qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui

opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw



GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

SOORYA PRADEEP,ROLL NO:712

3/17/2014





TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONP.3
INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE..P.4
STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS CONTEXT......P.5
STATUTE TO BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AND
WORKABLE.P.6
APPRAISAL OF PRINCIPLE OF PLAIN MEANINGP.7
STATUTE MUST BE READ AS IT ISP.8
CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID INVALIDITYP.9
CONCLUSIONP.10
BIBLIOGRAPHYP.10






INTRODUCTION:
It is of general belief that the law is deemed to be what the Court interprets it to be. The very
concept of interpretation connotes the introduction of elements which are necessarily extrinsic
to the words in the statute.

The term interpretation is defined as the process by which the Courts seek to ascertain the intent
of the Legislature through the medium of the authoritative form in which it is expressed. As
everyone knows, administration of justice by Court is being conducted according to the law and
law requires having some rules of interpretation to ensure just and uniform decisions. The art of
correct interpretation only depend on the ability to read what is stated in plain language, read
between the lines, read through the provision, examining the intent of the Legislature and call
upon case laws and other aids to interpretation.
1


Such art as popularly known as the rules of interpretation has been evolved in about all legal
jurisprudence. Such an evolution is a result of many considerations starting from general scope,
purpose of the legislation mingled with intention of legislatures and from the legal rights of the
parties independent of the instrument or law in question to many other relevant particulars. In
simple words, this evolution is a logical process which is adopted for determining the true sense
of any form of language, the sense which their author intended to convey and to ensure justice as
the end result.

The paper focuses upon cardinal rules and general relevance of interpretation of statutes as being
applied in Indian context and as has been evolved by Indian Judiciary with the passage of time.
The enumeration below is being substantiated with the relevant case laws of Indian
jurisprudence.


1
Deepak Jain, Interpretation of Statute: A treaties (April 2010) AIFTP Journal.
1.INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE
The purpose of the interpretation of the statute is to unlock the locks put by the Legislature.
In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by
the judiciary when interpreting the law. The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where
legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue, or when
there appears to have been a legislative drafting error.
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into
legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than
one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the
statute.
Courts frequently look to the following sources in attempting to determine the goals and
purposes that the legislative body had in mind when it passed the law:
the text of the bill as proposed to the legislative body
amendments to the bill that were proposed and accepted or rejected,
the record of hearings on the topic
legislative records or journals
speeches and floor debate made prior to the vote on the bill
legislative subcommittee minutes, factual findings, and/or reports
other relevant statutes that can be used to understand the definitions in the statute on
question
other relevant statutes which indicate the limits of the statute in question
legislative files of the executive branch, such as the governor or president
case law prior to the statute or following it which demonstrates the problems the
legislature was attempting to address with the bill
Constitutional determinations (Would Parliament still have passed certain sections of a
statute had it known about the constitutional invalidity of the other portions of the
statute?)
legislative intent, which is the reason for passing the law.


2.STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS CONTEXT:

This one is the very first rule to start with the interpretation of Statute (as even been mentioned in
historical perspective) in Indian Context. It has been rightly defined in the case of Reserve Bank
of Indiav. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company limited that ,
The art of interpretation depend on the text and the context. These both are the bases of
interpretation in Indian jurisdiction. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what
gives the color. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know
why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then
section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at,
in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute- maker, provided by such context,
its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take color and appear different than
when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we
must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and
each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a
statute and no word of a statute can be interpreted in isolation. Statutes have to be interpreted so
that every word has a place and everything is in its place.

Moreover, it has been stated in the case of State of W.B. v. Union of India, that the court must
ascertain the intention of the Legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clause to be
construed but to the entire statute; it must compare the clause with the other parts of the law, and
the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs.

3.STATUTE TO BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AND WORKABLE

The Courts while pronouncing upon the constitutionality must prefer an interpretation which
keeps the statute within the competence of the Legislature. The importance of the rule of ut res
magis valeat quam pereaf has an effective application in this regard. The importance of this rule
lay in the fact that courts must lean against an interpretation which reduces a statute to a
nullity.[35] Here, it is important to analyze that in Indian Context, there is hardly any example
where a statute have been declared void for sheer vagueness[36], although theoretically it may be
possible to reach such a conclusion in case of absolute intractability of the language used or
when the language is absolutely meaningless[37] but application of this pattern of interpretation
with the following list of rules prevent redundancy of a statute.

This principle has further been defined by the Court itself as if the choice is between two
interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the
legislation, we should avoid an interpretation which would reduce the legislation to futility and
should rather accept the bolder interpretation based on the view that Parliament would legislate
only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result.[38] At last, Statute should be
interpreted as effective as workable as is possible while lining with following rules.

4.APPRAISAL OF PRINCIPLE OF PLAIN MEANING/ IF MEANING IS PLAIN,
EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO IT IRRESPECTIVE OF CONSEQUENCES
In other words, we should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its
language. This rule is the most widely used Rule of Interpretation for the statutes to ascertain the
legislative intention behind the framing of the enactment.
The rule governs and regulates the meaning of the law in as much as the rule provides that the
meaning has to be ascertained from the text of the law itself. In M/s. Hiralal Ratanlal v. STO[40],
this Court observed that
All that the Court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision say. If the provision is
unambiguous and if from the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need not call into
aid the other rules of construction of statutes.
Moreover, it has been regularly held by Honble Supreme Court of India that one of the basic
principles of interpretation of Statutes is to construe the words according to their plain, literal and
grammatical meaning. If this principle is contrary to, or inconsistent with, any express intention
or declared purpose of the Statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnancy or
inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended or abridged, so far as to
avoid such an inconvenience, but no further. The onus of showing that the words do not mean
what they say lies heavily on the party who alleges it.[41]
The departure from this rule is allowed in few cases when the astuteness of the legislature
results in manifest ludicrousness or discrimination the courts have wide powers to substitute their
own astuteness.
5.STATUTE MUST BE READ AS IT IS:
As observed by this Court in CIT vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal, AIR 1950 SC 265:
"Hardship or inconvenience cannot alter the meaning of the language employed by the
Legislature if such meaning is clear on the face of the statute".
Where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing any rule of interpretation vide
Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. C.I.T. 2003(5) SCC 590. It is only where the provisions of a statute
are ambiguous that the Court can depart from a literal or strict construction vide Narsiruddin vs.
Sita Ram Agarwal AIR 2003 SC 1543. Where the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous
effect must be given to them vide Bhaiji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla 2003(1) SCC 692.
No doubt in some exceptional cases departure can be made from the literal rule of the
interpretation, e.g. by adopting a purposive construction, Heydon's mischief rule, etc. but that
should only be done in very exceptional cases. Ordinarily, it is not proper for the Court to depart
from the literal rule as that would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation, which
is not permissible vide J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 1405, State of
Jharkhand & Anr. vs. Govind Singh JT 2004(10) SC 349 etc.. It is for the legislature to amend
the law and not the Court vide State of Jharkhand & Anr. vs. Govind Singh JT 2004(10) SC 349.
In Jinia Keotin vs. K.S. Manjhi, 2003 (1) SCC 730, this Court observed :
" The Court cannot legislate under the garb of interpretation".
Hence, there should be judicial restraint in this connection, and the temptation to do judicial
legislation should be eschewed by the Courts. In fact, judicial legislation is an oxymoron.
In Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society vs. Swaraj Developers AIR 2003 SC 2434, this
Court observed:
"It is a well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision
which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed
in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent."
Where the language is clear, the intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the language
used vide Grasim Industries Limited vs. Collector of Customs 2002 (4) SCC 297 and Union of
India vs. Hamsoli Devi 2002 (7) SCC 273.

6.CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID INVALIDITY-
It is the duty of the Court to endeavor as far as possible to construe a statute in such a manner
that the construction results in validity rather than its invalidity and gives effect to the manifest
Intention of the Legislature enacting that statute. An interpretation leading to the failure of the
plain intention of the Legislature by reason of a slight in exactitude in the language of the
provision should be avoided. A statute is designed to be workable, and the interpretation thereof
by a Court should be to secure that object, unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that
end unattainable.
The reason behind the maxim is that it is to be presumed that the Legislature or other legislative
authority would not make an infructuous or unconstitutional provision. The words of a statute
must be construed so as to give sensible meaning to them. An interpretation which would defeat
the purpose of the statutory provision and, in effect obliterate it from the statute book should be
eschewed. If more than one construction is possible, the one which preserves its workability and
efficacy should be preferred to the other which would render it otiose or sterile.

Thus, an Act of Legislature must be so interpreted, wherever possible, so as to make it
constitutional rather than unconstitutional. Likewise, a rule, i.e. a piece of delegated legislation,
should be so interpreted as to make it not only constitutional but also within the authority
conferred by the Legislature on the Government while conferring on it the power to make rules.

CONCLUSION
The art of interpretation is a remarkable tool to paint citizens life with numerous beneficial
colors of joy, peace and happiness. Indian judiciary has wonderfully endorsed Indian Statutes
with a manner which is fair, reasonable and in conformity with the purpose for which the law is
framed. Here, it is not to suggest that judicial interpretation has never been erroneous or never
resulted into absurdity but is to simply indicate that to make sense out of miserably worded
statute, where the purpose of the statute was apparent, judicial violence with the language has
paid rich dividends for the country. In light of which, we can simply hope that statutory
endorsement by judiciary will continue because a statute can never be exhaustive and legislative
incapacity to speculate all the possible situations that may arise in a future and in myriad
circumstances will always leave a wide scope for interpretation. This gap will ensure that the
interpretation by judiciary in the future will yield fruit bearing results for all.
But, we should focus upon that this special art of interpretation having many brushes should be
prevented to indulge in any sort of controversy. This art should not be used to make painting
boards (to make law); the real use of this art lies in painting a board (in interpretation) which it
can very well do with the brushes (rules/doctrines of interpretation) which has been the prime
focused in the whole submission.
Lastly, the whole interpretative mechanism discussed in the present paper is a key to conveying
difficult and technical task of understanding and reading between the lines of statute into an easy
one.

BIBILIOGRAPHY:
Introduction to the interpretation of statutes, Third Edition, Dr.Avatar Singh
www.lawyersclubindia.com