IoS Notes for End Term

Module 2: Rules of Construction

I. Literal Rule of Interpretation:

● In construing Statutes the cardinal rule is to construe its provisions Literally and
grammatically giving the words their ordinary and natural meaning. This rule is also known
as the Plain meaning rule. The first and foremost step in the course of interpretation is to
examine the language and the literal meaning of the statute.
● The words in an enactment have their own natural effect and the construction of an act
depends on its wording. There should be no additions or substitution of words in the
construction of statutes and in its interpretation.
● The primary rule is to interpret words as they are. It should be taken into note that the rule
can be applied only when the meanings of the words are clear i.e. words should be simple so
that the language is plain and only one meaning can be derived out of the statute.

Criticism:
● Literal Rule rests on the assumption that there is only one meaning for a particular word.
This restricts the scope of deriving meaning from the context of the Statute and depending
solely upon the plain wordings. As stated by Krishna Iyer J “to be literal in meaning is to see
the skin and miss the soul” This is the reason the Judges prefer to apply the golden rule
instead of the Literal rule so as to consider the intent of the Statute and not the plain words.
● According to Salmond, “The essence of law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, for the letter is
significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it”.
● Lord Reid in DPP v Ottewell affirmed that “the imprecision of the English language… is
such that it is extremely difficult to draft any provision which is not ambiguous in that
sense”

Advantages:
● Literal rule enables layman to understand the issue in hand.
● It enables to understand the intent of legislature simply and clearly.
● This rule respects parliamentary supremacy.
● Separation of Power is accomplished in an applicable manner.

Disadvantages:
 ● Creates loopholes in Law
● Another criticism of this rule is that it restricts and bounds the court making it unable to
use its judicial mind to deviate from the literal meaning of the terms.
● Sometimes, a court might ascertain an absolutely absurd meaning which the legislature
never intended.

Case Laws:
● Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 325 : ("autrefois acquit" and "autrefois
convict)
In this case Maqbool, an Indian citizen, upon returning from an international trip brought some
gold with him. According to the Sea Customs Act, no Indian citizen was allowed to bring any
valuables such as gold and hence, his gold was confiscated. He was then prosecuted under the
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Maqbool contended that since the gold had already been
confiscated, and that was a trial in itself. He cannot be prosecuted under FERA, 1947 as it would
amount to double jeopardy. However, the Supreme Court held that confiscation of gold cannot be
termed as prosecution and hence it was not a case of double jeopardy according to the strict and
literal interpretation of Article 20(2).
● Municipal Board v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan
In this case, the location of bus stand by changed by the local transport authority. Application
against the order must be moved within 30 days from the date of the order. The issue raised be
applicant is that the order can be moved 30 days from the knowledge of the order passed by
Regional Transport authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the language of the
statute is plain and unambiguous equitable considerations are out of place and the clear
grammatical meaning of the statute stands out.

II. Golden Rule of Interpretation

● The golden rules departs from its strictly literal rules, it is elaboration or extension of literal
rule. Golden rule of interpretation allows judges to depart from a word normal meaning in
order to avoid an absurd result.
● It takes into account the context in which the words are used so that justice can be done to
the intention of the legislation. It is to be noted that the rule can be used only when the
language of the statute is ambiguous or grammatically incorrect.
● For example, the word “marriage” in ‘cruelty during the time of marriage’ meant only
marriage till the emergence of the concept of live-in-relationships. So now, Court has to
interpret the term “marriage” in such a manner that the popular concept is also covered
under its purview.
Advantages:
● It allows the judge to modify the meaning of words to remove absurdity.
● When the literal rule of interpretation fails to achieve clarity, the golden rule steps in to help
the court.
● It guides the judges in applying appropriate principles while interpreting the meaning of
the statute.
● The interpretation was in line with the original intention of the Parliament. Thus, no
amendments were required.

Disadvantages:
● The golden rule is restricted in its use as it can be used only when the literal rule leads to
ambiguities in interpretation. Its use thus becomes limited and rare.
● It is unpredictable and lacks guidelines.
● One of the main disadvantages of the rule is that judges can twist the meaning of the words
and change the law. This would cause a disbalance in the separation of powers.

Case Laws:

● Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Limited (1999)

In the case of Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Limited (1999), the claimant had a
longstanding homosexual relationship with the deceased, who was the original tenant of a flat.
Following the tenant’s death, the claimant sought a statutory tenancy as the deceased’s spouse. The
main issue was whether a homosexual partner could be eligible for a statutory tenancy on the same
grounds as a spouse in a heterosexual marriage.

The Court ruled that the claimant could not be considered the deceased’s spouse under the existing
law, as the term “spouse” referred specifically to a “husband or wife” of the deceased. The Court
noted that if the Parliament had intended to include same-sex partners, it would have explicitly
stated so in the legislation.

However, the Court recognised that the meaning of “family” could be extended to include same-sex
partners. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, granting the claimant the statutory tenancy based on
an interpretation that considered the claimant part of the deceased’s family.

● State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company (1967)

In this case, a transport vehicle belonging to the defendant was found to be carrying a parcel of
opium during a routine check by authorities. The defendant presented an invoice indicating that
the parcel contained crates of apples as the sole item. As per Section 11 of the Opium Act of 1878,
all vehicles transporting contraband articles were to be impounded and the articles confiscated.

The transport company argued that they did not know the opium present in their vehicle. The
main issue was whether the magistrate was obligated to confiscate the vehicle based on the wording
of Section 11 of the Opium Act of 1878.

The High Court ruled that it would be unjust to confiscate the vehicle of an individual who did
not know of the presence of opium. Considering that the statute in question was penal, it should
be interpreted in a manner that does not penalise someone who has not committed an offence. The
word “shall” in “shall be confiscated” was interpreted to mean “may” in the context of such cases.

● Raghunathrao v. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 659.

In this case, the Supreme Court of India was tasked with interpreting the word "State" as used in
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. Article 12 defines "State" for the purposes of Part III of the
Constitution, which deals with Fundamental Rights. The question arose whether the term "State"
in Article 12 only includes governmental entities or extends to other bodies performing
governmental functions.

Issue: The main issue was whether entities other than governmental bodies could be considered
"State" under Article 12, thereby making them subject to the Fundamental Rights provisions of the
Indian Constitution.

Decision: The Supreme Court applied the Golden Rule of interpretation to broaden the scope of
the term "State" in Article 12. The Court held that the term should include not only governmental
entities but also non-governmental entities that are engaged in public or governmental functions.
This interpretation aligned with the spirit of the Constitution and ensured that the Fundamental
Rights of citizens would be protected even when violations occurred by entities beyond the
traditional definition of the government.

III. Mischief Rule of Interpretation

● Mischief rule in interpreting a statute is a rule that asks what the law was before the Act and
what were the defects that are resolved by the legislation under construction.The mischief
rule is a rule that aimed at suppressing the mischief and to advance the remedy.
 ● Sometimes the mischief rule may not be a good tool like when new circumstances emerge,
with cases which are unforeseen by the legislator and is beyond the reach of the statute.
This statute addressed a particular mischief but then when a new mischief emerges, a new
statute may be needed.
● Mischief Rule was originated in Haydon's case in 1584. It is the rule of purposive
construction because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying this rule.
In Haydon's case, it was held that there are four things that 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.
Case Laws:
● Smith v. Huges
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.

The court held that although they were not soliciting from the streets yet the mischief rule must be
applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall look into this issue. Thus, by applying this
rule, the court held that the windows and balconies were taken to be an extension of the word
street and charge sheet was held to be correct.

● Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2015) 13 SCC 72

Background: This case involved the constitutional validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj
(Amendment) Act, 2015, which imposed certain educational qualifications as eligibility criteria for
candidates contesting Panchayat elections.
Issue: The main issue was whether the imposition of educational qualifications as eligibility criteria
violated the fundamental rights of citizens to contest elections under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the
Indian Constitution.

Court's Interpretation: The Supreme Court of India adopted a purposive approach similar to the
Mischief Rule to interpret the impugned amendment and the fundamental rights of citizens.

Reasoning: The Court examined the historical context of Panchayat elections, the purpose of
democratic representation, and the potential harm of unqualified candidates participating in local
governance. The Court aimed to strike a balance between ensuring representation for all citizens
and maintaining the efficiency and competence of elected representatives.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that while imposing educational qualifications was reasonable,
the criteria should not be so restrictive that it excluded a significant portion of the population from
contesting elections. The Court's interpretation aimed to preserve democratic principles while
addressing potential mischief and ensuring competent representation.

● Ranjit Udesiey v. State of Maharashtra (1965)

The accused was charged under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is a punishable
offense for selling or having possession for sale of the obscene book. Accused argued that the
shopkeeper is not expected to go through each book to see whether books contain obscene
literature. He had not read the book ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover earlier. Therefore, his case does not
come under section 292. But the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the accused on the basis
of Mischief Rule.

Advantages Disadvantages

It gives effect to parliament’s intentions Finding the intention of the parliament can be
difficult

It allows judges to use their common sense and It is reasonable to argue that what the
save parliament’s time parliament intended can only be seen in what it
wrote in the act

It allows judges to consider social and It is undemocratic

technological changes
 The rule is out of date and does not reflect
modern needs.

It might cause uncertainty if the judges changes

the meaning of the statute

IV. When the Mischief Rule does not apply?

When the language of the statute is plain or where no doubt arises on account of ambiguity.

● State of Karnataka v B S Thimmappa 1994 Supp (I) SCC 124

This case supports this proposition. In this case, the Karnataka Service Examinations Act, 1976
provided that a government servant's non-passing of the prescribed examination would entail the
consequences as specified in the rules. The rules enumerated the consequences. It was held that the
court cannot infer any additional consequence solely on the basis of the supposed object and
purpose of the rules.

● Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpn (2009) 8
SCC 646
Purposive construction is resorted to when or where doubt arises on account of ambiguity. It is to
be preferred when the Act’s object and purpose must be promoted. When Parliament created
tribunals with certain purposes and object, it does not confer them another jurisdiction so that the
High Court or the Supreme Court could transfer cases from the civil court to the tribunal. This
doctrine cannot be extended where it leads to anomaly and amounts to rewriting of a statute.

V. EXPOSITION EX VISCERIBUS ACTUS -STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE

● Latin term which translated to “interpretation from the internal structure of the act”. The
meaning of the maxim is that every part of the statute must be construed with the four
corners of the act. No provision shall be interpreted in isolation.
● The statute as a whole, the previous state of the law, other statutes in pari material (on
same subject matter), the general scope of the statute, and the mischief it is to remedy,
is the basic context of any statute.
● For example, if one section of an Act requires 'notice' should be given, then a verbal notice
would generally be sufficient. But, if another section provides that notice' should be 'served'
 on the person or 'left' with him, or in a particular manner or place, then it would obviously
indicate that a written notice was intended.
Case laws:
● State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee (2002)
The SC held that the statute have to be considered in its entirety and picking up of one word from
one particular provision and thereby analyzing it in a manner contrary to the statement of objects
and reasons is neither permissible not warranted.

● M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa (1961) 2 SCR 295:

Background: This case involved the interpretation of certain provisions of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951, which governs electoral matters in India.

Issue: The main issue was whether the Act’s provisions barred a person convicted of certain offenses
from contesting elections.

Court's Decision: The Supreme Court of India held that the provisions of the Act did not bar a
person from contesting elections if their conviction had been set aside in appeal. The Court
emphasized the importance of considering the Act as a whole and in the context of its legislative
intent.

VI. Rule of Harmonious Construction

● The principal of harmonious construction is construction to maintain the harmony or
oneness among various provision of statute. The idea behind the rule of harmonious
construction is that the legislature never intends to contradict itself by providing
incompatible or conflicting provisions in the same Act or Statute. This rule is applicable
when two sections of the same statute contradict themselves and are repugnant. The court
should try to rule in such a way that both sections harmonize with each other.
● It is duty of the court to keep away from two seemingly contradicting sections of the Act
and try to harmonize them unless the court must not use one section of the Act to defeat
the provision of another section of the same Act unless there is no other way despite all
there, they are not able to avoid without the same.
● The principle of harmony building has its origins in the landmark judgment of Shri
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, 1951. The disagreement between Part III
(Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution
was the subject of the India case.
Case Laws:

● S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):

S. R. Bommai, the Chief Minister of Karnataka at the time, along with other state governments,
argued that the use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments should be subject to judicial review.
They contended that the dismissal should only be done under exceptional circumstances when the
state government failed to comply with the Constitution. The Union of India argued that the
power to dismiss state governments under Article 356 was discretionary and not subject to judicial
review.

Decision and Rationale: The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment, ruled in favor of
S. R. Bommai and the other state governments. The court held that the President's proclamation
under Article 356 was subject to judicial review, and the dismissal of state governments could not
be done arbitrarily or for political reasons.

The court established guidelines for the exercise of the President's power under Article 356. It held
that:
1. The power should be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances where the
constitutional machinery in a state had broken down.
2. The decision to impose President's Rule should be based on objective material and not on
political considerations.
3. The court could review the validity of the proclamation, and if it found it to be arbitrary or
mala fide, it could be struck down.
4. This decision reinforced the principle of federalism in the Indian Constitution and limited
the misuse of Article 356 to dismiss state governments.

● Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

Background: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a landmark Indian constitutional case that dealt
with the right to travel abroad and the scope of the fundamental right to personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Issue: The central issue in this case was whether the government could impose restrictions on an
individual's right to travel abroad and whether such restrictions would be subject to judicial review
under Article 21.
Key Arguments: Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and activist, challenged the government's decision
to impound her passport and restrict her right to travel abroad. She argued that this violated her
fundamental right to personal liberty and that the restrictions were arbitrary and not based on
valid reasons.

The Union of India contended that the government had the authority to impound passports and
restrict travel abroad under the Passport Act, 1967, and that such decisions were not justiciable.

Decision and Rationale: The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment, ruled in favor of
Maneka Gandhi and held that the right to travel abroad fell within the ambit of the right to
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court recognized that
personal liberty encompassed a wide range of freedoms, including the freedom to travel abroad.

The court also held that any law that could potentially deprive a person of their personal liberty
must satisfy the tests of reasonableness and fairness. It declared that the Passport Act, 1967, had to
be read in harmony with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The court ruled that the government's decision to impound Maneka Gandhi's passport should be
based on valid reasons, should be procedurally fair, and should be subject to judicial review. It
emphasized that the right to personal liberty could not be curtailed arbitrarily.

● ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976):

Background: ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, often referred to as the "Habeas Corpus case," is
one of the most controversial and momentous cases in Indian constitutional history. The case was
heard during the period of the Emergency declared by the government of Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi in 1975.

Issue: The central issue in this case was whether the right to personal liberty, specifically the right
to move the courts for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus (a legal remedy to secure the release of
a person detained unlawfully), could be suspended during a state of Emergency.

Key Arguments: The government argued that during a state of Emergency, individual rights,
including the right to personal liberty and the right to move the courts for habeas corpus, could be
suspended.
The petitioners, including Shiv Kant Shukla, argued that fundamental rights, especially the right to
life and personal liberty, could not be suspended even during an Emergency. They contended that
the power to suspend fundamental rights did not exist in the Indian Constitution.

Decision and Rationale: In a controversial and deeply divided decision, a majority of the judges on
the bench ruled in favor of the government's position. The court held that during a state of
Emergency, the government had the authority to suspend the right to move the courts for a writ of
habeas corpus.

VII. Rule of Beneficial Construction

● Beneficent construction involves giving the widest meaning possible to the statutes. When
there are two or more possible ways of interpreting a section or a word, the meaning which
gives relief and protects the benefits which are purported to be given by the legislation
should be chosen. A beneficial statute has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to
fructify the legislative intent.
Case laws:

● National Insurance Co Ltd v Swarn Singh AIR 2004 SC 1531

In the case relating to insurance aspect of motor vehicles, the Supreme court held that to prove its
defence the insurer has to prove: (i)breach of condition by the insured was done knowingly or
resulted due to his negligence and (ii)breach was fundamental and had contributed to cause of
accident. It was also held that even in cases where the insurer is able to prove the defence of breach
of condition, it will have to satisfy the award against the insured but it can recover the amount paid
to the claimant from the insured in the same proceedings before the tribunal.

● U Unichoyi vs State of Kerala, 1963

In the present case, the question was whether the setting of a minimum wage through the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution because the act did
not define what is minimum wage and did not take into account the capacity of the employer to
pay. It was held that the act is beneficial legislation and it must be construed in favor of the worker.
In an underdeveloped country where unemployment is rampant, it is possible that workers may
become ready to work for extremely low wages but that should not happen.

● Kala v. Union of India (1995) SCC 1385

On matter related to compensation for a railway accident the Court held that the word
‘Untoward incident’ include the accidental falling while trying to board a train, and was not
 limited to situations where a person got inside and fell off thereafter. In this case the court
held the Railways Act as beneficial legislation and thus it should be given liberal and not
literal or strict interpretation. In another case the Supreme Court held welfare Statute
must, of necessity, receives a broad interpretation

VIII. Rule of Reasonable Construction

● Also known as Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pareat. This rule lays down the principle that
when the plain meaning does not meet the objective of reasonable construction, it becomes
necessary to derive a sensible meaning of the word. This rule provides for the court to
depart from the meaning given in the dictionary where it is unclear, to interpret according
to the purpose of the law.

Case laws:

● Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015)

Background: This case involved the interpretation of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963,
specifically Section 5-B, which dealt with the levy of sales tax on the purchase of new motor
vehicles. The issue was whether the term "motor vehicle" in the statute should be interpreted to
include only complete vehicles or whether it should reasonably extend to include chassis and
incomplete vehicles as well.

Court's Decision: The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, adopted a reasonable and
purposive interpretation of the term "new motor vehicle." The court held that the term should not
be narrowly construed to include only fully assembled vehicles. Instead, it should be interpreted
reasonably to cover chassis and incomplete vehicles as well.

● Avtar Singh v. the State of Punjab (1965) SC

In this case, the question arose regarding the interpretation of Section 39 of the Electricity Act,
1910. The appellant was convicted for theft of electricity from the Punjab State Electricity Board
under Section 39 of the Electricity Act and the respondent proceeded against him under Section
379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the appeal filed by the appellant, he did not challenge the
finding that he had committed the theft but only raised a question of law that his conviction was
illegal in view of certain statutory provisions.

The Supreme Court held that since the offence is against the Electricity Act and not the I.P.C., the
procedure provided under Section 50 must have been followed. The conviction of the appellant was
set aside. Thus, the Court, in this case applied the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat and
avoided the construction that would have rendered Section 50 inoperative and futile