended.
13. Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956 (9 of 1956). Repeal of the Act is recommended subject to verification of the position as to whether there is continued need for the Act.
14. Oriental Gas Company Act, 1857 (5 of 1857). Government may consider of this Act, and the analogous later Act of 1867 relating to the same company (see below), are needed now. After verification of the factual position, further action may be taken.
15. Oriental Gas Company Act, 1867 (11 of 1867). See above under "Oriental Gas Company Act, 1857."
16. Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949 (22 of 1949). Government may consider whether the Act is needed at the present day.
17. Professions Tax Limitation (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1949 (61 of 1949). The Act may continue on the statute book, having regard to the legislative practice adopted in the past, as regard validating Acts. (In the past validating Acts have been allowed to continue on the statute book).
18. Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 (44 of 1957). The Act may continue on the statute book, as its repeal may create complications.
19. Public Suits Validation Act, 1932 (11 of 1932). The Act may, for the present, continue on the statute book.
20. Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959 (29 of 1959). It is not advisable to repeal the Act.
21. Special Tribunals (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1946 (29 of 1946). The Act may be repealed, subject to verification of certain facts stated in the discussion about the Act.
22. Transfer of Evacuee Deposits Act, 1954. The Act may be repealed, subject to factual checking.K.K. Mathew Chairman. J.P. Chaturvedi Member. Dr. M.B. Rao Member. P.M. Bakshi Part-time Member. Vepa P. Sarathi Part-time Members. A.K. Srinivasamurthy Member-Secretary. Dated: 19th March, 1984 1. Chapter 3, supra. 2. The Acts are arranged alphabetically. 3. None of these Acts was repealed upto 15th February, 1984, according to checking done in office.