Interpretation of Statutes

 The term ‘Interpretation’ 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 any text or anything in
written form.
 Interpretation of Statutes is the process of ascertaining the true sense of the language used in a
statute.
 According to Salmond “the essence of law lies in the spirit, not its letter, for the letter is
significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it”
 In relation to statute law, interpretation is of importance because of the inherent nature of
legislation as a source of law.
 The process of statute making and the process of interpretation of statutes are two distinct
activities.
 the objective of the court is not only merely to read the law but is also to apply it in a
meaningful manner to decide cases.
 Interpretation is necessary when case involves subtle or ambiguous aspects of a statute.
 Generally, the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning.
 But in some cases, there may be ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must
be resolved by the judge.
 It is not within the human powers to foresee the manifold permutations and combinations that
may arise in the actual implementation of the act and also to provide for each one of them in
terms free from all ambiguities.
 Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. Vs Asher, “English Knowledge is not an instrument of
mathematical precision… It would certainly save the judges from the trouble if the acts of
parliament were drafted with divine precision and perfect clarity. In the absence of it, when a
defect appears, a judge cannot simply fold hand and blame the draftsman…”
 The object of interpretation of statutes adopted by the courts is to determine the intention of
the legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used and thus have correct
understanding of the law.
 As stated by SALMOND, "by interpretation or construction is meant, the process by which the
courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative
forms in which it is expressed."
 Hence interpretation of statutes becomes an ongoing exercise as newer facts and conditions
continue to arise.
 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 whereas 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.
 Object and Scope Interpretation is as old as language. Elaborate rules of interpretation were
evolved even at a very early stage of the Hindu civilization and culture.
 The importance of avoiding literal interpretation was stressed in various ancient text books –
“Merely following the texts of the law, decisions are not to be rendered, for, if such decisions
are wanting in equity, a gross failure of Dharma is caused.”
 Interpretation thus is a familiar process of considerable significance.
 The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain
principles which have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Courts. These principles are
called ‘Rules of Interpretation’
 a) Literal or Grammatical Rule
 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.
 The first and foremost step in the course of interpretation is to examine the language
and the literal meaning of the statute.
 The words in an enactment have their own natural effect and the construction of an act
depends on its wording.
 There should be no additions or substitution of words in the construction of statutes
and in its interpretation.
 The primary rule is to interpret words as they are.
 This rule can be applied only when the meanings of the words are clear i.e. words
should be simple so that the language is plain and only one meaning can be derived out
of the statute.
 This rule is also known as the Plain meaning rule.
b) Mischief Rule
 Originating from a 16th century Heydon’s case in the United Kingdom, its main aim is to
determine the "mischief and defect" that the statute in question has set out to remedy,
and what ruling would effectively implement this remedy.
 When the material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions, the most
firmly established rule or construction of such words “of all statutes in general be they
penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law” is the rule of Heydon’s
case.
 It essentially asks the question: By creating an Act of Parliament what was the "mischief"
that the previous law did not cover?
 The office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the
mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for
continuance of the mischief, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according
to the true intent of the makers of the Act.
 The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the
golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament's intent.
 It can be argued that this undermines Parliament's supremacy and is undemocratic as it
takes lawmaking decisions away from the legislature.
 The rules laid down in this case are also known as Purposive Construction Rule.
c) Golden Rule of Interpretation
 The Golden rule, or British rule, 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 plain meaning (or literal) rule and the mischief rule.
 Like the plain meaning rule, it gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning.
 However, when this may lead to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature's
intention, the judge can depart from this meaning.
 In the case of homographs, where a word can have more than one meaning, the judge
can choose the preferred meaning; if the word only has one meaning, but applying this
would lead to a bad decision, the judge can apply a completely different meaning.
 This rule may 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.

Statute
  As per Black’s Law Dictionary- A Statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority
that governs a country, state, city, or county.
 Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.
 The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from the judicial decisions
of the common law and the regulations issued by Government agencies.
 A statute is a will of legislature conveyed in the form of text.
 The Constitution of India does not use the term ‘Statute’ but it uses the term ‘law’.
 ‘Law’ includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage
having the force of law. [Article 13 (3) (a) of the constitution].
 Therefore, a Statute is the will of the legislature and Indian Statute is an Act of the Central or
State Legislature.

Difference between Interpretation and Construction