THAKUR RAMNARAYAN COLLEGE OF LAW, MUMBAI.
Academic Year 2023 -2024
Department: LAW
Name of Assignment: Primary rules of Interpretation and
Construction.
Full Name: DHRUV DAYANAND MISHRA.
Roll No.: 1. Section: T.Y. LL. B (B).
Subject: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Date of Submission: ___________
PROFESOR IN CHARGE: PROFESSOR AMRITA SANYAL.
Student Sign: Professor Sign:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would have not been possible
without the kind support and help of many individuals and organization. I would
like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.
I am highly indebted to Dr. A.K. SINGH, the principal for their guidance and
constant supervision and our professor Mrs. AMRITA SANYAL, for providing
necessary information regarding the project and their support in completing the
project.
I would like to thank and appreciate my family and friends for their kind co-
operation and encouragement in developing the project which help me in the
completion of this project and people who have willingly helped me out in their
abilities.
DHRUV MISHRA.
CERTIFICATE
This is to verify that Mr. DHRUV MISHRA student of THAKUR RAMNARAYAN
COLLEGE OF LAW studying for LLB Third year, has successfully completed his project as
required for the fifth semester of three year LLB for the Academic session 2023-2024.
Signature of professor Signature of principal
Primary rules of Interpretation and Construction.
Introduction.
The word "interpret" literally means "to give meaning," but it also denotes a method for
connecting disparate pieces of information and the act of presenting information to readers based
on your opinions in a situation where the interpretation of the law would reveal its true intent. A
difficult concept is explained by this structure. If there is any uncertainty, the court will rule what
the phrases mean and how they should be used moving forward. When there is ambiguity,
structure helps with judgement while interpretation helps with word interpretation. Now that
we've looked more closely at the interpretation and conclusion, we can see how they differ from
one another.
As indicated by Blackstone, "the most attractive and normal technique for deciphering a
resolution is by investigating the goal of the council through texts, the topic, the impact, and
outcomes or the soul and reason of regulation."
The Latin expression 'interpretaria', from which the word 'understanding' is inferred, suggests to
elucidate or make sense of, especially the genuine importance of anything. At the point when
there are anomalies and uncertain words in the law, the court ought to decipher them
appropriately by deciding the real importance of the words by applying different principles of
translation. Translation of rules is essentially the most common way of grasping the significance
of the message in the law and applying it to the case in the suitable way. The court can decide the
specific aim of the lawmaking body by deciphering the regulation and the translation of
resolutions. At the point when a resolution's language is unambiguous, understanding isn't
fundamental, yet in situations when specific expressions might have more than one significance,
the rule ought to be deciphered to learn its strict importance.
The term has been gotten from the Latin expression 'interpretari', and that means to make sense
of, elucidate, comprehend, or to decipher. Understanding is the most common way of making
sense of, clarifying and deciphering any text or anything written down. This essentially includes
a demonstration of finding the genuine significance of the language which has been utilized in
the resolution. Different sources utilized are simply restricted to investigate the composed text
and explain what precisely has been shown by the words utilized in the composed text or the
resolutions.
Translation of resolutions is the right comprehension of the law. This cycle is normally taken on
by the courts for deciding the specific expectation of the lawmaking body. Since the target of the
court isn't just simply to peruse the law but at the same time is to apply it in a significant way to
suit from one case to another. It is likewise utilized for determining the genuine implication of
any Demonstration or archive with the real goal of the lawmaking body.
There can be wickedness in the resolution which is expected to be relieved, and this should be
possible by applying different standards and hypotheses of translation which could conflict with
the exacting significance now and again. The reason behind translation is to explain the
significance of the words utilized in the rules which probably won't be just clear
Rules of Interpretation.
1. Literal or Grammatical Rule
It is the first rule of interpretation. As per this standard, the words utilized in this text are
to be given or deciphered in their normal or common importance. After the
understanding, in the event that the importance is totally clear and unambiguous, the
impact will be given to an arrangement of a resolution paying little mind to what might
be the outcomes.
The essential decide is that anything the aim council had while making any arrangement
it has been communicated through words and in this manner, are to be deciphered by the
guidelines of language structure. It is the most secure rule of understanding of resolutions
on the grounds that the aim of the governing body is reasoned from the words and the
language utilized.
As indicated by this standard, the main obligation of the court is to give impact in the
event that the language of the rule is plain and has no business to investigate the results
which could emerge. The main commitment of the court is to clarify the law for all
intents and purposes and in the event that any unforgiving results emerge, the solution for
it will be searched and glanced out by the assembly.
Case Law:
PETITIONER: RAMAVATAR BUDHAIPRASAD ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT: ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER, AKOLA
Introduction :- We all eat vegetables but if we are asked to define them, we may not be on a
very firm ground. The act of sale of vegetable does not attract sales tax. Therefore, when an
assistant sales tax officer wanted to tax the sale of betel leaf, a vendor objected on the ground
that betel leaf was a vegetable. He claimed exemption.
Facts :- Three petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the imposition of sales tax
on betel leaves by the Sales Tax Officer, Akola. The petitioners in the three petitions are dealers
in betel leaves at Akola, challenging the taxing of beetle leaves under the C.P. & Berar Sales Tax
Act, 1947. The appellant contended that no such tax could be levied as betel leaves were
vegetables, on the sale of which no tax could be imposed. For this, the appellant relied on the
dictionary meaning of vegetable which say that a vegetable is that which is pertaining to
comprised or consisting of, or derived, or obtained from plants or their parts.
Issues :- Whether Beetle leaves fall under the category of vegetables and hence are exempted
from taxation or not.
Judgment :- The court applied the literal rule and held that vegetables are to be construed as
understood in common language. And beetle leaves will not fall under this category. Hence, they
were taxable.
2. 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.
As per an early case, The Longford(1889) 14 P.D. 34 a Demonstration should be understood as
though one were deciphering it on the day it was passed. In this way, we ask ourselves what the
word implied on the day it was expressed if by relationship we contend that the equivalent can be
said to describe a judgment. The significance of the wickedness rule in criminal regulation can
best be shown by thinking about models. A Demonstration of Parliament will express the reason
for which it was instituted. Assuming we take the instance of Parkin v. Norman[1982] 2 All E.R.
583, (saved judgment), it tends to be seen that the court concluded that the Public Request Act
1936 was never intended to manage gay conduct in open latrines. The long title to the
Demonstration peruses.
Case Law:
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.
3. 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.
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 Law: Lee v. Knapp (1967)
Facts of the case
The defendant was driving around the block in which his company’s office stood. The
purpose was to demonstrate to the van driver that the new vehicle was easy to drive.
During this demonstration, the van got into an accident with a parked vehicle.
As per Section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the driver of the vehicle shall stop
and give his information and his car’s identification marks in case of an accident
where damage has been done to another vehicle.
The defendant stopped but did not provide the details personally as was required by
the Section.
Issue of the case
Whether the meaning of the word ‘stop’ included stopping for a reasonable period of
time before leaving the place of the accident.
Judgement of the Court
The court held that the driver did not stop for a reasonable period of time and make an
attempt to look for the other car’s owner.
Also, the defendant not giving the details personally violated Section 77(1) of the Act.
Here, the golden rule was applied to expand the meaning of ‘stop’ to include ‘search
the victim’. Due to these reasons, the defendant was held liable under Section 77(1) of
the Act.
Doctrine of Presumption of Constitutionality.
The term ‘presumption of constitutionality’ is a legal principle that is used by courts
during statutory interpretation — the process by which courts interpret and apply a law
passed by the legislature, such as Parliament.
In the 1992 Supreme Court case ‘ML Kamra v New India Assurance’, Justice K
Ramaswamy said: “The court ought not to interpret the statutory provisions, unless
compelled by their language, in such a manner as would involve its unconstitutionality.
The legislature of the rule making authority is presumed to enact a law which does not
contravene or violate the constitutional provisions.
Therefore, there is a presumption in favour of constitutionality of a legislation or
statutory rule unless ex facie it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III
of the Constitution.
If the provisions of a law or the rule is construed in such a way as would make it
consistent with the Constitution and another interpretation would render the provision or
the rule unconstitutional, the Court would lean in favour of the former construction. ”
(“ex facie” meaning ‘on the face’)
When does this apply?
It is a cardinal principle of construction that the Statute and the Rule or the Regulation
must be held to be constitutionally valid unless and until it is established they violate any
specific provision of the Constitution.
Further it is the duty of the Court to harmoniously construe different provisions of any
Act or Rule or Regulation, if possible, and to sustain the same rather than striking down
the provisions out right.
The presumption is not absolute, however, and does not stand when there is a gross
violation of the Constitution.
Limitations to the doctrine
A three-judge Bench in ‘NDMC v State of Punjab’ (1996) spoke of the limitations to the
doctrine.
The Bench observed that the Doctrine is not one of infinite application; it has recognised
limitations.
The Court has consistently followed a policy of not putting an unnatural and forced
meaning on the words that have been used by the legislature in the search for an
interpretation which would save the statutory provisions.
In legal interpretation, there is a presumption that statutes are valid and do not violate the
Constitution. Laws enacted by the Parliament, State legislatures or their subordinate bodies
should adhere to constitutional boundaries and not contradict the provisions and spirit of
the Constitution. When faced with two possible interpretations, one that upholds the
constitutionality of the statute and another that renders it void, the interpretation that preserves
the constitutionality of the law should be followed.
There is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enacted law. If someone claims
that a law is unconstitutional, they must demonstrate a violation of constitutional boundaries.
When the validity of a statute passed by a competent legislature is challenged, the court assumes
its validity.
However, if the law appears arbitrary and discriminatory, the presumption of constitutionality
cannot be upheld. In cases of doubt regarding the constitutional validity of a law, the benefit of
the doubt should lean towards its constitutionality. The court should assume that the legislature
acted intentionally and expressed its intention appropriately in the law. Every word used by the
legislature carries significance and unless it is proven that the legislation has crossed
constitutional limits, it is presumed to be constitutionally valid.
There is a presumption in statutory interpretation that an interpretation of a statute that restricts
or takes away the jurisdiction of the courts should not be given effect unless the words of the
statute clearly and explicitly provide for it.
In both civil and criminal cases, there is a strong presumption that civil courts have jurisdiction
over matters of a civil nature. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts should not be
readily inferred. This presumption is based on the principle that courts should be accessible to all
seeking justice and that the existing state of the law should be maintained.
Unless the legislature clearly and expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the courts or it can be
inferred by necessary implication, the courts should be presumed to have jurisdiction. Statutes
should be construed in a manner that avoids taking away the jurisdiction of superior courts or
extending jurisdiction through the right to appeal.
Statutes that confer jurisdiction on subordinate courts, tribunals or government agencies should
be strictly construed. Unless the construction of an act clearly indicates the intention of the
legislature to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of judicature is
not taken away. When jurisdiction is conferred by a statute, it is implied that the act also grants
the power to perform all acts necessary for its execution.
Special powers granted by an act must be limited to the purpose for which they are granted. The
power of control by superior courts cannot be taken away unless expressly provided by the
statute. In the absence of clear statutory provisions, it is presumed that new jurisdiction is not
created or existing jurisdiction is not enlarged.
Conclusion.
The presumption of constitutionality is a legal principle that courts use when interpreting
statutes. It states that courts should assume that statutes passed by the legislature are
constitutional unless the law is clearly unconstitutional or a fundamental right is implicated.
When a statute is challenged, the court assumes its validity. The burden is on the petitioners to
prove that the statute is unconstitutional.
The presumption of constitutionality is a rebuttable presumption. For example, in Attorney-
General & Anor v Goodwin & Ors, the court agreed that there was a presumption of
constitutionality, but also declared the statute in question unconstitutional.
The presumption of constitutionality is a legal theory developed by common law courts to deal
with cases challenging the constitutionality of statutes.
References.
https://en.wikipedia.org
https://www.civilsdaily.com
https://papers.ssrn.com
https://lawbhoomi.com
https://www.legalserviceindia.com
