Meaning of the term ‘Statute’ :

A statute can be defined as ‘the will of the legislature’.

A statute is an act passed by the legislature.

Statue is ‘Sententia Legis’ which means “the spirit of law and intention of
the legislature”.

A statue is made by the Parliament or State Legislature.

The function of the court is to interpret the legislation and give effect to it
according to what is the intention of the legislature who made it.

While interpreting a statute, nothing should be added suo moto or anything

which is not consistent with the words that are used by the legislature.

Statute may be classified taking into account different perspectives :

1) Object of the statute –

Classification on basis of the object of the statute :-

● Penal Statute

● Taxing Statute

● Repealing Statute

● Amending Statute

● Codifying Statute

● Consolidating Statute

● Declaratory Statute

● Explanatory Statute

● Enabling Statute
 ● Disabling Statute

● Remedial Statute

2) Duration of the Statute –

a) Temporary Statute – is one for which for the duration of

applicability of the Act is not fixed. On the expiry of the said
duration, the statute is no more functional, i.e. the statute does
not function or the statute is said to have expired.

b) Permanent Statute – is one for which no duration is fixed. It is

perpetual in force unless it is repealed by the legislature.

3) Application of the Statute –

Statutes can be classified according to its application to individual

matters or to the matters of public policy, i.e. public in general.

a) Private Statute – deals with matters which are individual in nature

such as marriage, divorce, succession, etc.

b) Public Statute – A statute that enfolds public policy is a public

statute.

Purpose of interpretation of Statute :

The primary function of the the Court is ‘interpretation’.

The purpose of interpretation in relation to a statute is to determine the
intention of the legislature which is embodied in the language used by the
legislature.

‘Interpretation’ is the method by which the courts determine the meaning of

a particular legislation.

The enacted law must be given proper and legal effect.

According to Maxwell –

“The object of interpretation of Statute is the determination of the intention

of the legislature either expressly or impliedly, from the language used by
the legislature”.

According to Salmond –

“Interpretation is the process by which the court seeks to ascertain the

meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in
which it is expressed”

The court should not interpret arbitrarily and for this purpose certain
principles are evolved for the interpretation of the Act. These principles are
known as ‘Rules of Interpretation’.

Case laws :

i) Keshavji Raoji & Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In this case the Supreme Court has laid down the circumstances in
which the interpretation is needed. The Supreme Court observed that,
where the words of the Statute are unambiguous (i.e., clear), no
interpretative process must be resorted to. The need for interpretation
arises when the words of the Statute are ambiguous (i.e., not clear)
and does not unfold the intention of the legislature.

ii) Motor Owner Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Jadavji Keshavji Modi Co.Ltd.
 In this case the Supreme Court held that, where the language of the
statute is ambiguous and capable of two meanings, in such situation,
the court must discover the true purpose and object of the provision of
the statute by filling the lacuna and mitigating any hardship that may
arise because of such an ambiguity.

iii) State of Bombay vs. Venkatrao Krishnarao Sardar

In this case, the issue before the Court was whether an open platform is
a ‘building’ ? The Supreme Court, in this case, held that open
platform though having no walls or roof is a ‘building’.

According to Gray –

‘Interpretation is the process by which the Judge constructs the meaning

from the words used in the statute book, which he believes to be that of the
legislature or which he proposes to attribute to it.’

According to Keeton –

‘The Judge must perform two-fold functions while interpreting the Statute :

a) He must find out the exact meaning of what the legislature has
actually said
b) He must decide what the legislature have intended to have said or
ought to have said.’

In interpreting and applying the statute law the courts are concerned with
words and their true meaning. Statute law is rigid and bound within the
limits of authoritative letters; if the words of the statute are clear. Where the
words of the statute are not clear; the court can exercise its discretion to
interpret the Statute in accordance with its object and purpose.
Interpretation and Construction :

Two expressions are used to refer to the process of determination of the

meaning of language used in the statute, i.e. interpretation and
construction.

Interpretation means the act or result of interpreting, explanation, meaning,

translation, etc.

Construction is an act or process of constructing the way in which

something is constructed, manner or method of building.

According to Cooley –

‘Interpretation’ is the art of finding out the true sense of any form of words
and enabling others to derive from them the same idea which the author
intended to convey.

‘Construction’ is the process of drawing conclusions with respect to subjects

that lie beyond the direct expression of text which are in the spirit though
not within the letter of law.

In simpler terms, it can be said that in ‘interpretation’, we find out the true
meaning of the words used in the language but in ‘construction’, we draw
the real sense of the language itself which might not be prima facie reflected
by the words used in the language.

Object and Purpose of Interpretation

The object of interpretation is to discover what the legislature intended. This

intention is to be ascertained from the text of the enactment. It is presumed
that the legislature speaks its mind by use of correct expressions and
therefore, unless there is an ambiguity in the words used in the language,
the provisions should be read and understand in their grammatical sense.
When the language of a provision is clear, it should not be twisted or
strained to arrive at a “supposed intention”. The words used in the provision
should be assigned their plain and ordinary meaning and then the language
should be understood in its literal sense. If the results drawn are absurd,
then the courts should look for some other “logical” meaning of those words
to remove the absurdity and ambiguity. The idea behind this is that the
legislature is not expected to have used the words capable of bearing more
than one meaning, so as to lead to alternative constructions, but if such a
situation arises, then the construction which advances the policy of the
enactment must be upheld.

Therefore, the first and foremost principle of interpretation is that if the

words are plain, precise, unambiguous and bear only one meaning, then
they should be assigned their natural and ordinary meaning. On the other
hand, where the language of a provision gives out two different meanings
due to ambiguity of words, then it would be legitimate for the courts to reject
that interpretation, which will introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion
and uphold the one which best effectuates the purpose of the legislation.

The ambiguities are of two kinds :

a) Latent Ambiguity -

The term ‘latent’ literally means hidden or concealed or suppressed.

Therefore such ambiguity is not apparent in the language used in an
instrument. On the face of it, the language is certain and explicit but
the ambiguity is introduced by evidence of something extrinsic or by
some collateral matter outside the instrument.

Illustration :-

In a will, the testator may say, “I bequeath Rs.1 lakh to my cousin

named X”. The language is apparently free from ambiguity. But if the
testator has two cousins of identical name, ‘X’, the uncertainty creeps
in as to which cousin is intended. Evidence is admissible to show the
intention.

b) Patent Ambiguity –
 The term ‘patent’ means ‘obvious’. In case of patent ambiguity, no
extrinsic evidence is admissible to deduce the intention.

Illustration :-

In a will, a testator bequeaths Rs.1 lakh to his aunt, ‘Y’ and Rs.1 lakh
to his cousin ‘Z’. Afterwards he bequeaths Rs.2 lakhs to his before
mentioned aunt, ‘Y’. Now the question is whom he refers to by stating
‘before mentioned aunt, ‘Y’. No extrinsic evidence is admissible to
show the intention of the testator.

The term “interpretation” means the process by which the meaning of the
words is ascertained or determined. Obviously, such ascertainment shall be
required when the word bears several meanings. If only one meaning is
available for the words, there is no option but to adopt the same. But where
a word carries two or more meanings, it becomes necessary to find out
which meaning should be assigned to it in the given language.

The words which are susceptible to more than one meaning are called
“ambiguous or vague” words and the characteristic of bearing more than one
meaning is known as “ambiguity or vagueness”. On the other hand, the
words which are open to only single meaning are known as clear, precise or
unambiguous words.

Therefore for ascertainment of the meaning of any ambiguous word, it

becomes necessary to look at the companion words as well. Not only the
companionship, the sequence in which the words are used in a statutory
language also needs to be looked into.

The law is made by the legislature with a definite object, which may be
either to control a social evil or to extend certain benefits to a particular
class of the society or anything else. Undoubtedly, the legislature would
desire to achieve the purpose for which it has enacted the law. The purpose
of law may be achieved or advanced only when the law remains workable
and it is implemented in its true spirits. Therefore the first and foremost
necessity is to ensure that the law survives. As such, any meaning by which
the law turns to futility or becomes a dead letter should be abandoned. This
is one of the basic principles of interpretation. It is expressed by the legal
maxim “Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat” which means that the law may
rather become operative than null. At the same time, it is equally important
that the intention behind a law is correctly found out for its proper
implementation.

Actually interpretation is the art of finding the true legislative intent. It falls
within the authority of courts. The court has the last say in interpretation of
statutes. The method is that out of several meanings of the ambiguous
words, one must be applied. If no absurdity is created and no unreasonable,
injustice, anomaly, hardship or inconvenience is caused, such meaning
must be taken to be correct. But if any absurdity, unreasonableness,
injustice hardship, inconvenience, anomaly, etc results therefrom, such
meaning must be rejected and other meaning must be tried. This process
would continue till finding of that meaning which removes the absurdity.

However, before accepting or rejecting any meaning, it is necessary to read

the statute as a whole and not the provision alone. The reason is that an
enactment is supposed to be a document free of inconsistencies and self-
contradictions. If the interpretation of any provision of law is attempted
without looking at what precedes and what succeeds, an inconsistency is
likely to be introduced, which shall be against the legislative intent.
Therefore, no provision should be read in isolation. This is another basic
principle of interpretation which is expressed by the legal maxim “Ex
Visceribus Actus” which means that the statute must be read as a whole in
its context.

However, before proceeding to interpret any statutory language, certain

things must be kept in mind. For instance, it must be presumed that the
legislature knows English grammar, it knows how to express itself, it knows
the law and judicial decisions, it does not commit mistakes, it does not use
surplus words and it does not intend to take away vested rights. It must
also be presumed that every law enacted by the legislature is
constitutionally valid and prospective in operation. All these suppositions
are known as “Presumptions in Interpretation of Statutes”.

If the words of a statute are clear and precise, the court must adopt their
plain and ordinary meaning and effectuate them without looking into
consequences thereof. This is called the ‘Rule of Plain and Ordinary
Meaning’. The courts should not meddle with the language of the statute,
which is given by the legislature. The language must be read as it is.
Nothing can be added or substituted in the language. No word can be
rejected as superfluous. The cases of omission, i.e. Casus Omissus also
cannot be supplied. The sequence of words cannot be changed. This is for
the simple reason that the courts have no authority to rewrite or recast the
language or the repair the defective phrasing of the statute. If the courts
interfere in the language, it would amount to legislation and a clear
encroachment in the exclusive domain of the legislature. The only duty of
the court is to discover and act upon the true intent of the legislature. A
clear language and precise words declare the intention and in that case the
court can do nothing except to adopt the plain and grammatical meaning of
those words regardless of consequences. This is termed as grammatical or
literal interpretation or litra legis. This is the safest method of construing a
provision of law and is universally acceptable. But the strict grammatical
construction fails if words are capable of bearing several meanings. In that
case, the courts have to find out what meaning was intended by the
legislature. The courts have to apply their mind to ascertain the true spirit
of law. The process is termed as Logical interpretation. By applying logical
interpretation, what is found out is called “Sententia Legis”.

In the process of discovery of “Sententia Legis”, the courts may call in aid
various parts of the same statute like preamble, title, heading, definitions,
proviso, explanation, marginal notes, schedules, etc. They are referred to as
the Internal Aids to Construction.
A statute is framed by the competent legislature. Besides its various
sections, it contains many other parts. These parts of the statute are
sometimes used to interpret the law, and hence, they are called “Inernal
Aids of Interpretation”.