Page:29357 2016 1 1501 44512 Judgement 11-May-2023.pdf/86

PART L 131. In Prem Kumar Jain (supra), this Court did not find anything repugnant to the subject or context of Part XIV of the Constitution or Article 312 specifically to make the definition of ‘State’ in terms of amended Section 3(58)(b) of the General Clauses Act inapplicable. Hence, the expression ‘State’ as occurring in Part XIV was held to include Union Territories. In the preceding section of this judgment, we have approved the decision in Advance Insurance (supra) and held that the definition of “State” in Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act as amended by Adaptation of Laws (No. 1) Order, 1956 must be applied for the interpretation of the Constitution unless the context otherwise requires.

132. The definition provided in the definition clause article should be applied and given effect to for the purposes of the relevant Part of the Constitution. However, when the definition clause is preceded by the phrase ‘unless the context otherwise requires’, there may be a need to depart from the normal rule if there is something in the context in which such expression occurs to show that the definition should not be applied. Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, by virtue of Article 367(1) of the Constitution, applies to the construction of the expression ‘State’ in the Constitution, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context of a particular provision of the Constitution. The burden is on the party opposing the application of the definition under the General Clauses Act to the interpretation of a constitutional provision to prove that the context requires otherwise. The Union of India has been unable to suggest that the context of Part XIV suggests otherwise. There is nothing in the subject or context of Part XIV of the Constitution