INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

UNIT – 1
➢ INTERPRETATION: According to its dictionary meaning, interpretation is an
act of explaining the meaning of a thing. Interpretation means the art of finding
out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words of the enactment their
natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true meaning
of the words used in a statute. The object of interpretation of statutes is to
determine the intention of the legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the
language used. As stated by SALMOND, "by interpretation or construction is
meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the
legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed."
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. 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.
When is interpretation done: Interpretation is done only when,
1. The language of the provision is ambiguous.
2. It is not clear what the law is made for.
3. When a provision has two or more meanings.
4. When two or more views are possible about the provision.
5. The meaning of the provision defeats the purpose of the statute.

➢ NEED FOR INTERPRETATION: The need for interpretation of statutes

arises from several factors inherent in the legislative process and the nature of
statutory law. Here are some key reasons why interpretation is necessary:
▪ Clarity and Understanding: Statutory language can often be complex and
technical, making it difficult for individuals, including lawyers, judges, and
ordinary citizens, to understand its meaning and implications without proper
interpretation. Clarifying the meaning of statutes ensures that they can be applied
correctly and consistently.
▪ Flexibility and Adaptability: Statutory language may not always anticipate every
possible situation or circumstance that may arise. Interpretation allows for
flexibility in applying statutes to new and evolving situations, ensuring that the
law remains relevant and adaptable to changing societal needs and
circumstances.
▪ Resolution of Ambiguity: Statutory provisions may be subject to ambiguity or
uncertainty due to vague or conflicting language, which can lead to confusion
 and disputes over their interpretation and application. Interpretation helps
resolve such ambiguity by determining the intended meaning of the statute.
▪ Legislative Intent: Understanding the intent behind the enactment of statutes is
crucial for their proper interpretation and application. Legislative intent
encompasses the goals, purposes, and objectives that lawmakers sought to
achieve through the enactment of the law. Interpretation helps discern and give
effect to this intent.
▪ Application to Specific Cases: Statutes are general rules that apply to broad
categories of situations and individuals. However, their application to specific
cases often requires interpretation to determine how they apply to the facts and
circumstances at hand.
▪ Consistency and Predictability: Consistency and predictability in the application
of the law are essential for ensuring fairness and justice. Interpretation helps
establish consistent and predictable principles for applying statutes, thereby
promoting certainty in legal outcomes.
▪ Harmonization with Other Laws: Statutory interpretation may also involve
reconciling conflicts or inconsistencies between different statutes or legal
principles to ensure harmony and coherence within the legal system.
▪ Preserving Rights and Liberties: Proper interpretation of statutes is essential for
protecting individual rights and liberties guaranteed under the law. Interpretation
helps ensure that statutes are applied in a manner that respects fundamental rights
and freedoms.
Overall, the need for interpretation of statutes is inherent in the complexity of statutory
language, the dynamic nature of society, and the principles of fairness, justice, and the
rule of law. Through interpretation, the meaning and application of statutes can be
clarified, ensuring their proper implementation and the realization of legislative intent.

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.

Kinds of Interpretations: There are various kinds of interpretations. These are,

Literal Interpretation: It is also known as grammatical interpretation. While doing
this kind of interpretation, the judges are not in any way allowed to add or modify the
letter of the law. They should strictly follow the language and directly translate its
meaning.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh: In this case, the judges dealt with
the interpretation of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judges used
literal interpretation for interpreting the section and stated that the word “shall” used in
the provision makes it mandatory and no other meaning will be given to the word. The
other expression that the court gave meaning to was “information”. The court stated that
the police officer has to record information even if he considers it to be unreasonable.
Functional Interpretation: In this kind of interpretation, the judges deviate from the
literal meaning and look elsewhere to decipher the intent behind the law. Functional
interpretation is done in four cases,
• When the statute is inconsistent.
• When the statue is incomplete.
• When the language of the statute is ambiguous.
• When there is a logical flaw in the letter of the law.
What is construction
• According to Salmond, “interpretation and construction is the process by
which the court seeks to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the
medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.”
• According to Cooley, “construction is the process of concluding, respecting
subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text, which is in the spirit
though not within the letter of law”.
• Judges should take into account the factual circumstances before giving a
particular meaning to the phrase, words, or expression that are present in the
legislation because construction in law is about giving meaning to the
ambiguous words in the provisions of the law to resolve the inconsistency.
Difference between interpretation and construction
The definition of a statute is a written expression of the direction or intent of a
legislature. A law can be interpreted or construed to determine its intended meaning.
The judicial authorities can define the meaning and objectives of the legislation with
the aid of this process of interpretation and construction. Let’s now explore their
variances.
Interpretation Construction
Interpretation is the process of
Construction is the process of using the legal
ascertaining the true meaning of the
text to draw conclusions that go beyond its
words and the Purpose of the
plain language to solve Inconsistencies
legislation
Interpretation may be performed when Construction may occur when the language
a certain term or phrase in law has an and the meaning attached to specific phrases
unambiguous meaning, in the laws are unclear and ambiguous.
The process of interpretation identifies
Construction intends to bring it to a
the methods that can be used to
conclusion.
interpret any statute.
Interpretation is used to determine the The legal impact of the legislative text can
linguistic meaning of a legal text. be ascertained through construction.
Ambiguity is removed by Construction works to create standards to
interpretation. overcome ambiguity
A legal text can be partially It is necessary to complete construction as a
interpreted. whole.
Interpretation can be seen as a broad Construction is almost like an interpretation
form of construction in which the words are considere
 ➢ CLASSIFICATION OF STATUES: Classification of statutes under the
interpretation of statutes refers to the systematic organization of laws based on
various criteria to facilitate their understanding, application, and analysis. In
legal interpretation, statutes are often categorized according to different factors
such as their subject matter, purpose, form, or effect. This classification helps
legal practitioners, scholars, and courts to interpret statutes effectively by
providing a framework for analyzing their provisions in context. By organizing
statutes into distinct categories, such as substantive, procedural, regulatory, or
temporary, interpreters can identify relevant legal principles, interpretive rules,
and precedents applicable to specific types of statutes.

▪ Classification Based on Duration:

A. Temporary Statutes: Temporary statutes have a limited duration and are
intended to be in effect for a specified period of time or until a specific event
occurs. These statutes are often enacted to address urgent or temporary
situations, such as wartime measures or emergency economic measures. Once
the specified period expires or the triggering event occurs, temporary statutes
automatically cease to have legal effect unless renewed or extended by the
legislative body.
B. Permanent Statutes: Permanent statutes have no predetermined expiration date
and remain in effect indefinitely until repealed or amended by a legislative body.
These statutes cover a wide range of subjects and are intended to establish
enduring legal rules and frameworks for governance. Permanent statutes provide
stability and predictability in the legal system and are subject to regular review
and revision to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness.
▪ Classification of Statutes by Method
A. Mandatory, Imperative or Obligatory Statute: A mandatory statute compels
the performance of certain actions or dictates that specific things must be carried
out in a particular manner or form. Non-compliance typically leads to legal
consequences.
B. Directory or Permissive Statute: A directory statute merely provides guidance
or permission for actions without compelling their performance. In some cases,
statutes prescribe conditions or forms that are considered essential for the
regulated action and their omission can render the action invalid. In other cases,
these prescriptions are seen as non-binding and failure to follow them might
result in penalties if any are stipulated by the statute.
In the case of H.V. Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, it was determined that mandatory
provisions must be strictly adhered to, while substantial compliance with directory
provisions is generally sufficient to meet legal requirements.
▪ Classification of Statues with Reference to Object
▪ Codifying Statute: A codifying statute is one that aims to comprehensively
outline the entire body of law on a specific subject. It seeks to provide a thorough
and authoritative statement of the key legal rules pertaining to that subject. This
includes existing provisions from various statutes on the subject and may also
incorporate common law principles. Codifying statutes help to clarify and
streamline the law, making it more accessible, understandable, and predictable
for legal practitioners, policymakers, and the public. Examples of codifying
statutes include the creation of statutory codes for areas such as criminal law,
civil procedure, taxation, and commercial transactions. The objective of
codifying statutes is to promote legal certainty, consistency, and efficiency in the
administration of justice. These statutes aim to codify or compile disparate laws,
regulations, and judicial decisions on a particular subject into a unified and
comprehensive code or statute.
An example is the Bill of Exchange Act of 1882 in England, which codified laws
regarding bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes. Similarly, the Hindu
Succession Act of 1956 in India is a codifying statute that addresses intestate
succession among Hindus.
▪ Consolidating Statute: A consolidating statute consolidates all statutory
enactments related to a particular subject into a single law, making it easier to
access and understand. It brings together. These statutes aim to streamline and
simplify the legal framework by consolidating overlapping, duplicative, or
conflicting provisions into a coherent and harmonized statute. Consolidated
statutes may involve the repeal of redundant or obsolete laws and the integration
of relevant provisions from multiple statutes into a single comprehensive statute.
Examples of consolidated statutes include laws consolidating regulations
governing a specific industry, sector, or area of governance. The objective of
consolidated statutes is to reduce complexity, eliminate redundancy, and enhance
clarity and coherence in the legal system.
For example, in England, the Law of Property Act of 1925 consolidated the acts
of 1922 and 1924. In India, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 is a
consolidating statute concerning criminal procedures. Such statutes not only
compile earlier laws but also repeal the earlier acts for the sake of clarity.
▪ Declaratory Statute: A declaratory statute is one that clarifies and removes
doubts or misunderstandings about the meaning of terms or expressions within
the common law or statutory law. When courts have interpreted an expression
differently from what the legislature intended, a declaratory statute is passed to
set the correct meaning of that expression. In India, the Income Tax
(Amendment) Act of 1985, which added explanation 2 to section 40 of the
Income Tax Act of 1961 and the Finance Act of 1987, which amended the
definition of “Owner of house property” in section 27, are examples of
declaratory acts.
It’s important to note that the mere use of the phrase “it is hereby declared” does
not automatically make a statute a declaratory statute. A declaratory statute
typically contains a preamble and uses terms like “declared” and “enacted” to
signal its intent.
▪ Remedial Statute: A remedial statute is a kind of law that offers new help or a
new solution. Its main purpose is to improve how rights are protected and address
problems or errors in the old law. Examples of remedial statutes include the
Maternity Benefits Act of 1961 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923.
In these laws, you’ll often find the phrase “for remedy whereof” right before the
actual law.
▪ Blackstone, a legal scholar, thought that remedial statutes could either expand or
limit rights. They could expand rights when they made the law more generous or
they could limit rights when they restricted existing legal rights. In a case
called Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath, the court decided
that all laws in a welfare state aim to promote general well-being. Some laws are
more responsive to urgent social needs and have a more direct and noticeable
impact on fixing social problems.
▪ Enabling Statute: An enabling statute is a law that allows something that was
previously forbidden, with or without specific rules on how to do it. It widens
the scope of what’s allowed under common law. An enabling statute makes an
action lawful, even if it wouldn’t be otherwise.
In a case called Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association v.
State of Bombay, the court explained that an enabling act not only permits
something to happen but also gives the necessary authority to do what’s needed
to achieve the law’s goal. Any conditions set by an enabling statute for the public
good must be followed because they are essential. An example is Section 49-
A(1) and 49-A(2) of the Advocates Act of 1961, as amended by Act 21 of 1964.
▪ Disabling Statute: A disabling statute is one that limits or reduces a right granted
by common law. It’s a law that restricts a common law right. These statutes
typically impose limitations, prohibitions, or conditions on individuals,
organizations, or entities. Disabling statutes may aim to protect public safety,
health, or welfare by prohibiting harmful activities, regulating dangerous
substances, or restricting certain behaviors. Examples of disabling statutes
include laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors, banning the use of certain
hazardous chemicals, or restricting the possession of firearms in certain
locations. The objective of disabling statutes is to promote public safety, protect
individuals from harm, and maintain order within society.
▪ Penal Statute: A penal statute is a law that punishes certain actions or
wrongdoings. This type of law can be in the form of a detailed criminal code
with many sections that define punishments for different wrongs. For example,
the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act of 1954 and the Arms Act of 1959 are all examples of penal
statutes.
Penalties for breaking these laws can include fines, the loss of property,
imprisonment or even the death penalty. When the law enforces obedience not
through individual lawsuits but by imposing punishments as commanded by the
law, it’s considered a penal statute. Penalties can only be imposed when the law
explicitly states so and any doubts should benefit the accused.
▪ Taxing Statute: A taxing statute is a law that imposes taxes on income or certain
types of transactions. Examples include income tax, wealth tax, sales tax and gift
tax. These taxes help the government collect money to support public welfare.
However, it’s essential that a statute clearly states that taxes must be paid and
any doubts about this should benefit the person being taxed.
▪ Explanatory Statute: An explanatory statute is a law that explains another law.
It’s created to fill in gaps or clarify confusing parts of a previous law. An
explanatory statute aims to make the meaning of an expression used in an earlier
law clearer. For instance, in Britain, the Royal Mines Act of 1688 was passed to
encourage the mining of certain base metals. The Royal Mines Act of 1963 was
enacted to provide a better explanation of the earlier law.
▪ Amending Statute: An amending statute is a law that adds to or changes the
original law to improve it or better achieve its original purpose. It doesn’t cancel
out the old law; it becomes part of it. Examples include the Direct Taxes
Amendments Act of 1974 and the Land Acquisition (Amendments) Act of 1984.
These statutes aim to amend or supplement existing laws to address changing
circumstances, emerging issues, or policy priorities. Amending statutes may
involve adding new provisions, deleting or modifying existing provisions, or
clarifying ambiguous language in existing statutes. Examples of amending
statutes include laws amending tax codes, updating environmental regulations,
or revising criminal sentencing guidelines. The objective of amending statutes is
to ensure that laws remain relevant, effective, and responsive to evolving needs
and circumstances within society.
▪ Repealing Statute: A repealing statute is a law that cancels out an earlier law. It
can do this explicitly by saying so in the statute or implicitly through its
language. For example, the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act of 1956
repealed the Hyderabad Municipal and Town Committees Act of 1951.
Repealing statutes are laws enacted with the objective of abolishing, revoking,
or nullifying existing statutes, regulations, or provisions. These statutes aim to
repeal or annul laws that are outdated, obsolete, ineffective, or inconsistent with
current legal principles or policy objectives. Repealing statutes may involve the
complete removal or partial modification of existing laws, regulations, or
provisions from the legal framework. Examples of repealing statutes include
laws repealing discriminatory laws, abolishing redundant regulations, or
nullifying unconstitutional provisions. The objective of repealing statutes is to
streamline the legal system, eliminate unnecessary or burdensome regulations,
and promote legal reform and modernization.
▪ Curative or Validating Statute: A curative or validating statute is one passed
to fix problems in a previous law or to make legal proceedings, documents or
actions valid, even if they didn’t meet the legal requirements. These statutes often
include phrases like “notwithstanding any judgment, decree or court order.”
They’re meant to make previously unlawful actions legal or to overturn court
decisions.
In a case involving Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and others v. State of
Orissa and others, the Supreme Court of India explained that while deciding
 legal rights is a job for the courts, only the legislature can pass laws to validate
illegal actions or laws. However, when the validity of a validating law is in
question, the court must consider three things:
A. Whether the law fixes the problems that made the action or law invalid.
B. Whether the legislature had the authority to validate what was declared invalid
before.
C. Whether the validation respects the rights guaranteed by the constitution. A
validating law is effective only if the answers to these three questions are “yes.”

➢ DEFINTIONS
▪ Act: An act is a legislative measure that has been formally passed by a legislative
body, such as a parliament or congress. Acts are the primary form of legislation
and carry the highest level of authority within a legal system. They are typically
introduced as bills, debated, amended, and ultimately enacted into law by the
legislative body. Acts can cover a wide range of subjects and may establish new
laws, amend existing laws, or repeal outdated laws. In the context of
interpretation of statutes, acts are often the focus of analysis and interpretation
by courts, lawyers, and legal scholars. Understanding the intent and purpose
behind an act is crucial for its proper interpretation and application in specific
cases.
▪ Enactment: Enactment refers to the process by which a bill is formally approved
and becomes law. This process typically involves several stages, including
introduction, debate, amendment, and final approval by the legislative body.
Once a bill has been enacted, it is considered an official law of the land and is
binding on individuals and entities within the jurisdiction. Enactment is a crucial
step in the legislative process, as it transforms a proposed measure into a legally
enforceable statute. In the interpretation of statutes, the enactment process may
be relevant for understanding the legislative history, context, and intent behind a
particular law.
▪ Statutes: Statutes are formal written laws enacted by a legislative body. The term
"statutes" is often used broadly to refer to all forms of legislative enactments,
including acts, ordinances, regulations, and rules. Statutes can cover a wide range
of subjects and may govern various aspects of society, including civil rights,
criminal justice, taxation, commerce, and public administration. In the
interpretation of statutes, courts and legal practitioners analyze the text, context,
and legislative history of statutes to determine their meaning and application in
specific cases. Statutory interpretation involves identifying the intent and
purpose behind statutes and applying established principles of statutory
construction to resolve legal disputes.
A. A Statue means any Law, Act, Enactment. The Parliament is given authority of
Lawmaking. According to Blacks Dictionary, "A Statute is a formal written
enactment of Legislative authority that governs a country, state, city or county.
In Simple words, it is the Law, Enactment, Act.
B. According to Subba Rao J. "Interpretation is the method by which the true sense
or the meaning of the word is understood." (The State of Jammu and Kashmir V.
Thakur Ganga Singh, 1960 2SCR 346)
 ▪ Ordinance: An ordinance is a legislative measure enacted by a local government
authority, such as a city council or municipal government. Ordinances have the
force of law within the jurisdiction of the governing body that enacted them and
typically regulate matters of local concern, such as zoning, land use, public
safety, and sanitation. While ordinances are similar to acts in terms of their legal
effect, they are enacted at the local level rather than the state or national level. In
the interpretation of statutes, ordinances are subject to the same principles of
statutory interpretation as other forms of legislation, including analysis of the
text, context, and legislative intent.
▪ Rules: Rules, also known as regulations or administrative rules, are legal
instruments issued by government agencies or administrative bodies to
implement and enforce statutes. Rules interpret, supplement, or clarify the
provisions of statutes and may establish specific requirements, procedures, or
standards for compliance. Unlike statutes, which are enacted by legislative
bodies, rules are promulgated by executive agencies or regulatory bodies
pursuant to authority delegated to them by statutes. In the interpretation of
statutes, courts often defer to the interpretation of rules by the agencies
responsible for their administration, applying principles of deference such as
Chevron deference or Auer deference.

UNIT 2
▪ INTERNAL AIDS: “Internal aids” mean those aids which are available in the
statute itself. Each and every part of an enactment helps in interpretation.
However, it is important to decipher as to whether these parts can be of any help
in the interpretation of the statute . The Internal aids to interpretation may be as
follows:
▪ TITLE
A. Short Title – The short title of an Act is for the purpose of reference & for its
identification. It ends with the year of passing of the Act. E.g. “The Indian Penal
Code, 1860”; “The Indian Evidence Act, 1872”. The Short Title is generally
given at the beginning with the words- “This Act may be called……………” For
e.g Section 1 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, says –“This Act may be called,
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872”. Even though short title is the part of the statute,
it does not have any role in the interpretation of the provisions of an Act.
B. Long title – The Long Title of a Statute is an internal part of the statute and is
admissible as an aid to its construction. Statute is headed by a long title and it
gives the description about the object of an Act. It begins with the words- “An
Act to ………….” For e.g. The long title of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
is – “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to criminal procedure”.
In recent times, long title has been used by the courts to interpret certain
provision of the statutes. However, its useful only to the extent of removing the
ambiguity and confusions and is not a conclusive aid to interpret the provision
of the statute.
In Manoharlal v. State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 418- it was held that no doubt the
long title of the Act extracted by the appellant’s counsel indicates the main purposes of
the enactment but it cannot control the express operative provisions of the Act.
In Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274- the title of the Madras
General Sales Tax, 1939, was utilised to indicate that the object of the Act is to impose
taxes on sales that take place within the province.
Although the title is a part of the Act, it is in itself not an enacting provision and though
useful in case of ambiguity of the enacting provisions, is ineffective to control their
clear meaning.
▪ PREAMBLE: The main objective and purpose of the Act are found in the
Preamble of the Statute. Preamble is the Act in a nutshell. It is a preparatory
statement. It contains the recitals showing the reason for enactment of the Act. If
the language of the Act is clear the preamble must be ignored. The preamble is
an intrinsic aid in the interpretation of an ambiguous act. If any doubts arise from
the terms employed by the Legislature, it has always been held a safe means of
collecting the intention to call in aid the ground and cause of making the statute
and to have recourse to the preamble.
In Kashi Prasad v State, the court held that even though the preamble cannot be used
to defeat the enacting clauses of a statute, it can be treated as a key for the interpretation
of the statute.
In Global Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission– it was held
that the object of legislation should be read in the context of the Preamble.
In Maharashtra Land Development Corporation v. State of Maharashtra, it was
held that Preamble of the Act is a guiding Light to its interpretation.
▪ HEADING: Headings are of two kinds – one prefixed to a section and other
prefixed to a group or set of sections. Heading is to be regarded as giving the key
to the interpretation and the heading may be treated as preambles to the
provisions following them.
In Krishnaih V. State of A.P. AIR 2005 AP 10 it was held that headings prefixed to
sections cannot control the plain words of the provisions. Only in the case of ambiguity
or doubt, heading or subheading may be referred to as an aid in construing provision.
In Durga Thathera v Narain Thathera, the court held that the headings are like a
preamble which helps as a key to the mind of the legislature but do not control the
substantive section of the enactment.
In Novartis Ag. v. Union of India, the sectional headings were relied on while
interpreting Section 5, 3(d), 2(1) (j) and (ja) and 83 of the Patents Act, 1970.
▪ MARGINAL NOTES: Marginal notes are the notes which are inserted at the
side of the sections in an Act and express the effect of the sections stated.
Marginal notes appended to the Articles of the Constitution have been held to
constitute part of the constitution as passed by the constituent assembly and
therefore they have been made use of in construing the articles.
In Wilkes v Goodwin, the Court held that the side notes are not part of the Act and
hence marginal notes cannot be referred.
In Bengal Immunity Company v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the
marginal notes to Article 286 of the Constitution was a part of the Constitution and
therefore, it could be relied on for the interpretation of that Article.
In Tara Prasad Singh v. Union of India, it was held that marginal notes to a section
of the statute cannot take away the effect of the provisions.
 ▪ SECTIONS/ CLAUSES: The object of a definition is to avoid the necessity of
frequent repetitions in describing the subject matter to which the word or
expression defined is intended to apply. A definition contained in the definition
clause of a particular statute should be used for the purpose of that Act. Definition
from any other statute cannot be borrowed and used ignoring the definition
contained in the statute itself.
▪ PUNCTUATION: Punctuation is a minor element in the construction of a
statute. Only when a statute is carefully punctuated and there is no doubt about
its meaning can weight be given to punctuation. It cannot, however, be regarded
as a controlling element for determining the meaning of a statute.”
In Aswini Kumar v. Arabinda Bose, the Supreme Court held that a punctuation cannot
be regarded as a controlling element and cannot be allowed to control the plain meaning
of a text.
Therefore, in Shambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme court held
that the word ‘which’ used twice in Article 22(7) of the Constitution, followed by a
comma after each, was to be read conjunctively because the context so required.
▪ ILLUSTRATIONS: Illustrations in enactment provided by the legislature are
valuable aids in the understanding the real scope. In Mahesh Chandra Sharma
V. Raj Kumari Sharma, (AIR 1996 27 SC 869), it was held that illustrations
are parts of the Section and help to elucidate the principles of the section.
In Mohommed Sydeol Ariffin v. Yeah Ooi Gark, it was held that the
illustrations are of relevance and value in the construction of the text of the
section, although they donot form part of the section. Therefore, they should not
be readily rejected as repugnant to the sections.
▪ EXCEPTIONS: Exceptions are generally added to an enactment with the
purpose of exempting something which would otherwise fall within the ambit of
the main provision. For instance, there are ten exceptions attached to section
499, IPC which defines ‘Defamation’. These ten exceptions are the cases which
do not amount to defamation. Similarly there are five exceptions attached to
section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which defines ‘murder’. These five
exceptions are the cases which are not murders but culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. An exception affirms that the things not exempted are
covered under the main provision. In case a repugnancy between an operative
part and an exception, the operative part must be relied on. Some decisions have,
however, been given on the principle that an exception, being the latter will of
the legislature, must prevail over the substantive portion of the enactment.
In Director of Secondary Education v. Pushpendra Kumar, the Supreme Court held
that a provision in the nature of an exception cannot be so interpreted as to subserve the
main enactment and thereby nullify, the right conferred by the main enactment.
In Collector of Customs v. M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, the Supreme Court held that
whenever there is a provision in the nature of an exception to the principal clause
thereof; it must be construed with regard to that principal clause.
▪ PROVISO: The normal function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case
which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment,
and its effect is confined to that case. There may be cases in which the language
of the statute may be so clear that a proviso may be construed as a substantive
 clause. But whether a proviso is construed as restricting the main provision or as
a substantive clause, it cannot be divorced from the provision to which it stands
as a proviso. It must be construed harmoniously with the main enactment.” [CIT
vs. Ajax Products Ltd. (1964) 55 ITR 741 (SC)]
In Union of India v. Sanjay Kumar Jain, the function of proviso was declared that it
qualifies or carves out an exception to the main provision.
In Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, the Supreme Court held that a proviso cannot be
permitted by construction to defeat the basic intent expressed in the substantive
provision.
▪ EXPLANATIONS: An Explanation is added to a section to elaborate upon and
explain the meaning of the words appearing in the section. An Explanation to a
statutory provision has to be read with the main provision to which it is added as
an Explanation. An Explanation appended to a section or a subsection becomes
an integral part of it and has no independent existence apart from it. The purpose
of an Explanation is not to limit the scope of the main section. An Explanation
is quite different in nature from a proviso; the latter excludes, excepts and
restricts while the former explains, clarifies or subtracts or includes something
by introducing a legal fiction.
In Bengal Immunity Company v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court has observed
that an explanation is a part of the section to which it is appended and the whole lot
should be read together to know the true meaning of the provision.
In Bihta Co-operative Development Cane Marketing Union v. State of Bihar, the
Supreme Court said that in case of a conflict between the main provision and the
explanation attached to it, the general duty of the court is to try to harmonise the two.
▪ SAVING CLAUSES: Saving clauses are generally appended in cases of repeal
and re-enactment of a statute. By this the rights already created under repealed
enactment are not disturbed nor new rights are created by it. A saving clause is
normally inserted in the repealing statute. In case of a clash between the main
part of statute and a saving clause, the saving clause has to be rejected.
In Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, the Supreme
Court did not allow the use of a saving clause, which was enacted like a proviso, to
determine whether a section in an Act was retrospective in operation.
In Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Union of India, the Supreme Court
while interpreting the saving clause in the Export Control Order, 1988 held that the
clause only saved the rights which were in existence before the order was issued and it
did not confer any new rights which were not in existence at that time.
▪ SCHEDULES: Schedules form part of a statute. They are at the end and contain
minute details for working out the provisions of the express enactment. The
expression in the schedule cannot override the provisions of the express
enactment.
In M/s. Aphali Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme
Court held that in case of a clash between the schedule and the main body of an Act,
the main body prevails and the schedule has to be rejected.
In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan and others, the Supreme Court ruled that the
purpose of a schedule is to advance the object of the main provision and deletion of
schedule cannot wipe out provisions of an Act in effect and spirit.
 ➢ STRICT & LIBERAL INTERPRETATIONS: The "Rule of Strict
Interpretation" and the "Rule of Liberal Interpretation" are two contrasting
principles used in statutory interpretation to determine the meaning and scope of
legal provisions. Here's an explanation of each:
RULE OF STRICT INTERPRETATION: The Rule of Strict Interpretation, also
known as the "narrow construction" or "strict construction," is a principle applied in
statutory interpretation that requires courts to interpret statutes narrowly and strictly
adhere to the plain language of the law. Under this rule, courts interpret statutes
narrowly and restrictively, focusing on the literal meaning of the words used in the
statute, without considering extraneous factors or legislative intent beyond what is
explicitly stated in the text.
Characteristics of Strict Interpretation:
▪ Literal Reading: Strict interpretation requires courts to give the words of a
statute their ordinary and literal meaning, without expanding or stretching their
interpretation.
▪ Limited Scope: Courts employing strict interpretation limit the application of
statutes to situations specifically covered by the language of the law, even if this
results in perceived gaps or injustices.
▪ Presumption Against Legislation: Strict interpretation is often accompanied by
a presumption against legislation, where courts are reluctant to infer legislative
intent or purpose beyond what is explicitly stated in the text.
▪ Favoring the Status Quo: Strict interpretation tends to maintain the existing
legal framework and defer to the legislature to make any necessary changes or
amendments to address perceived deficiencies in the law.
▪ Risk of Narrow Application: While strict interpretation ensures adherence to
the plain language of the law, it may result in unintended consequences or unjust
outcomes in cases where the literal interpretation does not fully capture the
legislative intent or purpose.
RULE OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION: The Rule of Liberal Interpretation, also
known as the "broad construction" or "liberal construction," is a principle applied in
statutory interpretation that allows courts to interpret statutes broadly and expansively
to achieve the underlying purpose or objectives of the law. Under this rule, courts
interpret statutes in a manner that promotes justice, equity, and the legislative intent,
even if it requires going beyond the literal meaning of the words used in the statute.
Characteristics of Liberal Interpretation:
▪ Teleological Approach: Liberal interpretation takes a teleological approach,
focusing on the underlying purpose or objectives of the law rather than solely on
the literal meaning of the words used in the statute.
▪ Contextual Analysis: Courts employing liberal interpretation consider the
legislative history, policy objectives, and social context surrounding the
enactment of the statute to discern the legislature's intent and purpose.
▪ Expansive Application: Liberal interpretation allows courts to interpret statutes
broadly to address unforeseen circumstances or gaps in the law, ensuring that the
legislative purpose is fulfilled and justice is served.
▪ Judicial Activism: Liberal interpretation may involve a degree of judicial
activism, where courts play an active role in shaping the law to achieve equitable
and just outcomes, even if it requires departing from the strict letter of the statute.
▪ Risk of Judicial Overreach: While liberal interpretation aims to promote justice
and equity, it may also lead to judicial overreach or usurpation of the legislative
function, particularly when courts impose their own policy preferences or values
in interpreting statutes.

➢ ASPECTS OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUES: The interpretation of

statutes is a crucial aspect of the legal system, as it determines how laws are
applied and enforced in practice. Several important aspects influence the process
of interpreting statutes:
▪ Textual Analysis: Examining the language of the statute itself is fundamental to
interpretation. Courts analyze the words, phrases, and structure of the statute to
discern its meaning and scope. The plain meaning of the text is often considered
the starting point for interpretation.
▪ Legislative Intent: Understanding the intent behind the enactment of the statute
is essential. Legislative history, including committee reports, debates, and
statements by lawmakers, can provide insights into the purpose and objectives
of the law.
▪ Contextual Considerations: Interpreting statutes requires considering the
broader context in which they operate. This includes examining related statutes,
legal principles, societal norms, and the historical background of the law.
▪ Purpose and Objectives: Determining the purpose and objectives of the statute
helps guide interpretation. Courts seek to give effect to the underlying goals of
the law while ensuring consistency with constitutional principles and public
policy.
▪ Principles of Statutory Construction: Various principles and canons of
statutory construction provide guidelines for interpretation. These include the
presumption in favor of constitutionality, the presumption against absurdity, the
rule of lenity in criminal law, and the ejusdem generis rule, among others.
▪ Precedent: Prior judicial decisions interpreting similar statutes serve as
precedents for future cases. Courts often rely on established case law to interpret
statutes consistently and predictably.
▪ Interpretive Tools: Various tools and aids are available to aid in interpretation,
including dictionaries, legal treatises, legislative history, and expert testimony.
These resources can provide additional context and clarification for
understanding statutory provisions.
▪ Fairness and Justice: Ultimately, the goal of statutory interpretation is to
achieve fairness and justice in the application of the law. Courts strive to interpret
statutes in a manner that promotes equitable outcomes and respects individual
rights and liberties.
▪ Judicial Discretion: While statutes provide a framework for legal interpretation,
courts exercise discretion in applying the law to specific cases. Judicial
interpretation requires balancing competing interests and values to arrive at a just
resolution.
 ➢ DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION: The Doctrine of
Harmonious Construction, also known as the Principle of Harmonious
Interpretation, is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation used by
courts to resolve conflicts or inconsistencies between different provisions of a
statute or between statutes dealing with the same subject matter. This doctrine
aims to reconcile seemingly contradictory provisions within the legal framework
to give effect to the legislative intent and achieve a coherent and harmonious
interpretation of the law.
The basis of Principle of Harmonious Construction probably is that the Legislature must
not have intended to contradict itself. The intention of Legislature is that every provision
should remain operative. But when two provisions are contradictory, it may not possible
to effectuate both of them and in result, one will be rendered futile as against the settled
basic principle of ut res magis valeat qauam pereat. Therefore, such a construction
should be allowed to prevail by which existing inconsistency is removed and both the
provisions remain in force, in harmony with each other.

MEANING: The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is considered as the thumb

Tule to the Rule of Interpretation of Statutes. The Doctrine states:
"Whenever there is a case of conflict between two or more Statutes or between two or
more parts or provisions of a Statute, then the Statute has to be interpreted upon
harmonious construction. It signifies that in case of inconsistencies, proper
harmonization is to be done between the conflicting parts so that one part does not defeat
the purpose of another."
The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is based on a cardinal principle in law that
every statute has been formulated with a specific purpose and intention and thereby
should be read as a whole. The normal presumption is that what the Parliament has
given by one hand is not sought to be taken away from another. The essence is to give
effect to both the provisions. To avoid conflict, the adopted Interpretation of the Statute
should be consistent with all its provisions.

ORIGIN: The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction has its roots in the principles of
statutory interpretation developed by courts over centuries of legal precedent. It reflects
a recognition that statutes should be interpreted in a manner that avoids internal conflicts
or inconsistencies and promotes a coherent legal framework. The doctrine has been
widely embraced by courts in common law jurisdictions around the world as a means
of giving effect to legislative intent while respecting the integrity of the legal system.
The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction was established as a result of Court
Interpretations of a variety of cases. The Court used the Harmonious Construction Rule
to hold that Fundamental Rights, which are rights granted against the State, may be
revoked under certain circumstances and modified by Parliament to bring them into
compliance with constitutional provisions. This theory was developed historically
through the law of conciliation, which was first proposed in the case of C. P and Berar
General Clauses Act, 1914.

PRINCIPLES OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION:

 ▪ Presumption of Consistency: The doctrine operates on the presumption that
lawmakers intend for their enactments to be internally consistent and
harmonious. Courts presume that conflicting provisions within a statute or
between statutes were not intended by the legislature and seek to reconcile them
through interpretation.
▪ Avoidance of Absurdity: Harmonious construction aims to avoid interpretations
that would lead to absurd or unreasonable results. Courts strive to interpret
statutes in a manner that gives effect to the legislative purpose while maintaining
logical coherence and practicality.
▪ Contextual Analysis: In applying the doctrine, courts consider the context and
purpose of the statutes in question. They examine the legislative history, statutory
scheme, and surrounding circumstances to discern the intent of the legislature
and the broader context in which the laws were enacted.
▪ Principle of Effectiveness: The doctrine seeks to give effect to all provisions of
the statute and avoid rendering any provision superfluous or meaningless. Courts
interpret statutes in a manner that gives meaningful effect to each provision,
harmonizing them to achieve a coherent and comprehensive legal framework.

APPLICATION OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION: Interpretation of Internal

Conflicts: The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is often invoked when there are
apparent conflicts or inconsistencies within a single statute. Courts analyze the text,
structure, and purpose of the statute to harmonize conflicting provisions and give effect
to the legislative intent.
▪ Resolution of Ambiguities: When statutory language is ambiguous or
susceptible to multiple interpretations, harmonious construction can help clarify
the meaning of the law. Courts strive to reconcile conflicting interpretations and
adopt an interpretation that promotes consistency and coherence.
▪ Interpretation of Related Statutes: The doctrine is also applied when
interpreting statutes dealing with the same subject matter or addressing related
issues. Courts seek to harmonize the provisions of different statutes to ensure
consistency and avoid conflicts between overlapping legal frameworks.

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
▪ In S. Nagraj (Dead) by LRs & Ors. Vs B. R. Vasudeva Murthy & Ors., (2010)
3 SCC 353], the Supreme Court held that Statutes opposing provisions but with
same subject matter have to be read together.
▪ SBEC Sugar Ltd & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 668 It was
held that a cardinal principle of construction is that the provisions of the
notification have to be harmoniously construed as to prevent any conflict with
the provisions of the Statute.
▪ In Union of India & Ors. Vs Dileep Kumar Singh, Civil Appeal Nos. 2466-
2467 OF 2015, the Apex Court held that the provisions of Statute must be read
harmoniously together. Where this is not possible and there is irreconcilable
conflict between two Sections, it must be determined which provision is leading
provision and which provision is subordinate provision and that which one must
give way to the other.