In the case of Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and another v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. and others (1995). In the said case, the liability of the respondents therein to pay octroi to the Municipal Corporation was under consideration. It was sought to be argued that since the 1918 Notifications had not been implemented, they stood repealed ‘quasily’ by the time new Octroi Rules came to be framed in 1963 and, in fact, they were applied to realize octroi from the respondents. In this background, this Court observed thus:
“34. Though in India the doctrine of desuetude does not appear to have been used so far to hold that any statute has stood repealed because of this process, we find no objection in principle to apply this doctrine to our statutes as well. This is for the reason that a citizen should know whether, despite a statute having been in disuse for long duration and instead a contrary practice being in use, he is still required to act as per the “dead letter”. We would think it would advance the cause of justice to accept the application of doctrine of desuetude in our country also. Our soil is ready to accept this principle; indeed, there is need for its implantation, because persons residing in free India, who have assured fundamental rights including what has been stated in Article 21, must be protected from their being, say, prosecuted and punished for violation of a law which has become “dead letter”. A new path is, therefore, required to be laid and trodden.
35. In written submissions filed on behalf of respondents, it has been stated that the theory of desuetude can have no application to the facts of the present case, since the challenge by the respondents is to the levy and calculation under the 1963 Schedule, and not to the rates enforced since 1918. This submission has been characterised as “most important”. As to this we would observe that if Notification of 1818 were to prevail despite 1918 Notifications, the fact that some changes were made in the Schedule in 1963 has no legal bearing on the question under examination. The theory of desuetude has been pressed into service by the appellant only to take care of relevant 1918 Notifications. If those notifications can be said to stand eclipsed, the fact that changes were made in the rates etc. in 1963 cannot stand in the way of application of the theory of desuetude.”
In Re: construction of multi storeyed buildings in forest land Maharashtra (2025), while analysing the same doctrine, the Supreme Court has said,
“The doctrine of desuetude would apply to our statutes as well for the reason that a citizen should know whether, despite a statute having been in disuse for long duration and instead a contrary practice being in use, he is still required to act as per the “dead letter”. It has been observed that it would advance the cause of justice to accept the application of doctrine of desuetude in our country as well. The Court observed that in view of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a citizen must be protected from being prosecuted and punished for violation of a law which has become “dead letter”.
42. However, it is clear from the aforesaid observations that for applicability of the doctrine of desuetude, the statute must not only be required to be in disuse for long duration but instead a contrary practice must also be prevalent.
43. We fail to understand as to how the said doctrine of desuetude would be applicable in the facts of the present case.
44. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the RRCHS that though the subject land was shown as Reserved Forest Land, as far back as in 1879, it was not used as a Forest Land for a long period and therefore it ceased to be Reserved Forest Land. We fail to appreciate such a submission. The subject land has continuously been recorded as ‘Reserved Forest’ in the Forest Records. Not only that, as we have already reproduced hereinabove, the Forest Authorities through a number of communications had requested the Revenue Authorities to correct the revenue entries and transfer the land to the Forest Department.
In any case, this Court in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited (supra) has correctly laid down the legal position as under:
“201. From the above, the essentials of the doctrine of desuetude may be summarised as follows:
(i) The doctrine of desuetude denotes a principle of quasi-repeal but this doctrine is ordinarily seen with disfavour.
(ii) Although the doctrine of desuetude has been made applicable in India on few occasions but for its applicability, two factors, namely,
(i) that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for a very considerable period, and
(ii) the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time must be clearly satisfied.
Both ingredients are essential and want of any one of them would not attract the doctrine of desuetude. In other words, a mere neglect of a statute or legislation over a period of time is not sufficient but it must be firmly established that not only the statute or legislation was completely neglected but also the practice contrary to such statute or legislation has been followed for a considerably long period.” [Emphasis supplied]
45. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the doctrine of desuetude is ordinarily seen with disfavour. It has also been held that although this doctrine has been made applicable in India on a few occasions, however, for its applicability, two factors are necessary, namely,
(i) that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for a very considerable period, and
(ii) the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time. It has been held that, not one but, both the conditions must be available to attract the applicability of the said doctrine of desuetude.”
Reference
Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and another v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. and others (1995)