INTERPRETATION
BA LL.B Second Year (Sem IV) 2021-2022
Legal Language/General English IV
Meaning of interpretation
The term “interpretation” has been derived from the Latin
term ‘interpretari’, which means to explain, expound, understand,
or to translate.
It is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words
used in a statute.
It is an art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving
the words their natural and ordinary meaning.
Meaning of statutes
• A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority
that governs a country, state or city.
• A statute, is a law that has been enacted by a legislature. The will of the
legislature is expressed generally in the form of a statute and it is the
function of the court to interpret the statute to find out the intention of the
legislature.
• Thus, Interpretation of statutes is the correct understanding of the
law. This process is commonly adopted by the courts for determining the
exact intention of the legislature. Because the objective of the court is not
only merely to read the law, but is also to apply it in a meaningful manner.
Object of Interpretation of Statutes
Duty of the legislature ends when any law is enacted. After the legislature, the
statute comes in the hands of the judiciary. It is the duty of the judiciary to interpret
the words of a stature according to the intention of the framers of the statute. Thus,
interpretation is the process by which the court tries to ascertain the meaning of the
provisions in a statute. The Court reads the words contained in the statute and tries
to give them the meaning intended by the legislature.
The object of Interpretation is to determine what is the intention of the legislature
expressed by the words used in the statute. The words of a statute are to be
interpreted so as to ascertain the mind of the legislature.
Kinds of Interpretation
Interpretation
Literal Logical
Kinds of Interpretation
A) Literal or grammatical Interpretation-Literal that is grammatical
interpretation has an important place in the interpretation of Statutes.
Under literal interpretation, the words used in Statute are given their plain
and literal meaning . The statute is interpreted as it is.
Kinds of Interpretation
B) Logical Interpretation
• The necessity of logical interpretation arises at that time when the literal
or grammatical interpretation leads to absurd and inconsistent results.
• Under the logical interpretation, the intention of the legislature is found
by a detailed study of statutes. Court has also to consider what the
reasons are for making the statute. This interpretation based on
prudence.
Three rules of interpretation
Mischief
Literal Rule Golden Rule
Rule
1. Literal rule
• It is the primary rule of interpretation
• It is also called literal construction/ plain rule of interpretation
• As per this rule, words used are constructed as per their plain sense
• Words to be given their natural, ordinary or popular meaning. The intention of legislature is
expressed in the statute itself. Rule does not warrant looking beyond written words.
• Cases:
i) Ramavatar B. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer
ii) Rananjaya Singh vs Baijnath Singh And Others
iii) Motipur Zamindary Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Example: Trial Scene in The Merchant of
Venice
Shylock and Antonio entered into an agreement whereby he would lend some
money for a period of three months. In case Antonio failed to honour the
bond, the penalty would be in the form of a pound of flesh which pleases
Shylock.
Antonio failed to repay the amount as stipulated. As a result, the case was
brought before the Duke’s court in Venice. Shylock did not take law in his
own hands, rather he wanted the court to enforce the bond.
Applying the principles of literal rule of construction, Portia pointed out to
the bond which says only a pound of flesh, and not a single drop of blood.
Thus, Shylock must cut precisely one pound of flesh, no more or no less and
without shedding any drop of blood, an obvious impossibility.
Case laws
Ramavatar B. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer
Sale tax was imposed on the petitioners who were dealers in betel leaves under the provisions of the
Central Provinces (C. P.) and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. As per the mandate of the Act, articles
mentioned in the Second Schedule were exempt from Sales Tax and articles not mentioned were
taxable. The said Schedule exempted vegetables from sales tax. The contention of the petitioners was
that betel leaves also come under the purview of ‘vegetables’ and therefore, could not be taxed.
The Supreme Court held that the word "vegetable" must be interpreted in its popular sense as
understood in common language i.e., denoting a class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen
garden or on a farm and are used for the table.
Case laws
Rananjaya Singh vs Baijnath Singh And Others 1954 AIR 749
The Election Tribunal set aside the election of the Appellant under the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 on the grounds that the Appellant had employed more persons than
prescribed for electioneering purposes and the salary of these persons exceeded the maximum
election expenditure permissible under the law.
The contention of the appellant was that all those persons who had campaigned for him in the
election were in the employment of his father and therefore, no excess expenditure was
borne by the ‘candidate or his agent’ as required under the law.
The Court, following the literal rule, observed that such people would merely be volunteers to
the Appellant and therefore, he was not guilty of corrupt practice under the Act.
Case Laws
Motipur Zamindary Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the Government issued a notification
exempting certain goods from the payment of sales tax, including "green
vegetables other than potatoes, except when sold in sealed containers". The
appellant who was a producer of sugar cane was assessed to sales tax. He
contended that sugar cane was a green vegetables and was exempted from tax.
The Court held that sugar cane was not a green vegetable and was not exempted
under the notification. The word "vegetables" was to be understood as in common
parlance i.e. denoting class of vegetables which were grown in a kitchen garden or
in a farm and were used for the table. The dictionaries defined sugar cane as a
"grass."
Critical analysis: literal rule
MERITS DEMERITS
1. Certainty in law and uniformity in 1. Works on the assumption that every Act is
judgments written perfectly without any mistakes or
drafting errors
2. Quick adjudication 2. It may sometimes lead to an absurd
interpretation
3. Upholds words of Parliament 3. May lead to manifest injustice
4. Ambiguity goes down as there are no 4. Complexities and changing needs of
manipulation of words societies are ignored
2. Golden rule
• Modification of the literal rule
• Ordinarily, Court must find out the intention of the legislature from the words used
in the statute by giving them their natural meaning but if this leads to absurdity,
repugnance, inconvenience, hardship, injustice or evasion, the Court must modify
the meaning to such an extent and no further as would prevent such a consequence.
• It tries to avoid absurdity resulted from the literal rule of interpretation.
• On the face of it, this rule solves all problems hence, called the golden rule
• Cases:
i) Lee v. Knapp
ii) Karnail Singh v/s Mohinder Kaur
Case Laws
Lee v. Knapp
• Section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 provided that "a driver causing
accident shall stop after the accident", the interpretation of the word “stop"
was in question.
• In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle stopped for a moment after
causing an accident and then ran away. It was contended on his behalf that
the driver had fulfilled the mandate of the section.
• Applying the golden rule the court held that the driver had not fulfilled the
requirement of the section, as he had not stopped for a reasonable period
so as to enable interested persons to make necessary inquires from him
about the accident at the spot of accident
Case laws
Karnail Singh v/s Mohinder Kaur
A testator had made a will in favour of his three sons and had deliberately
disinherited his three daughters. During the lifetime of the testator, one of these
three sons died issueless leaving only his widow. The testator did not change his will
and died about two years and nine months after his sons’ death.
Interpreting the expression “lineal descendant” in section 109 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, the Court while applying golden rule stated that if the
testator had any intention to disinherit the widow of his pre-deceased son, he could
easily have made another will or could have executed a codicil to the existing will.
Thus, his intention was clear to the effect that the widow should succeed to the
legacy of his pre-deceased son.
Critical analysis : golden rule
MERITS DEMERITS
1. It leads to a Sensible adjudication 1. Unpredictability in adjudication
2. Prevents the necessity of constant 2. The degree of modification permitted is
amendment as errors in drafting can be very limited
corrected
3. Parliamentary supremacy is still maintained
as words are altered only when outcome is
absurd/ repugnant
4. Provides a check on literal rule
3. Mischief rule
• Originated in the Heydon’s case (1584)
• Also known as the rule of “purposive construction”
• Judges are supposed to construe statutes by seeking the true intent of the
makers of the Act, which is presumed to be pro bono publico, or intended for
the public good.
• It is considered more flexible compared to literal rule and golden rule.
Application of this rule gives the judges more discretion.
• Meaning of mischief: In the content of interpretation, mischief means-to
prevents the misuse of provisions of the statute. Mischief should not have a
place in the statute. If an attempt is made to add Mischief in any statute, then
it must be prevented by the Mischief Rule.
• As per this rule, it is the duty of the Court to construct/interpret the statute in
such a way to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy according
to the intention of the legislature.
Mischief Rule
• What is mischief?
a) Mischief that makes the statute defective and inadequate
b) Mischief that makes the statute incompetent and ineffective
c) Mischief that makes the statute unable to effectively provide the remedy
d) Mischief that defeats the very objective of the statute
• Case laws
i) Ranjit Udeshi v/s State of Maharashtra
ii) Peyarelal v. Mahadeo Ramachandra
iii) Badshah v/s Badshah
Case laws
Heydon’s Case:
In this case, it was observed that for the true interpretation of all statutes, four
things are to be considered-
i) What was the old law before the making of the Act?
ii) What was the mischief/defect for which the common law did not provide?
iii) What remedy the Parliament had resolved to cure the mischef?
iv) The true reason for the remedy
Case laws
Ranjit Udeshi v/s State of Maharashtra
The appellant was convicted under S.292 of IPC for selling an obscene book
titled “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”. He contended that the prosecution had a
duty to prove guilty mind against him which in this case is the knowledge
that the book contained obscene material. Further, he argued that when
there is a very large number of books in a book shop, the shopkeeper is not
expected to go through each book to see as to whether some books contain
obscene literature.
Rejecting these arguments, the Supreme Court held that there was no
ambiguity in the language of the enactment and that the meaning of Section
292 is clear and precise. Further, the mischief of sale of obscene material
was sought to be remedied by the provision and therefore, the
interpretation given by the appellant was unacceptable.
Case laws
Peyarelal v. Mahadeo Ramachandra
The appellant, a dealer in scented supari, was charged with the offence of having sold and
retained for selling scented supari with prohibited artificial sweeteners, in contravention of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. A contention was raised on behalf of the
appellant that supari was not ‘food’ under the Act.
The Supreme Court observed that the Act defines 'food' very widely as covering any article
used as food and every component which enters into it, and even flavoring matter and
condiments. It is commonplace knowledge that the word "food" is a very general term and
applies to all that is eaten by man for nourishment and takes in subsidiaries. The word “food”
is to be interpreted in the context of the mischief which the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 sought to suppress and advance the remedy, the Court held that supari falls within
the ambit of food under the Act and therefore, an offence had been committed.
Case laws
Badshah v/s Badshah
In this case, interpretation of “wife” under S. 125 of CrPC was involved. The
petitioner was already married. But he duped the respondent by suppressing the fact
of the first marriage. The petitioner contended that he is not bound under section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to give maintenance to the respondent since she
was not his lawfully wedded wife.
The Court gave purposive interpretation. The purpose of S. 125 is to achieve “social
justice”. The Petitioner falsely represented the respondent to be an unmarried adult.
He cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking
advantage of his own wrong. The Court held that the respondent is entitled to
maintenance, thus giving a broader interpretation to the word “wife” under S. 125.
Critical analysis: mischief rule (purposive
construction)
MERITS DEMERITS
1. Avoids unjust or absurd results in adjudication 1. Finding intention of the legislature might not be
easy
2. Allows laws to develop and adapt to changing 2. Gives the judge a law making role.
needs of the society
3. Avoids misuse of the law 3. Morality and prejudices of judges can creep in
4. Contradicting judgments may result in
Uncertainty in law
Harmonious Construction
• When two or more provisions of the statute are repugnant, the court will try to construe the
provisions in such a manner as to give effect to both of them by harmonising with each other.
• Principle: the legislature has enacted a law with a definite purpose. It is also presumed that
legislature has used precise words and have left no ambiguity in the language of the
enactment. It is further presumed that all the provisions of a statute are well composed and
consistent with each other because the legislature is not supposed to contradict itself by
providing conflicting provision. Hence, the statute should be construed in such a manner so
as to avoid any repugnancy.
• Case laws:
i) CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers
ii) Sarwan Singh v/s State of Punjab
iii) Md. Hanif Qureshi v/s State of Bihar
iv) Kesavananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala
v) Bar Council of India v/s Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law
Case laws
In the land mark case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, the Supreme Court laid down
five principles of rule of harmonious construction:
1. The courts must avoid a head-on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and
they must construe the contradictory provisions harmoniously.
2. the provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in
another unless the court, despite all its efforts, is unable to find a way to reconcile
their differences
3. when it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory
provisions, the courts must interpret them in such a way so that effect is given to
both the provisions as much as possible.
4. courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provisions toa
useless number or a dead letter is not harmonious construction.
5. to harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.
Case Laws
Sarwan Singh v/s State of Punjab
In this case, the evidentiary value of testimony of an accomplice was in question.
S.133 of Indian Evidence Act says that- An accomplice shall be a competent witness and
conviction is not illegal on the ground that is is based on uncorroborated testimony of
accomplice.
S.114 illustration (b) states that- Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of
credit unless corroborated in evidence.
Using harmonious construction, The Supreme Court harmonized both the provisions and
laid down a double test to appreciate evidence of an accomplice- (i) whether testimony of
accomplice is reliable or not? (ii) to what extent is it corroborated with material facts?
Both the factors must be considered.
Case laws
Md. Hanif Qureshi v/s State of Bihar
The Petitioners were engaged in the trade of butchers. The petitioners challenged
several enactments passed by the legislature banning slaughter of cows and other
animals. They relied on Article 13 (2) according to which the State shall not make any
law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights. The State relied on Article
48 which provides that the State shall endeavor to take steps for prohibiting slaughter
of cows, calves, milching animals etc.
Interpreting both the provisions harmoniously, it was held that while the State
should certainly implement the directive principles of state policy, it must be done in
such a way as not to violate the fundamental rights.
Case Laws
Kesavananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala
The Supreme Court held that the Parliament has power to amend any provision of
the Constitution but no amendment can be permitted which destroys the basic
structure of the Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court harmonised the interest of
the people of India as a whole and powers of amendment enjoyed by the legislators.
Case laws
Bar Council of India v/s Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law
The question of appointment of a Principal of a Law College was involved.
The Supreme Court held that the eligibility condition for the same should be
consistent with the requirements of S. 7 and 49 of the Advocates Act as well as the
Bar Council of India Rules.
The statute of the University i.e Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act made a person
having a doctorate degree in any faculty eligible for appointment on that post.
The Court held that harmoniously read, it would mean that a doctorate degree
holder in any law subjects could alone be appointed as Principal of a Law College .
