 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 96 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.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back