Marupaka Venkateshwarlu
M.A,B.Ed,L.L.B
TheLegal.co.in
Interpretation of Statutes.
Meaning of interpretation of statutes
To ensure that justice is made available to all, the judicial system has been evolved in all nations. It is
extremely important and infact necessary also that the Courts interpret the law in such a manner that
ensures ‘access to justice’ to the maximum. For this purpose, the concept of ‘Canons of Interpretation’
has been expounded. The Canons are those rules that have been evolved by the Judiciary to help Courts
determine the meaning and the intent of legislation.
SALMOND has defined it as “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.”
A Statute is an edict of the Legislature and it must be construed “to the intent of them who make it” and
“duty of the judicature is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature- the mens or sententia legis.”
Need For Interpretation
In his The Law-Making Process, Michael Zander gives three reasons why statutory interpretation is
necessary:
1. Complexity of statutes in regards to the nature of the subject, numerous draftsmen and the blend of
legal and technical language can result in incoherence, vague and ambiguous language.
2. Anticipation of future events leads to the use of indeterminate terms. The impossible task of
anticipating every possible scenario also leads to the use of indeterminate language. Judges therefore
have to interpret statutes because of the gaps in law. Examples of inderterminate language include
words such as “reasonable”. In this case the courts are responsible for determining what constitutes the
Marupaka Venkateshwarlu
MA,B.Ed,LLB. Page 1
word “reasonable”.
3. The multifaceted nature of language. Language, words and phrases are an imprecise form of
communication. Words can have multiple definitions and meanings. Each party in court will utilize the
definition and meaning of the language most advantageous to their particular need. It is up to the courts
to decide the most correct use of the language employed.
General Rules of Interpretation, Internal Aids to Interpretation, External Aids to Interpretation, Literal
Rule, Golden Rule, Mischief Rule, Subsidiary Rules and Harmonious Construction are some of the most
important rules.
Golden rule of interpretation
This rule of statutory interpretation allows a shift from the ordinary sense of a word(s) if the overall
content of the document demands it. This rule is a modification of the literal rule. It states that if the
literal rule produces an absurdity, then the court should look for another meaning of the words to avoid
that absurd result. The rule was evolved by Parke B (who later became Lord Wensleydale) in Becke v
Smith, 1836 and in Grey v Pearson, 1857, who stated, "The grammatical and ordinary sense of the
words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or
inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the
words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther."
It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute as it allows to adhere to the ordinary meaning of
the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the
legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in
which case it allows the language to be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience.
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. For example, imagine there may be a sign saying "Do
not use lifts in case of fire." Under the literal interpretation of this sign, people must never use the lifts,
in case there is a fire. However, this would be an absurd result, as the intention of the person who made
the sign is obviously to prevent people from using the lifts only if there is currently a fire nearby. This was
illustrated in the case of Lee vs Knapp 1967 QB where the interpretation of the word "stop" was
involved. Under Road Traffic Act, 1960, a person causing an accident "shall stop" after the accident. In
this case, the driver stopped after causing the accident and then drove off. It was held that the literal
interpretation of the word stop is absurd and that the requirement under the act was not fulfilled
because the driver did not stop for a reasonable time so that interested parties can make inquiries from
him about the accident.
The second use of the golden rule is in a wider sense, to avoid a result that is obnoxious to principles of
Marupaka Venkateshwarlu
MA,B.Ed,LLB. Page 2
public policy, even where words have only one meaning. Bedford vs Bedford, 1935, is another
interesting case that highlighted the use of this rule. It concerned a case where a son murdered his
mother and committed suicide. The courts were required to rule on who then inherited the estate, the
mother's family, or the son's descendants. The mother had not made a will and under the Administration
of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity
in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother
benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should
be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting. The court held that if the son inherits
the estate that would amount to profiting from a crime and that would be repugnant to the act.
Mischief Rule:-
The Mischief Rule is used by judges in statutory interpretation in order to discover legislature's intention.
It essentially asks the question: By creating an Act of Parliament what was the "mischief" that the
previous or existing law did not cover and this act covers. This rule was developed by Lord Coke in Sir
John Heydon's Case, 1584, where it was stated that there were four points to be taken into
consideration when interpreting a statute:
What was the common law before the making of the act?
What was the "mischief or defect" for which the common law did not provide?
What remedy the parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth?
What is the true reason of the remedy?
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. Legislative intent is determined by examining
secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review articles and corresponding
statutes. The rule was further illustrated in the case of Smith v Hughes, 1960, where under the Street
Offences Act 1959, it was a crime for prostitutes to "loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of
prostitution". The defendants were calling to men in the street from balconies and tapping on windows.
They claimed they were not guilty as they were not in the "street." The judge applied the mischief rule to
come to the conclusion that they were guilty as the intention of the Act was to cover the mischief of
harassment from prostitutes
Casus omissus:-
Term casus omissus means “cases of omission Omission in a statute cannot be supplied by construction
A matter which should have been provided but actually has not been provided in a statute cannot be
supplied by the courts, as to do so will be legislation and not construction. Hansraj Gupta v. DMET Co.
Ltd. AIR 1933 P.C. 63 Court can interpret the law but cannot legislate.
Marupaka Venkateshwarlu
MA,B.Ed,LLB. Page 3
A casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court by judicial interpretative process except in the case of
clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself. The language
employed in the statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The first and primary rule of
the construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the
legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been
said. The court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it.
Preamble:-
The main objective and purpose of the Act are found in the Preamble of the Statute. Preamble is the Act
in a nutshell. It is a preparatory statement. It contains the recitals showing the reason for enactment of
the Act. If the language of the Act is clear the preamble must be ignored. The preamble is an intrinsic aid
in the interpretation of an ambiguous act.
If any doubts arise from the terms employed by the Legislature, it has always been held a safe means of
collecting the intention to call in aid the ground and cause of making the statute and to have recourse to
the preamble.
Consolidating Statute:-
Consolidating statute is a statute that collects the legislative provisions on a particular topic and
embodies them in a single statute, often with minor amendments and drafting improvements. The
courts generally presume that a consolidating statute leaves prior caselaw intact.
A consolidating statute re-enacts and repeals particular legal subject matter which was previously
contained in several different statutes. Its purpose is to state the combined effect of different statutes
and so simplify the presentation of the law.
Effect of repeal:-
Where this Act, or any 13[Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals
any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the
repeal shall not-
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or
(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or
suffered thereunder; or
Marupaka Venkateshwarlu
MA,B.Ed,LLB. Page 4
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so
repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any
enactment so repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation,
liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;
and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and
any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not
been passed.
Non-obstante Clause:-
Notwithstanding anything contained/ in oppositionto/ in spite of/ what has been stated/ is to be stated
or admitted.It is a Latin word meaning “Notwithstanding”. Words ancientlyused in public and private
instruments, intended to preclude,
in advance,any interpretation contrary to certain declared objects or purposes
Background
A clause in old English statutes and letters patent,importing a license from the Crown to do a thing
notwithstanding anystatute to the contrary. This dispensing power was abolished by the Billof Rights.
The notwithstanding clause in a statute makes the provision independentof other provisions contained
in the law, even if the other
provisions provide to the contrary. The Supreme Court of India in Brij Rai Krishnav. S.K. Shaw and Brother
s (AIR 1951 SC 115) has held that theexpression "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law"
prevents reliance on any other law to the contrary.“A non obstante clause is usually used in a provision to
indicatethat that provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary in
the provision mentioned in such non obstante clause. In case there is anyinconsistency or a departure
between the non obstante clause and
another provision one of the objects of such a clause is to indicate that it is thenon obstante clause whic
h would prevail over the other clause
Presumption of Constitutionality :-
In Constitutional Law, the Presumption of Constitutionality of a statue or provision occurs when
two possible interpretations for a statute occur - one favoring the constitution while the violating, the
one that is in favor of the constitution is taken as valid.
Marupaka Venkateshwarlu
MA,B.Ed,LLB. Page 5
1. It is presumed that Acts made by Legislations are valid and that they do not intent to enact a
law that is ultra vires to the constitution. When a situation occurs to question the validity of
the law, the burden is on the petitioner to prove contra.
2. Courts generally do not want to interpret the Acts unless, by way of language, they are
proved to be unconstitutional.
3. While interpretation, the provision which is unconstitutional should be avoided and when
proved to be unconstitutional, should become void.
4. A statute is constitutional till the time that it was established to be unconstitutional.
5. The interpretation that creates unjust and discriminatory situation should be avoided.
6. The Presumption of Constitutionality says that a court having a jurisdiction cannot invalidate
a statute unless there is a gross constitutional violation in a statute.
7. When an interpretation is possible that will save an Act from an unconstitutionality attack, the
court should accept the affirmative interpretation that will save it to the extent possible.
8. Presumption fails to operate when it is clearly shown that the statute is unconstitutional.
9. When a statute is retrospective in operational, it should not be constructed to have greater
retrospective operation that its language makes necessary.
Marupaka Venkateshwarlu
MA,B.Ed,LLB. Page 6
