LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY

NAME- JITESH

REG.NO-12005163
SUBJECT- law 215( CA – 2)
SECTION- Le010

ROLL NO – RLe010a05

SUBMITTED TO- ashish singh taank

DISCUSS BASIC RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF

STATUTES
1|Page JITESH| 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 3
Introduction
Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of enactment by
giving the words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. The
term Interpretation has been derived from the Latin term “interpretari” which
means to explain or understand. It is the process of ascertaining the true
meaning of the words used in a statute. The necessity of interpretation would
arise only where the language of a statutory provision is ambiguous, not clear
or where two views are possible or where the provision gives a different
meaning defeating the object of the statute. If the language is clear and
unambiguous, no need for interpretation would arise. The Court is not expected
to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain principles that
have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Courts. These principles are
sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’.

Statutes are divided into classes as mentioned below:

1. Codification: It is one when they codify the unwritten law on a

particular subject. 
2. Declaration: When there is no change in the existing law but merely
clarification or explanation of what it is.
3. Remedial: This is when they alter the common law or the judge
makes a non-statutory law on a particular subject.
4. Amendment: This is when the judge or the legislature changes or
alters the statute law.
5. Consolidation: This is combining several previous statutes relating to
the same subject matter with or without making changes in the same.
6. Enabling: Removal of restriction or disability.
7. Disabling or Restraining: Restrain on the alienation of property.
8. Penal: When there is imposition of penalty or forfeiture. 

2|Page JITESH| 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 3
Need and Object of Interpretation
Salmond directed that, “Interpretation or construction is the process by which
the Court’s seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium
of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.”

Lord Denning commented on the need of interpretation in Seasford Court

Estates Ltd. v. Asher. He said that it is not within an ordinary man’s power to
realise what new facts will arise from a case at hand. Considering the facts, all
laws cannot be free from ambiguity when applied to them. There can be no
legislature or judge that can make a perfect law written in perfect English for
ordinary people to understand and not get criticized. Therefore, interpretation of
a law is very important as what one writes can be converted into various
meanings and various judgments. A judge should ask himself the question: If
the makers of the Act had themselves come across this luck in the texture of it,
how would they have straight ended it out? He must then do as they would
have done. A judge must not alter the material of which it is woven, but he can
and should iron out the creases.

The main and most important objective of interpretation is to see the intention
that has been merely expressed by the words. The words of the statute are to
be interpreted so as to ascertain the mind of legislature from natural and
grammatical meaning of the words which it has used. 

General Principles of Interpretation

When the intention of legislature is not clearly expressed, a court needs to
interpret the laws using the rules of interpretation. There are two types of Rules
of Interpretation with sub-categories:

 Primary Rules

1. The Primary Rule: Literal Interpretation

2. The Mischief Rule: Heydon’s Rule
3. Rule of Reasonable Construction or Ut Res Magis Valent Quam Pareat
4. Rule of Harmonious Construction
5. Rule of Ejusdem Generis

3|Page JITESH| 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 3
The Primary Rule: Literal Interpretation
In construing Statutes, the cardinal rule is to construe its provisions literally and
grammatically giving the words their ordinary and natural meaning. This rule is
also known as the Plain meaning rule. The first and foremost step in the
course of interpretation is to examine the language and the literal meaning of
the statute. The words in an enactment have their own natural effect and the
construction of an act depends on its wording. There should be no additions or
substitution of words in the construction of statutes and in its interpretation.
The primary rule is to interpret words as they are. It should be taken into note
that the rule can be applied only when the meanings of the words are clear i.e.
words should be simple so that the language is plain and only one meaning can
be derived out of the statute.

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.

Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking
sides in legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people
and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sources. In probate law
the rule is also favoured because the testator is typically not around to indicate
what interpretation of a will is appropriate. Therefore, it is argued, extrinsic
evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or their
meaning. It can help to provide for consistency in interpretation.

One criticism of the rule is that it rests on the erroneous assumption that words
have a fixed meaning. In fact, words are imprecise, leading justices to impose
their own prejudices to determine the meaning of a statute. However, since
little else is offered as an alternative discretion-confining theory, plain meaning
survives.

Case Law:

In Municipal board v. State transport authority, Rajasthan, the location of

a bus stand was changed by the Regional Transport Authority. An application
could be moved within 30 days of receipt of order of regional transport authority
according to section 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

4|Page JITESH| 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 3
from the knowledge of the order”. The Supreme Court held that literal
interpretation must be made and hence rejected the application as invalid.

Lord Atkinson stated, ‘In the construction of statutes their words must be
interpreted in their ordinary grammatical sense unless there be something in
the context or in the object of the statute in which they occur or in the
circumstances in which they are used, to show that they were used in a special
sense different from their ordinary grammatical sense.’

The Mischief Rule: Heydon’s Case

In Heydon‟s Case, it was resolved by the Barons of the Exchequer “that for the
sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or
beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the Common Law) four things are to be
discerned and considered: 

1. What was the Common Law before the making of the Act?
2. What was the mischief and defect for which the Common Law did not
provide?
3. What remedy the Parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the
disease of the Commonwealth?
4. What is the true reason of the remedy?
The office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall
suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle
inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato
commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the
true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico.

The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and
the golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament’s intent. It
can be argued that this undermines Parliament’s supremacy and is
undemocratic as it takes law-making decisions away from the legislature.

There are certain advantages and disadvantages of the rule. The Law
Commission sees it as a rule that is far more satisfactory way of interpreting
acts as it avoids unjust or absurd results in sentencing but for some it is
considered to be out of date as it was established in 16th century when
conditions were very different from now. 

Case Law:

5|Page JITESH| 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 3
The Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, applied the
mischief rule in construction of Article 286 of the Constitution of India. After
referring to the state of law prevailing in the province prior to the constitution
as also to the chaos and confusion that was brought about in inter-state trade
and commerce by indiscriminate exercise of taxing powers by the different
Provincial Legislatures founded on the theory of territorial nexus, Chief Justice
S.R. Das, stated “It was to cure this mischief of multiple taxation and to
preserve the free flow of interstate trade or commerce in the Union of India
regarded as one economic unit without any provincial barrier that the
constitution maker adopted Article 286 in the constitution”.

A principle to be valued must be capable of wider application than the mischief

which gave it existence. These are designed to approach immortality as nearly
as human institutions can approach it’. Mischief Rule is applicable where
language is capable of more than one meaning. It is the duty of the Court to
make such construction of a statue which shall suppress the mischief and
advance the remedy.

Rule of Reasonable Construction or Golden Rule

The words used in a statute have to be construed in their ordinary meaning, but
in many cases, judicial approach finds that the simple device of adopting the
ordinary meaning of words, does not meet the ends as a fair and a reasonable
construction. Exclusive reliance on the bare dictionary meaning of words may
not necessarily assist a proper construction of the statutory provision in which
the words occur. Often enough interpreting the provision, it becomes necessary
to have regard to the subject matter of the statute and the object which it is
intended to achieve. 

According to this rule, the words of a statute must be construed ut res magis
valeat quam pareat, so as to give a sensible meaning to them. A provision of
law cannot be so interpreted as to divorce it entirely from common sense, every
word or expression used in an Act should receive a natural and fair meaning.

It is a compromise between the plain meaning (or literal) rule and the mischief
rule. Like the plain meaning rule, it gives the words of a statute their plain,
ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an irrational result that is
unlikely to be the legislature’s intention, the judge can depart from this
meaning. In the case of homographs, where a word can have more than one
meaning, the judge can choose the preferred meaning; if the word only has one
meaning, but applying this would lead to a bad decision, the judge can apply a
completely different meaning.

6|Page JITESH| 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 3
Case Law:

In RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd, the Supreme Court
stated that if a statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, with the
glasses of the statute makers provided by such context, its scheme, the
sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour 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 clauses each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say
as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act.

Rule of Harmonious Construction

When there is a conflict between two or more statues or two or more parts of a
statute then the rule of harmonious construction needs to be adopted. The rule
follows a very simple premise that every statute has a purpose and intent as
per law and should be read as a whole. The interpretation consistent of all the
provisions of the statute should be adopted. In the case in which it shall be
impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the court’s decision regarding the
provision shall prevail.

When there are two provisions in a statute, which are in apparent conflict with
each other, they should be interpreted such that effect can be given to both and
that construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should
not be adopted except in the last resort.

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.

7|Page JITESH| 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 3
 5. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it
loose.
Case Law:

In Raj Krishna v. Binod, two provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951,

which were in apparent conflict, were brought forth. Section 33 (2) says that a
Government Servant can nominate or second a person in election but section
123(8) says that a Government Servant cannot assist any candidate in election
except by casting his vote. The Supreme Court observed that both these
provisions should be harmoniously interpreted and held that a Government
Servant was entitled to nominate or second a candidate seeking election in
State Legislative assembly. This harmony can only be achieved if Section
123(8) is interpreted as giving the govt. servant the right to vote as well as to
nominate or second a candidate and forbidding him to assist the candidate in
any other manner.

Conclusion

Every nation has its own judicial system, the purpose of which is 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, courts need 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 above-mentioned
rules are the basic rules of Interpretation and are important for providing
justice.

Based on the above description of the rules of interpretation, it can rightly

be concluded that the above basic rules of interpretation are like the tools of
a carpenter or sculptor. To a great extent, their value depends on the fact
that with what care or skill they are used. Actually, it depends upon the
wisdom and care which the judges take in interpreting the statutes by
applying the above rules of interpretation.

8|Page JITESH| 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 3
9|Page JITESH| 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 3