Understanding the notion of

interpretation & construction

• Interpretation is a familiar feature of law and legal practice.
• Interpretation as a function of the judiciary. The question of the
interpretation of a statute is considered to be a question of law and not
a question of fact
• It plays an important role in justice administration and in bringing
stability to the legal system by expounding what law is.
• Rules of interpretation provide strong base for the super structure of
judicial reasoning
• Understanding of law is an art for few and it is mystery for many.
Interpretation knows no disciplinary boundaries.
• Interpretation is a method by which the actual meaning of a legislative
instrument or set of words used therein is understood by the court.
• Interpretation postulates the search for the true meaning of the words
used in the statute as a medium of expression to communicate a
particular thought.
• The task is not easy as the "language" is often misunderstood even in
ordinary conversation or correspondence.
• In the process of interpretation, several aids are used. They may be
statutory or non-statutory.
• It is relevant to understand ‘interpretation’ as the inextricable component
of the judicial process.
• It is one of the key factors which determines ‘the outcomes of the
adjudication’
• Interestingly, no definition has elucidated the idea of ‘interpretation’ from
this perspective.
• In general, many definitions deal with the meaning of interpretation, while
few of them not only address the meaning of interpretation but also its
purpose and methods.
• Based on the latter standard, some of the definitions are chosen for
discussion.
• However, it must be borne in mind that these are merely non-exhaustive
elucidates of the idea
• Salmond had defined interpretation as the process by which the courts seek to
ascertain the meaning of the Legislature through the medium of authoritative
forms in which the law stands expressed
 Gray, an American scholar, had described interpretation as the process by which a
judge or any person, searches for the meaning of a statue on an occasion and
constructs such a meaning that he either believes to be that of the Legislature, or
that he proposes to attribute to it.
• Rubert Cross, has defined interpretation as the process by which the courts
determine the meaning of a statutory provision for applying it to the situation
before them
• Francis Lieber- that interpretation is to find out the true sense of any form of
words and it comprises of an act of making intelligible what was before, not
understood or found ambiguous
• Blackstone- the fairest and rational method for interpreting a statute is by
exploring the intention of the Legislature through the most natural and probable
signs which are ‘either the words, the context, the subject-matter, effects and
consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law.
• process’, not to be taken to mean a mechanical process
• a series of methods by which the courts construes legislative instruments in question
(application of judicial mind, use of aids to interpretation, and selection of
appropriate rule of interpretation)
• Occasion- the presence of some condition like vagueness in the law triggers the
process of interpretation
• Rubert Cross- situation before them-which is to ascertain the meaning of the law by
reading it in the context.
• So, it appears that this definition has attached importance to the context in which
the law has to be understood.
• However, the appropriateness of a context will be chosen by the judge who has to
interpret the law in question.
• The interpretation is not required when the words are clear as to their meaning
 Judicial expositions of interpretation
• Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to referents.
The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the
legislature enacting it. (See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price
Waterhouse MANU/SC/1233/1997MANU/SC/1233/1997:(1997)6SCC312 )
• It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is
absolutely necessary to do so. Rules of interpretation do not permit Courts to
do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning.
• Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear
reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. (Per Lord
Loreburn, L.C. in Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans 1910 AC 444 : 79 LJKB
954 (HL) cited in Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah
MANU/SC/0397/1962MANU/SC/0397/1962 : AIR1962SC847)
• In D.R. Venkatachalam v. Dy. Transport Commissioner
MANU/SC/0327/1976MANU/SC/0327/1976 : [1977]2SCR392 . It was
observed that Courts must avoid the danger of a priori determination of the
meaning of a provision based on their own preconceived notions of
ideological structure or scheme into which the provision to be interpreted is
somewhat fitted. They are not entitled to usurp legislative function under the
disguise of interpretation.
• It is a cardinal principle of the law of interpretation of statutes that the
words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or
popular sense.
• Words to be construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless
such construction leads to some absurdity or if there is something in the
context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary
• A provision is not ambiguous merely because it contains a word which in
different contexts is capable of different meanings. It would be hard to
find anywhere a sentence of any length which does not contain such a
word.
• A provision is ambiguous only if it contains a word or phrase which, in
that particular context, is capable of having more than one meaning.
(Kirkness (Inspector of Taxes) v. John Hudson & Co., Ltd. (1955) AC
696 (HL).
• Application of the law is within the process of interpretation. But they
are different from one another.
• According to Fedrick J de Sloover (Function of Judge and Jury in the
Interpretation of Statutes, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 46, pp.11086-1110)
Application is a process of determining whether the facts of the case
come within the meaning so chosen (by using the technique of
interpretation). Whereas, interpretation is a process of reducing the
statute applicable to a single sensible meaning.
• In the construction and interpretation of statutes, the intent of the
Legislature is of supreme importance
Interpretation & construction: Are they same
or different?
• Thomas M Cooley (Constitutional Limitations) has advocated the view that
interpretation and construction are two different things.
• Interpretation- finding out the true sense or meaning of any form of words.
• Construction- Drawing conclusions respecting subject that are beyond the
direct expression of the text (extrinsic aids).
• Interpretation is the act of making intelligible what was before not
understood or ambiguous
• Construction is to determine the meaning from its true meaning from its
known elements and to draw conclusions which are in the spirit of the law