Implementability of a definition in a law
Can a definition given in a law be implemented if there is no corresponding mention or provision in the main body of the law?
Example: Definition 2 (b) of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 describes the process of notification in definition itself.
There is no corresponding provision requiring to do so.
Is it in order?
Asked in Constitutional Law from New Delhi, Delhi
1. Definition is not substantive law. it is a guiding force to interpret the provision of law mentioned in the body of the Act.
2. Not it is not order but a procedural law and can be resorted to while adjudicating the dispute involving this issue.
Definition in an Act is basically an interpretation of the term in the Act. It basically guides to understand the particular provision or word in the Act. For instance Definition 2 (b) of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 defines "critical wildlife habitat", so it clearly guides you with the meaning of the same and as an when the word is used it can be interpreted accordingly.
Further it is not an order and is just a procedural law.
Advocate, New Delhi
1) I don't see reason why it is not in order as definition by itself is not law but a description to put in perspective what a particular term meant for the purpose of interpretation of law.
2) Therefore the implementation if any will become applicable as and when the term in question arises for consideration or raised and would be the honour of the judiciary to duly interpret.
3) The court will make provision if no explicit provision is available for its implementation as it's the duty of the court to interpret the law in practical terms.
1)A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, )
2) it guides us in understanding provisions of the word in the act
3) it is not an order and can be used for interpreting provisions of the act