Section 22 of THE CHILD AND ADOLESCENT (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986
- (1)The Employment of Children Act, 1938 (26 of 1938) is hereby repealed.
- (2)Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act so repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act. [Sections 23 to 26.]—Rep. by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001 (30 of 2001), s. 2 and the First Schedule (w.e.f. 3-9-2001).
Summary
- This section officially cancels and replaces the older Employment of Children Act of 1938.
- It ensures that past actions taken under the old 1938 law remain legally valid as long as they do not conflict with the new 1986 rules.
- Any valid action from the old system is legally treated as if it was done under the corresponding parts of the new legislation.
Practical examples
FAQ
1. Does Section 22 of the Child and Adolescent Labour Act completely erase everything done under the old law?
No, Section 22 saves actions taken under the old 1938 Act, treating them as if they were done under the new Act, provided they do not conflict with the new laws.
2. Which specific historical law is repealed by Section 22 of the 1986 Act?
Section 22 expressly repeals the Employment of Children Act, 1938.
3. Under Section 22 of the Act, what happens if an old action conflicts with the new law?
If an action taken under the repealed 1938 Act is inconsistent with the new 1986 Act, it is not saved and will not be considered legally valid under the new rules.
Test yourself
Q1.Which previous legislation is explicitly repealed by Section 22 of THE CHILD AND ADOLESCENT (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986?
Q2.Under Section 22 of the child and adolescent labour law, what is the key condition for an action taken under the old repealed Act to remain valid?
Q3.According to Section 22 of the 1986 Act, how are valid past actions from the repealed law treated today?
Q4.If a business owner tries to rely on a rule from the Employment of Children Act, 1938 today, what does Section 22 of the current Act say about that 1938 law?