Open Access Research Article
STUDY ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES BY:- MR. RUSHIKESH KEKADE
Published Paper
Article Details
“STUDY ON INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTES”
CLASS:L.L.M 1stYEAR, SEMETER:2nd,
ROLL NO: 09
Progressive Education
Society’s Modern Law College, Pune
Abstract –
The process of figuring out the right meaning and application of
laws passed by legislative bodies is known as
statutory interpretation. When
interpreting statutes, courts base their interpretations on a number of
fundamental principles and concepts. According to the plain meaning rule, the
court should use the plain
meaning without consulting outside sources if
the legislative language is clear and unambiguous. Reading the words in the
context of the full statute is required by the whole act rule. According to the
linked words canon, words should be understood in light of the company they
keep. According to the meaningful variation doctrine,
variations in phrasing must correspond to variations in meaning. Avoiding
constitutional ambiguity, the prohibition against surplus age, liberal vs
rigorous interpretation, and
examining the background and goals of legislation are further crucial guidelines.
Courts' interpretation and application of statutory laws are made
more consistent, predictable, and democratic by adhering to certain recognised
interpretive guidelines. The rules and standards that courts and legal
practitioners adhere to while interpreting and applying statutes or legislation
are referred to as the broad principles of statutory interpretation. These
guidelines seek to guarantee that the law is applied consistently and fairly
while also determining its genuine intent and meaning.
Keywords: statutory interpretation, Literal
rule, Golden rule, Mischief rule, Construction
Introduction-
The term has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’, which means to explain, expound, understand, or to
translate. Interpretation is the process of explaining, expounding and
translating anytext or anything in
written form. This basically involves an act of discovering the true meaning of the language which has
been used in thestatute1.
One of the origins of law
is legislation. Statute law is the designation given
to the body of law that results from legislation. As a
result, it was to be expected that these specialists' language would be highly
interpretive. The courts, for example, have applied these authoritative
formulations to the circumstances of the case before them, but their experience with them has been
different.
In order to render a more accurate decision, the court
must apply the appropriate interpretation in each case, as opposed to applying
the same meaning throughout. Therefore, in order to make an informed decision
regarding the welfare of the populace, it is important to comprehend the notion of
interpretation and the principles governing it.
Interpretation-
Black’s Law Dictionary defines interpretation as “The art or process
of discovering and expounding the meaning of a statute, will, contract, or
other written document.” Salmond defines interpretation as “By interpretation
or construction is meant, the process by which the court seek to ascertain the
meaning of the legislature through the medium of author it active forms in
which it is expressed.
To interpret anything is, according to Webster's Third
International Dictionary, to explain its meaning or to think of something in
the context of one's own beliefs, judgments, or circumstances. Thus, interpretation
refers to both the process and the outcome of interpretation. Interpreting the
laws created by legislation is the responsibility of the judiciary. The legislature's Acts serve as the basis for the
laws that the courts must merely apply and render
decisions in accordance with. However, occasionally, the laws passed by the legislature may not fully understand
what they are meant to say, may have omitted important
[1]Asthana, Subodh.
“Interpretation of Statutes
and Its Rules.” IPleaders, 26 June 2019, blog.ipleaders.in/rules-interpretation-statutes/.
details, or may have included incorrect information, among other
issues. In these cases, the judiciary intervenes to stop the problem from
developing.
At this point in time, the judiciary will investigate
the dispute, evaluate the purpose of the legislation and the welfare of the
public at large, and interpret the law appropriately. The courts just attempt
to bridge the gap. Since the shortcomings in the law can be exploited by those
who would do wrongdoing to their benefit, interpretations made by the courts ought to be just and
beneficial.
There are 3 traditional rules of interpretation:
1.
Literalrule
2.
Goldenrule
3.
Mischiefrule
Need for Interpretation-
1.
It is exceedingly hard to write a
statute that addresses everything. When anything comes up that isn't covered by
it, the judge may need to make the appropriate interpretations in order to sort
it out.
2.
Because society is always progressing and outdated laws
might not be able to address brand-new issues, interpretation is needed at
times like these.
3.
The English language is ambiguous
by nature, regardless of how carefully a
statute is written. At this point, law interpretation is required.
4.
A statute may occasionally be
purposefully drafted with ambiguity by the drafter to appease the legislator
and get the bill passed. In these situations, statutory interpretation is also
required.
Construction -
Construction, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, is "the
process, or the art, of determining the sense, real meaning, or proper
explanation of obscure or ambiguous
terms or provisions in a statute, written instrument, or oral agreement, or the
application of such subject to the case in question, by seeking and applying
the probable aim and purpose of the provision, or by reasoning in the light de-rived
from extraneous connected circumstances or laws or writings bearing upon the
same or a connected matter."
"Construction" is a broader term than
"interpretation," since the former can also be used to describe the legal implications and effects of the relevant
instrument, whereas the
latter is limited to determining the sense and meaning of the
subject matter. Therefore, interpretation comes before building, but it ends
with the written word.
Interpretation and
construction of written instruments are not the same. A rule of
construction is one which either
governs the effect of an ascertained intention, or points
out what the court should do
in the absence of express or implied intention, while a rule of interpretation
is one which governs the ascertainment of the meaning of the maker of the
instrument2.
The distinction between interpretation and construction -
1.
In the legal sense, interpretation
is the process of determining the precise meaning of any given word and revealing
the true intent behind a statute's provisions. Contrarily, construction
refers to deriving inferences from written documents that go beyond the
explicit language of the legal law.
2.
The linguistic interpretation of
the legal text is referred to as interpretation. Determining the legal
significance of words and the written text of the statute is the goal of
construction.
3.
The idea of interpretation is meant
in the situation where the text's plain meaning is to be followed. The notion of construction
is used when the legal text's literal interpretation creates
ambiguity.
General Principles of Interpretation -
Following are the rules of interpretation
1.
Literal Rule:-
The literal rule states that an enactment's words must be interpreted in accordance with their common meaning. A statute's provision should take effect regardless of the outcome if it has a clear and unmistakable meaning. This approach is based on the idea that the goal of all interpretation is to determine the legislature's intended meaning in accordance with grammatical standards. Because the language alone can be used to determine the legislature's intention, this rule has earned the title the safest rule.When a statute is written clearly, the court's only responsibility is to apply it; it is not their responsibility to consider the implications of this interpretation.
[2]Black,HenryCampbell.Black'sLawDictionary:
DefinitionsoftheTermsand PhrasesofAmerican andEnglishJurisprudence,
AncientandModern. 4thed.,WestPublishingCo., 1951
The legislature should provide
the remedy; the court's role is to interpret the law
as written. A statute's terms
are first comprehended in their organic, common, or everyday sense, and then
their grammatical meaning is applied to each phase and phrase. Acts of Parliament shall be construed in accordance with the
intention stated in the Act itself, according to the
fundamental rule of construction.
Maqbool Hussain
v. State of Bombay3
In this instance, the Indian national who was the appellant failed
to declare that he was carrying gold when he arrived at the airport. Gold was
discovered in his hands while his search was ongoing; this was against official
notification and was subject to confiscation under section 167(8) of the Sea
Customs Act. He was later charged in accordance with Foreign Exchange
Regulations Act, 1947, section 8. The appellant argued that Article 20(2) of
the Indian Constitution was violated by this trial. No one may face punishment
or legal action more than once for
the same offense, according to this article. It's thought of as
double peril.
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.
State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese
and `others4
In this case, a person was apprehended in possession of counterfeit currency along
with "dollars," and he was charged under sections 120B, 498A, 498C,
and 420 read with section 511 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code for possessing
counterfeit currency. The accused argued before the court that a charge under
section 498A and 498B of the Indian
Penal Code can only be levied in the case of counterfeiting Indian currency
notes and not in the case of counterfeiting foreign currency notes. The court
held that the word currency notes or bank note cannot be prefixed. The accused
was held liable to be charged.
2.
Mischief Rule:-
The mischief rule originated in Heydon’s case in 1584. In this case,
the Barons of the exchequer resolved that for the sure and true interpretation
of all statutes in general four
things are to be discerned and considered.
a)
What was the common law before the making of the Act?
[3]1953 AIR 325
[4]1987 AIR 33 SCR(1)
317
b)
What was the mischief and defect for which the common law didn’t provide?
c)
The true reason
of the remedy
d)
What remedy the Parliament had resolved
and appoint to cure the disease
of the common wealth?
The office of all judges is always to make such contributions as
shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy and to suppress subtle
invention and evasion for continuance of the mischief. In line with the genuine
aim of the legislature, the regulation gives the cure and remedy more strength and vitality. As a result, the norm has been
changed to the point where it
is now necessary to examine both common law and statutory law that existed
before the Act.
Smith v. Huges5
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
werecharged under section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded
that they were notsolicitedfrom thestreets.
The court held that although they were not soliciting
from the streets yet the mischief rulemust 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 chargesheet was
held to be correct.
Pyare Lal v. Ram Chandra6
[5]1960 WLR 830
[6]1979 WLN 591
3)
Golden Rule -
This is an adaptation of the literal interpretation concept. It
states that, in general, courts should interpret statutes according to their
natural meaning in order to determine the legislature's intention. However, if a statute's use would cause absurdity, disgust, hardship, or other negative
outcomes, the court should alter the meaning to the point where nothing more
happens. This guideline is known as the golden rule since it is the solution to
every issue. According to this rule, the implications or results of an
interpretation should be given far greater weight since they represent the
actual intent of the law.
Tiranth Singh v. Bachittar
Singh7
In this case, there was a dispute over the notice that was given in
accordance with section 99 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951, regarding
electoral corruption. The
notice is required by the rule to be
sent simultaneously to everyone who
is a party to the election petition
and to everyone who is not. Tirath Singh argued that he was not given any
notice in accordance with the aforementioned rule. Only individuals who were
not parties to the election petition received the notices. On this specific ground,
it was contested that this was invalid.
The court decided that providing the information is what
is intended, and that the information does not change even if it is provided
twice. Since the petitioning party has already received notice of the petition,
section 99 will be interpreted in accordance with the golden rule, which states
that notice is only necessary for non-parties.
4)
Harmonious Construction -
In cases where a statute contains two or more offensive provisions,
the court will attempt, if it is
feasible, to interpret the provisions
so as to give effect to both by harmonizing
them with one another. The court may do this by ruling that one provision only
establishes an exception to the general rule found in the other, or by
treating two or more seemingly incompatible sections as addressing different
circumstances. However, it can be exceedingly challenging to decide whether
several portions of the same statute overlap or are mutually incompatible. The
idea that the legislator must not have intended to contradict itself is
presumably the foundation of the harmonious construction principle.
[7]AIR1955 SC 850
This principle has been used in a great deal of issues involving
constitutional interpretation. You may be confident that the legislature does
not take something away from you when it offers something. An Act's provisions
do not become meaningless because of one
another. When the legislature passes two seemingly incompatible laws in one
Act, it cannot be assumed that it is contradicting itself.
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balasara8
The Supreme Court noted that the words "possession and
sale" found in Entry 31 of List In
should be read "without
qualification" when determining the validity of the 1949
Bombay Prohibition Act, which was passed by the Bombay Legislature and placed
restrictions on the production and sale of alcohol. The State Legislature may
outright forbid the possession, consumption, and sale of alcoholic beverages
under that entry. When used alone, the term "import" in Entry 19 of
List I does not refer to the sale or ownership of the item brought into the
nation by a resident of the region into which it is brought. As a result, Entry
19 of List I and Entry 31 of List Il do not actually contradict. Therefore,
the Act of 1949 does not infringe on the territory designated for the Federal
Legislature inasmuch as it aims to limit the possession, use, and sale of
foreign liquor.
Raj Krishna
v. Binod9
The discrepancy between Sections 33(2) and 123(8) of the
Representation of the People Act,
1951 was at issue in Raj Krishna v. Binod13. A government employee may propose
or second a candidate for office under Section 33(2), however Section 123(8)
prohibits government employees from offering any other kind of assistance to
candidates running for office beyond casting their ballot. In its ruling, the
Supreme Court upheld the right of a
government employee to either nominate or second a candidate for the State
Legislative Assembly, ruling that these two articles need to be read in tandem.
Harmony was possible only if
Section123 (8) of the Act is
interpreted as conferring power on a
government servant of voting as well as of proposing and seconding a
candidature and forbidding him from assisting a candidate in any other manner10.
[8] AIR 1951 S.C. 318
[9]1954 AIR 202,1954 SCR 913
[10]Bhattacharyya, T. The Interpretation of Statutes.8thed.,Central Law Agency, 2012.
Manohar Lal v. State of
Punjab11
Section 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1949directing that
shops and establishments to which the Act applied shall remain closed one day in a week was held not to violate
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution as it was are as on able restriction on
the fundamental right because it
ensures health and efficiency of the
worker. The position would be same even if the business is being conducted by
the owner and his family members. On similar grounds, hours of employment of
employee sand opening and closing hours of shops or establishments cannot
beheld as violative of fundamental right
to trade and business under Article 19 (1) (g)12.
Conclusion -
An effective and reliable legal system is necessary for a nation to thrive. The goal of the
court's interpretation of the law must be to ensure that citizens receive the
proper justice. Judges should apply a helpful
interpretation of the law
to minimize disagreements and guarantee this kind of justice. Which rule to apply
in a given situation should be known
by the judge. When reading the
statute, one must take the legislature's intent into consideration. The
language used in statutes don't
always have to be obvious, unambiguous, and completely functional, thus courts
should take the appropriate measures to ascertain the precise meaning of any words or phrases used by the legislature while
also clearing up any remaining uncertainties. Therefore, it is crucial to follow all of the guidelines in the article in order to ensure fairness.
[11]1961AIR418,1961SCR(2)343
[12]Bhattacharyya,T. TheInterpretation ofStatutes.8thed.,CentralLawAgency,2012.
BIBLIOGRAPHY -
Books:
1)
Bhattacharyya,T. TheInterpretationofStatutes.8thed.,CentralLawAgency,2012.
2)
Gandhi,B.M.Interpretation ofStatutes.First ed.,EasternBook Co.,2006.
Websites:
1)
blog.ipleaders.in/rules-interpretation-statutes/
3) https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/the- interpretation-of- statute-constitutional-law-essay.php
Article Information
STUDY ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES BY:- MR. RUSHIKESH KEKADE
Authors: MR. RUSHIKESH KEKADE
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/07
- 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.