CONCEPT AND MEANING OF

STATUTES

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
ASSIGNMENT

SUBMITTED BY – UZAIR ULLAH KHAN

3RD YEAR, REGULAR
ROLL NO. 68
 TABLE OF CONTENT

- STATUTE

- INTERPRETATION

- WHY STATUTES REQUIRE

INTERPRETATION?

- RULES OF INTERPRETATION
- LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION
- MISCHIEF RULE OF INTERPREATION
- GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPREATION
- RULE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

- CONLUSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my

guide Dr. Qazi Mohd. Usman for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and
constant encouragement throughout the course of this thesis. The blessing, help
and guidance given by him time to time shall carry me a long way in the
journey of life on which I am about to embark.
 Concept and meaning of Statute and
Interpretation

Statute-

A statute, or statutory law, is a law that has been enacted by a legislature, which is the body
that has been granted the power by a constitution to enact legislation, or laws. The federal
legislature of the United States is the United States Congress. Each state has its own legislature,
which enacts laws for that state. Once enacted by the legislature, statutes are signed into law
by the chief member of the executive branch - the president for federal statutes and the governor
for state statutes. Statutes are drawn together and organized by subject in what are called codes.

Simply put, a statute is a specific statement of the law on a particular issue. For example, a
state statute might state that a dog owner is liable for any injury caused if his or her dog bites
someone if the owner already knew about the dog's dangerous biting propensity. This

Interpretation-

Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the
words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining
the true meaning of the words used in a statute. 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 sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’.

The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed
expressly or impliedly in the language used. 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.”

Interpretation of statute is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a
statute. 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.

According to Salmond interpretation or construction is 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.”

Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true
meaning of the words used in a statute. 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 sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’.
The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed
expressly or impliedly in the language used. 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."
Statutory interpretation is the process by which the courts interpret and apply legislations to
the facts of the Case, placed before it by the parties to the Case. Some amount of interpretation
of the statutes is often necessary by the Courts, as also by the Counsel of the parties. Sometimes
the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning, however, in many cases, there
is ambiguity and vagueness in the words of the statutes that gets resolved by the courts of the
competent jurisdiction. To find the actual meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and
methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation,
legislative history, and purpose, etc.
The purpose of the interpretation of the statute is to unlock the locks put by the Legislature.
The keys to such lock may be termed as aids for interpretation and principles of interpretation.
The aids for interpretation may be divided into two categories, namely, Internal and External.
The Internal Aids are those which are found within the statute. They may be as follows:- 1.
Long title of the statute. 2. Preamble of the statute. 3. Chapter Headings of the statute. 4.
Marginal Notes to every section of statute. 5. Punctuations. 6. Illustrations given below the
sections. 7. Definitions. 8. Provisos. 9. Explanation. 10. Saving Clauses and non-obstante
Clauses.
External Aid for interpretation are those which are not contained in the statute but are found
else-where. They may be as follows:- 1. Historical background. 2. Statement of objects and
reasons. 3. The original Bill as drafted and introduced. 4. Debates in the Legislature. 5. State
of things at the time a particular legislation was enacted. 6. Judicial construction. 7. Legal
dictionaries. 8. Common sense.
As stated above, the Superior Courts have formulated certain principles of interpretation to find
out the real intent of the Legislature. These principles may be enumerated as follows:- 1. Literal
construction, 2. No external aid Where words plain and unambiguous, 3. Mischief rule
(Heydon's case), 4. Words coupled together to take colour from each other, 5. The golden rule:
No hypothetical considerations, 6. Absurdity or hardship, 7. Contextual interpretation, 8.
Liberal construction, 9. Harmonious construction, 10. Construction to avoid invalidity,
The important aspects of this principle are - 1. The courts must avoid a head on clash of
seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions so as
to harmonize them. 2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision
contained in another unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile
their differences. 3. When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in
contradictory provisions, the courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given
to both the provisions as much as possible. 4. Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation
that reduces one provision to a useless number or a dead lumbar is not harmonious construction.
5. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it loose.

Why statutes require interpretation?

There are three categories of reasons for why statutes need to be interpreted: (1) drafting errors
(2) changed circumstances and (3) incomplete rules.
Drafting errors: I include here not just typos or grammatical errors (exceedingly rare) but also
errors arising from textual inference. For example, in Kirkbi v. Ritvik Holdings, the makers of
lego blocks (whose patent had expired) attempted to extend its monopoly indefinitely
through unregistered trade-marks protection for shape of the lego block. A prior statute barred
trade-marks protection over functional or utilitarian features (e.g. lego blocks) in respect
of all trade-marks. When the Trade-marks Act was drafted in 1953, this prohibition applied
only to registered trade-marks leading the reasonable inference that unregistered trade-marks
were excluded from the rule. Of course this was an error since it was absurd to grant stronger
protections to unregistered over registered marks.
Changed Circumstances: Like drafting errors, this does not happen very often. Once in a while,
though, an appellate court will update and radically change the interpretation of a statutory
provision. In CCH v. Law Society of Upper Canada, for example, a long standing restrictive
interpretation of the Copyright Act’s fair dealing provisions was seismically changed. Fair
dealing was no longer conceptualised as narrow exceptions but as “user rights”; moreover, the
fair dealing categories were to be given broad and liberal construction.
Incomplete Rules: This is the big one. And it is comprised of three subcategories (a)
unanticipated cases (b) implied delegation and (c) implicit law. The first subcategory of
incomplete rules was best articulated by HLA Hart who argued that legislatures cannot foresee
all possible circumstances or cases that a statute will encounter. Accordingly, there will be
unanticipated cases for which the statute will not have a clear answer. This is very common.
In Euro Excellence a highly fractured court scrambled to resolve whether
the incidental copyright of a chocolate bar wrapper design could be used to block the legitimate
trade of the underlying product. Of course, the regulation of parallel imports under the Act was
directed toward works qua works and the legislature did not anticipate the use of the provision
as a means of frustrating legitimate trade of non-copyrighted products. The category of implied
delegation is common and uncontroversial. For example, when the legislature creates a fair
dealing exception for copyright, but does set out criteria for its determination, we infer that the
legislature has delegated to the judiciary the task of interpreting what it means. The last
category, implicit law, recognizes that statutes do not exist as an isolated body of law. Courts
must sometimes determine, for example, whether common law rules supplement the terms of
a statute.

RULES OF INTERPRETATION-
There are certain general principles of interpretation which have been applied by Courts from
time to time. Primary Rules of Interpretation are discussed hereunder.

Rule of Literal Interpretation

In construing Statutes, the cardinal rule is to construe its provisions literally and grammatically
giving the words their ordinary and natural meaning. This rule is also known as the Plain
meaning rule. 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. It should be taken into note that the 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.

In Municipal board v. State transport authority, Rajasthan, the location of a bus stand was
changed by the Regional Transport Authority. An application could be moved within 30 days
of receipt of order of regional transport authority according to section 64 A of the Motor
vehicles Act, 1939. The application was moved after 30 days on the contention that statute
must be read as “30 days from the knowledge of the order”. The Supreme Court held that literal
interpretation must be made and hence rejected the application as invalid.

Lord Atkinson stated, ‘In the construction of statutes their words must be interpreted in their
ordinary grammatical sense unless there be something in the context or in the object of the
statute in which they occur or in the circumstances in which they are used, to show that they
were used in a special sense different from their ordinary grammatical sense.’

Meaning

To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include “definitions” sections within a statute, which
explicitly define the most important terms used in that statute. But some statutes omit a
definitions section entirely, or (more commonly) fail to define a particular term. The plain
meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term
not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself.

If the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the legislator may
have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says
instead of what the law means.

A literal construction would not be denied only because the consequences to comply with the
same may lead to a penalty. The courts should not be overzealous in searching for ambiguities
or obscurities in words which are plain. (Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P[1]
The literal rule may be understood subject to the following conditions –

 Statute may itself provide 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 undergo shifts in meaning in course of time.

 It should always be remembered that words acquire significance from their context.

When it is said that words are to be understood first in their natural ordinary and popular sense,
it is meant that words must be ascribed that natural, ordinary or popular meaning which they
have in relation to the subject matter with reference to which and the context in which they
have been used in the Statute. In the statement of the rule, the epithets ‘natural, “ordinary”,
“literal”, “grammatical” and “popular” are employed almost interchangeably to convey the
same idea.

For determination of the meaning of any word or phrase in a statute, the first question is what
is the natural and ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context in the statute but when
that natural or ordinary meaning indicates such result which cannot be opposed to having been
the intention of the legislature, then to look for other meaning of the word or phrase which may
then convey the true intention of the legislature.

Another important point regarding the rule of literal construction is that exact meaning is
preferred to loose meaning in an Act of Parliament. In the case of Pritipal Singh v. Union of
India[2], it was held that there is a presumption that the words are used in an Act of Parliament
correctly and exactly and not loosely and inexactly.

Rationale for this Rule

Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking sides in
legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have
extensive access to secondary sources. In probate law the rule is also favored because the
testator is typically not around to indicate what interpretation of a will is appropriate. Therefore,
it is argued, extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or
their meaning. It can help to provide for consistency in interpretation.

Criticism of this rule

Opponents of the plain meaning rule claim that the rule rests on the erroneous assumption that
words have a fixed meaning. In fact, words are imprecise, leading justices to impose their own
prejudices to determine the meaning of a statute. However, since little else is offered as an
alternative discretion-confining theory, plain meaning survives.

This is the oldest of the rules of construction and is still used today, primarily because judges
may not legislate. As there is always the danger that a particular interpretation may be the
equivalent of making law, some judges prefer to adhere to the law’s literal wording.

The Mischief Rule

The mischief rule is a rule of statutory interpretation that attempts to determine the legislator’s
intention. Originating from a 16th-century case (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. The rules laid down, in this case,
are also known as Purposive Construction or Mischief Rule.

The mischief rule is a certain rule that judges can apply in statutory interpretation in order to
discover Parliament’s intention. It essentially asks the question: By creating an Act of
Parliament what was the “mischief” that the previous law did not cover?

Heydon’s case

This was set out in Heydon’s Case[3] 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 and 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 for the remedy?

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 pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according
to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico.

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.

Use of this Rule

This rule of construction is of narrower application than the golden rule or the plain meaning
rule, in that it can only be used to interpret a statute and, strictly speaking, only when the statute
was passed to remedy a defect in the common law. Legislative intent is determined by
examining secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review articles and
corresponding statutes. This rule has often been used to resolve ambiguities in cases in which
the literal rule cannot be applied.

In the case of Thomson v. Lord Clan Morris, Lord Lindley M.R. stated that in interpreting any
statutory enactment regard should not only be paid to the words used, but also to the history of
the Act and the reasons which lead to its being passed.

In the case of CIT v. Sundaradevi[4], it was held by the Apex Court that unless there is an
ambiguity, it would not be open to the Court to depart from the normal rule of construction
which is that the intention of the legislature should be primarily to gather from the words which
are used. It is only when the words used are ambiguous that they would stand to be examined
and considered on surrounding circumstances and constitutionally proposed practices.

The Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar[5], applied the mischief rule
in construction of Article 286 of the Constitution of India. After referring to the state of law
prevailing in the province prior to the constitution as also to the chaos and confusion that was
brought about in inter-state trade and commerce by indiscriminate exercise of taxing powers
by the different Provincial Legislatures founded on the theory of territorial nexus, Chief Justice
S.R. Das, stated “It was to cure this mischief of multiple taxation and to preserve the free flow
of interstate trade or commerce in the Union of India regarded as one economic unit without
any provincial barrier that the constitution maker adopted Article 286 in the constitution”.

A principle to be valued must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it
existence. These are designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can
approach it’. Mischief Rule is applicable where language is capable of more than one meaning.
It is the duty of the Court to make such construction of a statue which shall suppress the
mischief and advance the remedy.

Advantages

 The Law Commission sees it as a far more satisfactory way of interpreting acts as
opposed to the Golden or Literal rules.

 It usually avoids unjust or absurd results in sentencing.

Disadvantages

 It is considered to be out of date as it has been in use since the 16th century, when
common law was the primary source of law and parliamentary supremacy was not
established.

 It gives too much power to the unelected judiciary which is argued to be undemocratic.

 In the 16th century, the judiciary would often draft acts on behalf of the king and were
therefore well qualified in what mischief the act was meant to remedy.

 It can make the law uncertain.

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.

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.

The second use of the golden rule is in a wider sense, to avoid a result that is obnoxious to
principles of public policy, even where words have only one meaning. Example: The facts of
a case are; 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. There was
never a question of the son profiting from his crime, but as the outcome would have been
binding on lower courts in the future, the court found in favour of the mother’s family.
Rule of Harmonious Construction

When there is a conflict between two or more statues or two or more parts of a statute then the
rule of harmonious construction needs to be adopted. The rule follows a very simple premise
that every statute has a purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole. The
interpretation consistent of all the provisions of the statute should be adopted. In the case in
which it shall be impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the court’s decision regarding
the provision shall prevail.

The rule of harmonious construction is the thumb rule to the interpretation of any statute. An
interpretation which makes the enactment a consistent whole should be the aim of the Courts
and a construction which avoids inconsistency or repugnancy between the various sections or
parts of the statute should be adopted. The Courts should avoid “a head on clash”, in the words
of the Apex Court, between the different parts of an enactment and conflict between the various
provisions should be sought to be harmonized. The normal presumption should be consistency
and it should not be assumed that what is given with one hand by the legislature is sought to
be taken away by the other. The rule of harmonious construction has been tersely explained by
the Supreme Court thus, “When there are, in an enactment two provisions which cannot be
reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted, that if possible, the effect should be
given to both”. A construction which makes one portion of the enactment a dead letter should
be avoided since harmonization is not equivalent to destruction.

It is a settled rule that an interpretation which results in hardship, injustice, inconvenience or

anomaly should be avoided and that which supports the sense of justice should be adopted. The
Court leans in favour of an interpretation which conforms to justice and fair play and prevents
injustice.[6]

When there are two provisions in a statute, which are in apparent conflict with each other, they
should be interpreted such that effect can be given to both and that construction which renders
either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort.

This principle is illustrated in the case of Raj Krishna v. Binod[7]. In this case, two provisions
of Representation of People Act, 1951, which were in apparent conflict, were brought forth.
Section 33 (2) says that a Government Servant can nominate or second a person in election but
section 123(8) says that a Government Servant cannot assist any candidate in election except
by casting his vote. The Supreme Court observed that both these provisions should be
harmoniously interpreted and held that a Government Servant was entitled to nominate or
second a candidate seeking election in State Legislative assembly. This harmony can only be
achieved if Section 123(8) is interpreted as giving the govt. servant the right to vote as well as
to nominate or second a candidate and forbidding him to assist the candidate in any other
manner.

The important aspects of this principle are –

 The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they
must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.

 The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in another
unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their
differences.

 When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory

provisions, the courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given to both
the provisions as much as possible.

 Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless
number or a dead lumbar, is not harmonious construction.

 To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it loose.

 CONCLUSION

The conjunction “and” or “or” can never be given a definite and dogmatic interpretation
and the entire interpretation would depend on the intention of the maker laws or bye-
laws using such conjunction.

In a latest case of 2011, Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd.the Apex Court
has once again laid emphasis on the need to interpret “and” and “or” in a manner that
ensures the manifest intent of the Legislature is giving effect to.

It is essential to understand the need for correct interpretation of “and” and “or” as this
can at times, change the entire meaning of the relevant statutory provision. The
Judicature should expound the law in a manner that suppresses the evil and the wrong
and advances the true meaning and scope of the Statute. The Legislature cannot predict
the myriad possible future situations that might arise and it is impossible to draft a law
perfect to meet all situations in future. This conflict is inevitable and thus it is the duty
of the Judges to use the techniques of Interpretation to give most desired and required
meaning to ensure justice prevails.