Open Access Research Article
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION BY: RUPALI VIJAY KUMBHAR
Published Paper
Article Details
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION
AUTHORED BY: RUPALI VIJAY KUMBHAR
ABSTRACT
Judiciary construes legislative
enactments to resolve disputes and administer justice. This research article
provides an in-depth exploration of the general principles governing statutory
interpretation, synthesizing key theoretical frameworks and practical
applications.
The article begins by elucidating the
fundamental objective of statutory interpretation: discerning legislative
intent. It delves into the complexities inherent in statutory language,
highlighting how ambiguity and gaps necessitate judicial interpretation to
ensure the effective application of laws.
Through a comprehensive review of
scholarly literature and case law, the article identifies and analyzes a
spectrum of general principles guiding statutory interpretation. These
principles include textualism, which emphasizes a literal reading of statutory
language; the consideration of legislative intent, often gleaned from
legislative history and context; the importance of purposive interpretation,
aligning statutory interpretation with broader societal objectives; and the
application of presumptions and maxims to resolve ambiguities.
INTRODUCTION[1]
One of the most substantial and the
principal duty which are vested on the judiciary is the interpretation of the
statutes or law which are in force. When the courts deliver justice in a legal
dispute, they strictly abide with the boundaries framed by the legal frameworks
which encompasses certain laws, statutes, The Constitution and delegated
legislations. The legal framework of a democratic country like India includes a
plethora of legislations and regulations. The Legislature with the compliance
of the procedural Parliamentary rules, formulates and drafts certain written
statutes and legislations. The courts deliver justice in a legal matter by
interpreting the underlying principles in these legislations. The written laws
are substantiated by the courts and justice is administered by the courts through
the pronouncement of verdict over the legal dispute. For the purpose of
interpreting statues and to prevent any wrongful interpretation of the laws,
the court should follow certain rules to shape these laws. So, one of the most
basic rules of interpretation is the Literal rule of Interpretation of statutes
where the court interprets the wordings of the law as it is. However, there may
be certain loopholes which may be found in the law due to which it is not
interpret a straight-forward understanding of the language of the statutes. It
may lead to ambiguity and absurdity if the courts interpret the natural meaning
of the language used in the statute.
WHAT IS THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES?[2]
Interpretation of
statutes refers to the process of understanding and giving meaning to the
provisions and provisions of a law or statute. When laws are enacted by
legislatures, they are often written in broad and general terms, which can lead
to different interpretations and understandings The role of statutory
interpretation is to clarify the meaning and intention behind the statutory
language.
Rules of
interpreting statutes are necessary because laws must be applied to specific
cases and situations. It involves analysing the text of the statute, considering
its purpose, examining the legislative history and applying established legal
principles and rules of interpretation. The goal is to determine the
legislative intent or the purpose the lawmakers sought to achieve when enacting
the law.
Courts, judges and
legal professionals are primarily responsible for interpreting statutes when
resolving disputes or applying the law in specific cases. Different rules of
interpretation of Statutes may be employed, including textualism, which focuses
on the plain meaning of the words in the statute or purposivism, which emphasizes
the legislative purpose and intent behind the law.
When the language of the statute is clear, there is no need for the
rules of interpretation. But, in certain cases, more than one meaning may be
derived from the same word or sentence. It is, therefore, necessary to
interpret the statute to find out the real intention of the statute. determine
the intention of the legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the
language used. In the process of interpretation, several aids are used. They
may be statutory or non-statutory. Statutory aids may be illustrated by the
General Clauses Act, 1897 and by specific definitions contained in individuals
Acts. Non-statutory aids are illustrated by common law rules of interpretation
(including certain presumptions relating to interpretation) and also by
case-laws relating to the
interpretation
of statutes.
Codified
Statutory Law Can Be Categorized As Follows :
·
Codifying
statutes : The
purpose of this kind of statute is to give an authoritative statement of the
rules of the law on a particular subject, which is customary laws. For
example- The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and The Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
·
Consolidating
statutes : This kind of
statute covers and combines all law on a particular subject at one place which
was scattered and lying at different places. Here, the entire law is
constituted in one place. For example- Indian Penal Code or Code of
Criminal Procedure.
·
Declaratory
statutes : This kind of
statute does an act of removing doubts, clarifying and improving the law based
on the interpretation given by the court, which might not be suitable from the
point of view of the parliament. For example- the definition of house
property has been amended under the Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985 through
the judgement of the supreme court.
·
Remedial
statutes : Granting of new
remedies for enforcing one’s rights can be done through the remedial statutes.
The purpose of these kinds of statutes is to promote the general welfare for
bringing social reforms through the system. These statutes have liberal
interpretation and thus, are not interpreted through strict means. For
example- The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, The Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923 etc.
·
Enabling
statutes : The purpose of
this statute is to enlarge a particular common law. For example- Land
Acquisition Act enables the government to acquire the public property for the
purpose of the public, which is otherwise not permissible.
·
Disabling
statutes : It is the
opposite of what is provided under the enabling statute. Here the rights
conferred by common law are being cut down and are being restrained.
·
Penal
statutes : The offences for various types of offences are provided through these
statutes, and these provisions have to be imposed strictly. For example-
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
·
Taxing
statutes : Tax is a form of revenue which is to be paid to the government. It can
either be on income that an individual earns or on any other transaction. A
taxing statute thus, levies taxes on all such transactions. There can be income
tax, wealth tax, sales tax, gift tax, etc. Therefore, a tax can be levied only
when it has been specifically expressed and provided by any statute.
·
Explanatory
statutes : The term explanatory itself indicates that this type of statute explains
the law and rectifies any omission left earlier in the enactment of the
statutes. Further, ambiguities in the text are also clarified and checked upon
the previous statutes.
·
Amending
statutes : The statutes which operate to make changes in the provisions of the
enactment to change the original law for making an improvement therein and for
carrying out the provisions effectively for which the original law was passed
are referred to as amending statutes. For example- Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 amended the code of 1898.
·
Repealing
statutes : A repealing statute is one which terminates an earlier statute and may be
done in the express or explicit language of the statute. For
example- Competition Act, 2002 repealed the MRTP Act.
·
Curative
or repealing statutes : Through these statutes, certain acts which would
otherwise be illegal are validated by curing the illegality and enables a
particular line of action.
RULES OF INTERPRETATION
1.
Natural or Grammatical Rule[5]:
To construe
the provisions literally and grammatically giving the words their ordinary and
natural meaning; Also known as plain meaning rule; There should be no additions
or substitution of words in the construction of statutes and its
interpretation; Only one meaning should be derived from the statute. Literal
meaning is subject to the following conditions- Statute may itself provide for
a special meaning for a term, which is usually to be found in the
interpretation section. Technical words are given ordinary technical meaning if
the statute has not specified any other. Words will not be inserted by
implication. Words may undergo shifting in the course of time. It should be
remembered that the words acquire significance from their context. It is the
first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the words used in this
text are to be given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. After
the interpretation, if the meaning is completely clear and unambiguous then the
effect shall be given to a provision of a statute regardless of what may be the
consequences. The basic rule is that whatever the intention legislature had
while making any provision it has been expressed through words and thus, are to
be interpreted according to the rules of grammar. It is the safest rule
of interpretation of statutes because the intention of the legislature is
deduced from the words and the language used. According to this rule, the only
duty of the court is to give effect if the language of the statute is plain and
has no business to look into the consequences which might arise. The only
obligation of the court is to expound the law as it is and if any harsh
consequences arise then the remedy for it shall be sought and looked out by the
legislature.
CASE LAWS
In this
case, the appellant, a citizen of India after arriving at the airport did not
declare that he was carrying gold with him. During his search was carried on,
gold was found in his possession as it was against the notification of the
government and was confiscated under section 167(8) of Sea Customs
Act. Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign
Exchange Regulations Act, 1947. The appellant challenged this trial
to be violative under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
According to this article, no person shall be punished or prosecuted more than
once for the same offence. This is considered as double jeopardy. It was held
by the court that the Seas Act neither a court nor any judicial tribunal. Thus,
accordingly, he was not prosecuted earlier. Hence, his trial was held to be
valid.
In this case
a person was caught along with the counterfeit currency “dollars” and he was
charged under section 120B, 498A, 498C and 420 read with section 511 and
34 of Indian Penal Code for possessing counterfeit currency. The accused
contended before the court that a charge under section 498A and 498B of Indian
Penal Code can only be levied in the case of counterfeiting of Indian currency
notes and not in the case of counterfeiting of foreign currency notes. The
court held that the word currency notes or bank note cannot be prefixed. The
person was held liable to be charge-sheeted.
2.
The Mischief Rule/Purposive construction[8]
A rule of
statutory interpretation that attempts to determine the legislator's Intention
to determine the mischief and defect to give ruling to implement the effective
remedy.
Mischief
Rule was originated in Heydon's case in 1584 It is the rule of purposive
construction because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying
this rule It is known as Heydon's rule because it was given by Lord Poke in
Heydon's case in 1584. It is called as mischief rule because the focus is on
curing the mischief.
In the
Heydon's case, it was held that there are four things which have to be followed
for true and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as
follows-
1.
What was the common law before the making of an act.
2.
What was the mischief for which the present statute
was enacted.
3.
What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved
and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth.
4.
The true reason of the remedy.
CASE LAWS
In this case
around the 1960s, the prostitutes were soliciting in the streets of London and
it was creating a huge problem in London. This was causing a great problem in
maintaining law and order. To prevent this problem, Street Offences Act, 1959
was enacted. After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started
soliciting from windows and balconies. Further, the prostitutes who were
carrying on to solicit from the streets and balconies were charged
under section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that
they were not solicited from the streets. The court held that although they
were not soliciting from the streets yet the mischief rule must be
applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall look into this
issue. Thus, by applying this rule, the court held that the windows and
balconies were taken to be an extension of the word street and charge sheet was
held to be correct.
·
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sri
Krishna Manufacturing Company, 1962[10]
In this
Case, was that the respondent concerned was running a factory where four units
were for manufacturing. Out of these four units one was for paddy mill, other
three consisted of flour mill, saw mill and copper sheet units. The number of
employees there were more than 50. The RPFC applied the provisions of Employees
Provident Fund Act, 1952 thereby directing the factory to give the benefits to
the employees. The person concerned segregated the entire factory into four
separate units wherein the number of employees had fallen below 50, and he
argued that the provisions were not applicable to him because the number is more
than 50 in each unit. It was held by the court that the mischief rule has to be
applied and all the four units must be taken to be one industry, and therefore,
the applicability of PFA was upheld.
·
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, 1965[11]
Issues of
the case were as follows- section 418 of Delhi Corporation Act, 1902
authorised the corporation to round up the cattle grazing on the government
land. The MCD rounded up the cattle belonging to Kanwar Singh. The words used
in the statute authorised the corporation to round up the abandoned cattle. It
was contended by Kanwar Singh that the word abandoned means the loss of
ownership and those cattle which were round up belonged to him and hence, was
not abandoned. The court held that the mischief rule had to be applied and the
word abandoned must be interpreted to mean let loose or left
unattended and even the temporary loss of ownership would be
covered as abandoned.
3.
Golden Rule[12]
It is a form
of statutory interpretation that allows a judge to depart from a word’s normal
meaning in order to avoid an absurd result. It is a compromise between the rule
of interpretation and the rule of mischief. To be used in two ways- It is
applied most frequently in a narrow sense where there is some ambiguity or absurdity
in the words themselves. It is used in a wider sense to avoid a result that is
obnoxious to the principles of public policy. It is known as the golden rule
because it solves all the problems of interpretation. The rule says that to
start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the interpretation
given through the literal rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity,
injustice, inconvenience, hardship, inequity, then in all such events the
literal meaning shall be discarded and interpretation shall be done in such a
manner that the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled. The literal rule
follows the concept of interpreting the natural meaning of the words used in
the statute. But if interpreting natural meaning leads to any sought of
repugnance, absurdity or hardship, then the court must modify the meaning to
the extent of injustice or absurdity caused and no further to prevent the
consequence. This rule suggests that the consequences and effects of
interpretation deserve a lot more important because they are the clues of the
true meaning of the words used by the legislature and its intention. At times,
while applying this rule, the interpretation done may entirely be opposite of
the literal rule, but it shall be justified because of the golden rule. The
presumption here is that the legislature does not intend certain objects. Thus,
any such interpretation which leads to unintended objects shall be rejected.
Important Aspect Of This Rule :
The court
must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them. The
provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provisions in another
unless the Court, despite all its efforts, is unable to find a way to reconcile
their differences. When it is impossible to reconcile the differences in
contradictory provisions completely, the court must interpret them in such a
way so as that effect is given to both the provisions as much as possible. It
is not a harmonious construction if the interpretation reduces one provisions
to be useless and not to destroy it or render it to loose.
CASE LAWS
In this
case, there was an issue with regard to issuing of the notice
under section 99 of Representation of People’s Act, 1951, with regard
to corrupt practices involved in the election. According to the rule, the
notice shall be issued to all those persons who are a party to the election
petition and at the same time to those who are not a party to it. Tirath Singh
contended that no such notice was issued to him under the said provision. The
notices were only issued to those who were non-parties to the election
petition. This was challenged to be invalid on this particular ground. The
court held that what is contemplated is giving of the information and the
information even if it is given twice remains the same. The party to the
petition is already having the notice regarding the petition, therefore,
section 99 shall be so interpreted by applying the golden rule that notice is
required against non-parties only.
·
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat
Financial Company,1967[14]
A
transporting company was carrying a parcel of apples was challenged and
charge-sheeted. The truck of the transporting company was impounded as the
parcel contained opium along with the apples. At the same time, the invoice
shown for the transport consisted of apples only. Section 11 of the opium act
1878, all the vehicles which transport the contraband articles shall be
impounded and articles shall be confiscated. It was confiscated by the
transport company that they were unaware of the fact that opium was loaded
along with the apples in the truck. The court held that although the words
contained in section 11 of the said act provided that the vehicle
shall be confiscated but by applying the literal rule of interpretation for
this provision it is leading to injustice and inequity and therefore, this
interpretation shall be avoided. The words ‘shall be confiscated’ should be
interpreted as ‘may be confiscated’.
4.
Harmonious Construction[15]
When there
is a conflict between two or more statutes or two or more parts of a statute
then this rule is to be adopted. If it is not possible to harmonize the two
statutes, then the court is to decide the same and it shall prevail. There
should be consistency. According to this rule of interpretation, when
two or more provisions of the same statute are repugnant to each other, then in
such a situation the court, if possible, will try to construe the provisions in
such a manner as to give effect to both the provisions by maintaining harmony
between the two. The question that the two provisions of the same statute are
overlapping or mutually exclusive may be difficult to determine. The
legislature clarifies its intention through the words used in the provision of
the statute. So, here the basic principle of harmonious construction is that
the legislature could not have tried to contradict itself. In the cases of
interpretation of the Constitution, the rule of harmonious construction is
applied many times. It can be assumed that if the legislature has intended to
give something by one, it would not intend to take it away with the other hand
as both the provisions have been framed by the legislature and absorbed the equal
force of law. One provision of the same act cannot make the other provision
useless. Thus, in no circumstances, the legislature can be expected to
contradict itself.
CASE LAWS
In this
case, the State Government proposed to acquire sugar industries under U.P Sugar
Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. This was challenged on the ground that
these sugar industries were declared to be a controlled one by the union
under Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. And
accordingly, the state did not have the power of acquisition of requisition of
property which was under the control of the union. The Supreme Court held that
the power of acquisition was not occupied by Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951. The state had a separate power under Entry 42 List III.
Facts of the
case are as follows- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides
for freedom of speech and expression. Article 194(3) provides to the
Parliament for punishing for its contempt and it is known as the Parliamentary
Privilege. In this case, an editor of a newspaper published the word -for- word
record of the proceedings of the Parliament including those portions which were
expunged from the record. He was called for the breach of parliamentary
privilege. He contended that he had a fundamental right to speech and
expression. It was held by the court that article 19(1)(a) itself
talks about reasonable freedom and therefore freedom of speech and expression
shall pertain only to those portions which have not been expunged on the record
but not beyond that.
CONCLUSION
In essence, the general principles of statutory interpretation serve as
guiding lights for courts and legal practitioners in deciphering legislative
intent from statutes. These principles encompass several key tenets, including
the presumption that legislation is crafted with clarity and purpose, the
importance of considering the legislative context, the application of the plain
meaning rule, and the recourse to legislative history when ambiguity arises.
Moreover, courts often strive to interpret statutes in a manner that aligns
with fundamental legal principles, societal values, and the broader objectives of
the legal system. Through a balanced application of these principles, the
judiciary endeavors to ensure consistent and just outcomes in legal
proceedings, promoting the rule of law and fostering a stable and predictable
legal environment.
[1]
https://blog.ipleaders.in/rules-interpretation-statutes/
[2]
https://lawbhoomi.com/rules-of-interpretation-of-statutes/
[3]
https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/rules-interpretation-statutes.html
[4]
https://blog.ipleaders.in/rules-interpretation-statutes/
[5]
https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/rules-interpretation-statutes.html
[6] AIR 1953 SC 325
[7] 1987 AIR 33 SCR (1) 317
[8] https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/rules-interpretation-statutes.html
[10] AIR 1962 SC 1526
[11] AIR 1965 SC 871
[12]
https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/rules-interpretation-statutes.html
[13] AIR 1955 SC 850
[14] AIR 1967 SC 276
[15]
https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/rules-interpretation-statutes.html
[16] AIR 1980 SC 1955
[17] AIR 1959 SC 395
Article Information
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION BY: RUPALI VIJAY KUMBHAR
Authors: RUPALI VIJAY KUMBHAR
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.