1 2

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Secondary rule of Interpretation

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Rubia Jabeen Pranav Shrivastava

Assistant Professor B.A.LL.B (S.F) VI

SEM

Faculty of Law ROLL.39

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA 20178932

1|Page
 Table of Content

1.INTRODUCTION 3-4
1.i Meaning
1.ii Interpretation
1.iii Need
2.Rule of Interpretation 4-5

3. Secondary rule of Interpretation 5-9

4. Conclusion 9
5. Bibliography 10

1.Introduction:

2|Page
 A Statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a
country, state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit
something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by
legislative bodies from the judicial decisions of the common law and the
regulations issued by Government agencies.

[Black, Henry Campbell (1990). Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]

1.i) Meaning: A statute, or statutory law, is a law that has been enacted by a legislature,
which is the body that has been granted the power by a constitution to enact legislation, or
laws. The federal legislature of the United States is the United States Congress. Each state
has its own legislature, which enacts laws for that state. Once enacted by the legislature,
statutes are signed into law by the chief member of the executive branch - the president for
federal statutes and the governor for state statutes. Statutes are drawn together and
organized by subject in what are called codes.

Simply put, a statute is a specific statement of the law on a particular issue. For example, a
state statute might state that a dog owner is liable for any injury caused if his or her dog
bites someone if the owner already knew about the dog's dangerous biting propensity. This
state statute would be binding for all citizens of that state

A statute is a will of legislature conveyed in the form of text. The Constitution of India does
not use the term ‘Statute’ but it uses the term ‘law’. ‘Law’ includes any ordinance, order,
bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law. [Article 13
(3) (a) of the constitution). Therefore, a Statute is the will of the legislature and Indian
Statute is an Act of the Central or State Legislature. Statutes include Acts passed by the
Imperial or Provincial Legislature in Pre-Independence days as well as Regulations. Statutes
generally refer to the laws and regulations of every sort, every provision of law which
permits or prohibit anything.

1.ii) Interpretation: According to its dictionary meaning, interpretation is an act of

explaining the meaning of a thing. In legal context, interpretation means the act of
interpreting and deciphering the intent behind a statute. The term ‘interpretation’ has its
roots in the Latin word ‘interpretari’ which means to explain, or to translate. The main aim
of interpreting a statute is to determine the intention behind the law.

3|Page
The government is made up of three branches,

1. The Legislature, 
2. The Executive, and
3. The Judiciary.

These three branches perform different functions. The legislature makes the laws, the
executive implements the laws that are made and the judiciary interprets the laws and
makes them operational.

1.III) Need: Drafting a law is a complex task, the legislature has to keep in mind thousands
of scenarios so that the legislation drafted is complete in itself. In an ideal world, the
meaning of the statute would be clear and direct. In the real world that we live in, most of
the times the law drafted is complicated and vague.

Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher

In this case, the need for interpretation of statutes was highlighted. It was stated that when
a defect appears in a statute, the judge cannot simply wash his hands off the responsibility
and blame the legislature, he should interpret the statute by finding the intent behind it.
The judge should not only focus on the language of the statute but also on the social
considerations that made the parliament draft a particular statute.

2 .Rules of Interpretation:

There are certain general principles of interpretation which have been applied by Courts from
time to time. Over time, various methods of statutory construction have fallen in and out of
favour. To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include "definitions" sections within a statute,
which explicitly define the most important terms used in that statute. But some statutes omit a
definitions section entirely, or (more commonly) fail to define a particular term. The plain
meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a
term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself.
According to Viscount Haldane, L.C., if the language used has a natural meaning we cannot

4|Page
depart from that 3meaning unless, reading the statute as a whole, the context directs us to do
so. According to the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words
must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. If the words are clear, they must be
applied, even though the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result is
harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law means.

3.Secondry rules of interpretation: The rules or maxims or concepts that come

within this category of rules of interpretation are generally considered as “Secondary” or
“Subordinate” principles of interpretation,The most important threat for court while
interpreting statute in to find the “intention of the legislature, Maxims help to elaborate the
meaning of individual words and phrases by drawing certain inferences.

Rules other than primary rules are secondary rules. These include:

1. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

2. Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege
3. Noscitur a Sociis

expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege

Noscitur a Sociis

3.i) Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius [ the express mention of one person or a thing is
the exclusion of another].

3
4 Roscoe Pound – Jurisprudence Ibid, p. 467-468 15 Roscoe Pound: Jurisprudence, Vol. I, 1959 Edition, p. 166
16 Dias – jurisprudence, 5th Edition, 1994, p. 166

5|Page
  In an old English statute. (The Poor Relief Act 1601), Section 1 provided that
every occupier of lands, houses, col mines or salable under wood should be rated
for the relief of the poor, it was decided by the HOL that as “coal mines” alone
were mentioned in the Act as being ratable “iron mines” are not included.
 In yet another English cases decided in 1855 an Act imposed a rate on houses,
buildings, works and tenants but exempted land it was construed to mean land
without buildings, houses or workers upon it.

Rex v Sec of State for the Home Dep – Section 2 (3) of Immigration Act stated the word
‘parent’ means the mother of an illegitimate child, by implication excluded the father.

In some occasions the legislature may have included a specific reference to a certain subject
matter with the intention of limiting the scope of the statute to those matters only for
example;

An hypothetical situation would be “candidates for the Commissioner General post should
be of age 50 with a university qualification, this denotes the fact that not only would the
eligibility criteria be attainment of the required age, but specific reference is endorsed by
the legislature in regards to the qualification.

In light of the above example, this maxim can be used as a guiding hand rather than a
product on its own.However, this maxim will have to be applied with extreme caution and
should not be used in situations such as;

i. In the intention of the legislature did not mean that the express mention of one
thing should operate to exclude all others, if so the principle should not be
applied.
ii. Where the statutory language is plain and the meaning is clear.

Comment :The maxim should only be used to ascertain the legislative intent. This is not a rule of
law but only a rule of construction].

3.ii) Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima In Lege: It means that the best way
to construe a document is to read it as it would have read when made. The doctrine of
Contemporanea expositio is well known for interpreting a statute by reference to the
exposition it has received from contemporary authority however it should give way where
the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. It is considered to be the best

6|Page
exposition of a statute or any other document is that which it has received from the
authority which is competent enough. The words of a statute should be construed in such a
manner 4that it had been held by the person creating such statue in the true sense. It is
considered as if as they would have been as constructed as the day after the statute was
passed. The rule is that a statute must be considered in the light of all circumstances existing
at the time of its enactment. Therefore giving the meaning to the words that it had when
the statutes were constructed follows logically, and the courts have so held. The maxim
aims at expressing that the words of an Act will generally be understood in the sense which
they bore when it was passed. The maxim is based on the principal as stated by Salmond
that “the essence of law lies in the spirit, not its letter, for the letter is significant only as
being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it” Interpretation is
considered to be the way of finding out the true sense of an enactment by the virtue of
recognising the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in any enactment. In other
words it is observed as the process of ascertaining and finding out the true meaning of the
words used in any statute. The Court over the years has laid down many principals for
interpretation, so that the interpretation does not amounts to be arbitrarily. Thus the
maxim Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima In Lege which means that
contemporaneous exposition is best and most powerful in law is formed.

In the case of A. P. Rangaswamy v State of Karnataka and ors . it was observed that
when public premises is leased or sold or mortgaged to some persons, it is to
be done only under the provisions of law. Leasing the property of the
Government or Municipality or Corporation, which is a public property, shall
be on the basis of distributive order and the persons of the society from
different walks of life should be given an opportunity. When the premises is
granted to a particular person, he has to utilise the same and shall also give an

4
N.S Bindra ( Interpretation of statute ,Lexis nexis 10th edn 2008)
B. A.B kafaltiya ( Interpretation of statute, Universal law publication, 2 nd
edn)

7|Page
opportunity to other persons who are in queue. When an agreement is
entered into between the parties in clear terms, the agreement prevails over
unless it is alleged that the agreement itself is fraud, or etc. The period of
occupation is four years eleven months and the said period had expired and
thereafter if there is any continuation, the same shall be only on the basis of
renewal of licence or p ermission by open expression. No such permission is
granted or renewal is made, under these circumstances, petitioners have
approached this Court which is quite contrary to the agreement entered into.
The maxim “Conventio et modus vincunt legem” i.e A contract and agreement
overcome the law;
and Conventio  privatorum non  potest publico juri derogare  i.e. An agreement
of private persons cannot derogate from public right would apply in all fours to
these cases. Under these circumstances, petitions fail and accordingly are
liable.

In Maa Binda Express Carrier and another v. North-East Frontier Railway and others [3] the
court held that It is well settled position of law that as per the series of
decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of
award of contracts, the Government and its agency, have to act reasonably
and fairly at all points of time and to that extent the tender has an
enforceable right in the court which is competent to examine whether the
aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the
detriment of public interest

3.i Noscitur a Sociis principle ()

This is a situation where a meaning is given to a word by looking at its “context”. One of the
main reason for the application of this principle is because a word of a wide possible
meaning may be given a limited meaning by looking at the context in which it appears.

8|Page
Prior v Sherwood the court held that a prohibition against betting in any “house, office
room or place” did not extend to public lane.

The possible wide meaning that could have been given to the word “place” was limited by
its use in conjunction with “house, office, and room”, which the court considered to be an
enclosed or definable area.

Rex v Harris –

 There was a section in a particular statute which made it an offence to “shoot at or

to stab, cut or wound any person”.
 When interpreting the word “wound” is restricted by the words which proceeded it
because those specific words involving the using of any instrument or weapon to
inflict the wound. Consequently it was the view of the court that the biting of a
finger or a nose or the burning of a face was considered not to be words “wound”
coming within the meaning of that section.

Commissioner v Savoy Hotel

 A provision of a statute which uses the words “manufactured beverages including
fruit juices and bottle water and syrups”. The court held that the distinction of “fruit
juices should be construed of in the context of the preceding words and that orange
juice unsweetened and freshly pressed was not within the description .

Conclusion: Complex nature of the statute after being subjected to changes can result in
vagueness. This can result in the need for correct interpretationAnticipating every possible
version of a particular case can result in incoherence and such gaps in the law demand a
right interpretation of the law. The use of certain words can lead to mistakes and the parties
might utilize the various meanings to their advantage and it becomes the liability of the
court to interpret the right meaning for further use.

9|Page
 BIBLIOGRAPHY5

BOOKS:

A. N.S Bindra ( Interpretation of statute ,Lexis nexis 10th edn 2008)

B. A.B kafaltiya ( Interpretation of statute, Universal law publication, 2 nd
edn)

CASES:

A.Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher

B.Rex v Sec of State for the Home Dep
  C. A. P. Rangaswamy v State of Karnataka and ors. 
D.Maa Binda Express Carrier and another v. North-East Frontier
Railway and others

10 | P a g e