GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
Introduction
The term interpretation means “To give meaning to”. Governmental power has been divided into three wings namely the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
Interpretation of statues to render justice is the primary function of the judiciary. It is the duty of the Court to interpret the Act and give meaning to each word of the Statute. The most common rule of interpretation is that every part of the statute must be understood in a harmonious manner by reading and construing every part of it together.
The maxim “A Verbis legis non est recedendum” means that you must not vary the words of the statute while interpreting it. The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used.
In Santi swarup Sarkar v pradeep kumar sarkar, the Supreme Court held that if two interpretations are possible of the same statute, the one which validates the statute must be preferred.
Kinds of Interpretation
There are generally two kind of interpretation; literal interpretation and logical interpretation.
1) Literal interpretation
Giving words their ordinary and natural meaning is known as literal interpretation or litera legis. It is the duty of the court not to modify the language of the Act and if such meaning is clear and unambiguous, effect should be given to the provisions of a statute whatever may be the consequence. The idea behind such a principle is that the legislature, being the supreme law making body must know what it intends in the words of the statute. Literal interpretation has been called the safest rule because the legislature’s intention can be deduced only from the language through which it has expressed itself.
The bare words of the Act must be construed to get the meaning of the statute and one need not probe into the intention of the legislature. The elementary rule of construction is that the language must be construed in its grammatical and literal sense and hence it is termed as litera legis or litera script.
The Golden Rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. This interpretation is supreme and is called the golden rule of interpretation.
In Ramanjaya Singh v Baijnath Singh, the Election tribunal set aside the election of the appellant under s 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 on the grounds that the appellant had employed more persons than prescribed for electioneering purpose. The appellant contended that the excess employees were paid by his father and hence were not employed by him. The Supreme Court followed the grammatical interpretation of S 123(7) and termed the excess employees as volunteers.
In Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay, the appellant, a citizen of India, on arrival at an airport did not declare that he brought gold with him. Gold, found in his possession during search in violation of government notification, was confiscated under S 167 (8) Sea Customs Act, 1878. He was charged under s 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The appellant pleaded that his trial under the Act was violative of Art 20(2) of the constitution relating to double jeopardy as he was
already punished for his act by was of confiscation of the gold. It was held by the Supreme Court that the sea customs authority is not a court or a judicial tribunal and the confiscation is not a penalty. Consequently his trial was valid under the Act of 1947.
In Madan mohan v K.Chandrashekara, it was held that when a statute contains strict and stringent provisions, it must be literally and strictly construed to promote the object of the act.
In Bhavnagar University v Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd, it was held that according to the fundamental principles of construction the statute should be read as a whole, then chapter by chapter, section by section and then word by word.
In Municipal board v State transport authority, Rajasthan, an application against the change of location of a bus stand could be made within 30 days of receipt of order of regional transport authority according to s 64 A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939. The application was moved after 30 days on the contention that statute must be read
as “30 days from the knowledge of the order”. The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation must be made and hence rejected the application as invalid.
In Raghunandan Saran v M/s Peary Lal workshop Pvt Ltd, the supreme court validated 14 ( 2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and provided the benefit of eviction on account of non-payment of rent. The Supreme Court adopted grammatical interpretation.
Exceptions to the rule of literal interpretation
Generally a statute must be interpreted in its grammatical sense but under the following circumstances it is not possible:-
Logical defects
A) ambiguity
B) inconsistency
C) incompleteness or lacunae
D) unreasonableness
2) Logical interpretation
If the words of a statute give rise to two or more construction, then the construction which validates the object of the Act must be given effect while interpreting.
It is better to validate a thing than to invalidate it or it is better the Act prevails than perish.
The purpose of construction is to ascertain the intention of the parliament.
3) The mischief rule
The mischief rule of interpretation originated in Heydon’s case. If there are two interpretations possible for the material words of a statute, then for sure and true interpretation there are certain considerations in the form of questions.
The following questions must be considered.
1. What was the common law before making the Act?
2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide a remedy?
3. What is the remedy resolved by the parliament to cure the disease of the common wealth?
4. The true reason of the remedy.
The judge should always try to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. The mischief rule says that the intent of the legislature behind the enactment should be followed.
4) Rule of casus omissus
Generally, the court is bound to harmonize the various provisions of an Act passed by the legislature during interpretation so that repugnancy is avoided. Sometimes certain matters might have been omitted in a statute. In such cases, they cannot be added by construction as it amounts to making of laws or amending which is a function of legislature. A new provision cannot be added in a statute giving it meaning not otherwise found therein. A word omitted from the language of the statute, but within the general scope of the statute, and omitted due to inadvertence is known as Casus Omissus.
In Padma Sundara Rao v State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that the cassus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of a clear necessity and when reason for it is found within the four corners of the statute itself.
5) Rule of ejusdem generis
Ejusdem generis means “of the same kind”. Generally particular words are given their natural meaning provided the context does not require otherwise. If general words follow particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus then it is construed that general words are limited to mean the person or thing of the same general class,
category or genus as those particularly exposed.
Eg: if the husband asks the wife to buy bread, milk and cake and if the wife buys jam along with them, it is not invalidated merely because of not specifying it but is valid because it is of the same kind.
The basic rule is that if the legislature intended general words to be used in unrestricted sense, then it need not have used particular words at all. This rule is not of universal application.
In Devendra Surti v State of Gujarat, under s2 (4) of the Bombay shops and Establishments Act, 1948 the term commercial establishment means “an establishments which carries any trade, business or profession”. Here the word profession is associated to business or trade and hence a private doctor’s clinic cannot be included in the above definitions as under the rule of Ejusdem Generis.
In Grasim Industries Ltd v Collector of Customs, Bombay, the rule of Ejusdem Generis is applicable when particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words.
In such a case the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified. Every clause of a statute must be construed with reference to other
clauses of the Act.
Important terms from Interpretation of Statutes: https://youtu.be/IH7yqELoa_E
Interpretation vs Construction: https://youtu.be/6Wd0AMKH3T8
External Aids to Interpretation: https://youtu.be/PXCPQkDy3Hc
CA Preeti Aggarwal offers best CA Online Coaching in India for CA Foundation and CA Intermediate Law. Check CA Study Materials, test series, lectures by best online classes for CA Business and Corporate Law.
The online lectures are as per the latest syllabus of ICAI. Gain confidence in Law and get your doubts solved directly by CA Preeti ma’am.
For Best CA Inter Law Online classes and revision lectures
https://capreetiaggarwal.com/product-category/ca-inter-law-classes/