 ASSIGNMENT: RULES OF

INTERPRETATION
 NAME OF STUDENT:DIKSHA
KUCHIYA
SUBMITTED
TO:AVISHA MAM
SYNOPSIS-

1 INTRODUCTION…………….
2.RULES OF INTERPRETATION
- LITERAL RULE
1.MEANING
2.ADVANTAGES
3.DISADVANTAGES
4.CASELAWS
-GOLDEN RULE..
1.MEANING
2.ADVANTAGES
3. DISADVANTAGES
4.CASELAWS
-MISCHEIF RULE…
1.MEANING
2.ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
3.CASELAWS
-HARMONIOUS RULE….
1.MEANING
2..PRINCIPLES
3.CASELAWS…
3.CONCLUSION……….
 DEPARTMENT OF LAW

DECLARATION

I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ASSIGNMENT TITLED “RULES OF

INTERPRETATION” STUDY IS AN ORIGINAL PIECE OF WORK DONE BY
ME FOR THE FULFILMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF LAW.AND WHATEVER INFORMATION HAS BEEN
TAKEN FROM ANY SOURCES HAD BEEN DULY ACKNOWLEDGE.
I FURTHER DECLARE THAT, THIS ASSIGNMENT IS
PREPARED FOR ACEDEMIC PURPOSE ONLY.

DIKSHA KUCHIYA
 Acknowledgement

I SINCERELY THANKS TO MY LECTURER Ms AVISHA BARANGE WHO

HELPED ME A LOT IN MAKING OF THIS ASSIGNMENT.I HAVE
LEARNED DIFFERENT THINGS WHILE DOING THIS ASSIGNMENT
ABOUT RULES OF INTREPRETATION WITH THE HELP OF BOOKS AND
SITES, THESE THINGS HELPED ME TO MAKE ASSIGNMENT
SUCCESSFUL.

STUDENT NAME
DIKSHA KUCHIYA
  Interpretation of Statutes and its Rules-

 INTRODUCTION-. 

The term has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’, which means to explain,
expound, understand, or to translate. Interpretation is the process of explaining, expounding
and translating any text or anything in written form. This basically involves an act of
discovering the true meaning of the language which has been used in the statute. Various
sources used are only limited to explore the written text and clarify what exactly has been
indicated by the words used in the written text or the statutes.
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 to suit from case to case. It is also used for
ascertaining the actual connotation of any Act or document with the actual intention
of the legislature.
There can be mischief in the statute which is required to be cured, and this can be
done by applying various norms and theories of interpretation which might go against
the literal meaning at times. The purpose behind interpretation is to clarify the
meaning of the words used in the statutes which might not be that clear.

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

 Rules of Interpretation-

o Literal or Grammatical Rule-

It is the first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the words used in this text
are to be given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. After the
interpretation, if the meaning is completely clear and unambiguous then the effect
shall be given to a provision of a statute regardless of what may be the
consequences.
The basic rule is that whatever the intention legislature had while making any
provision it has been expressed through words and thus, are to be interpreted
according to the rules of grammar. It is the safest rule of interpretation of statutes
because the intention of the legislature is deduced from the words and the language
used.
According to this rule, the only duty of the court is to give effect if the language of the
statute is plain and has no business to look into the consequences which might
arise. The only obligation of the court is to expound the law as it is and if any harsh
consequences arise then the remedy for it shall be sought and looked out by the
legislature.
 Case Laws
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay,  In this case, the appellant, a citizen of
India after arriving at the airport did not declare that he was carrying gold with him.
During his search was carried on, gold was found in his possession as it was against
the notification of the government and was confiscated under section 167(8) of Sea
Customs Act.  
Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulations Act, 1947.  The appellant challenged this trial to be violative
under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution. According to this article, no person
shall be punished or prosecuted more than once for the same offence. This is
considered as double jeopardy.
It was held by the court that the Seas Act neither a court nor any judicial tribunal.
Thus, accordingly, he was not prosecuted earlier. Hence, his trial was held to be
valid.
Manmohan Das versus Bishan Das, AIR 1967 SC 643
The issue in the case was regarding the interpretation of section 3(1)(c) of U.P
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. In this case, a tenant was liable for evidence
if he has made addition and alternate in the building without proper authority and
unauthorized perception as materially altered the accommodation or is likely to
diminish its value.  The appellant stated that only the constitution can be covered,
which diminishes the value of the property and the word ‘or’ should be read as land.
It was held that as per the rule of literal interpretation, the word ‘or’ should be given
the meaning that a prudent man understands the grounds of the event are
alternative and not combined.
State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others, 1987 AIR 33 SCR(1) 317,   in this
case a person was caught along with the counterfeit currency “dollars” and he was
charged under section 120B, 498A, 498C and 420  read with section 511 and 34 of
Indian Penal Code for possessing counterfeit currency. The accused contended
before the court that a charge under section 498A and 498B of Indian Penal Code
can only be levied in the case of counterfeiting of Indian currency notes and not in
the case of counterfeiting of foreign currency notes. The court held that the word
currency notes or bank note cannot be prefixed. The person was held liable to be
charge-sheeted.

 Disadvantages of the Literal rule-

There can be a disagreement as to what amounts to the ordinary or natural meaning.

R v Maginnis (1987) AC 303

Creates loopholes in the law.

Fisher v Bell (1961) QB 394
A shopkeeper was prosecuted for offering to sell an offensive weapon in the
showcase which is an offence of a Restriction of Offensive Weapon Act 1959. The
court held that ‘offer of sale’ must take its ordinary meaning in law therefore does not
coincide with an invitation to treat.

Lead to injustice. London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman (1946) AC 278
Creates awkward precedents which require Parliamentary time to correct.

Fails to recognise the complexities and limitation of English language.

Undermines public confidence in the law

 Advantages of the Literal rule-

Restricts the role of the judge

Provides no scope for judges to use their own opinions or prejudices

Upholds the separation of power

o The Mischief Rule-

Mischief Rule was originated in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is the rule of purposive
construction because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying this
rule. It is known as Heydon’s rule because it was given by Lord Poke in Heydon’s
case in 1584. It is called as mischief rule because the focus is on curing the mischief.
In the Heydon’s case, it was held that there are four things which have to be followed
for true and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as follows-
1. What was the common law before the making of an act.
2. What was the mischief for which the present statute was enacted.
3. What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved and appointed to
cure the disease of the commonwealth.
4. The true reason of the remedy.
The purpose of this rule is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
 Case laws
Smith v. Huges, 1960 WLR 830, in this case around the 1960s, the prostitutes were
soliciting in the streets of London and it was creating a huge problem in London. This
was causing a great problem in maintaining law and order. To prevent this problem,
Street Offences Act, 1959 was enacted. After the enactment of this act, the
prostitutes started soliciting from windows and balconies.
Further, the prostitutes who were carrying on to solicit from the streets and balconies
were charged under section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that
they were not solicited from the streets.
The court held that although they were not soliciting from the streets yet
the mischief rule must be applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall
look into this issue. Thus, by applying this rule, the court held that the windows and
balconies were taken to be an extension of the word street and charge sheet was
held to be correct.
Pyare Lal v. Ram Chandra, the accused in this case, was prosecuted for selling the
sweeten supari which was sweetened with the help of an artificial sweetener. He was
prosecuted under the Food Adulteration Act. It was contended by Pyare Lal that
supari is not a food item. The court held that the dictionary meaning is not always the
correct meaning, thereby, the mischief rule must be applicable, and the interpretation
which advances the remedy shall be taken into consideration. Therefore, the court
held that the word ‘food’ is consumable by mouth and orally. Thus, his prosecution
was held to be valid.
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 SC 871.
Issues of the case were as follows- section 418 of Delhi Corporation Act, 1902
authorised the corporation to round up the cattle grazing on the government land.
The MCD rounded up the cattle belonging to Kanwar Singh. The words used in the
statute authorised the corporation to round up the abandoned cattle. It was
contended by Kanwar Singh that the word abandoned means the loss of ownership
and those cattle which were round up belonged to him and hence, was not
abandoned. The court held that the mischief rule had to be applied and the word
abandoned must be interpreted to mean let loose or left unattended and even
the temporary loss of ownership would be covered as abandoned.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sri Krishna Manufacturing
Company, AIR 1962 SC  1526, Issue, in this Case, was that the respondent
concerned was running a factory where four units were for manufacturing. Out of
these four units one was for paddy mill, other three consisted of flour mill, saw mill
and copper sheet units. The number of employees there were more than 50. The
RPFC applied the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 thereby
directing the factory to give the benefits to the employees.
The person concerned segregated the entire factory into four separate units wherein
the number of employees had fallen below 50, and he argued that the provisions
were not applicable to him because the number is more than 50 in each unit. It was
held by the court that the mischief rule has to be applied and all the four units must
be taken to be one industry, and therefore, the applicability of PFA was upheld.

 Disadvantages of the Mischief rule-

Creates a crime after the event thus infringing the rule of law.
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597

Gives judges a law making role infringing the separation of power.

Judges can bring their own views, sense of morality and prejudices to a case.

 Advantages of the Mischief rule-

Closes loopholes

Allows the law to develop and adapt to changing needs.

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981) 2 WLR 279
In the Abortion Act 1967, it is legal to carry out an abortion if there is a registered
medical practitioner. Therefore the procedure can be carry out by nurses with the
supervision of a doctor. If this case was adopted under the literal rule, the practice
will be illegal but under the mischief rule no illegality occurred.

o The Golden Rule-

It is known as the golden rule because it solves all the problems of interpretation.
The rule says that to start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the
interpretation given through the literal rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity,
injustice, inconvenience, hardship, inequity, then in all such events the literal
meaning shall be discarded and interpretation shall be done in such a manner that
the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled.
The literal rule follows the concept of interpreting the natural meaning of the words
used in the statute. But if interpreting natural meaning leads to any sought of
repugnance, absurdity or hardship, then the court must modify the meaning to the
extent of injustice or absurdity caused and no further to prevent the consequence.
This rule suggests that the consequences and effects of interpretation deserve a lot
more important because they are the clues of the true meaning of the words used by
the legislature and its intention. At times, while applying this rule, the interpretation
done may entirely be opposite of the literal rule, but it shall be justified because of
the golden rule.  The presumption here is that the legislature does not intend certain
objects. Thus, any such interpretation which leads to unintended objects shall be
rejected.
 Case laws
Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 850
In this case, there was an issue with regard to issuing of the notice under section 99
of Representation of People’s Act, 1951, with regard to corrupt practices involved
in the election.
According to the rule, the notice shall be issued to all those persons who are a party
to the election petition and at the same time to those who are not a party to it. Tirath
Singh contended that no such notice was issued to him under the said provision. The
notices were only issued to those who were non-parties to the election petition. This
was challenged to be invalid on this particular ground.
The court held that what is contemplated is giving of the information and the
information even if it is given twice remains the same. The party to the petition is
already having the notice regarding the petition, therefore, section 99 shall be so
interpreted by applying the golden rule that notice is required against non-parties
only.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company, AIR 1967 SC
276, Issues of the case are as follows.
A transporting company was carrying a parcel of apples was challenged and charge-
sheeted. The truck of the transporting company was impounded as the parcel
contained opium along with the apples. At the same time, the invoice shown for the
transport consisted of apples only.
Section 11 of the opium act 1878, all the vehicles which transport the contraband
articles shall be impounded and articles shall be confiscated. It was confiscated by
the transport company that they were unaware of the fact that opium was loaded
along with the apples in the truck.
The court held that although the words contained in section 11 of the said act
provided that the vehicle shall be confiscated but by applying the literal rule of
interpretation for this provision it is leading to injustice and inequity and therefore,
this interpretation shall be avoided. The words ‘shall be confiscated’ should be
interpreted as ‘may be confiscated’.
State of Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, a period of limitation
was prescribed for, under section 18 of land acquisition act, 1844, that an appeal
shall be filed for the announcement of the award within 6 months of the
announcement of the compensation. Award was passed in the name of Quiser
Jehan. It was intimated to her after the period of six months about this by her
counsel. The appeal was filed beyond the period of six months. The appeal was
rejected by the lower courts.
It was held by the court that the period of six months shall be counted from the time
when Quiser Jehan had the knowledge because the interpretation was leading to
absurdity. The court by applying the golden rule allowed the appeal.

 Disadvantages of the Golden rule-

Judges are unable to change or add meaning to statutes and thereby become law
makers infringing the separate of power.

Judges have no power to intervene for pure injustice where there is no absurdity.

 Advantages of the Golden rule-

Errors in drafting can be corrected immediately.

In the case of Adler v George (1964) 2 QBD 7

It was claimed that the defendant was convicted of an offence contrary to section 3
of the Official Secret Act 1920, in the vicinity of a prohibited place. He argued that he
was “on the station” and could not be “in the vicinity” of the station. The court held
that the words “in the vicinity” of the station should be interpreted to mean ‘on’ or
‘near’ the prohibited place and therefore he was found guilty.

Decisions are generally more in line with Parliament’s intention.

Closes loopholes.

Often gives a more just result.

Bring common sense to the law

o Harmonious Construction-
o
According to this rule of interpretation, when two or more provisions of the same
statute are repugnant to each other, then in such a situation the court, if possible, will
try to construe the provisions in such a manner as to give effect to both the
provisions by maintaining harmony between the two. The question that the two
provisions of the same statute are overlapping or mutually exclusive may be difficult
to determine.
The legislature clarifies its intention through the words used in the provision of the
statute. So, here the basic principle of harmonious construction is that the legislature
could not have tried to contradict itself. In the cases of interpretation of the
Constitution, the rule of harmonious construction is applied many times.
It can be assumed that if the legislature has intended to give something by one, it
would not intend to take it away with the other hand as both the provisions have
been framed by the legislature and absorbed the equal force of law. One provision of
the same act cannot make the other provision useless. Thus, in no circumstances,
the legislature can be expected to contradict itself.
 Cases –
Ishwari Khaitan Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh,  in this case, the State
Government proposed to acquire sugar industries under U.P Sugar Undertakings
(Acquisition) Act,  1971. This was challenged on the ground that these sugar
industries were declared to be a controlled one by the union under Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. And accordingly, the state did not have
the power of acquisition of requisition of property which was under the control of the
union. The Supreme Court held that the power of acquisition was not occupied
by Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The state had a
separate power under Entry 42 List III.
M.S.M Sharma v. Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395.
Facts of the case are as follows- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for
freedom of speech and expression. Article 194(3) provides to the Parliament for
punishing for its contempt and it is known as the Parliamentary Privilege. In this
case, an editor of a newspaper published the word -for- word record of the
proceedings of the Parliament including those portions which were expunged from
the record. He was called for the breach of parliamentary privilege.
He contended that he had a fundamental right to speech and expression. It was held
by the court that article 19(1)(a)  itself talks about reasonable freedom and therefore
freedom of speech and expression shall pertain only to those portions which have
not been expunged on the record but not beyond that.

The important aspects of this principle are –

1. The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and
they must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.
2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in
another unless the court, despite all its effort, 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 as 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 provision to a
useless number or a dead lumbar, is not harmonious construction.
5. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it loose.
  Conclusion-

Every nation has its own judicial system, the purpose of which to grant justice to all.
The court aims to interpret the law in such a manner that every citizen is ensured
justice to all. To ensure justice to all the concept of canons of interpretation was
expounded. These are the rules which are evolved for determining the real intention
of the legislature.
It is not necessary that the words used in a statute are always clear, explicit and
unambiguous and thus, in such cases it is very essential for courts to determine a
clear and explicit meaning of the words or phrases used by the legislature and at the
same time remove all the doubts if any. Hence, all the rules mentioned in the article
are important for providing justice.

 BIBILIOGRAPHY:-
http://www.caaa.in/Image/Interpretation%20of%20Statutes.pdf
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1545/Enabling-Statute:-
Rules-of-Interpretation.html
https://www.legalbites.in/library-interpretation-of-statutes/