INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND JUDICIAL PROCESS

SPRING 2022
(AY 2021-22)

COURSE INSTRUCTORS:
Abhishek Mishra, Anurag Bhasker, Ajita Sharma, Dharmita Prasad, Khushboo Chauhan,
Kshitij Bansal, Praggya Surana, Raabia Abuzer Shams, Rakesh Singh, Satya Prateek

1
 CONTENTS

Particulars Page
Part I
General Information 3
Part II
A Course Description 4
B Course Aims and Intended Outcomes 5
C Course Texts 5
D Grading of Student Achievement 5
E A word of caution on Online Resources 6
Part III
A Keyword Syllabus 7
B Academic Integrity and Plagiarism 7
C Disability Support and Accommodation requirements 7
D Course Communication 8
E Weekly Course Outline 9
Part IV
Lecture Programs and Reading Materials 10-16

2
PART I

General Information

Information on Interpretation of Statutes and Judicial Process offered by Jindal Global

Law School in the Spring Semester of 2022.

The information provided herein is by the Course Coordinator. The following information contains
the official record of the details of the course.

Course Title: Interpretation of Statutes and Judicial Process

Course Code: L-CT-0018
Course Duration: One Semester
No. of Credit Units: 4 credits
Level: Undergraduate
Medium of Instruction: English
Pre-requisites: A Basic Understanding of Law Subjects till 3rd Year of the 5 year program
Pre-cursors: Nil
Equivalent Courses: Nil
Exclusive Courses: Nil

The above information shall form part of the University database and may be uploaded to
Dspace into the KOHA Library system and catalogued and may be distributed amongst Law
students for B.A. (Hons) in Legal Studies; B.A.LL.B./B.B.A.LL.B.; LL.B.; LL.M. courses if
necessary.

3
PART II

A. Course Description
This course introduces students to various theories of judicial process and canons of
statutory interpretation. The aim of the course is to help students understand the nature and limits
of interpretation and the structure of legal reasoning, besides applying various principles and rules
of interpretation to justify claims about law. The course engages with various judicial approaches
to canons of construction as well as the assumptions and implications of these approaches.
This course is a cross-cutting one, relevant to the understanding of statutory interpretation
and judicial process in all other law courses. As this is a course traversing different sub-fields
within the study of law, the focus will be on the standards and protocols of reasoning within the
field rather than the doctrines and precedents related to it. While we might cover cases from Labour
Law, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Family Law and Transfer of Property Act to name a few
fields, none of these fields will be revised or examined in detail. A basic knowledge of these
subjects is a prerequisite for this course as our engagement with interpretation and reasoning will
build upon it. A significant part of the course discusses the presuppositions, frameworks and limits
of interpretation to understand its role in mediating arguments about truth, meaning and legality.
The readings also engage with the sources, kinds and possibilities of disagreement in debates about
law. The course holds relevance for legal practice by students in future as it aims to bring
coherence to legal arguments and reasoning. Students will learn how to channel their legal
arguments through the use of rules, principles and presumptions of interpretation, thus learning
how to draft good legal memos as lawyers or write sounds judgments as judges.
The course will also engage with various aspects of legislative drafting. Various legislations,
old and new, will be studied to familiarise the students with different parts of a legislation and
interpretive doctrines associated with them. A study of the canons of construction and their judicial
interpretation will reveal how ambiguities in the statute create difficulties in interpretation. There
are inherent limitations in language and the law-making process that are further compounded by
the uneven journey of law through a changing social and political landscape. Aiming to
develop an awareness of these limitations, the course will encourage students to think deeply about
better ways of drafting legislative provisions so as to give better and precise guidance to
prospective litigants, lawyers and judges.
The various theories of judicial process and interpretation will be introduced through the study
ofscholarly articles. The cannons of interpretation will be taught through a case-based study.
The specific canon will be introduced followed by an examination of select cases as examples of
the application of the canon. The emphasis will be on logical and critical reasoning and the ability
to apply the canons to reach a conclusion that can be justified within the boundaries of law. In
many ways, this is in equal parts a course on philosophical debates about legal reasoning and
interpretative principles as well as the practice of these principles in hard cases.
4
B. Course Aims and Intended Outcomes
The course seeks to:
1. Make students aware of the need for statutory interpretation given the imprecision of
language and impossibility of anticipating all future events.
2. Introduce students to various theories of interpretation and familiarize them with
assumptions and frameworks within which statutory interpretation operates.
3. Enable students to understand and apply various canons of statutory interpretation followed
in the common law legal system.
4. Encourage students to engage critically with court judgments and examine them for the
strength of their reasoning rather than the outcomes. Students will be expected to rewrite
landmark judgments to make them more coherent and persuasive.
5. Develop among students the skills to analyze labyrinthine legislations and court judgments
and distinguish precedents from similar cases, ratio decidendi from obiter dicta etc.

C. Course Texts:
There is no compulsory core text for this course. This is partly as the course combines both theory
and assumptions and frameworks within which statutory interpretation. If students would like a
more in-depth resource here are some recommendations below:
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (14th edition, 2016)
• Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation of Statutes (5th ed. 2010)

All of the core course readings will be available for download on One Drive – the hyperlink
will be shared with students separately.

D. Grading
To pass this course, students must obtain University mandated passing grades in the final
assessment. Coursework for this purpose means those ways in which students are assessed
otherwise than by the end of session examination. These could include reaction papers, class
participation, tutorial presentations, group work and a final research paper.

Internal Assessment: 50%

End-semester Exam: 50%

Grading of Student Achievement

The details of the grades as well as the criteria for awarding such grades are provided as follows:

5
 Percentage Grade Grade Grade Definitions
of Marks Value
80 and O 8 Sound knowledge of the subject matter, excellent
above organizational capacity, ability to synthesize ideas, rules and
principles, critically analyse existing materials and
originality in thinking and presentation.
75 to 79 A+ 7.5 Sound knowledge of the subject matter, thorough
understanding of issues; ability to synthesize ideas, rules and
principles and critical and analytical ability.
70 to 74 A 7 Good understanding of the subject matter, ability to identify
issues and provide balanced solutions to problems and good
critical and analytical skills.
65 to 69 A- 6 Adequate knowledge of the subject matter to go to the next
level of study and reasonable critical and analytical skills.
60 to 64 B+ 5 Decent knowledge of the subject matter but average critical and
analytical skills.
55 to 59 B 4 Limited knowledge of the subject matter and irrelevant
use of materials and, poor critical and analytical skills.
50 to 54 B- 3 Poor comprehension of the subject matter; poor critical and
analytical skills and marginal use of the relevant materials. Will
require repeating the course.
Below 50 F 0 None of the Above

E. A word of caution on Online resources

Online sources can be classified into reliable, unreliable and outright bogus. Therefore, caution
must be exercisedbefore relying on online resources. Academic journals are reliable for arguments
whereas newspapers and magazines might exhaust their utility beyond facts. Websites such as
Wikipedia are not always reliable. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is a credible online
resource for conceptual debates on law, language, interpretivism and meaning. Students should
always consult with the instructors about the veracity and authenticity of a particular website and
its suitability for researching topics covered in this syllabus.

6
 PART III

A. Keyword Syllabus:
Statutory Interpretation, Making Sense, Coherence, Truth, Meaning, Intent, Discretion, Bias,
Consequences of Interpretation, Hermeneutic Circle, Web of Beliefs, Part and Whole Dynamic,
Aharon Barak, Originalism, Separation of Powers, Statutory Purpose, Golden Rule, Constitutional
Interpretation, Mischief Rule, Ronald Dworkin, Ejusdem Generis, Presumptions, Internal Aids,
External Aids, Foreign Precedents, Disagreement in Interpretation, Chain Novel, Definitions,
Provisos, Practical Reasoning, William Eskridge, Comparative Borrowing

B. Academic Integrity and Plagiarism

Learning and knowledge production of any kind is a collaborative process. Collaboration
demands an ethical responsibility to acknowledge who we have learnt from, what we have learned,
and how reading and learning from others have helped us shape our own ideas. Even our own ideas
demand an acknowledgement of the sources and processes through which those ideas have emerged.
Thus, all ideas must be supported by citations. All ideas borrowed from articles, books, journals,
magazines, case laws, statutes, photographs, films, paintings, etc., in print or online, must be credited
with the original source. If the source or inspiration of your idea is a friend, a casual chat, something
that you overheard, or heard being discussed at a conference or in class, even they must be duly
credited. If you paraphrase or directly quote from a web source in the examination, presentation or
essays, the source must be acknowledged. The university has a framework to deal with cases of
plagiarism. All forms of plagiarism will be taken seriously by the University and prescribed sanctions
will be imposed on those who commit plagiarism.

C. Disability Support and Accommodation Requirements

JGU endeavors to make all its courses accessible to students. All students with any known
disability needing academic accommodation are required to register with the Disability Support
Committee [email protected]. The Committee has so far identified the following conditions that could
possibly hinder student’s overall well-being. These include: physical and mobility related
difficulties; visual impairment; hearing impairment; medical conditions; specific learning difficulties
e.g. dyslexia; mental health.
The Disability Support Committee maintains strict confidentiality on the matters under its
purview. Students should preferably register with the Committee during the month of June/January
as disability accommodation requires early planning. DSC will coordinate all disability related
services such as appointment of academic mentors, arranging infrastructural facilities, and course
related requirements such as special lectures, tutorials and examinations.

7
 All faculty members are requested to refer students with any of the above-mentioned conditions
to the Disability Support Committee for getting them disability-related accommodation. Faculty
members are also requested to be sensitive to the needs of such students and cooperate with the
Disability Support Committee and the School, extending students the necessary support by
maintaining utmost confidentiality of the matter.

Safe Space Pledge

It is incumbent upon all within the classroom to pledge to maintain respect towards our peers.
This does not mean that you need to feel restrained about what you feel and what you want to say.
Conversely, this is about creating a safe space where everyone can speak and learn without
inhibitions and fear. This responsibility lies not only with students, but also with the instructor.

D. Course Communication
We are happy to meet with students during our office hours, which will be set in the first week
of the course. We are available to discuss issues relating to the course, as well as your academic
career more generally. Due to the peculiar nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, office hours will be
held online on MS Teams.
Please feel free to write to us to schedule meetings on MS Teams outside of office hours; please
address emails to the course instructor(s) for your class only.
If getting in touch by email, please note that we will try to respond within two business days.
Students should check the course One Drive on a regular basis, as items such as the following may
be posted throughout the year: additional tutorial readings, grading rubrics for essays, further
instructions for assignments, notifications of any changes in lecture or tutorial schedules, etc.

8
E. Weekly Course Outline

PART A: INTERPRETIVE THEORIES

Week 1 The need for Interpretation – The impossibility of Precision

Weeks 2-3 The Presuppositions and Frameworks of interpretation

Week 4 Truth and meaning in Interpretation

Week 5 Judges and Judicial reasoning

PART B: FRAMEWORKS OF INTERPRETATION

Week 6 Primary rules of I nterpretation

Week 7-8 Subsidiary rules of Interpretation

Week 9 Presumptions

Week 10 Internal aids to construction

Week 11 External aids to construction

Week 12 Interpretation of Penal and Remedial statutes

Week 13 Re-imagining Precedents

Week 14 Review

9
PART IV: Detailed Readings

PART A: INTERPRETIVE THEORIES `

WEEK 1: The need for Interpretation – The impossibility of Precision

Essential Readings:
• Case Discussion from Chapter 5 of Ronald Dworkin’s Law’s Empire – Elmer’s Case,
Snail Darter’s Case and McLoughlin Case.
• Andrew Morisson Stumpff, The Law is a Fractal: The Attempt to Anticipate Everything,44
LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 649 (Spring 2013).

Audio/visual resourse:
• Watch: Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer debate the Constitution (15 May, 2012)

Discussion:
How does the Pace of Technology and Social Evolution Interacts with Legislative Intent?

WEEKS 2-3: The Presuppositions and Frameworks of interpretation

Essential Readings:
• Paul Armstrong, The Conflict of Interpretations and the Limits of Pluralism, PMLA, Volume
98, No. 3, (May 1983), pp 341-52.
• Arie Rosen, Statutory Interpretation and the Many Virtues of Legislation, Oxford Journal of
Legal Studies, (2017) 37 (1), pp 134-62.

Discussion:
1. The Assumptions of Science and Religion: Truth, Belief and Rationality in a Community
2. Dealing with Disagreement in Interpretation: Utility and Futility of Dialogue

WEEK 4: Truth and meaning in Interpretation

Essential Reading:
• Ronald Dworkin, Law as Interpretation, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 9, No 1, (The Politics of
Interpretation), September 1982, pp 179-200.
10
Audio/visual resource:
• Watch: Ronald Dworkin, Is There Truth in Interpretation? Law, Literature and History (22
December, 2013).

Further Reading:
• William Eskridge, Gadamer/Statutory Interpretation, Columbia LawReview, Vol. 90, No.
3, pp 609-81.

Discussion: The Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine and Substantive Due Process in Indian
Constitutional Law

WEEK 5: Judges and Judicial reasoning

Essential Readings:
• William Eskridge Jr. & Philip Frickey, Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning,Yale
Law School Faculty Scholarship Series, January, 1990
• Antonin Scalia, The Dissenting Opinion, 1994 J. Sup. CT. Hist. 33 (1994).

Additional Reading:
• Aharon Barak, “What is Interpretation About?” & “Purpose in Law” in Purposive
Interpretation in Law, Universal Publishing (2008)

Discussion:
How do theories of statutory interpretation cabin judicial discretion? Which one ofthese theories
provides the most satisfactory account of discretion?

PART B: FRAMEWORKS OF INTERPRETATION

WEEK 6: Primary rules of Interpretation

Essential Reading:
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 85-113, 131- 154, (12th edition 2010)

Additional Reading:
• P. St. J. Langan, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, pages 44-45, 137-152 (2006
11
 edition)

Illustrative cases:
• Literal Rule
- B.N. Mutto v. T.K. Nandi, (1979) 1 SCC 361
- Ramavtar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1325
- M/s. Motipur Zamindary Co. (Private) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 660
- State of West Bengal v. Wasi Ahmed, (1977) 2 SCC 246
• Golden Rule
- Narayanaswami v. Pannersevan, (1972) 3 SCC 717
- S.R. Batra & Anr. v. Smt. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169
• Mischief Rule and Purposive Interpretation
- Heydon’s case, (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7
- R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. UOI, AIR 1957 SC 628
- Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661

WEEK 7-8: Subsidiary Rules of Interpretation

Essential Reading:
• Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation of Statutes, pages 30-236 (5th ed. 2010). Some of the
illustrative cases are also mentioned here.

Illustrative cases:
• Statute must be read as a whole
- Regional Provident Commr., Bombay v. Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co., AIR
1962 SC 1536
- Aswini Kumar v. Arbinda Bose AIR 1952 SC 369
- Poppat Lal Shah v. State of Madras AIR 1953 SC 274
• Rule of harmonious construction
- Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044
• A statute must be construed to make it effective and workable/Presumption of constitutional
validity/Ut res magis valeat quam pereat
- Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 666
- Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 661
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
- Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 2 SCC 22
12
 - Harish Chandra v. Triloki Singh AIR 1957SC 444
• Noscitur a sociis
- State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 610
- Ram Narain v. State of UP AIR 1957 SC 18
- Raghubans Narain v. State of U.P. AIR 1967 SC 465
- State of Assam v. Ranga Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 903
- Gammon India Ltd. v. UOI (1974) 1 SCC 596
- Commrs. v. Savoy Hotel, (1966) 2 All ER 299
- DPP v. Jordan, (1976) 3 All ER 775
• Ejusdem generis
- Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. UOI, AIR 1989 SC 1019
- Hamdard Dawakhana v. .UOI AIR 1965 SC 1167
- Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 521
- AG v. Brown, (1920) 1 KB 773

WEEK 9: Presumptions

Essential Reading:
• Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation of Statutes, pages 237-331 (5th ed. 2010)
• Retrospective Operation of statutes will be discussed using GPSingh’s textbook.

Additional Reading:
• P. St. J. Langan, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, pages 44-45, 137-152 (2006
edition)

Illustrative cases:
• Words in a statute are used precisely and not loosely
- Mayor, Councillors & Burgesses v. T Electric Power Board, AIR 1933 PC 216
• Mens Rea is generally required for a criminal act
- Hari Prasad Rao v. State, AIR 1951 SC 204
- Sarjoo Prasad v. State of UP, AIR 1961 SC 631
- Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881
• Vested Rights are not taken away without express words, necessary implication or
compensation.
- Radha Krishna Ayyar v. Sundaraswami Iyer AIR 1922 PC 257
13
 • Retrospective operation
- Pyare Lal sharma v. Managing Director, J&K Industries Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 1854
• Statutes are not intended to be inconsistent with international law
- ADM, Jabalpur v. Shiva Kant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521
• The legislature does not commit mistakes or make omissions
- Nalinakshya v. Shyam Sunder, AIR 1953 SC 148
- Narayanaswami v. Pannersevan, (1972) 3 SCC 717
• Presumptions relating to jurisdiction of courts
- Pyx Granite Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, (1960) AC 260 (HL)
• Legislature knows the existing law and does not intend to alter it except by express
enactment
- Abdur Rahim v. Abu Mohd. Barkat Ali, AIR 1928 PC 16
• Legislature does not intend what is inconvenient and unreasonable

WEEK 10: Internal Aids to Construction

Internal aids include Title, Preamble, Headings, Marginal notes, Punctuation, Illustrations,
Definitions, Proviso, Explanation, Schedule

Essential readings:
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 155-218, 364-480 (12th edition 2010,
Reprint 2013)

Subsidiary rules of interpretation of:

• Non obstante clause
- Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A Irani, AIR 1954 SC 596 (S.3 DoI Act, 1939)
- PEK Kalliani Amma v. K Devi, AIR 1996 SC 1963 (Ss. 16,11 of HMA,1955)
• Legal fiction
- Dargah Committee, Ajmer v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 574 (Ss. 93,222(4) Ajmer
Merwara Municipalities Reg, 1925)
- CIT, Bombay v. Amarchand N. Shroff, AIR 1963 SC 1448 (S.24B(1) of Income Tax Act,
1922)
• Mandatory and directory provisions (may and shall)
- TV Usman v. Food Inspector, AIR 1994 SC 1818
• Conjunctive and disjunctive words (or, and)
14
 - Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd v. Dept. of Trade and Industry, (1974) 2 All ER 97 (HL)
- R v. Oakes, (1959) 2 All ER 92

WEEK 11: External Aids to Construction

This part of the course will discuss some of the external aids that may be used to aid interpretation
of a statute as listed below.

Essential readings:
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 219- 355 (12th edition 2010, Reprint
2013)
• Sujit Choudhry, Globalisation in Search of Justification: Towards a Theory of Comparative
Constitutional Interpretation, Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 74 (3), 1999

Illustrative cases:
• Parliamentary history
- R v. Allen
- Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2007(6) Bom CR 294
• Historical facts and surrounding circumstances
• Later social, political, scientific and economic developments
- o R v. R, (1991) 4 All ER 481
• Dictionaries
• Foreign decisions
- MV Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 1014
• Reference to other statutes (Statutes in pari materia)
- Thiru Manickam & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1977 SC 518
• Effect of Usage and Practice; Contemporanea Expositio
- N Suresh Nathan v. UOI, AIR 1992 SC 564

WEEK 12: Interpretation of Penal And Remedial Statutes

Strict construction: Interpretation of penal statutes

• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 865-968 (12th edition 2010,
Reprint 2013)
• BB Pande, Limits on Objective Liability for Murder, JILI, Vol 16 (4),1974, pp 469-482.

Illustrative cases
15
 - M Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 SC 1116
- Fisher v. Bell, (1960) 3 All ER 731
- Vardarajan v. State of Madras 1965 AIR 942
- R v. Shivpuri, 1987 AC I House of Lords
- Rao Harnarain Singh v. State AIR 1958 P&H 123
- GNCTD v. Mahmood Farooqui 2016 Unique Case ID 02406 R 0238772015 (District Court,
Delhi)
- Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal 2014 (4) SCC 257

Liberal construction: Interpretation of remedial statutes

Essential reading:
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 865-968 (12th edition 2010,
Reprint 2013)
Illustrative cases:
- MCD v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), AIR 2000 SC 1274
- Western India Plywood Ltd v. P. Ashokan, AIR 1997 SC 3883

WEEK 13: Re-Imagining Precedents

Essential reading:
• Upendra Baxi, “The Travails of Stare Decisis in India”, in Legal Change: Essays inhonour
of Julius Stone (A.R. Blackshield ed.)

Critical discussion and rewriting of judgments : Bangalore Water Supply case, Abhiram Singh
(campaign speech case) & NJAC judgment (2015)

WEEK 14: Revision Week

16