Lec.

X11

Lecture XIII
se.Words
entionof
MIMAMSA RULES OF
INTERPRETATION
unt:
n who is Synopsis
)hallenged
Introduction 273
in a court 1
274
expressed 2. Rules of Interpretation
The Sarthakya axiom 274
The Laghava axiom 276
tant
The Arthikatva axiom 276
;lumbering. 277
and other The Gunapradhana axiom STUCK
The Samanjasya axiom 278
ful plaintiff
The Vikalpa axiom 278
e laws give
who sleep 2 3. Rules of Construction 279
to compel a Shruti or Abhida 279
able time as e Samakhya 280
lent claims. 3 Linga/Lakshana 280
Vakya 280
Prakarana 281
4. Conclusion 281

1. INTRODUCTION:
The remarkable development in the field of law is in ancient
and medieval India. Mimamsa was a scientific system if
interpretation which finds its roots in the works of Jaimini. He laid
AIR1957P& down these principles in his Sutras written around 600
(1) ARC 471;
B.C.!Renownedjurists like Vijnaneshwara,Jimutvahana, Nanda
MANU/TN/ Pandit have followed the principles of Mimamsa. Mimamsa

na Gupta and 1. Justice Markandey Katju, The Mimansa Principles of Interpretation,

(1993) 1 SCC (Jour) 16.
273
274 Lectures on Interpretation of Statutes (I.*c.XIII Lec.X111]
principles were initially
followed to interpret the texts relating to interpretatio
religious activities, rituals
and geremonies given in vari9ys texts. exact terms
Because of their ease of
to interpret the civil and ada'ptability, the principleswere later used every word
criminal by the commentators of out of a part
Dharynasutras and Smritis. After the initialcodificationof the some other
Hindu Personal Law during the era of British
India,the•tiseof the passage is nc
Mimamsa Principles has decreased. There are several attempts to is faulty sinc
revive these ancient principles of interpretation and to apply to the have some
current legal disputes. The Mimamsa Rules of Interpretationwhich
are traditional principles of interpfétation, which are solutionoriented The pr
principles, are also appliedby the courts.1 Bishopof
construed t)
2. RULES OF INTERPRETATION: word shall
Just the way how the Western rules of interpretation,there This
are certain rules of interpretationexpoundedby Jaiminiin his court held tl
revolutionary work on Mimamsa which aim at understandingthe ought to be
rear meaning of the texts and provisions giving importance to the sentence orl
purpose of such text or provision. Jaimini lays downsix important In Tha
rules of interpretation in Mimamsa, Manager (l
The Sarthakya axiom has been dif
The Laghava axiom the purposi
interpretati(
The Arthikatva axiom
outward ex]
The Gunapradhana axiom has been st:
The Samanjasya axiom purposive
meaningful
The Vikalpa axiom
must be vie
These are the six most elementaryyet importantprinciples purpose. T)
Jaimini has laid down. These are discussedfurther. application
The Sarthakya axiom
According to the Sarthakyaaxiom, every word and sentence l. Thakon
(Manda
must have some meaning and purpose. It is the purposive MANU
2. Tagore
Bhaves nt Shah v. Gujarat Public Service 3. (L..R.) ,
1. another, 2017 (l) GL.R. 454.
Commission and 4. Sakharc
 in Mimamsa.i Karika has
explainedthis
of a passage has aepurpose.
meaning."2 As per
If onecan this axiom
out of a pat-tof a passage, then the remaining make
other sense.2 If while intervreting a additionalpart
passage
passage is not considered to have any sense then a partOf
the
is faulty since as this maxim states, every word and interpretation
sentencemust
The principle given by .this axiom is universal.
Bishop of Oxford3it was held that "a statute oughtIn Regv.
construedthat, if it can be prevented, no clause, to beso
sentence,or
word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant."
This same principle was stated in Sakharamv Soma4, the
court held that it is "a cardinal rule of constructionthata statute
ought to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, noclause,
sentence or word shall be superfluous, void or insignificant."
It
In Thakore Rajusinh Joraji v. Senior DivisionCommercial
Manager (Mandal Prabandhak (WA) and anotherl thecourt
has been discussed that the principle of Sarthakya is thebasisof
the purposive rule of interpretation in the Mimamsaformof
interpretation. Thereby the purpose is made to prevailoverthe
it
outward expression which becomes subordinate Additionally,
oftensubjected to
has been stated that "if the statutory rule is
true intendanda
purposive interpretation to bring out its
andpolicy
meaningfulapplication, then the executive instructions their
achieve
be viewed and applied by the courts so as toquestionis
lilUS1
There is no gainsaying that when 'the construction
applicationof any welfare scheme, the purposive

l. commercial
ThakoreRajusinh Joraji v Senior Division IodlaW
(Mandal Prabandhak (WA) and another 2017
MANU/GJ/1665/2017,
2. TagoreLaw Lectures (1905) p.78.
(L..R.) 42 B. D. 245.
4. Sakharam v Soma, 5 Nag.I,.R. 189.
 Satutes
Esc-sc..._ Fy tie

Es makes
preierred than

b v- issue raised
criteria should the
Zo got the scree
it that ••xitten test should be
fir suitabilitv since it is short
to i=qret gerral szEt2biIitythan to consider
related to the oral interview is
Guy ia since it many
zee
Arthümra a-Gan
A attachedto a or
A might
æaning:sand in different sense in different
Buta used at one place should not
tvo æanings- If a a used more than
that shxfld given one and the same meanin•
a in-that used- An alternative or other
taken-
Toa •wd senteme at one and the same place,
sbuxld $ven or attached-a Ihe same
in the s.anr of the same set of Rules must
Terre Law
2.
1993 (21) ALR (ImS) p-7S-
Tagrre Lav
-%SS
adhur Bogla Hira Lal Bogla- AIR 1917Cal
 277
given the same meaning unless there is anything to indicate the
contrary. 1
The Gunapradhanaaxiom STUCK
If a word or sentencewhich,on the face of it, purports to
express a subordinate idea whichclashes with the principal idea,
the former must be adjusted to the latter or altogether disregarded.
In the word Gunapradhana, 'Guna' means subordinate or
accessory whereas the 'pradhana' means principal.2Matsya Nyaya
is a popular maxim which expressesthe principle laid down by
this axiom. Accordihg to it "the bigger fish eats, the smaller fish."
The principal purpose and object will swallow the subordinate
aspect. Jaimini stated that the acts are of two kinds principal and
subordinate. In Gujarat Urja VikasNigam Limited
The Apex Court, explainingthe explaining the axiom of
Gunapradhana stated that "TheSiddhanta (principle) laid down
by this Sutra is that in a case wherethere is one qualification
pertaining to the Accessoryby itselfand another pertaining to
it through the Primary, theformer qualification is always to be
taken as set aside by the latter. This is because the proper
fulfilment of the Primary is thebusiness of the Accessory also as
the latter operates solelyfor the sake oftheforrner. Consequently
if in consideration of its own qualificationit were to deprive the
Primary of its natural accomplishment then there would be a
disruption of that action (the Primary)forthe sake of which it
was meant to operate. Thoughin such a case the proper fulfilment
of the Primary with all its accompanimentswould mean the
deprival of the Accessory of its own natural accompaniment, yet,
as the fact of •the Accessorybeing equipped with all its
accompaniments is not so vet" necessary (as that of the primary),
there would be nothing incongruousin the said deprival"
l. K. N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysoreand Others, AIR 1954 SC 592.
2. Ispat Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai,
(2006) 12 scc 583.
3. (2008) 4 SCC 755; AIR 2008 SC 1921.
278 Lecturcs on Interpretation of Statutes [Lec.XIII
The Santanjasya axiom
The contradiction betweep words and sentences is not to be
presumed where it is possibleto reconcile them. •This is the
principle of harmonious construction.Contradictions should not
be easily assumed. 1 Jaimini says that there are no actual.
inconsistencies and the conflict that is being raised is because of
the improper application.All the clausesare to be construed
harmoniously. Other than the clausewhich lays down the principal
idea all other clauses are to be interpretedin such harmony as to
give complete effect to twprincipal idea. If construing
harmoniously becomes impossibleas per this the principle
established in this maxim then the axiomof Gunapradhana should
be applied and the subsidiary clausewhich is in contradiction to
the principal clause should be discarded.2
In Tribhuwan Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools,
Azamgarh and others,3 the court discussedthe importance of
this provision and stated that if there are two texts, •which on the
face seem to be conflicting and are capable go being reconciled
then the principle of Samanjasya is to be applied, and they should
be done so.
About this axiom, the SupremeCourt in Gujarat Urja Vikash
Nigam Ltd v Essar Power Ltd4the court held that "the
inconsistencies asserted are not actuallyfound. The conflicts
consist in thé difference of application.The real intention is not
affected by the application. Therefore,there is consistency. "
The Vikalpa axiom
When there is a real contradiction,one of the contradictory
matters may be adppted at option.This axiom gives discretion to
the concerned to opt for the one out of the contradictory

I. Tagore Law Lectures (1905)p.91,

2. Justice M, Rama Jois, Legal and ConstitutionalHistory of Ilidia, 451.
3. 1992 (20) ALR 921; 1992 (2) AWC 1099.
4. (2008) 4 SCC 755; AIR 2008 SC 1921.
 Nlimannsa Rules of
Interpretation
provisions. Unlike the construction was
given by
writers, timelatter one of the contradictory the
provisions English
Ion to does
Patyudasha, i.e. exception. If one provisionof this discretiom•is
provisions is an exception to other, there is no the 'l
concept of
Another exception is if they belong to an entirely cfioice
different
In Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar
Power
court held that in a situation where reconciling two texts Ltd the
whichare
in conflict becomes impossible then the axiom of Vikalpa
be applied. This principle stated that "whicheveö law is is to
more
consonance with reason and justice shouldbe preferred.However,in
conflict should not be readily assumed,and every effortshould
be Inade to reconcile conflicting texts. It is only whenall efforts
of reconciliation fail that the Vikalpaprinciple is to be resorted
to. "
3. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION:
Apart from the axioms, there are rules of construction in
Mimamsa. They are,
e Shruti or Abhida
Linga
e Vakya
e Prakarana
e Sthana
e Samakhya
These are explained in detailbelow,
Shruti//ibhida assertion.
principle of direct sense
s the clear in
provision is
According to this principle when a

1. Tagore Law Lectures (1905) p.91.

2. 2008(4) scc 755.
 J,cctures on Interpretation oc
280 Il,cc.XlJj
then no attcnjpt is to be
grammar, to twist its
theverband the casc which is governed by it ore gell%cvidcntlind
themeaningis clear and conjplcte, then it ig collcd a Srat/, and
suchmeaningof Sruti should not be (wis(cd or straincd,2"ITjiN
is the'Litcral Rule of interpretation of the
principle era.
Jn Surjit Singh v Mahanagar Ti'/ephoneNigam Limited,J
thecoultheld (hat "in (he Mijnansa systcjn, the literal fulc of
intcrpætationis called the Shtuli (or A bhida) principle, oj)dordinarily
itisthisprinciple which is to bc applied when interpreting o text,"
Linga/Lakshana
Lingais the indicative power. It is the purposiverule of
interpretation
as against the literal rule (Shruti). d When a word or
expression
has more than a single jneaning, (hen the correct Ijjeaning
ofsuchword Iras to be determined on (he basis of the context
thatwordhas been used. That is why it is called as suggestive
poweror indicative power. "I'he Linga principle has to be applied
whenon the face of the word, its meaning is not clear."I'ljenits
latentmeaning has to be brought out. J T'his principle einphasises
thatit is not only the text of a provision but also the context it
hasbeenused that determines the jneaning of it.
Vakya
Vakyais the syntactical connection. According to this principle
if two Vakyas(senteæces) are not connected in a clear manner,
thentheyare to be joined with the oid of grammar to see that a
sensibleproposition is made out of them. It hos two principles in

a. Principleof syntactical unit and

4.51
Justice M. Rama Jois, Legal and Constitutional Ilistory of India,
(2014),
TagoreLaw Lectures (1905) p.99,
(2009)16 SCC 722; AIR 2008 SC 2226.
Service
/JhaveshkumarSooryakant Shah v. Gujarat /ju/dic
Commissionand another, 2017 (I) (IL. R. 45.
 281
b. principleof
syntactical split.
The principleof syntactical
words or unit means that if a numberof
sentencesare put together without any
connection, and they serve the same grammatical
be conjointly read as one single purpose,they should
provision. The principle of syntactical
split
means thatif a sentenceor a word is used independently.
Then, such sentenceor word has to be treated as syntactically
distinct. 1
Prakarana
Prakarana means context. When the sentence of a provision,
however meaningfuland grammatically correct it might be, if it
doesn't make sense and the purpose cannot be drawn then such
purpose can be ascertainedby reading the provisionwith an
adjoining provision. As stated in Surjit Singh v Mahanagar
Telephone Nigam Limited this principle "permits construction
by referring to other texts in order to make the meaningclear."
4. CONCLUSION:
Justice MarkandeyKatju says that it is not beingproposed
that the ideas of western jurisprudence should not be unemployed
while employing our Owntraditional means of interpretation.It will
be foolish to do so. It has been the tradition of our countryto
consider and even follow the foreign ideas which are sound in
nature and not reject or dispose of them just becausethey are
foreign. It is also not being proposed that the rules of Mimamsa
such
be applied blindlyto replace the Maxwellian system because
thing will backfireand will result in chaos. What is proposedis
ideas
that when thereis a chance to employ our own traditional
relevant and
like that of Mimamsa since whenever they are still
suitable to
useful, they are to be done so after making such ideas
This can be
the prevailing conditions we have to utilise them.

Justice M. Rama and Constitutional History of India,

1.
453(2014).
2226.
2. . (2009) 16 SCC 722; AIR 2008 SC