IOS

UNIT-5 SUBSIDIARY RULES

SYNOPSIS
 Introduction
 Same word same meaning
 Use of different words
 Rules of last antecedent
 Non obstante clause
 Legal fiction
 Mandatory and directory provisions
 Conjunctive and disjunctive words or and and
 Construction of general words ‘or’ and ‘and’
 Noscitur a socis
 Rule of esjudem generis
 Word of rank
 Reddendo singula singulis

INTRODUCTION
When we try to understand and apply the laws written by lawmakers (statutes), there are some
additional rules that help us interpret them correctly. These additional rules are like tools that assist
us when the usual methods are not enough. We call them subsidiary rules.
These subsidiary rules are important because they address specific situations or language challenges
that might not be covered by the basic rules.
They make sure we consider all the angles and details when figuring out what the law really means.
In the upcoming discussion, we'll explore some of these subsidiary rules that aid us in understanding
and applying statutes more accurately.

SAME WORD SAME MEANING

In legal interpretation, the principle "same word, same meaning" is a rule of construction that
suggests that when the same word is used in different parts of a statute, it should generally be given
the same meaning unless there is a clear indication that a different meaning was intended.
This principle is based on the presumption that lawmakers use consistent language throughout a
statute to convey a consistent meaning.
The idea behind this rule is to promote consistency and avoid ambiguity in the interpretation of
statutes.
If the legislature uses a particular term in one section of a statute and then uses the same term
elsewhere, it is presumed that the legislature intended the term to have the same meaning in both
instances.
USE OF DIFFERENT WORDS
The use of different words in the interpretation of statutes is a significant aspect of statutory
construction.
When a statute employs different words or phrases, it is presumed that the legislature intended to
convey distinct meanings for each term.
Courts generally presume that if the legislature used different words in a statute, it intended for
those words to have different meanings. This presumption is based on the idea that lawmakers
choose their words carefully, and each term is meant to serve a specific purpose.
Courts strive to avoid interpreting statutes in a way that renders any part of the language redundant
or superfluous. If different words are used, it suggests that each term was intended to add something
unique to the statute.

RULE OF LAST ANTECEDENT

The rule of the last antecedent is a principle of statutory interpretation that guides how to interpret
language in a statute, particularly when it comes to the placement of words or phrases.
The rule suggests that a qualifying phrase or clause should generally be confined to the last
antecedent unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
In simpler terms, when a modifier or qualifier is included in a sentence, it is presumed to apply only
to the immediately preceding word or phrase. example :
Original Sentence: "John told his friends that he would buy a gift for every child who attended the
party, except the ones in the red hats."
In this sentence, according to the rule of the last antecedent, the qualifying phrase "except the ones
in the red hats" is presumed to apply only to "children," the last antecedent. Therefore, John would
buy a gift for every child except those wearing red hats.

NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE
A "non obstante" clause, often referred to as a non-obstante provision, is a legal term used in
statutes to indicate that certain provisions within the statute should operate notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in other parts of the statute or in other laws. The term "non obstante" is
Latin for "notwithstanding."
When a non obstante clause is included in a statute, it signals the legislature's intention to give the
specified provision exceptional or overriding effect, despite any conflicting provisions that might
exist elsewhere in the statute or in other laws.
In essence, it is a way for lawmakers to carve out a specific exception to the normal operation of the
law. For example:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Minister of Finance shall have the authority to
make regulations relating to tax exemptions."

LEGAL FICTION
Legal fiction, a rule assuming as true something that is clearly false. A fiction is often used to get
around the provisions of constitutions and legal codes that legislators are hesitant to change or to
encumber with specific limitations.
Thus, when a legislature has no legal power to sit beyond a certain midnight but has five hours more
of work still to do, it is easier to turn back the official clock from time to time than it is to change
the law or constitution.
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. There
cannot be fiction upon fiction.

MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY PROVISION\

In the interpretation of statutes, provisions are often categorized as either mandatory or directory.
These terms refer to whether the requirements set forth in a statute are essential and must be strictly
adhered to (mandatory) or whether there is some flexibility in their application (directory).
Mandatory Provisions:
Characteristics: Mandatory provisions are those that use imperative language, indicating a
command or obligation.
Effect: Compliance with mandatory provisions is typically strict and essential for the validity of the
action or process governed by the statute.
Consequences of Non-Compliance: Failure to comply with mandatory provisions may render the
action or process void, illegal, or unenforceable.
Example: If a statute requires that a specific form be used for filing a document, and failure to use
that form is stated to be an offense, it is likely a mandatory provision.
Directory Provisions:
Characteristics: Directory provisions are those that provide guidance on the procedure to be
followed but do not impose strict and absolute requirements.
Flexibility: There is some flexibility in the manner of compliance, and substantial compliance may
be sufficient.
Consequences of Non-Compliance: Failure to follow directory provisions may not necessarily
invalidate the action or process, and courts may consider the substantial compliance with the
underlying purpose of the statute.
Example: A statute may specify a time frame for the completion of a certain action without stating
that failure to do so will result in invalidation. In such cases, the time frame is likely to be
considered directory.

CONJUCTIVE AND DISJUNCTIVE WORDS

In the interpretation of statutes, the use of conjunctive and disjunctive words such as "and" and "or"
plays a crucial role in determining the scope and application of statutory provisions. Here are short
notes on the significance of these words:
Conjunctive "and":
Characteristics: The conjunctive word "and" is used to connect words, phrases, or clauses,
indicating that all the connected elements must be present or satisfied for the provision to apply.
Interpretation: The use of "and" suggests a cumulative or joint requirement, emphasizing that the
conditions linked by "and" should be met simultaneously.
Example: "The applicant must be a citizen and a resident of the country." Both citizenship and
residency are required for the provision to apply.
Disjunctive "or":
Characteristics: The disjunctive word "or" is used to connect words, phrases, or clauses, indicating
that the presence or satisfaction of any one of the connected elements is sufficient for the provision
to apply.
Interpretation: The use of "or" suggests an alternative or separate requirement, allowing for a more
flexible interpretation where meeting any one condition is enough.
Example: "The defendant may be liable if the act was intentional or negligent." Liability can arise if
the act was either intentional or negligent.

CONSTRUCTION OF GENERAL WORDS

This topic can be divided into 5 parts:
1. Generalia verba sunt generalita intelligenda.
2. Noscitur a Sociis.
3. Ejusdem generis.
4. Words of rank.
5. Reddendo singular singulis.

GENERALIA VERBA SUNT GENERALITA INTELLIGENDA

"Generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda" is a Latin legal maxim that translates to "general
words are to be generally understood."
This principle is often applied in the interpretation of legal texts, including statutes and contracts.
The maxim reflects the idea that when the law uses general or broad language, it is presumed to
have intended a broad application.
In other words, when the legislature employs general terms or phrases in a statute, those terms are
presumed to have a wide and inclusive meaning, encompassing a broad range of situations or
circumstances.
This maxim underscores the principle that lawmakers use language purposefully, and general words
are meant to convey a comprehensive understanding unless there is a clear indication of a more
limited intention.

NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
Noscere means to know and sociis means association. Thus, Noscitur a Sociis means knowing from
association.
Thus, under the doctrine of "noscitur a sociis" the questionable meaning of a word or doubtful
words can be derived from its association with other words within the context of the phrase.
This means that words in a list within a statute have meanings that are related to each other. If
multiple words having similar meaning are put together, they are to be understood in their collective
meaning.
According to Maxwell, "this rule means that when two or more words susceptible to analogous
meaning are clubbed together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense.
They take as it were their colour from each other, i.e. the more general is restricted to a sense
analoguous to a less general".

EJUSDEM GENERIS (SAME KIND OF THING')

Ejusdem Generis is a Latin term which means "of the same kind," it is used to interpret loosely
written statutes.
Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general
statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed.
Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered
vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation. The
term Ejusdem Generis in other words means words of a similar class.
The rule is that where particular words have a common characteristic (i.e. of a class) any general
words that follow should be construed as referring generally to that class; no wider construction
should be afforded

WORDS OF RANK
If inferior things are mentioned and a class is created and when this class is not exhausted and the
inclusion of superior things is in question then these superior things are not included in the general
words that follow the inferior specific words.
Where a string of items of a certain rank or level is followed by general residuary words, it is
presumed that the residuary words are not intended to include items of a higher rank than those
specified.
By specifiying only items of lower rank the impression is created that higher ranks are not intened
to be covered. If they were, then their mention would be expected a fortiori.
For example, the phrase "tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, or other person whatsoever" was
held not to include persons above the artisan class. Similarly, the phrase "copper, brass, pewter, and
tin, and all other metals" in a local Act of 1825 was held not to include precious metals such as gold
and silver.

REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS (REFERRING EACH TO EACH)

This is well established rule of interpretation. Very non controversial. 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'.