RULES OF INTERPRETATION:

There are different rules of interpretation that are used by the judiciary to make the laws clear
and unambiguous. The reason behind the use of these set rules is that the court is not expected
to interpret laws arbitrarily. These principles are evolved out of the continuous exercise of the
court to interpret the different laws

1. A) Primary Rules
1) Rule of literal construction: 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.

This rule of literal interpretation can be read and understood under the following headings:

A) Natural and grammatical meaning

 Statutes are to be first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and must be construed according to their
plain, literal and grammatical meaning
 The statutes may be modified, extended or abridged only if it involves absurdity or inconsistency
B) Explanation of the rule
 When it is said that words are to be understood first in their natural, ordinary or popular sense, it is meant that the
words must be qualified in their natural, ordinary or popular meaning which they have in relation to the subject matter
with reference to which they have been used in the statue.
 The meaning of a word depends upon the text and context.

C) Exact meaning preferred to loose meaning

 Exact meaning is preferred to loose meaning in an Act of Parliament.

 Since every word has a secondary meaning too, one should be careful not to mix up secondary meaning with the loose
meaning.

D) Technical words in technical sense

 Technical words must be understood in the technical sense only
 Maqbool Hussain versus the State of Bombay
 In this case, a person who was coming back to India was caught while carrying gold with
him. He was carrying the gold against the government’s notification. So he was
confiscated under section 167 (8) of the sea custom Act.
 After that, he was also charged under section 8 of the foreign exchange regulations act
1947. Then the person challenged his trial, on the ground of violation of Article 20 (2) of
the Indian constitution which clearly says that no person shall be punished more than one
time for the same offence. This rule is known as double jeopardy.
 The court used the literal interpretation rule and held that the Seas Act was neither a
court nor any judicial tribunal. Hence, he was not prosecuted before for the offence and
his trial for section 8 of the foreign exchange regulation Act 1947 was valid.

The mischief rule is a rule of statutory interpretation that attempts to determine

the legislator's intention. Originating from a 16th century case (Heydon’s case)
in the United Kingdom, its main aim is to determine the "mischief and defect"
that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and what ruling would
effectively implement this remedy.
Implementation of the mischief rule of interpretation
In the Heydon’s case, it was held that there are mainly four points that have to be followed while using
the mischief rule of interpretation which are as follows:
  What was the law (common law or statute) before the making of the statute?
 What was the mischief or defects in the previous law?
 What was the remedy that was sought by parliament?
 What is the true reason behind the remedy?
These are four points that should be taken into consideration while doing the interpretation of
statute with the help of the mischief rule. The main purpose of the rule of mischief is to suppress
the mischief and advance the remedy. The best advantage of the rule of mischief is that it
clauses loopholes in the law or statute. It allows the law to develop.

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 lawmaking decisions away from the
legislature.

In the case of CIT vs. Sundaradevi (1957) (32 ITR 615) (SC), it was held by the Apex Court that
unless there is an ambiguity, it would not be open to the Court to depart from the normal rule of
construction which is that the intention of the legislature should be primarily to gather from the
words which are used. It is only when the words used are ambiguous that they would stand to be
examined and considered on surrounding circumstances and constitutionally proposed practices.

The Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. V. State of Bihar, (AIR 1995 SC 661) 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”

The Golden Rule It is a form of statutory interpretation that allows a judge to depart from a word’s
normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result. It is a compromise between the rule of interpretation and the
rule of mischief. To be used in two ways- It is applied most frequently in a narrow sense where there is some
ambiguity or absurdity in the words themselves. It is used in a wider sense to avoid a result that is obnoxious to
the principles of public policy.

This method of interpretation is also known as the compromise method between literal rule
and the mischief rule.

This rule is used in two main situations:

1. When the meaning of the word is too narrow.

2. When the word itself has ambiguity or absurdity.
3. Bedford v. Bedford (1935)[5]
4. In this case, a son murdered his mother and thereafter committed suicide. The question
of law before the court was to determine who was the legal person to inherit the estate,
the mother’s family or the son’s descendants. Furthermore it was discovered by the court
that the mother did not make any will before her death and under the Administration of
Justice Act, 1925, it was stated that her estate could be inherited by her next of kin, i.e.
her son. The words of the following Act were clear and unambiguous, but the Court after
 taking into consideration the facts of the case was not prepared to give inheritance to the
son who committed a crime and gain benefit from the same.
5. The Court held that the literal rule will not be applied here and the golden rule should be
used to prevent the son’s descendant from inheriting the estate. The Court further added
that if the son inherits the estate then it would amount to receiving benefit from a crime
which would ultimately be abhorrent to the Act.

n the case lee v. knapp[iii], interpretation of the word 'stop' was involved. Under section 77 (1) of the Road
Traffic Act, 1960 a driver causing accident shall stop after the accident. In this case the driver stopped for a
moment after causing an accident and then moved away. Applying the golden rule the court held that
requirement of the section had not been followed by the driver as he had not stopped for a reasonable period
requiring interested persons to make necessary inquiries from him about the accident.

RULES OF CONSTRUCTION:

Strict Construction: The term “strict construction” refers to a statute that is

strictly construed in legislation. Each word must be interpreted by letters, and the

interpretation must not exceed the scope of the legislation. It is a legal theory that

applies in a narrow manner or in a strict manner of interpretation to legal

legislation such as the United States Constitution.

The constitution must be rigorously construed in its original meaning.

This form of construction is used in taxation and criminal legislation. In strict construction
interpretation, the courts refer to the literal rule. The literal rule, alternatively known as the
simple rule, is a traditional rule used by English courts.

The term “strict construction” refers to “a close or narrow reading and interpretation of a
legislation or written document.” In cases involving a dispute over terms of legal meaning,
the bench is sometimes called upon to determine a construction or interpretation of an
ambiguous or confusing phrase. The common law tradition has created a number of maxims
and guidelines that help courts interpret legislation or agreements such as contracts. Strict
construction occurs when ambiguous legal language is treated as an accurate and precise
interpretation and no further fair evaluations or justifiable consequences are considered.
When interpreting legislation affecting the subject’s liberty, strict construction is
recommended, but only after verifying that all conditions are met before the subject’s liberty
is restrained.

however this rule does not prevent the court from interpreting the statue according to
current meaning and circumstances

According to strict construction criteria of Maxwell, the gravity of the criminal legislation
should be determined. Penal legislation must be strictly construed, as stated in Smith v.
Wood (1889) and Kamal Prasad v King-Emperor (1947).
Case laws

State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, (2005)

The judgment, in this case, was decided by a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court, and it
was determined that:

1. The exemption clause must be rigorously construed, and it is not available to the
Court to ignore conditions specified in the exemption notification.
2. A mandatory rule must be carefully obeyed, but a directory rule may be satisfied
with sufficient adherence.
3. When legislation prescribes a certain Act to be performed in a specific manner and
states that failure to comply with the said requirement results in serious
consequences, such requirement is mandatory.
4. It is the basic principle of interpretation that if a statute directs that something
must be done, it must be done in the manner specified and not in any other way.
5. Where legislation is criminal in nature, it must be rigidly construed and obeyed.

Harmonious Construction
This rule of interpretation is adopted when there is a conflict between two or more statutes or
between two provisions of the same statute

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.

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.
supreme Court has laid down five principles of rule of Harmonious Construction in the
landmark case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers:

1. The courts should avoid such provisions which are contradicting in nature and
which brings the head-on clash between each other.
2. The courts should interpret in such a way that brings harmony to the contradicting
provisions.
3. The provision of one section cannot defeat the other provision.
4. When the court fails to bring harmony to both parties, it should at least interpret in
such a manner where both the provisions are given effect as much as possible.
5. Courts should keep in mind that the interpretation which reduces one provision to
the dead is not harmonious, here harmonising doesn’t mean destroying

beneficial Construction or liberal construction:

The general rule of the statute is that if a word used in the statute excludes certain cases in
its common meaning, it should not be forced unnecessarily to include those cases. An
exception to this rule is that when the main objective of the statute is not achieved by
excluding those cases then the word may be interpreted on the basis of the case requires.

This rule of interpretation will benefit individuals. Whenever there is an ambiguity or when
the which would take the benefit away from the individual, so the meaning which prevails
over the benefit to the individuals should be adopted.

The courts should be generous towards the persons to whom benefits are conferred by the
statute. Here it involves the judges to give the widest meaning to the statute in order to
protect the interest of the parties, if you look into certain statutes the main purpose is to
benefit and protect the interest of the person, for example, Industrial Disputes Act, Consumer
Protection Act, Juvenile Justice Act and all labour-related laws. Provision is capable of giving
two meanings where one would preserve the benefit and another.

Hindustan Level Ltd v Ashok Vishnu Kate

In this case, the court held that in a case which is related to the prevention of unfair labour
practices it should be made completely in accordance with the labour point of view as they
are benefitting people here and while interpreting Social Welfare Legislation also they should
consider the benefitting people of the society.[12]

Purposive Construction
It is the modern version of mischief rule. It is actually more flexible compared to literal rule
and golden rule which tends to concentrate more on the meaning of individual words or
phrases. This looks for the purpose of the law. This rule allows judges to add or ignore any of
the words in the statute while interpreting in order to protect the purpose of creating that law
and give fair and equal justice to everyone.

This rule is always compared with the mischief rule. As mischief rule looks into the gap
between the old and new law and how parliament came up with the new law and what are
the new remedies brought out to resolve the problems which were exiting before, whereas
 the purposive construction rule is broader where it not only figure out the gap between the
old and new laws but it also helps judges to make an attempt to identify what parliament
meant to achieve.

The days have passed by when judges used to use only strict rule where they interpret the
law only based on the meaning of the words used in the statute, but now court seeks to give
effect to the purposive rule where it not only consider the words of the statute according to
their meaning but also according to the context. ‘Context’ here doesn’t mean only ‘linguistic
context’, it takes into consideration the subject-matter, scope, purpose, and background of
the act.

Important features:

1. Here judges do not go by the letter of the law, but they look into the intention and
the spirit of the statute.
2. Legislative intention is a fictitious concept.
3. The legislative intention with respect to a particular statute can be an intention of
the majority of the parliamentarians.
4. In mischief rule, the court resorts a particular act intended to remedy but
purposive construction looks into the overall intention of the parliament on the
statute. In this way, purposive construction is wider than the mischief rule.
Regina V Barnet London Borough Council, Ex Parte Shah

In this case, there were five students who were immigrants came to London for the purpose
of studies. They challenged the refusal to allow them grants for their education.

The court held that the House construed the expression ‘ordinarily resident’ in the 1962 and
1980 Acts. Long-standing authority on the meaning of the expression was referred to. The
natural and ordinary meaning of ordinary residence had been settled by two tax cases. At
least for educational purposes, ‘ordinary residence’ did not include a person whose residence
in a particular place or country was unlawful

. Reasonable Construction
Reasonable construction follows the principle of ‘Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pareat’ which
means when the interpretation of the statute is made it should be done in a meaningful and
sensible manner

Rule of reasonable construction This rule stresses upon the intention of the legislature to bring up the statute and
sensible and not the prima facie meaning of the statute. This helps to clear the error caused due to the faulty
draftsmanship .

) Rule of Exceptional construction:

Rule of exceptional construction It stands for the elimination of statutes and words in a statute which defeats the
real objective of the statute or makes no sense. ‘and’ ‘or’, ‘may’, ‘shall’, ‘must’.
A) The Common Sense Rule
 Despite the general rule that full effect must be given to every word, if no sensible meaning can be fixed to a word or
phrase, or if it would defeat the real object of the enactment, it should be eliminated.
 However, if possible, and sensible meaning should be attached to those words, as it is better for a thing to have effect
than to be made void.
B) Conjunctive and disjunctive words ‘or’ ‘and’:
 The word ‘or’ is normally disjunctive and ‘and’ is normally conjunctive.
 C) ‘May’, ‘Must’ and ‘shall’:
(i)‘May’:
 The word ‘may’ generally denotes that the provision is discretionary in nature.
 However, whenever the object of the power is to give effect to a legal right, the use of the word ‘May’ would not
show that the provision is directory in nature.
 Sometimes, the legislature may use the word ‘may’ as a matter of pure conventional courtesy and yet intend a
mandatory force.
 Therefore, in order to interpret the legal import of the word ‘may’, we have to consider various factors
 When a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word ‘may’ should be
construed to mean a command.
(ii) Shall:
 Generally speaking, when a statute uses the word ‘shall’ prima facie it is mandatory, unless the context or intention
demands otherwise
 Hence, under certain circumstances the expression ‘shall’ is construed as ‘may’.
 The use of word ‘shall’with respect to one matter and use of the word ‘may’ with reference to another matter in the
same section of the statute will normally lead to the conclusion that the word ‘shall’ imposes an obligation, whereas
the word ‘may’ confers a discretionary power.
Watch this video to know more about mandatory and discretionary provisions

SECONDARY RULES

NOSTICUR A SOCIIS
Nosticur literally means ‘to know’ and Sociis means ‘association’. Thus, Nosticur a Sociis means
knowing from its association. When the meaning of a word is not clear then it can be adjudged by
referring to the rest of the statute. The doctrine of “nosticur a sociis” is used when the meaning of
a word is doubtful and help is taken from the associated words. Therefore, the questionable
meaning of a word can be obtained from the surrounding words or the words related to each
other.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

Alamgir v. State of Bihar [7]

 In this case the interpretation of the word ‘detained’ present under section 498 of the
Indian Penal Code was involved.
 In this case, a married woman voluntarily left her husband and started residing with the
appellant.
 The appellant was further prosecuted under section 498 IPC.
 This section provides: “Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he
knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from
any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have
illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both.”
 The Court held that the word ‘detain’ would literally mean detention against one’s will but
under this section it has to be determined from the other words surrounded by it. This
means that detention must be interpreted with other words such as taken, entices, and
conceals and also the line” without consent of her husband” has to be focused on.
Further the Court also suggested that S.498 also aims at protecting the right of the
husband who has been deprived of company of his wife. Therefore, the term detention
 would mean “keeping of a woman without the consent of the husband” and the woman’s
consent is therefore not taken into consideration.

Rule of Ejusdem Genesis

 The term ‘Ejusdem Genesis’ means ‘of the same kind or species’
 Simply stated, the rule means that where specific words are used and after those specific
words, some general words are used, the general words would take their colour from the specific words
used earlie

According to this rule, when particular words pertaining to a class or a genus are followed by general words, the
general words are construed as limited to the things of the same kind as those specified by the class or the
genus. The meaning of an expression with wider meaning is limited to the meaning of the preceeding specific
expressions. However, for this rule to apply, the preceeding words must for a specific class or genus. Further,
this rule cannot be applied in the words with a wider meaning appear before the words with specific or narrow
meaning. In UP State Electricity Board vs Harishankar, AIR 1979, SC held that the following conditions must
exist for the application of this rule – 1. The statue contains an enumeration of specific words 2. The subject of
the enumeration constitute a class or a category 3. The class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration 4.
A general term is present at the end of the enumeration 5. There is no indication of a different legislative intent

REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS

This is a Latin term which means “by referring each to each” and concerns the use of words
distributively.
In a complex sentence, when there is more than one subject and more than one object, the
following rule is used for the right construction of the statute by reading the provision
distributively and applying each object to its appropriate subject accordingly. This rule is mostly
used by the Court in distributing properly in the most convenient manner.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

Koteshwar Vittal Kamat v. K Rangappa Baliga[9]

The following case was regarding the construction of the Proviso of Article 304 of the Indian
Constitution which reads as, “Provided that no bill or amendment for the purpose of clause (b)
shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a state without the previous sanction of the
President”.
The Court held that the word “introduced” applies to “bill” and “moved” applies to “amendment”

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

It is a Latin phrase that says ‘Express Mention and Implied Exclusion’ that means express
mention of one thing excludes all other things. Here it is considered that the items which are
not on the list are not covered by the statute. When something is expressly mentioned in the
statute it leads to the presumption that the things which are not specified in the statute are
excluded.

General words in a statute must receive a general construction unless the statute is
specifying any special meaning to the general words. Whenever something is added in the
statute it is added with the due consciousness. It is assumed that if something is not added in
the statute there is a reason behind it, which is to exclude that from the particular statute.
 1) Effect of usage
 The custom is the best interpreter of law.
 The best way to interpret a document is to read it as it would have been read when made.
 Old statutes and documents should be interpreted as they would been at the time when they
were enactedor written.

2) Associated words to be understood in common sense manner

 The meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps
 When two or more words which are capable of similar or parallel meaning are coupled together, they are to be
understood in their cognate sense (i.e similar in origin, nature or quality