INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

UNIT -1
WHAT IS LAW?
● Salmond defined law as, “the law may be defined as a body of principles recognised and
applied by the state in the administration of justice.” Though Salmond did not define
justice yet his definition can be considered as the most workable definition.
● According to John Chipman Gray, “the Law of the State or of any organized body of men
is composed of the rules which the courts, that is the judicial organ of the body, lays
down for the determination of legal rights and duties.” His definition also received
criticism that his definition focused neither on the nature of law nor on statute laws.

HOW IS IT MADE?- Authority of 29 States and 7 Union Territories comes under the Union
Government of India. Government performs variety of functions such as:
1. Creating Laws and Order
2. Maintaining Laws and Order; and
3. Defend the Law.
To perform various functions, the Government of India has three branches. These branches are
known as Organs of Government. Each has its own specific function and administration.
Organs of Government:
1. Legislature
2. Executive
3. Judiciary
LEGISLATURE: The legislative branch of government is responsible for enacting the laws of
the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government. The Legislative
Branch of the Indian Government is called The Indian Parliament. The powers of the legislative
branch in India are governed by the Parliament. The parliament consists of two houses and the
President. It includes the:
● President
● Lok Sabha
● Rajya Sabha
EXECUTIVE: The executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the
public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch. The Prime Minister and his council
of ministers are called the temporary executives. The policies framed by the legislature are
implemented by the Executive. The members are elected every five 5 years. Permanent
executives are those who work under the Government of India. The Executive Branch is
responsible for daily administration of the State Bureaucracy. It includes:
● President
● Vice-President; and
● Prime Minister
JUDICIARY: Judiciary is the adjudicating body of India which consists of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court includes chief justice and 30 associated justices, all appointed by the
President. Judiciary has the right to review and pass the bills which are passed by the Parliament.
The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their
interpretations to controversies brought before it. Judicial branch of India is divided at various
levels.
● Supreme Court
● High Court
● District Court

FUNCTIONS OF LAW:
1. Laws Protect Individual Rights and Freedoms: The Bill at Rights was added from the US
Constitution to guarantee many important protections. These laws provide protection to
individuals, from other persons, from organizations and even from the government.
2. The Laws provide a Framework and Rules to Help Settle Disputes Between Individuals:
The laws create a system where individuals can bring their dispute to an impartial tactic,
such as a judge or jury. There are also more legal options where individuals work
together to find a solution, such as by using alternative dispute resolution (ADR). There
are courts at every level, stranded from local to federal. To decide who should win in a
dispute.
3. Without Law there will be no way to Set the Standard: It is fairly easy to see why murder
and theft are crimes, but laws also provide a framework for setting other types of
standards. Without the Federal Code of Regulation, it would be difficult for individuals or
businesses to conduct transactions using banks. Federal regulations provide enforceable
rules and protections regarding taxes, commercial transactions, and employment laws,
insurance and other important areas.
4. Laws Help Societies to Maintain Order: What will be the situation if there is no rule of
law? You may need to provide your protection as there will be no police force or army.
Disputes are unavoidable in the life of society and it is the role of the law to settle
disputes. Thus, disagreements that are justiciable will be resolved by law in court or out
of court using alternative dispute settlement mechanisms.
5. Social Change: A number of scholars agree about the role of law in modern society as an
instrument to social change. Law enables us to have purposive, planned, and directed
social change. Flexibility of law provides some measure of discretion in law to make it
adaptable to social conditions. If law is rigid and unalterable, it may not respond to
changes spontaneously which may lead to resentment and dissatisfaction among the
subjects and may even result in violence or revolution. Therefore, some amount of
flexibility is inevitable in law
Theories of Justice- Justice can seldom be defined. It has diverse interpretations. Justice for one
may not be justice for someone else. However, various jurists have attempted to define justice in
the closest way possible. One such jurist was John Rawls, who addressed the concept of justice
in his famous book ‘A Theory of Justice.’

Rawls’ theory- Rawls’ theory of justice is largely influenced by the Social Contract Theory as
interpreted by Immanuel Kant, another political philosopher. A social contract is a hypothetical
agreement between the government and the people governed that defines their rights and duties.
Kant interpreted the social contract as one which is unanimously accepted and agreed upon by all
the people, and not just a particular group. So, as for Kant, a society under a social contract is a
society based on moral laws.
Rawls was a political liberal, which is why he emphasized the need for a state that is neutral
between the various perspectives of values. He calls his conception “justice as fairness.” He
argues that if all the people in society come together to make collective principles of governing
themselves, the outcome would be the rules that are influenced by only certain sections of
people. This is because a variety of people exist in society; they may be rich, poor, educated,
uneducated, etc. People of such variety are bound to have differences in their opinions and
interests. These differences would eventually give birth to a situation wherein justice is
compromised to satisfy the interests of the influential sections of people. Ultimately, justice is
not achieved.
Trying to figure out ways to achieve justice for all, Rawls proposed a hypothetical scenario
where a group of people ignorant of their or others’ social, economic, physical, or mental factors
come together to make laws for themselves. The idea behind this hypothecation is that under
such a circumstance, everyone will be virtually equal. Rule-making will not be influenced by the
self-centered desires of particular sections of society. Then, there will be no hierarchy in the
bargaining power within the collective idea of justice. Under this state, there will also be equal
sharing of burdens and benefits among all. So, the theory of justice proposed by Rawls
advocates for a system of rule-making that ignores the social, economic, physical, or mental
factors that differentiate the people in society.
Objective of the theory- The very purpose of Rawls introducing the theory of justice was to find
a way to create a well-ordered society. According to him, a well-ordered society should
predominantly have the following two elements:
● It should be designed to advance the good of its members and effectively regulated by a
public conception of justice;
● It should be a society wherein all people accept and know that all other people accept the
same principles of justice and that the basic social institutions satisfy those principles.
Now, to create a well-ordered society, Rawls calls to envisage ourselves as a group of competent
moral judges, able to decide between conflicting moral and political ideals from the perspective
of reasonableness and impartiality. This enabling is facilitated by two hypothetical devices – the
original position and veil of ignorance.
A well-ordered society- As discussed earlier, Rawls’ theory of justice is inspired by the Social
Contract Theory as interpreted by the political philosopher Immanuel Kant. Rawls extended
Kant’s theory by taking the viewpoint of a hypothetical contract wherein the decision-makers
come together to formulate rules for defining the basic structure of a well-ordered society, using
set principles of justice. As per Rawls, this formulation is done by observing the following
conditions of the contract:
● Circumstances of justice
● Original position
● Veil of ignorance
● Maximin rule

Circumstances of justice- As per Rawls, the circumstances of justice are the normal conditions
under which human cooperation is both possible and necessary. These circumstances are
pertinent for any society to make just laws. Rawls described two kinds of circumstances of
justice – objective and subjective circumstances.
● Objective circumstances- Objective circumstances refer to circumstances that give rise to
a situation in which the members of a society co-exist in some identifiable territory and
are of some comparable strengths and weaknesses so that no one has an edge over
another. Rawls opines that the most significant objective circumstance of justice is the
one in which the resources available to a society are moderately scarce. He stated that to
achieve justice, natural and other resources are not so abundant that schemes of
cooperation are superfluous, nor are conditions so plentiful that fruitful ventures must
inevitably break down. This is because if resources are abundantly and easily available
for anyone to use then nobody will need anybody’s help, making social cooperation
unnecessary. Contrarily, if the resources are too scarce, there will not be enough scope for
social cooperation.
● Subjective circumstances- Subjective circumstances of justice refer to circumstances that
give rise to a situation in which few members of the society have conflicting interests in
the resources available. When such interests contradict the mutually advantageous social
cooperation, a need for justice arises.

Original position- As discussed earlier, John Rawls calls upon the readers of his book A Theory
of Justice to imagine a hypothetical scenario where a group of people ignorant of their or others’
social, economic, physical, or mental factors come together to make laws for themselves. This
imaginary initial position of equality, perspective, or viewpoint of impartiality is what Rawls
calls an original position (OP). The original position in Rawls’ theory of justice plays the same
role as the state of nature does in the social contract theory proposed by political philosophers
Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques, Rousseau, and John Locke.
In the original position, the parties have the choice to select the principles of justice that are to
govern the basic structure of society. These principles, as discussed further, are imperative to
ensure that the benefits and burdens of society are just or fair to all parties. Rawls proposed that
the parties or decision-makers must choose the principles for society as if they were behind a veil
of ignorance. As per Rawls, the basic institutions of any society should be constructed in a way
to ensure the fair and continuous distribution of social primary goods to all parties. The social
primary goods, as described by Rawls, are those goods that individuals prefer to have more of
rather than less. It includes rights, liberties, opportunities, income, and wealth. He believes that
these primary goods are the most accurate representative factors of citizens’ fundamental
interests.

Veil of ignorance- To achieve justice for all, it is vital to set aside personal interests and be
rational while making rules or decisions affecting society. To reach a rational mindset, Rawls
argues that one must imagine himself as if he is behind a “veil of ignorance.” This veil of
ignorance is a theoretical device or hypothetical separation between the decision-maker and the
society he lives in. It prevents him from knowing any material facts about himself or the people
for whom he is making the rule. These factors may be –
● Demographic facts– Examples of which may be age, sex, ethnicity, level of income,
color, employment, personal strengths and weaknesses, etc.
● Societal facts– Examples of which may be the type of government, societal organization,
culture and traditions, etc.
● Facts about the decision-maker’s view of the good– These are the decision-maker’s
values and preferences of how one’s life should be. It also includes specific morals and
political beliefs.
Rawls hoped that by ignoring these facts, one can avoid the biases that might otherwise come
into a group decision. There are two main aspects of the veil of ignorance: self-ignorance and
public ignorance. Firstly, it abstains the decision-maker from knowing anything about himself. It
is essential for him to not know his own position in society, because knowing may tempt him to
make decisions that favor his future self considering his private interests. For instance, a
legislator having shares in a company of a particular sector may strive to make laws favoring the
future rise of that sector, for himself to indirectly be profited by it. Secondly, it abstains the
decision-maker from knowing anything about the entities for whom he is making the decision.
Such ignorance is crucial to avoid the personal bias of the decision-maker.
The veil of ignorance makes the parties just be their usual rational selves, instead of being
influenced by circumstantial factors. It prevents the privileged from pressurizing the vulnerable
or underprivileged, as everybody is equal in the original position. The veil ensures that policies
are made in the best interest of the entire society, and not just a majority of it.

Maximin rule- As per Rawls, to achieve a well-ordered society, the decision-makers under the
original position will make choices under uncertainty. The uncertainty will lead them to
rationally make rules by selecting the best from a range of options of worst possibilities. They
will strive to make rules that ensure that the worst-off people in society do as well as possible.
Two principles of justice- Rawls stated that in the original position, the members of a society
would be led by reason and self-interest to agree upon the following two principles of justice;
1. The Principle of Equal Liberty- Rawls’ first principle of justice states that each person is
to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty
for others. As per the principle of equal liberty, all the people in the society must be given
certain liberties that are basic for human existence. Such liberties can not be infringed at
any cost, even if they may cause greater benefit to a larger mass of people. Some of the
basic liberties as stated by Rawls were the freedom of speech, assembly, thought and
conscience, liberties required to secure the rule of law, sanitation, wealth, and health.
However, Rawls does not consider the economic rights and liberties like freedom of
contract or the right to own means of production, etc. as basic liberties, because economic
progress cannot happen without the expense of the ones that do not happen to belong to
the larger group.
2. The Principle of Difference and Fair Equality of Opportunity- Rawls’ second principle of
justice states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are
both-
● To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and
● Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity.
Clause(A) of Rawls’ second principle of justice is also called the difference principle. It
provides that in case of an unequal distribution of wealth and income, the inequality must
be such that those that are worst off are still better off than they would be under any other
distribution. So, in one way, Rawls opines that no society can exist without economic
disparity. However, such a disparity must be diminished as much as possible.
Clause(B) of Rawls’ second principle of justice is also called the fair equality of
opportunity principle. It provides that society must facilitate everyone with the most basic
means to enable them to participate in social competition. Everyone should have an equal
opportunity to compete for the public or private offices or positions that they wish for.
This includes providing education, and healthcare.

UNIT- 2
Interpretation- The term interpretation is taken from the Latin term “Interpretari” which
literally means to explain, understand or translate. In simple words, interpretation is the process
to explain or translate any law or text which is in written form. Interpretation is used to discover
the true meaning of the law and language used in the law or statute. Interpretation of statute is
the process that is used by the courts to correct the understanding of the law by determining the
true intention of the legislative of the act. It is the duty of the court to implement the laws in
public properly and without any mistakes so it becomes very important to know the true meaning
of every law. There are many rules of interpretation that can be used by the judiciary to clarify
the law. Normally when the law shows any conflict, the judiciary tries to interpret the law by the
literal meaning of the term. But sometimes it happens that the interpretation of statute by literal
meaning is not sufficient to know the true intention of the legislature. So to know the true
intention of the legislature the judiciary uses other methods for the interpretation of that specific
statute.
An old Jurist Salmond gives the definition of interpretation that the interpretation is the process
used by the court to understand the meaning of law given by the legislature through the medium
of authoritative forms in which the law is expressed. Authority form means the application of
the rules of interpretation to find the real intention of the legislature. The law or statute must be
uniform, certain and predictable. According to Keeton, he said that function of judges related to
interpretation includes-
● Firstly- a Judge has to decide the exact meaning of the legislature which is actually said.
● Secondly- he must find out the real intention of the legislature to say that word.

Purpose of Interpretation- The purpose of the interpretation of statute is to help the judiciary to
ascertain the true intention of the legislature who made the law. There is no intention to control
or confine the law within the limits. Judges of the court always try to implement the law while
taking the intention of the legislature into their minds. Basically, there are two basic reasons for
the interpretation of statutes which are:
● To know the real meaning of the word
● To identify the purpose, object, reason or spirit to add that particular word in law.

When to Interpret- It is the duty of the court to interpret the statute whenever a dispute arises in
the statute. A statute defines the intention of the legislature in the form of the statute. The court
of law finds out the real intention of the legislature in the language used by the legislature in
statutes. The court cannot interpret the statute arbitrarily, there are some certain principles that
evolved with the continuous exercise by the court. These principles of interpretation are called
rules of interpretation.

UNIT- 3
Basic Principles of Interpretation of Statute- Certain sets of rules have been framed to govern
the process of interpretation. If one judge takes only a narrow meaning of the language of a
statutory provision and the other judge takes a broad meaning of the same, then the same law
will mean differently to different persons. Therefore, the basic principles of interpretation of
statute are necessary to be observed though they are not enacted laws. These rules have been
formulated on the basis of the views taken by the Supreme Court and High Courts. According to
Salmond, these principles are guides. The Basic Principles of Interpretation of Statute are as
follows:

Intention of Legislature The legislature enacts a law with a definite object. That object of the
legislature is called ‘intent’. The legislature expects that the law enacted by it shall be understood
by the courts in its true spirit and shall be administered in accordance with the intention with
which the statute has been framed so as to advance the purpose of the statute.
The first and primary rule of 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 to have been
intended but what has been said. The key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of
the law. Each word, phrase or sentence, is to be construed in the light of the general purpose of
the Act itself. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context, as they are the bases of
interpretation. If the text is the texture, context gives the color. Neither can be ignored. A
particular clause or expression is constructed by construing the whole instrument and any
dominant purposes that it may express. The Legislative function cannot be usurped under the
disguise of interpretation, and the danger of a prior determination of the meaning of a provision
based on the preconceived notions of ideological structure or scheme should be avoided. Caution
is all the more necessary.
The correct interpretation is one that best harmonizes the words with the object of the statute. A
right construction of the Act can only be attained if its whole scope and object together with an
analysis of its wording and the circumstances in which it is enacted are taken into consideration.
It's all about interpretation and not about interpolation. The rules of interpretation are not rules of
law; they are guides and such of them which serve no useful purpose, can be rejected and new
rules can be evolved in their place. They are aids to construction, presumptions or pointers.
The shift towards use of plain language has attached with it, a lot of controversy. The language
of our legislation cannot be reduced to baby talk for consumption of the masses, and the
attainment of precision, and accuracy. A good draft contains a clear expression of intent, uses a
consistent terminology throughout, avoids passive voice and aspirational statements The terms
defined are either authoritatively defined in the draft or by judicial interpretation. Sentences are
short. Simple words commonly used in ordinary speech are preferred. Convoluted sub-division is
avoided and so is repetition.

(Statute must be Read as a Whole) Ex Visceribus Actus- The meaning of the maxim Ex
Visceribus Actus is that every part of the statute must be construed within the four corners of the
Act. No provision should be interpreted in isolation. The statute as a whole, the previous state of
the law, other statutes in pari materia (on same subject matter), the general scope of the statute,
and the mischief it is to remedy, is the basic context of any statute. The elementary rule states
that the intention of the Legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. Every clause
needs to be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, to make a
consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject-matter.
It is the most natural and genuine exposition of a statute. The conclusion that the language is
plain or ambiguous can only be truly arrived at by studying the statute as a whole. How far and
to what extent each component influences the meaning of the other, would be different in each
given case. Each word, must however, be allowed to play its role, however significant or
insignificant it may be in achieving the legislative intent. Each section must be construed as a
whole, whether or not one of the parts is a saving clause or a proviso. They may be
interdependent, each portion throwing light, if need be on the rest. According to Lord Davey,
every clause of the statute must be construed with reference to context and other clauses of the
Act, so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the
subject matter. According to Lord Greene, to ascertain the meaning of a clause in a statute, the
court must look at the whole statute, at what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely at the
clause itself.

Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat (It may rather become operative than null)- The meaning
of this maxim is that a provision should not be construed in such a manner so as to reduce any
other provision or the statute to futility. In other words, the language of the provision must be so
interpreted that the law does not become a dead letter. To explain it further, whenever the words
used in a provision are uncertain and imprecise and are capable of bearing more than one
meaning, thereby leading to ambiguity in the language and possibility of alternative construction,
then such a construction should be preferred by which none of the provisions is turned
inoperative. The spirit behind this principle is that the courts are not encouraged to scratch a law
for sheer vagueness.
The law is enacted by the Legislature with a definite object and specific purpose. For achieving
such a purpose, the law is to be administered in its true sense i.e., in accordance with the
intention of the Legislature. The intention of the Legislature cannot be otherwise than to give
effect to all the provisions of the statute for attainment of the object for which the law was
enacted. In view of this, if the courts uphold such an interpretation by which any provision of
law or the law itself is invalidated, then it will be adverse to the legislative intent. Moreover,
making the law, amending it or repealing it, is the exclusive domain of Legislature and if by
arriving at a particular interpretation, any law or its provision is turned ineffective or futile, it
amounts to rejection of law which is outside the jurisdiction of courts. True, that an enacted law
can be abrogated by the court, but only on the ground of unconstitutionality. However, courts
cannot be allowed to create any vagueness or unconstitutionality in a provision by construing it
in a particular manner.
Farwell, J., has observed that unless the words are so absolutely senseless that nothing could be
done with them, it will be binding to find some meaning and not to declare them void for
uncertainty. Lord Denning states that when a statute has some meaning or several meanings, the
courts have to say what meaning the statute has to bear rather than reject it as a nullity. In the
words of Lord Dunedin, it is our duty to make what we can of statutes, knowing that they are
meant to be operative and nothing short of impossibility should allow a judge to declare a statute
unworkable.

UNIT- 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Rules of Interpretation of Statutes- There are different rules of interpretation that are used by
the judiciary to make the laws clear and unambiguous. The reason behind the use of these set
rules is that the court is not expected to interpret laws arbitrarily. These principles are evolved
out of the continuous exercise of the court to interpret the different laws.

The Literal Rule of Interpretation- 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.
According to Viscount Haldane, L.C., if the language used has a natural meaning we cannot
depart from that meaning unless, reading the statute as a whole, the context directs us to do so.
According to the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words must
be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. 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. Understanding
the literal rule 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 over time.
● It should always be remembered that words acquire significance from their context.
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 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.

The Mischief Rule of Interpretation- 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 the 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? This was set out in Heydon's Case where
it was stated that there were four points to be taken into consideration when interpreting a statute:
1. What was the common law before the making of the act?
2. What was the "mischief and defect" for which the common law did not provide?
3. What remedy the parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the
commonwealth?
4. 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 law making 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.
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

The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction- According to the doctrine of harmonious

construction, the conflict between two or more statutes or two or more than two provisions of the
same act must be interpreted in such a manner that should give effect to both the statutes and
provisions of the same act. In simple words, it is the duty of the court to interpret two or more
inconsistent provisions of the same statute in a way so that both the provisions can survive or
both remain in force. Where it becomes impossible to use the doctrine of harmonious
construction, the court’s decision regarding those provisions shall prevail.
The objective of the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction- The object of harmonious
construction is to avoid the conflict between the provisions of a statute by making some changes
so that they harmonize with each other.
Principles of Harmonious Construction- The Supreme Court of India laid down the five main
principles of the rule of harmonious construction, giving the landmark judgment in the case of
CIT vs Hindustan bulk carriers. And they are:-
1. It is the duty of the court to avoid the clash between the provisions of a statute by
harmonizing them in a way that both the provisions remain in force without any conflict.
2. One provision of the statute cannot be used to defeat the other provision of these same
acts unless decode doesn’t find a way to reconcile the differences between them.
3. If it is impossible to reconcile both the provisions in that case the court must interpret
both the provisions in such a way so that both provisions remain in force.
4. While doing the harmonious construction between the provisions of a statute, the court
must keep in mind that the interpretation should not reduce the power of one provision
and give more power to another provision.
5. Harmonious construction cannot be used to destroy any statutory provision or to render
its effects.

Maxims of Statutory Interpretation

Ejusdem generis- There are certain general principles of interpretation that have been applied
by the courts from time to time and one of them is the construction ejusdem generis.
Literal meaning- Ejusdem generis is a Latin phrase that means ‘of the same kind’. It is used to
interpret legislation that is written in a haphazard manner. When a law mentions certain
classifications of people or things before referring to them in general, the general assertions only
apply to the same people or things who are expressly named. For example, if legislation
mentions automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, the term
‘vehicles’ does not include aircraft since the list is limited to land-based transportation.
Interpretation of ejusdem generis- Words of a comparable type are referred to as ejusdem
generis. The rule is that if two or more words have a similar quality (e.g., they belong to the
same class), any subsequent generic terms should be interpreted as referring to that class only.
Unless the context dictates otherwise, generic terms should be given their natural meaning like
all other words. However, when a general term is followed by particular words from a different
category, the general word may be assigned a more limited meaning from the same category. As
the legislature has revealed its aim to that effect by employing the particular terms of a separate
genus, the general statement draws its meaning from the preceding special expressions.
The principle of ejusdem generis does not apply everywhere. If the context of law precludes the
use of this rule, it has no bearing on how broad phrases are interpreted. The concept of ejusdem
generis is based on the premise that if the legislature wanted generic terms to be employed in an
unlimited meaning, it would not have chosen specific words at all.

Noscitur a Soclis- Noscitur a soclis is a Latin term which means associated words, the meaning
of unclear words or phrases is to be determined or interpreted on the basis of its context and the
words and phrases surrounding it. Associated words try to explain the meaning of the general
words and also limit the interpretation of specific or special terms. When a word used in a statute
is ambiguous or vague, the meaning of such words will be determined by looking at associated
words around it. These surrounding associated words will give clear and specific meaning to it.
The importance of this rule is it aims to interpret by reading the whole statute. It doesn’t
emphasize one particular word but it tends to interpret the word by looking into its preceding and
succeeding words. The words are understood in a cognitive sense and the intention of the
legislatures can be easily understood.

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius- It is a Latin phrase that says ‘Express Mention and
Implied Exclusion’ that means express mention of one thing excludes all other things. Here it is
considered that the items which are not on the list are not covered by the statute. When
something is expressly mentioned in the statute it leads to the presumption that the things which
are not specified in the statute are excluded. General words in a statute must receive a general
construction unless the statute is specifying any special meaning to the general words. Whenever
something is added in the statute it is added with the due consciousness. It is assumed that if
something is not added in the statute there is a reason behind it, which is to exclude that from the
particular statute.
Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege- It is one of the best and the
strongest ways of interpretation. As time passes by words used in the statute will undergo
changes in their meaning but when it is interpreted the word should bear its original and same
meaning as the statute intended when it was passed. The meaning of the law should be
interpreted in the context when the law was formulated. Old statutes must be interpreted in such
a way where that defines its purpose of introducing it. And it also considers the prior usage and
interest of enforcing the act at the time when the law was enacted. If the word is wrongly
interpreted for all these years those kinds of words will not be eligible for interpretation. The
words can only be interpreted by the court when the title of the property may be affected or when
everyday transactions have been affected.

Generalia Specialibus non derogant (Why are these laws in place?)- These laws are in place
today because a need was released to form laws, especially for a field. But even these bring
problems of their own. In some cases, a party may benefit from a general law provision but
suffer from a special law provision and vice-versa. That is where this maxim comes in. Generalia
specialibus non derogant is a Latin maxim. It is a maxim used for statutory interpretation.
● Generalia stands from general;
● Specialibus stands for special.
When interpreted, it means that general laws do not prevail over special laws or, the general does
not detract from specifics. When a law is questioned before the courts, the courts assume that the
legislature enacted the law (under discussion) keeping in mind the welfare of society at heart.
Thus, repealing a law is not favored and is done only under exceptional circumstances. In case of
conflict of interpretation of statutes, this maxim is applied. The provisions of the special rule are
preferred over general rule as they are meant to address that subject in greater detail. This may
manifest as exceptions to the general rule as seen in:
How is this maxim important?- This maxim has been widely used in cases, where there is a
conflict between general and special provisions of an act or different acts. It has helped our
judiciary in the interpretation of statutes. During interpretation of statutes when we are looking
for context and purpose we use:
● Noscitur a sociis;
● Ejusdem Generis;
● Generalis Specialibus non derogant.
Using this maxim along with other interpretation tools provides a better understanding of various
statutes thus aiding in implementing the law in a better fashion and preventing repeal.
Situations when Generalis Specialibus Non Derogant is used- This maxim is used in the
interpretation of statutes. To decide which statute is valid in which case, there should be a
conflict between an earlier and a later statute. There could be a question on the scope of the law
in question. What is the scope of a special law and what is the scope of general law with respect
to the problem?
Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant in case of Non-Obstante Clauses- In the case of the
non-obstante clause (clauses in which notwithstanding is used), it is important to note the
intention of the legislative body. The intention of the legislative body defines the aim with which
that particular act was enacted.

Reddendo Singula Singulis – When a list of words has a modifying phrase at the end, the
phrase refers only to the last word, e.g., firemen, policemen, and doctors in a hospital. Here, “in a
hospital” only applies to doctors and not to firemen or policemen. The reddendo singula singulis
principle concerns the use of words distributively. Where a complex sentence has more than one
subject, and more than one object, it may be the right construction to render each to each, by
reading the provision distributively and applying each object to its appropriate subject. A similar
principle applies to verbs and their subjects, and to other parts of speech. A typical application of
this principle is where a testator says ‘I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to
B’. The term devise is appropriate only to real property. The term bequeath is appropriate only to
personal property. Accordingly, by the application of the principle reddendo singula singulis, the
testamentary disposition is read as if it were worded ‘I devise all my real property, and bequeath
all my personal property, to B’.

UNIT- 10, 11
Presumption of Constitutionality- Constitutionality is the state of being constitutional where
the law is judged for its constitutionality on the generality of its provisions and not by the freaks
and exceptions it martyrs. Legislature is presumed to have inserted every part of the statute for
purpose. There is always a presumption of constitutionality in favor of a statute and the burden is
upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional
principles. Since the rule-making authority is presumed to enact a law which does not contravene
the constitutional provisions, the court ought not to interpret the statutory provisions in such a
manner as would involve its unconstitutionality.
The presumption of constitutionality is indeed so strong that in order to sustain it, the court may
take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of
the time and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of
legislation. Interpretation creating unjust and discriminatory situations should be avoided.
Though presumption is that, the Act is constitutional and that the legislature understands and
appreciates needs of the people, but when the Act is ex facie discriminatory and arbitrary, such
presumption cannot stand. The burden of proof lies on him who challenges the vires. If a
provision can be construed in two senses, one making the provision constitutional and the other
unconstitutional, the court would always lean in favor of the former construction.

Legislature leaves no lacuna- The presumption is that legislature does not leave any lacuna.
Either by negligence, or by lack of foresight, or because it did not know its job, it has left some
lacuna-no such presumption be made.
Statutes are presumed to be in conformity with international law- Every statute is to be
applied and interpreted as far as its language admits, in a way, as not to be inconsistent with the
established rules of international law. But this intention must be clearly expressed in the
enactment. If the intention said is not clearly expressed in the enactment, the courts would
incline to favor an interpretation, which would be in consonance with those principles rather than
accept a grammatical interpretation, which would be unusual and startling.

Presumption against Intending Injustice (Natural Justice)- When laws are made by elected
representatives of the people, it is proper to assume that they enact laws which the society
considers as honest, fair and reasonable. As a result, justice and reason constitute the great
general legislative intent in every piece of legislation. If this is not there and the harsh and
ridiculous effect was actually intended by the legislature, it could not be easily accepted that it
represents the legislative intent.

Presumptions related to the Jurisdiction of the Courts- There is a presumption that, an

interpretation that takes away the jurisdictions of the courts, must not be given effect, unless the
words of the statute provide so in clear and explicit terms. There is strong presumption that civil
courts have jurisdiction to all cases which are civil in nature. The exclusion of jurisdiction of
civil courts is not to be readily inferred. Same is true with criminal cases. The basis of this
presumption is that courts should be accessible to all those who want justice and the status quo
about the state of law should be maintained. Unless the jurisdiction of the court is ousted by the
legislature in clear words or by necessary implication, the courts should be presumed to have
jurisdiction. The construction of statute that takes away the jurisdiction of the superior courts or
extends or jurisdiction by giving right to appeal, should be avoided.
Strict construction should be given to the statutes that confer jurisdiction on the subordinate
courts, tribunals, or government agencies. If a construction of an act does not clearly say that the
intention of the legislature is to oust the jurisdiction of the court, then the jurisdiction of the
ordinary courts of judicature is not taken away. When the jurisdiction is conferred by the statute,
it is implied that the act has also given power to do all such acts as necessary for its execution.
Special powers granted by an Act must be limited to the purpose for which it is granted. The
power of control by the superior courts, cannot be taken away except by the express provision of
the Statute. Unless the words of a statute provide for it can be inferred from the words of a
statute, there is a presumption that neither new jurisdiction of the courts are created, nor the
existing jurisdiction enlarged.
Since the legislation gives the jurisdiction to the courts, it is only the legislation which can take
away the jurisdiction. If the interpretation of an act gives two constructions, one giving
jurisdiction to the court and the other taking away the jurisdiction, then the construction which
gives the jurisdiction to the court, must be given effect. If there is a dispute between two parties,
then by mutual consent they can neither create a jurisdiction, nor can they take away the same,
from the court in which their dispute can be tried.
There is a general presumption that civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all the civil matters.
The exclusion of civil jurisdiction of the court must be in express terms or by clear implication.
The general rule is that, there exists a jurisdiction in a court to try all the civil matters. The
burden of proof to prove that the jurisdiction of civil courts is excluded is on the person who
alleges such an exclusion. In the cases where the jurisdiction of the courts is excluded, the civil
courts have power to examine whether the provisions of the statute are complied with. Also the
civil courts have power to ascertain that the prescribed procedure of the law has been followed
by the tribunal created by the statute. If the provisions of the statute or the necessary judicial
procedure is not complied with, then such non-compliance can be challenged in the court of law.
This principle is based on the presumption that a remedy in the ordinary civil courts must always
be available to the aggrieved person. In addition to the remedies provided by the statute, ordinary
remedy must also be available, except if it is excluded by the express language of the statute or
by necessary implication.

Legislature does not intend what is inconvenient and unreasonable:-

Presumption against inconvenience-
● It is presumed that the legislature never intends its enactments to work for public
inconvenience or private hardship; and if a statute is doubtful or ambiguous or fairly open
to more than one construction, that construction should be adopted which will avoid such
results.
● It is always presumed that the legislature intends the most reasonable and beneficial
construction of its enactments, when their design is obscure or not explicitly expressed,
and as such will avoid inconvenience, hardship or public injuries.
● Hence, if a law is couched in doubtful or ambiguous phrases or if its terms are such as to
be fairly susceptible to two or more constructions, the Courts, having this presumption in
mind, will attach weight to arguments which will remove the inconvenient and absurd.
● While it is quite true that where the language of a statute is plain and admits of but one
construction, the Courts have no power to supply any real or supposed defects in such
statute, in order to avoid inconvenience or injustice yet , where the terms of the statute are
not plain, but admit of more than one construction, one of which leads to great
inconvenience and injustice and possibly to the defeat or obstruction of the legislature
intent, then the Court may, with a view to avoid such results, adopt some other more in
accordance with the legislative intent.
● If words are ambiguous and one leads to enormous inconvenience and another
construction does not, the one which leads to the least inconvenience is to be preferred.
● Thus, if it is apparent that, by a particular construction of a statute in a doubtful case,
great public interests would be endangered or scarified, it ought not to be presumed that
such construction was intended by the legislature.
● But if there is no doubt, obscurity or ambiguity on the face of the statute, but its meaning
is plain and explicit, the argument from inconvenience has no place. In other words, the
 inconvenience created by the statute where its provisions are clear and is capable of only
one interpretation, such inconvenience can be avoided by a change in law itself i.e., by
the legislature and not by judicial action.
● Example: Where a statute gives to a husband the power, by his last will, to extinguish the
common law rights of his widow and where the language of the Act is clear and not
ambiguous and is sufficiently include every widow, whether sane or insane and the Act
makes no exception in favor of latter, the Courts cannot make any such exception, from
consideration of the hardship and inconvenience which may result.
Presumption against absurdity-
● It is presumed that the legislature does not intend an absurdity, or that absurd
consequences shall flow from its enactments. Such a result will therefore be avoided, if
the terms of the Act admit it, by reasonable construction of the statute.
● By an “absurdity” as the term is here used, it means anything which is irrational,
unnatural or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of
men of ordinary intelligence and discretion.
● The presumption against absurd consequences of legislation is therefore no more than the
presumption that legislators are gifted with ordinary good sense.
● It is applicable, like all other presumptions thus, if by applying the literal rule of
interpretation, the construction is being absurd then it should be avoided.
● But it must be observed that if the legislature will enact an absurdity in clear and specific
terms, the Courts are not at liberty to divert the statute from its intended object by process
of construction.
● If absurdity is an impossibility, the Act will be inoperative.
● Thus, when the language is explicit, its consequences are irrelevant and if the language is
plain and unambiguous, the Courts have to give effect to it regardless of consequences
thereof.
● Any plea of injustice, hardship, inconvenience or anomaly shall not be admissible. The
Court cannot legislate under the grab of interpretation.

UNIT- 12, 13
Internal Aid- The internal aids to interpretation are those which may be contained in the statute
itself forming a part of it or may not form the part of the statute. They are generally taken as
important aid to interpretation whenever there is ambiguity in the language of the statute and
meaning of the words are not clear. However they have no role to play in cases where the
meaning of the statute is clear. They are much more valuable than external aid to interpretation.
Some important internal aid to interpretation are-

Title- The role of the title is to give some description of the act. It can further be divided into two
parts-
 1. Short Title- It generally does have any role to play in the interpretation and nothing can
be ascertained from it. It only gives us the name of the act and nothing else. For eg. The
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 etc.
2. Long Title- It can be used in cases where there is confusion in the meaning of the statute.
It tells us about the general object for which the act has been enacted more like preamble
only. For eg. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has a long title saying that-“An Act to
amend the law relating the Transfer of Property by act of parties”.

Preamble- The preamble is a very useful aid to interpretation as it tells us about the true
intention of the legislature for which the act was enacted. Its role comes into play in cases where
the meaning of the enactment is not clear and more than one meaning is formed but not
otherwise. It doesn’t extend the scope of an enactment nor does it restrict it. Courts in the past
had taken help from the preamble for interpretation however its role has decreased in recent
times. For eg.- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has a preamble saying that “Whereas it is
expedient to consolidate, define and amend the law of Evidence; it is hereby enacted as follows”.

Headings- Heading are put up at the start of the group of sections relating to a particular offense
or procedure. Each chapter in an act consists of its own heading which acts as a preamble to it.
For eg.- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Chapter VII has a Heading of “Burden of Proof” which
tells us the various aspects of burden of proof. It is useful in cases where the meaning of the
provision is not clear but where there is no ambiguity then it has no role to play. It is as useful as
the preamble for interpretation of provisions to which it is headed.

Marginal Notes- They are inserted generally at the side of the sections and have no useful role
to play interpretation. Most of the time it has been seen that they have not been made by the
people who have enacted the provision and are added in the subsequent stages by other people
other than legislators. Courts have refrained from using them for interpretation.

Punctuations- It doesn’t have much of a role to play in the interpretation and is not taken as a
useful tool to ascertain the meaning of an enactment. The role played by it is to separate the
sentences and nothing else.

Illustrations- Illustrations are generally given in the form of examples including situations that
occur in real life. They do not form the part of an enactment but still they are very useful aid to
interpretation. They can help us in understanding the real meaning of an enactment in cases
where there is some uncertainty. They illustrate the intention of the legislature in the form of
facts and give answers to situations arising in those facts. It cannot extend the meaning of an
enactment.
Definitions- Generally we take the ordinary meaning of the words while determining the
meaning of the words given in the enactment. However in some cases where the definition given
by the legislatures forms different meanings of the words other than the ordinary meaning. In
such cases the definition given by the legislatures has to be used and it will override the ordinary
meaning.

Provisos- It only excludes the things from the particular section or provision which would
otherwise would have been included in it. It has no other role to play; neither does it extend the
meaning or scope of the section. It is restricted only to the section to which it is part and cannot
have effect on other provisions. For eg.- Section 55 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 tells
about arrest and detention but has some proviso to it such as no arrest can take place after sunset
or before sunrise, no out door of dwelling house should be broken etc.

Explanations- Explanations are added to sections so that they can clarify the meaning of certain
words in which uncertainty may arise in future. They do not extend the scope of the section to
which it is attached and is restricted to that section only to which it is part. They do not have
much role in interpretation and only clarify the provision.

Schedules- It helps in the working of an enactment properly and it forms the part of the
enactment. When the meaning of an enactment is not clear, help can be taken from it to ascertain
the meaning.

UNIT- 14, 15
External Aids to interpretation- External Aids are taken into consideration when internal aids
are unable to provide a clear and correct insight into the statute. As far as internal aids are
concerned, they are limited in number, because they form a part of the statute, so they are those
elements that are present within the statute, such as clauses, exceptions, provisions, explanations,
headings etc. But when we talk about external aids, of course there is no limit because there is a
plethora of legal literature that can be deliberated upon when a statute is constructed.

Parliamentary History- Parliamentary History consists of ingredients of the statute that are in
their original form, i.e. when they were presented before the legislature before its enactment. The
ministry which would have introduced the bill would have definitely come up with the necessity
of the same, and provided a ground for the enactment of the statute, also known as the
Statements of Objects and Reasons, which is of utmost significance. Parliamentary History
would also include the reports of debates held in the Parliament and those passed by the different
committees of the Parliament, resolutions passed by the two houses of the Parliament, and
amendments to the bill, if any. Earlier, Parliamentary History was not considered as an aid in the
interpretation of a statute. This view came from the traditional English legal system, and the
Supreme Court of India also followed in its footsteps.
Historical Facts and Surrounding Circumstances- Historical facts provide a background to
the statute and are important in establishing the environment in which the statute was brought
forward. This external aid is specifically important when applying the Mischief Rule of
Interpretation, laid down in Heydon’s case, which seeks to answer four points:
● The law before making of the statute in question
● The mischief (or injury, if loosely stated) for which the earlier law did not provide
● The remedy provided by the statute in question
● The reason of the remedy so provided
These points directly correspond to the historical facts of the statute, i.e. the setting in which the
statute is being enacted. Historical facts are basically the facts that lead to the evolution of the
statute, so they can be of aid to the judges in finding out the true nature of the statute, and hence
allow a speedy trial. Any ancient fact that participated in the development of the statute would be
of assistance when interpreting that statute.

Reports of Commissions- Reports of Commissions including Law Commission or Committees

including Parliamentary Committees preceding the introduction of a Bill can also be referred to
in the Court as evidence of historical facts or of surrounding circumstances or of mischief or evil
intended to be remedied. Earlier courts, while interpreting a provision in a statute used to refer to
legislative history to ascertain its clear and complete meaning. The Traditional English Courts
used to refer to the report of a Committee presented to the Parliament/Legislature as an external
aid. But the modern trend seems to be that legislative history is not permissible as an aid to
interpretation.

Social, Political and Economic Developments and Scientific Inventions- A Statute must be
interpreted to include circumstances or situations which were unknown or did not exist at the
time of enactment of the statute. Any relevant changes in the social conditions and technology
should be given due weightage. Courts should take into account all these developments while
construing statutory provisions.

Foreign Decisions- Before independence, it was common practice for Indian courts to take
recourse to English judgements while deciding a case on a peculiar matter. The obvious reason
behind this was that the Indian legal system has its origins in the English legal system, and many
of the laws of both the countries, England and India, are the same. But after the Constitution of
India was enacted, the Supreme Court of India heavily relied on American judgements.
However, Indian courts are not bound by the decisions of foreign courts, and the decisions are
only persuasive in nature.

Dictionaries and Textbooks- There are a number of words which are not used in common
parlance, and hence their meaning is not as clear as other words of common usage. In such a
case, often the context in which the word is used is understood. But when this also fails, then the
courts may resort to the dictionary meaning of the words, and derive their ordinary meaning. Due
importance must be given to the context of the provision, because one word can have several
meanings in several contexts.

Other Statutes (Pari Materia)- If a statute in itself is not clear of what representation it offers,
then other statutes in pari materia, i.e. dealing with the same or similar subject can be considered.
Such statutes are not exactly the same, but they deal with the same topics, or deal with different
topics of the same subject matter. These statutes are enacted at different times and under different
circumstances, but they correspond to each other.

UNIT -16. 17
Subsidiary Rules of Interpretation:-
Non-Obstante Clause- It is a Latin word meaning "Notwithstanding". The notwithstanding
clause in a statute makes the provision independent of other provisions contained in the law, even
if the other provisions provide the contrary. A non-obstante clause is usually used in a provision
to indicate that the provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary in the provision
mentioned in such a non-obstante clause. In case there is any inconsistency 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 the non-obstante clause that would prevail over the other clause.

Legal Fiction- A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts that are then used in order to
help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule. The concept is used almost exclusively in common
law jurisdictions. A classic example of legal fiction is that the English courts do not "create" new
law but merely "declare” the common law that has existed since time immemorial. An
assumption that something occurred or someone or something exists which, in fact, is not the
case, but that is made in the law to enable a court to equitably resolve a matter before it. In order
to do justice, the law will permit or create legal fiction.

Limitations to the use of Legal Fiction: Legal fiction should not be employed to defeat law or
result in illegality; it has been always stressed that legal fiction should not be employed where it
would result in the violation of any legal rule or moral injunction. Legal fiction should operate
for the purpose for which it was created and should not be extended beyond its legitimate field.
Legal fiction should not be extended so as to lead to unjust results.

Mandatory and Directory Provisions- A Mandatory enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled

exactly but it is sufficient if a directory enactment is obeyed or fulfilled substantially. The
general rule is that noncompliance with mandatory provisions results in the nullification of the
act. There is an exception to this rule. If the requirements are for the interest of a particular
person or authority, even though mandatory can be waived if not in the public interest. Whereas a
breach of directory provisions does not entail any invalidity.
Consequences of Non-Compliance- In the case of mandatory provisions, nullification is provided
as a consequence of failure to comply with statutory requirements. For instance, in the case of
the Limitation Act, the period prescribed for bringing a legal proceeding is mandatory, and
non-compliance with the provision will lead to the dismissal of the legal proceeding.
Non-compliance with directory provisions would not furnish any cause of action or ground of
challenge

Conjunctive and disjunctive words “or” and “and”- The word ‘and’ is normally Conjunctive
and the word ‘or’ is normally Disjunctive. Ordinarily "or" does not mean "and " and vice versa.
But at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intent of the legislature as
disclosed from the context. In conjunctive statutes describing the elements of a crime, for
example, every single item on the list must be proved for someone to be found guilty of that
crime. In disjunctive statutes, proof of any one of the elements is sufficient.

UNIT- 18
Penal statutes- A Penal statute is one which imposes a pecuniary penalty or other punishment
for an offense. A Statute enacting an offense or imposing a penalty is strictly construed. In
ancient days minor offenses were used to be dealt with in brutal sentences. The rule of strict
construction Penal Statutes was evolved as reaction to the cruel nature of sentences in those days
The Rule of Strict Construction of Penal Statutes: If two possible and reasonable constructions
can be put upon a penal provision, the Court must lean towards that construction which exempts
the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes a penalty. It is not competent for
Court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the legislature in order to carry out the
intention of the legislature. The basic rule of strict construction of penal statute is that a person
cannot be penalized without a clear letter of law. Presumptions or assumptions have no role in
interpretation of penal statutes. They are to be construed strictly in accordance with the
provisions of law. Nothing can be implied. In such cases, the Courts are not so much concerned
with what might possibly have been intended. Instead they are concerned with what has actually
been said. Courts can not create new offenses. Where after full consideration it is found that the
prohibitory words are equally open to two constructions, one of which covers the subject and the
other doesn't, the benefit of construction will be given to the subject. Hence, in case of ambiguity
or doubt, the benefit of construction should go to the subject. If there is no ambiguity, and the act
of omission by the accused falls clearly within the mischief of the statute, the statute is to be
interpreted like any other law i.e., full effect will be given to the statute.
● Penal statutes generally have a prospective operation: No penal statute should be given a
retrospective operation. When a new penal Act is passed or amended, which penalizes
what otherwise is not an offense, it must be construed as to make it strike at future acts or
omissions unless the legislature has clearly said so.
● Purpose of the statute must be kept in view: While construing a penal statute strictly the
purpose and object of the statute should be kept in mind.
 ● Mischief rule can be applied: The mischief rule evolved in Heydon’s case can be
legitimately applied while interpreting penal statutes.
● When wide construction is given to words in Penal Statutes? Though all penal statutes are
to be construed strictly, it is not an inflexible rule of construction. There may be
circumstances, when penal statutes may require a wide construction. Maxwell gave a
number of examples in his ‘Interpretation of Statutes’. One of the interpretations of the
word ‘breaking’ in connection with burglary. Thus ‘breaking’ required to constitute
burglary has received a wide meaning such as ‘lifting the flap of a cellar’ or ‘raising a
latch’ or ‘coming down a chimney’ or ‘gaining admittance in the house by inducing the
house-holder by a trick’ etc. In cases where the question of public health and safety is
concerned, it is usual with the Courts to give such statutes a wide construction. For
example, regulations regarding traffic and parking, the rules regarding the prevention of
food adulteration do receive a broad construction. The acts offensive to modesty of
women require wide interpretation. When the obvious purpose of a statute is to remove a
defect or suppress a mischief and achieve a certain object, the Courts will not hesitate to
give a wide meaning to the words of a penal statute.

Taxing statutes-
Canons of interpretation of Taxing Statutes:
● First, taxing statutes are to be construed strictly.
● Where there is doubt in the matter, as interpretation favorable to the subject should be
preferred.
● In interpreting taxing or fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax
one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the
statute or the substance of the law.
● No one can be taxed by implication. Before taxing any person, it must be shown that he
falls within the ambit of the charging section of the taxing statute with clear words used
in the section.
Beneficial Construction of Taxing Statute: When construing a fiscal statute, the Court has to lean
in its interpretation in favor of the subject rather than in favor of the State. A provision in a fiscal
statute which is intended for the benefit of the tax-payer must be construed liberally in favor of
the tax-payer with a view to ensuring the benefit to him and not in a narrow and pedantic manner
with an eye to deprive him of the benefit. When a taxing statute admits of two reasonable
constructions, the construction most favorable to the citizens should be adopted. Taxing statute
should not be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. It is the same as penal statutes.
Simply you are to change the words. Where penal statute has been written students you replace
with taxing statutes. Rest is the same as penal statutes.

Beneficial Construction [Liberal Construction] of Beneficial, Welfare, Remedial Statutes

and Socio-economic Status: The beneficent construction rule depends upon the legal maxim‘s
the welfare of the people is the supreme for the law. The welfare or beneficial statutes contain
certain beneficial provisions and remedies. The Courts while interpreting the beneficial or
welfare statutes and other statutes should follow the following principles or guideline:
● The principle established in construction of a statute is that there is no room for taking a
narrow view, but that the Court is entitled to be generous towards the persons on whom
the benefit has been conferred. It is the duty of the Court to interpret a provision,
especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give a wide meaning rather than a
restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the rule.
● In construing the provision of beneficent enactment, the Court should adopt that
construction which advances, fulfills, and furthers the object of the Act rather than the
one which would defeat the same, and render the protection illusory.
● When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view
which furthers the legislative intent should be preferred to the one which would frustrate
it. This rule of liberal construction can only be resorted to without doing any violence to
the language of the statute.
● Construction should sub-serve the purpose of the enactment and should not defeat it.
Construction should be such that no part of the enactment is rendered futile.
● When beneficial legislation is constructed, wider interpretation must be given for the
advantage of the section of people, the target group of the enactment.
● The Courts should make a purposeful interpretation so as to ‘effectuate’ the intention of
the legislature and not a purposeless one in order to ‘defeat’ the intention of the
legislators wholly or in part.
● Where an earlier statute imposes rigorous punishment for an offense, and the ex post
facto (subsequent) statute mitigates such rigor of earlier law and reduces the sentence, the
earlier law must be deemed to have been repealed by the subsequent statute by applying
rule of beneficent construction.
● According to beneficent construction, where an Act does not expressly confera right to
the workman, but does not indicate any negative intention either, that Act must be
construed in the interest of the workmen.
● The language of a beneficial statute must be construed so as to suppress the mischief and
advance its object.
● The Courts must interpret the words of statute or the language of statute to promote
public good and to interdict misuse of power.

UNIT -19, 20
Doctrine of Colourable Legislation- The doctrine of colourable legislation basically in
common parlance refers to the question of competency of the legislature while enacting the
provisions of law. It basically suggests the practice carried out by the legislature whereby it
enacts a provision which at the face cannot be authorized by the constitution by coloring the
provisions with a substitute purpose which indirectly allows the original intention. This doctrine
is based upon the legal maxim Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliqum
which means that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. In a nutshell the
purpose of this doctrine is to check that the legislature while framing the laws does not transgress
the provisions enshrined under the Constitution of India.
In our Constitution, this doctrine is usually applied to Article 246 which separates the legislative
competencies of the Parliament and the State legislative assemblies by stating the different
subject under the different lists under Schedule VII upon which the respective legislature can
draft the laws. This doctrine comes into the fire when the legislature drafts a law which it is not
competent to draft and the fate of the same law is decided by the courts using the doctrine of
colourable legislation.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance- This doctrine highlights or focuses upon understanding the
true nature and characteristic of law. The doctrine signifies that it is the real subject matter which
is to be challenged and not its incidental effects on another field. The application of this doctrine
can be illustrated through Article 246 which enumerates the legislative competence mentioned in
the lists under the Seventh Schedule. It is pertinent to the fact that the legislature will make laws
on the subject matter enshrined under the lists, but there might be incidental trespass by the
legislature which ultimately result in the declaration of that specific law as ultra vires. The
rationale behind this doctrine is that the Central and State Legislature at any point of time
trespass the field protected for each other.

Doctrine of Eclipse- The doctrine of eclipse suggests that when any law made by the Legislature
is derogatory with Part III of the Constitution of India, then that law will be treated as invalid and
inoperative to the extent to which the provisions are inconsistent to the Fundamental Rights.
Article 13(1) emphasizes the fact that the State shall not make any law which will be inconsistent
with the fundamental rights and any such law made will be void.
Doctrine of Severability- This particular means where a particular provision is not in parlance
with the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the constitution and when such provision
which is not consistent can be separated and will be declared void by the Court as a result of
which the rest provision remains consistent with the relevant provisions. While applying this
doctrine, the court does not declare the whole statute or act as void but only the provision or any
part violative of the Part III of constitution and which can be separated from the rest of the
provision.

Doctrine of Territorial Nexus- Under the Indian conception of federalism, a state law that has
operation outside the given state is invalid. The doctrine of territorial nexus is invoked to find out
if the law in question has an operation beyond its jurisdiction. This doctrine stipulates that:
1. Territory: The object to which a particular law applies does not have to be located within
the strict territory of the state. Instead, it needs to have a sufficient territorial connection
to the enacting state.
 2. Subject: There needs to be a territorial nexus between the state enacting the law and the
law’s subject matter. The connection must be real and not illusory. Moreover, the liability
imposed must be pertinent and relevant to the connection.

Mimansa- “Mimangsa” (or Mimansa) is a scripture related to Hindu Religion and is considered
the most important tool for the interpretation of other Hindu Scriptures. The meaning of
Mimangsa refers to the act of taking serious concern over the religious matters stated in the
Vedas. It provides particular methods for interpreting the matters stated in the scriptures like
‘Vedas’, ‘Smirities’ etc. In the course of interpretation, there can be found many methods of
interpretation given by Manu, Yagyabalkya, Narad, Vyas, Bhrihaspati and others but no concrete
method of interpretation is given by them as given by Jaimini in Mimangsa. The Mimansa
Principles were the traditional system of interpretation of legal texts. Although originally they
were created for interpreting religious texts [pertaining to the Yagya sacrifice], gradually they
came to be utilized for interpreting legal texts and also for interpreting texts on philosophy,
grammar, etc. i.e., they became of universal application. Thus, Shankaracharya has used the
Mimansa adhikaranas in his bhashya on the Vedanta sutras. There were hundreds of books [all in
Sanskrit] written on the subject, though only a few dozens have survived the ravages of time.
Mimangsa is divided into two parts the first one is the Eastern Mimansa (Purvi Mimangsa)
which is propounded by Jaimini while the other is the Northern Mimansa (Uttar Mimansa or
Vrahma Mimangsa). The Purvi Mimangsa decides about the proper interpretation rules of the
Karmakandaparak Mantras and Vedas while the Uttar Mimangsa (also known as Vedanta
consists of the situation of eternity. In the course of interpretation, the Purvi Mimangsa is the
main reference.

Rule for interpretation under Mimangsa (General Principles of the Application of Texts)-
● Atidesha (reference) – Rules regarding one matter are made to bear on another matter
In Sardar Mohammad Ansar Khan v. State of U.P., the controversy was as to which of
two clerks appointed on the same day in an Intermediate College would be senior, and
hence entitled to promotion as Head Clerk. Now there is no rule to cater to this situation.
However, Chapter 2, Regulation 3 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Regulations state
that where 2 teachers are appointed on the same day, the senior in age will be senior.
Using the Atidesh Principle of mimansa it was held that the same principle which applies
to teachers should be also applied to clerks, and hence the senior in age would be senior.
The atidesh principle originated in the practical difficulty of performing certain yagyas.
There are some yagyas (e.g. agnihotra, darshapurnamani, etc.) whose method of
performance is given in detail in the Brahmanas. These are known as prakriti yagyas.
However, there are other yagyas whose rules are not given anywhere, and these are
known as vikriti yagyas. The question arose how these latter are to be performed? The
atidesh principle was created to resolve this difficulty, and according to this principle the
 vikriti yagya is to be performed according to the rules of the prakriti yagya belonging to
the same genus.
Axioms (Elementary Principles)
● Sarthakya – Every word and sentence must have some meaning and purpose.
● Laghava – Construction which makes the meaning simpler and shorter is to be preferred
The Laghava Principle has been used in Vinay Khare v. State of U.P., the controversy in
this case was that if in a competitive examination two candidates got equal marks
whether the candidate who got more marks in the oral interview should be placed higher
in the select list or the candidate who got more marks in the written test. It was held in
this case that the candidate who got more marks in the written test should be placed
higher because to interpret general suitability on the basis of marks in the written test is a
short and simple interpretation and provides a clear objective test, whereas the criteria in
the oral interview involves consideration of the candidate's personality, dress, physique,
etc. which is complicated and in which there are more chances of favoritism and
arbitrariness.
● Arthaikatva axiom– Which states that a double meaning should not be attached to a word
or sentence occurring at one and the same place. Such a double meaning is known as a
Vakyabheda, and is a fault (dosh).

UNIT- 21, 22
Essential definitions under the General Clauses Act- Section 3 of the Act is the main section
containing definitions that apply to the act itself and all the central acts and legislation post-1897.
The General Clauses Act does not apply when the acts contain separate and specific definitions
of their own or when the subject or context of the term is objectionable. Section 3 defines 67
terms and phrases usually used in legislation and intends to act as a dictionary for the terms and
phrases. Some of the essential terms and phrases include:
1. Section 3(2) “Act”: When rendering a crime or a civil wrong, the term “act” relates to a
series of actions and expressions pertaining to acts done and to whether legal or illegal
omissions. An act necessary to perform does not have to be positive; it can also include
acts prohibited by decree. This term is based on Indian Penal Code sections 32 and 33
and relates to civil and criminal wrongdoings. The term ‘act’ encompasses both legal and
unlawful omissions but excludes non-legal omissions.
2. Section 3(3) “Affidavit”: Affidavits shall contain affirmation and declaration in the
context of those permitted by law to affirm or declare rather than swear. The definition
provided above is broad in scope. Affidavits must include affirmations and declarations,
according to the law. The affidavit is not defined in this definition. However, in common
usage, we may grasp this phrase. An affidavit is a written document verified by oath or
affirmation and intended to be used as evidence in court or before any authority.
3. Section 3(7) “Central Act”: A ‘Central Act’ is a piece of legislation passed by Parliament
that includes:
 ● A statute of the Dominion Legislature or the Indian Legislature enacted before the
Constitution’s inception, and
● An Act passed by the Governor-General in Parliament or his or her legislative
capacity before the act’s commencement;
4. Section 3(13) “Commencement”: When referring to the Acts or legislation, the term
“commencement” refers to the date on which the Law or legislation becomes effective.
The procedure by which legislation, rules, treaties, and other regulatory frameworks gain
legal authority and become effective is referred to as commencement. A law cannot be
considered in effect unless put into effect through legislative action or through the
application of authority by an authorized representative to do so.
5. Section 3(18) “Document”: Any matter written, conveyed, or characterized on any
material by way of letters, figures, or symbols, or even by more than either of those
means to record that matter, will be referred to as a “document.”
6. Section 3(22) “Good Faith”: Under the General Clauses Act, the subject of good faith is a
factual one and is to be determined based on the specific facts of each instance. As a
result, anything handled with proper care and attention that isn’t malicious is deemed to
be undertaken in good faith. The term “good faith” has been defined differently in
different enactments. The definition of good faith does not apply to any law that specifies
a unique meaning of the term “good faith,”. This definition is only appropriate if the
subject or context is not objectionable, and if such is the case, the term is not relevant.
7. Section 3(23) “Government”: The term ‘government’ or ‘the government’ refers to state
and central governments. As a result, whenever the term “government” is mentioned, it
refers to central and state governments. The explanation clarifies that the word
“government,” often used as a simple acronym, can be used in either of the two meanings
mentioned depending on the context. The Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary
are the three wings of government in general; yet, it only refers to the Executive in a
narrow sense. As a result, the meaning to get attributed to that expression is contingent on
the situation it is employed in.
8. Section 3(27) “Imprisonment”: ‘Imprisonment’ means any type of detention as specified
in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to section 53 of the IPC, offenders are subject
to one of two types of imprisonment: harsh (i.e., with hard labor) or simple (i.e., with no
hard labor). As a result, when an Act specifies that an act is punishable by sentence, the
Court may, at its authority, make the imprisonment strict or light.
9. Section 3(29) “Indian Law”: ‘Indian law’ means:
● Any Act, ordinance, legislation, rule, order, by-law, or another instrument having
legal force in any province of India or part thereof before the beginning of the
Constitution.
● Any law that has the legal force in any Part A or Part C state or part thereof after
the commencement of the Constitution but does not involve any Act of British
 parliament or any Order in Council, rule, or other component made under such
Act.
10. Section 3(65) “Writing”: The term “writing” includes printing, lithography, photography,
and other ways of displaying or reproducing words in visible forms.

Interpretation of treaties- Article 31 to Article 33 of the Vienna Convention of the law of

treaties dictate the rules regarding the interpretation of the treaties which can be summarized into
three rules that are:
1. Analyzing the actual text of the agreement.
2. The intention of the parties negotiating on the treaty.
3. Consideration of the object and purpose of the treaty.
The international court of justice in the case of Competence of the General Assembly for the
Admission of a State to the United Nations noted that the duty of the tribunal is to look into the
ordinary meaning of the treaty. It has also been noted by the international court that the process
of interpretation ‘is a judicial function, whose purpose is to determine the precise meaning of a
provision, but which cannot change it.’ Analyzing the background of the workings of a treaty
and its preparatory works (travaux pr´eparatoires) can help in interpretation of the treaty. Where
a treaty is authenticated in more than one language, as often happens with multilateral
agreements, Article 33 provides that, in the absence of agreement, in the event of a difference of
meaning that the normal processes of interpretation cannot resolve, the meaning which best
reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.