The presumption against retrospective
operation is not applicable to
declaratory statutes. As stated in
CRAIES and approved by the Supreme
Court : “For modern purposes a
declaratory Act may be defined as an
Act to remove doubts existing as to the
common law, or the meaning or effect of
any statute. Such Acts are usually
held to be retrospective. The usual
reason for passing a declaratory Act is
to set aside what Parliament deems to
have been a judicial error, whether in
the statement of the common law or in
theinterpretationofstatutes.
Usually, if not invariably, such an Act
contains a preamble, and also the word
'declared' as well as the word
'enacted'. But the use of the words 'it
is declared' is not conclusive that the
Act is declaratory for these words may,
at times, be used to introduced new
rules of law and the Act in the latter
case will only be amending the law and
will not necessarily be retrospective.
In determining, therefore, the nature
of the Act, regard must be had to the
substance rather than to the form. If a
new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act,
it would be without object unless
construed retrospective. An explanatory
Act is generally passed to supply an
obvious omission or to clear up doubts
as to the meaning of the previous Act.
It is well settled that if a statute is
curative or merely declaratory of the
previous law retrospective operation is
generally intended. The language 'shall
be deemed always to have meant' is
