“INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION”

Subject: I.S.P.L

Submitted to: - Submitted by:-

Prof. S.Ali. Mohammad Adhish

Prasad
Faculty of I.S.P.L Roll no: - 904

Semester: - 7Th

Session: - 2013-18

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am very thankful to everyone who all supported me for I have completed my project effectively
and moreover on time. I am equally grateful to my I.S.P.L faculty: Prof. S. Ali Mohammad. He
gave me moral support and guided me in different matters regarding the topic. He had been very
kind and patient while suggesting me the outlines of this project and correcting my doubts. I
thank him for his overall supports. Last but not the least, I would like to thank my friends who
helped me a lot in gathering different information, collecting data and guiding me from time to
time in making this project despite of their busy schedules ,they gave me different ideas in
making this project unique.

Thanking you

ADHISH PRASAD

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OBJECT OF THE STUDY……………………………………………………………….4

2. HYPOTHESIS………….…………………………………………………………….…...4

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………………...……….…….4

4. SOURCES OF DATA.........................................................................................................4

CHPTERISATION

i. INTRODUCTION …….………………............................................…....................5-7

ii. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION......…..8,9

iii. DIFFERENT RULES OF INTERPRETATION……............................................10-21

iv. CONCLUSION……………………………………………….....……...……………22

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………......…………………………………………………………23

3|Page
 OBJECT OF THE STUDY-

1. To find out the difference between Interpretation and Construction.

2. To find out the different rules of Interpretation and Construction.

HYPOTHESIS-

Where there is ambiguity in the language of a statute, courts employ canons of statutory
interpretation or construction to ascertain its true intent and meaning.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-

Researcher shall emphasize and use the doctrinal method to prepare this project topic.

SOURCES OF DATA-

PRIMARY SOURCES:- SECONDARY SOURCES:-

1. The Constitution of India, 1950 1. Books on ISPL

2. Websites

3. Journals

4|Page
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

It is a well established fact that the legislature is highest law making body and the court is merely
an interpreter of the law. But actually the fact is by interpreting the law the court can make
comprehensive changes in the actual implementation and overall maneuver of the law. This can
be easily be gathered by analyzing the statutory interpretation made by Indian judiciary and its
effect on India and its citizens as a whole.

The living example of such effect is interpretation of Part III (Fundamental Rights) of Indian
Constitution and especially Article 211, wider and liberal interpretation of this article by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has granted many fundamental beneficial rights to the citizens
of the country2 and even ensured actual execution of these rights by liberally interpreting the
concept of locus standi3 with further evolution of Public Interest Litigation through which any
public spirited person can file a petition on behalf of those who has no access to Court. Such
evolutions with an important art of interpretation have ensured principles of rule of law and
equal justice or justice at door step in the developing country like India. But here it is important
to mention that the manner and expansion of interpretation by judiciary has been criticized by
many and termed as ‘over judicial activism’ with interference in the field of legislature. This
point has been discussed in detail in the subsequent submission.

Moving further, to understand everything about interpretation which has been gradually evolved
in modern context from ancient Indian rules with the help of follows up of different
rules/doctrines in different situations which has arisen for different statutes. In light of this
evolution, the utmost important aspect to understand for us is the meaning of term ‘statute, the
very first term on which emphasis of the whole submission lies.

1
Protection of life and personal liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to procedure established by law (Court interpreted procedure needs to be just)
2
Right to Livelihood, Right to have pollution free environment and many other such rights has been evolved as part
of right to life under Article 21.
3
The right of a party to appear and be heard before a court.

5|Page
The word ‘Statute’ generally is defined as the written will of the legislature solemnly expressed
according to the forms necessary to constitute it the law of the State. 4 Normally, the term denotes
personification of authoritative blueprint and words used in the same constitute part of law.
These blueprints are chief source of law which is known as legislation. The other sources are
precedents and customs. Each of these sources finds its expression in a language or words used
by authorities.5 Many times the use of language in the legislation even does not carry the clear
cut meaning in dictionaries. It contains many alternative meanings applicable in different
contexts and for different purposes so that no clear field for the application of a word becomes
identified. In such a situation, importance of interpretation comes into picture. For proper and
healthy application of law, it is important to have uniform expansion of language or words used
by the authorities/law-makers. In a case, if one judge takes the narrow view and the other the
broad one, the law will connote different things for different persons and soon there will be race
for window shopping for justice. Moreover, we always need to keep in mind that articulating a
law is not equal to the execution of law. For the purpose of execution, proper understanding
of law or statute is utmost important and better understanding is only possible through proper
interpretation of the statute.
It is of general believed that the law is deemed to be what the Court interprets it to be. The very
concept of ‘interpretation’ connotes the introduction of elements which are necessarily extrinsic
to the words in the statute.6

The term interpretation is defined as the process by which the Courts seek to ascertain the intent
of the Legislature through the medium of the authoritative form in which it is expressed. As
everyone knows, administration of justice by Court is being conducted according to the law and
law requires having some rules of interpretation to ensure just and uniform decisions. The art of
correct interpretation only depend on the ability to read what is stated in plain language, read
between the lines, read ‘through’ the provision, examining the intent of the Legislature and call
upon case laws and other aids to interpretation.7

4
Farlex, ‘Statute’ (The Free Dictionary) <http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statute> Accessed on 21 Oct.
2016.
5
Avtar Singh, Introduction to Interpretation of Statute (2nd ed., LexisNexis Butterworths, Nagpur 2007) 5 th Edition,
pp-432
6
Law Dictionary (15th ed., Universal Law Publishing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 2009), pp- 551.
7
Deepak Jain, ‘Interpretation of Statute: A treaties’ (September 2010) AIFTP Journal.

6|Page
Such art as popularly known as the rules of interpretation has been evolved in about all legal
jurisprudence. Such an evolution is a result of many considerations starting from general scope,
purpose of the legislation mingled with intention of legislatures and from the legal rights of the
parties independent of the instrument or law in question to many other relevant particulars. In
simple words, this evolution is a logical process which is adopted for determining the true sense
of any form of language, the sense which their author intended to convey and to ensure justice as
the end result.

The present essay entry focuses upon cardinal rules and general relevance of interpretation of
statutes as being applied in Indian context and has been evolved by Indian Judiciary with the
passage of time. The enumeration below is being substantiated with the relevant case laws of
Indian jurisprudence but before that, it is important to analyze historical aspect of rules of
interpretation and the same has been enumerated in the following part.

7|Page
 CHAPTER 2: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERPRETATION
AND CONSTRUCTION

01..Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
their natural and ordinary meaning whereas Construction means drawing conclusions in the basis
of the true spirit of the enactment8.

02. Interpretation takes place when we look for the original meaning of the constitution. All
other forms of constitutional analysis engage in construction

03. Interpretation takes place when the meaning of the constitution is clear (by any broadly
accepted theory of constitutional interpretation). Construction takes place when the meaning of
the constitution is contested.

04. Originalists engage in interpretation, even when they focus on original intentions,
expectations or methods. All other forms of constitutional analysis engage in construction.

05. Courts may only interpret the constitution. Elected officials are free to construe the
constitution.

06. To find out the real meaning of any legislation is the main function of interpretation. On the
other hand, construction is applying to find out the general and simple meaning of a statute.

8
Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, Vol-1, p.91

8|Page
07. Interpretation is the activity of identifying the semantic meaning of a particular use of
language in context. Construction is the activity of applying that meaning to particular factual
circumstances.

08. By interpretation we find out the way of analysis of any statute. By construction we try to
conclude it.

09. Interpretation is the activity of discerning the linguistic meaning in context (or
communicative content) of a legal text. Construction is the activity of determining the legal
effect (or legal content) of a legal text.

10. Interpretation resolves ambiguity but construction creates subsidiary rules to resolve that
vagueness. 9

11. Interpretation is just a broad word for how someone construes a statute or the constitution.
Construction is an interpretation method where the words of the law are vigorously followed.10

9
http://welaw.blogspot.in/2013/11/distinction-between-interpretation-and.html, Accessed on 23/10/2016
10
www.legalservicesindia.com, Accessed on 21/10/2016

9|Page
 CHAPTER 3: DIFFERENT RULES OF INTERPRETATION

 Primary Rule of Interpretation:

This rule has following steps involved which an interpreter has to follow:
a. Read and analyze a section;
b. Ascertain the primary meaning of the words used;
c. Ascertain the grammatical, literal and plain meaning of the words used in the section.
This rule has further been explained in detail in the name of ‘literal rule of interpretation’ in the
subsequent submission.

 Secondary Rule of Interpretation:

This rule is basically states about application of internal and external aids to ensure proper
interpretation of statute. Application of Internal and External aids has been explained in the
subsequent submission.

 Final Rule of Interpretation:

Interpretation of every statute must be based upon the aforesaid primary and secondary rules. But
there may be a situation when conflict may arise on simultaneous application of above rules, to
avoid such conflict, final rule i.e. principle of harmonious construction come into picture. This
rule has further been explained in the subsequent submission. Every effort should be made to
ensure that all the primary and secondary rules are simultaneously satisfied.11

11
Supra 5

10 | P a g e
Here, it is also to be focus that certain specific statutes have specific pattern of Interpretation as
enumerated in numerous case laws. To illustrate this point, following submission is important.

1) For Penal Statute, it is always need to have a strict interpretation 12 and with respect to mens
rea it is always presumed that it is required to prove in each case unless the statute specifically
provides for the absence of the same;

In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nagoti Venkataramana13, it has been held by the
Supreme Court that in the interpretation of penal provisions, strict construction is required to be
adopted and if any real doubt arises, necessarily the reasonable benefit of doubt would be
extended to the accused.

2) For Beneficial Statute such as Statutes related to Industry/workmen, it is always important to

have beneficial liberal interpretation14. Presently, in the period of social welfare legislation,
beneficial interpretation has become important tool of interpretation of statute.

In the case of Secretary, H.S.E.B v. Suresh & Ors Etc.15, it has been held by the SC that the
Contract Labour Regulation Act being a beneficial piece of legislation as engrafted in the statute
book, ought to receive the widest possible interpretation in regard to the words used and unless
words are taken to their maximum amplitude, it would be a violent injustice to the framers of the
law.

3) For Constitution, the basic spirit in form of social justice, equity fraternity etc. should run
throughout the interpretation16 and the interpretation of the Constitutional provisions should be
harmonious and liberal;

12
M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala, 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 724
13
1996 (6) SCC 409.
14
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT, 196 ITR 188 (SC)
15
1999 3 SCC 601
16
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

11 | P a g e
In the Case of Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India17, the Supreme Court widened the protection
of life and liberty contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to restrain personal
liberty. Such a law must also be just, fair and reasonable. This wider interpretation ensured
inclusion of many rights under Article 21.

4) For Taxing Statute, Statutes imposing taxes or monetary burdens are to strictly construe. The
logic behind this principle is that imposition of taxes is also a kind of imposition of penalty
18
which can only be imposed if the language of the statute clearly says so; in many instances,
liberal or beneficial interpretation has an important role to play in taxing statute’s interpretation.

In the case of, Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. v Commercial Tax officer 19, the Supreme
Court held that in case of interpreting a taxing statute, one has to look into what is clearly stated.
There is no room of searching the intentions, presumptions.

Apart from above brief submissions on interpretation of different statutes, many types of Internal
and External aids are used for the purpose of interpretation of statute. The term internal aid is
defined as interpretation of statute with those means which are found within the text of the
statutes.20 For example: Preambles, Definitional sections and clauses, Provisos, Explanations etc.

17
AIR 1978 SC 597
18
CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyyengar (1975) 101 ITR 764 (SC)
19
AIR 1997 SC 2920
20
Law Commission , A continuum on the General Clauses Act, 1897 with special reference to the admissibility and
codification of external aids to interpretation of statutes {Law Comm. No. 6(3)(79)/2002-LC(LS), 2002}para 8.

12 | P a g e
  Rule of literal interpretation (also: the ordinary meaning rule;
the plain meaning rule)
The literal rule of interpretation really means that there should be no interpretation. In other
words, we should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its language. 21 This rule is
the most widely used Rule of Interpretation for the statutes to ascertain the legislative intention
behind the framing of the enactment.
The rule governs and regulates the meaning of the law in as much as the rule provides that the
meaning has to be ascertained from the text of the law itself.

In M/s. Hiralal Ratanlal v. STO22, this Court observed that in interpreting a statutory provision
the first and foremost rule of interpretation is the literally construction. All that the Court has to
see at the very outset is what does the provision say. If the provision is unambiguous and if from
the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of
construction of statutes. The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the
legislative intent is not clear.

In Kannailala Sur vs Parammindhi Sadhu Khan23 1957, Justice Gajendragadkar says that if
the words used in statute are capable of only one construction then it is not open to the courts to
adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent
with the alleged objective and policy of the act.

In M V Joshi vs M V Shimpi, AIR 1961 24, relating to Food and Adulteration Act, it was
contented that the act does not apply to butter made from curd. However, SC held that the word
butter in the said act is plain and clear and there is no need to interpret it differently. Butter is
butter whether made from milk or curd. Thus, when the language of a provision is plain and
clear, court cannot enlarge the scope of the provision by interpretive process. Further, a
construction which requires for its support addition of words or which results in rejection of
words as meaningless has to be avoided.

21
B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, (2011) 4 SCC 266
22
AIR 1973 SC 1034
23
1957 AIR 907
24
1961 AIR 1494

13 | P a g e
  Golden Rule
This rule of statutory interpretation allows a shift from the ordinary sense of a word(s) if the
overall content of the document demands it. This rule is a modification of the literal rule. It states
that if the literal rule produces an absurdity, then the court should look for another meaning of
the words to avoid that absurd result.
The rule was evolved by Parke B (who later became Lord Wensleydale) in Becke v
Smith25, 1836 and in Grey v Pearson26, 1857, who stated, "The grammatical and ordinary sense
of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or
inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of
the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther."

It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute as it allows to adhere to the ordinary
meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with
the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest
absurdity or repugnance, in which case it allows the language to be varied or modified so as to
avoid such inconvenience.

Thus, the Golden rule implies that if a strict interpretation of a statute would lead to an absurd
result then the meaning of the words should be so construed so as to lead to the avoidance of
such absurdity. A further corollary to this rule is that in case there are multiple constructions to
effect the Golden rule the one which favors the assessee should always be taken. This rule is also
known as the Rule of Reasonable Construction.

One example of the application of the golden rule is the case of R v Allen
– Defendant is charged with bigamy, an offence prohibited in Offences against Persons Act
1861 which reads “whoever is married, marries another or commits bigamy.” The court held that
the word “marries” need not mean a contract of marriage as it was impossible for a person who is
already married to enter into another valid contract of marriage. Hence, the court interpreted it as
“going through marriage ceremony”.

25
(1836) 2 M & W 191
26
[1857] 6 HL Cas 61

14 | P a g e
  Mischief Rule
The Mischief Rule is used by judges in statutory interpretation in order to discover legislature's
intention. It essentially asks the question: By creating an Act of Parliament what was the
"mischief" that the previous or existing law did not cover and this act covers. This rule was
developed by Lord Coke in Sir John Heydon's Case27, 1584, where it was stated that there
were four points to be taken into consideration when interpreting a statute:

1. What was the common law before the making of the act?
2. What was the "mischief or defect" for which the common law did not provide?
3. What remedy the parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the
commonwealth?
4. What is the true reason of the remedy?

The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as
it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament's intent. Legislative intent is determined by
examining secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review articles and
corresponding statutes. The rule was further illustrated in the case of Smith v Hughes28, 1960,
where under the Street Offences Act 1959, it was a crime for prostitutes to "loiter or solicit in the
street for the purposes of prostitution". The defendants were calling to men in the street from
balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed they were not guilty as they were not in the
"street." The judge applied the mischief rule to come to the conclusion that they were guilty as
the intention of the Act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes.

This rule is of narrower application than the golden rule or the plain meaning rule, in that it can
only be used to interpret a statute and only when the statute was passed to remedy a defect in the
common law. This rule has often been used to resolve ambiguities in cases in which the literal
rule cannot be applied. As seen In Smith v Hughes29, the mischief approach gave a more
sensible outcome than that of the literal approach.

27
(1584) 76 ER 637
28
[1960] 2 All ER 859
29
[1960] 2 All ER 859

15 | P a g e
  Intrinsic (Internal) Aids to Statutory Interpretation
These are things found within the statute which help judges understand the meaning of the
statute more clearly.

•the long and the short title

•the preamble
•definition sections
• schedules
• headings

 Extrinsic (External) Aids to Statutory Interpretation

These are things found outside of the actual statute which may be considered by judges to help
them understand the meaning of a statute more clearly.

•dictionaries
•historical setting
• previous statutes
• earlier case law
• Hansard
• Law Commission Reports
• International Conventions30

30
Dr. Rega Surya Rao “Lecture on Interpretation of Statutes” 2015, 6th Edition, Asia Law House Publication, pp-134

16 | P a g e
  Rule of harmonious construction

This rule is the final and the most important rule of interpretation. As submitted earlier, Judicial
believe is every statute with every provision has some reason of enactment so the courts while
interpreting must try to avoid a conflict between the provisions of Statute. It may be possible that
different sections may appear to mean contrary to each other or contradicting each other. Under
such circumstances, an attempt should be made to reconcile the provisions of the Act and an
effect should be made to give the effect to both the apparently contradictory provisions. Thereby
a head on clash between sections of the Act is avoided. This is known as harmonious
construction.
Along with these rules, there are certain maxims and terms whose expressions play an important
role in interpretation of statute. A brief discussion about some of these maxims as well as terms
is as follows.

 Reddendo Singula Singulis

The reddendo singula singulis principle concerns the use of words distributively. Where a
complex sentence has more than one subject, and more than one object, it may be the right
construction to render each to each, by reading the provision distributively and applying each
object to its appropriate subject. A similar principle applies to verbs and their subjects, and to
other parts of speech. A typical application of this principle is where a testator says 'I devise and
bequeath all my real and personal property to B'. The term devise is appropriate only to real
property. The term bequeath is appropriate only to personal property. Accordingly, by the
application of the principle reddendo singula singulis, the testamentary disposition is read as if it
were worded 'I devise all my real property, and bequeath all my personal property, to B'.

This rule has been applied in the case of Koteshwar Vittal Kamat vs K Rangappa Baliga31, in
the construction of the Proviso to Article 304 of the Constitution which reads, "Provided that no
bill or amendment for the purpose of clause (b), shall be introduced or moved in the legislature
of a state without the previous sanction of the President". It was held that the word introduced
applies to bill and moved applies to amendment.

31
1969 AIR 504

17 | P a g e
  Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant:
This expression specifies that general words or things do not derogate from the special. The
Courts have held that this expression is to mean that when there is a conflict between a general
and special provision, the latter shall prevail. This has been held in number of case laws and out
of which one of the case laws is UOI v. Indian Fisheries (P.) Ltd.32

 Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

This expression specifies that express mention of one thing implies exclusion of other. For
example, a statute granting certain rights to municipal employees, fire office employees,
government hospital employee would be interpreted to exclude other public employees not
enumerated in the legislation.

 Ejusdem Generis
This expression specifies that all the general word contain in the statute may be interpreted with
reference to the predecessor matter and the interpretation may be narrowed down by treating
them as applying to the things of the same kind as those previously mentioned.
The literal meaning of the term ejusdem generic is “of the same kind or species”. It requires that
where specific words are all of one genius, meaning of the general words shall be restricted to
that genus only unless there is something to show that a wider meaning was intended.

For example, If a man tells his wife to go to the market to buy vegetables, fruits, groceries and
anything else she needs, the ‘anything else’ would be taken to mean food and grocery items due
to the rule of ejusdem generis and not cosmetics or other feminine accessories.

32
AIR 1966 SC 35

18 | P a g e
This rule has its application when the following conditions are satisfied:
a. The statute contains an enumeration of specific words;
b. The members of enumeration constitute a class or category;
c. The class is not exhausted by the enumeration;
d. The general term follows the enumeration;
e. There is no indication of different legislative intent.

 Noscitur a Sociis
Noscere means to ‘know’ and sociis means ‘association’. Thus, Noscitur a Sociis means
knowing from association. Thus, under the doctrine of “noscitur a sociis” the questionable
meaning of a word or doubtful words can be derived from its association with other words within
the context of the phrase.33This means that where two or more words which are susceptible of
analogous meaning are coupled together they are understood to be used in their cognate sense.
They take, as it were, their color from each other, the meaning of the more general being
restricted to a sense analogous to that of the less general.34

This doctrine is broader than the doctrine of ejusdem generis because this rule puts the words in
context of the whole phrase and not just in relation to the nearby words.
In State of Assam v. R Muhammad35, Supreme Court made use of this rule to arrive at the
meaning of the word “posting” used in Article 233 (1) of the Constitution. It held that since the
word “posting” occurs in association with the words “appointment” and “promotion”, it took its
color from them and so it means assignment of an appointee or a promotee to a position" and
does not mean transfer of a person from one station to another.

Apart from these expressions, there are certain words such as notwithstanding, subject to etc.
whose presence in the statute requires specific interpretation.

33
Vovvijay, Noscitur a Sociis (vovvijay.blogspot, 1 Oct. 2016)
34
Rainbow Steels Ltd. And Anr v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1981 SCR (2) 727
35
AIR 1967 SC 903

19 | P a g e
The word notwithstanding anything contained characterizes the non obstante clause. 36 The
inclusion of this word means, the specific clause has an overriding effect over the other clauses
and in case of any conflict between the non obstante clause and another provision, it is the non
obstante clause which will prevail.

On the other word, the word subject to characterize the opposite of a non obstante clause. This
word conveys the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or provisions to which it
is made ‘subject to’.

The use of or in a statute means disjunctive and use of and is normally conjunctive and a
departure from the same is not available unless the very aim and purpose of the Statute so
requires.

Apart from these words, it is very important to know about the nature of the statute or provision.
This aspect is easy to understand when we know the provision stated or statute enacted is a
mandatory or directory enactment. As such, no general rule can be laid down to reach at the
conclusion whether any particular provision on a statue is mandatory or directory. The
conclusion, in each case lies upon the actual word used and also upon the intention of the
legislatures for enactment. In the same context, use of words such as ‘may’, ‘shall’ and ‘must’
can play an important part.

The use of word may signifies permission and implies that authority has discretion but in the
case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh 37, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that there is no doubt that the word ‘may’ generally does not mean ‘must’ or ‘shall’. But it
is well settled that the word ‘may’ is capable of meaning ‘must’ or ‘shall’ in the light of the
context. It is also clear that where a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with
an obligation, the word ‘may’ which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command.

The use of word must undoubtedly stand for mandatory enactment but with respect to use of
shall position is as same of ‘may’. It signifies mandate but it is well settled principle that use of
36
State of Sikkim v. Surendra Prasad Sharma, 1994 SCC (5) 282
37
1964 SCR (2) 197

20 | P a g e
the word ‘shall’ does not always mean that the enactment is obligatory or mandatory. It depends
upon the context in which the word ‘shall’ occurs and the other relevant circumstances.

Apart from textual interpretation, it is always important to know that in general, application of
statute is prospectively which means applying the laws in future or at least from the date of
commencement of the statute but in some instances, it may have retrospective (back date)
application also. The following part deals with retrospective application and rule of
interpretation.

 RETROSPECTIVELY APPLICATION OF STATUTE AND

RULE OF INTERPRETATION
In Indian jurisdiction, it is of general believe that a new statute should affect the future not the
past because in general, first and strong presumptions of any law enacted for the first time or
amending the enacted law, is its prospective applicability. 38 The power of retrospective
legislation does exist which is not only subject to the question of competence but is also subject
to several judicially recognized limitation. 39 In order to determine the validity of retrospective
law the court has to take into account all relevant surrounding facts and circumstances. 40 It has
been held that a law will be retrospective only if the words used must expressly provide or
necessarily imply retrospective operation.41 Retrospective operation is not taken to be intended
unless that intention is manifested by express words or necessary implication; there is a
subordinate rule to the effect that a statute or a section in it is not to be construed so as to have
larger retrospective operation than its language renders necessary.42

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION

38
Keshvan Madhavan Memon v. State of Bombay, 1951 SCR 228
39
National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India v. Union of India, (2003) 260 ITR 548 (SC).
40
Jawaharmal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 764.
41
J.P. Jani, ITO v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt, (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC).
42
S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (2) SCC 740

21 | P a g e
At last, the researcher would like to conclude by saying that art of interpretation is a remarkable
tool to paint citizens’ life with numerous beneficial colors of joy, peace and happiness. Indian
judiciary has wonderfully endorsed Indian Statutes with a manner which is fair, reasonable and
in conformity with the purpose for which the law is framed. Here, it is not to suggest that judicial
interpretation has never been erroneous or never resulted into absurdity but is to simply indicate
that to make sense out of miserably worded statute, where the purpose of the statute was
apparent, judicial violence with the language has paid rich dividends for the country. In light of
which, the researcher can simply hope that statutory endorsement by judiciary will continue
because a statute can never be exhaustive and legislative incapacity to speculate all the possible
situations that may arise in a future and in myriad circumstances will always leave a wide scope
for interpretation. This gap will ensure that the interpretation by judiciary in the future will yield
fruit bearing results for all.

But, the researcher would also like to focus upon that this special art of interpretation having
many brushes should be prevented to indulge in any sort of controversy. This art should not be
used to make painting boards (to make law); the real use of this art lies in painting a board (in
interpretation) which it can very well do with the brushes (rules/doctrines of interpretation)
which has been the prime focused in the whole submission.

Lastly, the whole interpretative mechanism discussed in the present project entry is a key to
conveying difficult and technical task of understanding and reading between the lines of statute
into an easy one.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
22 | P a g e
 PRIMARY SOURCES:
 The Constitution of India, 1950

 SECONDARY SOURCE: -

BOOKS: -

 Avtar Singh, Introduction to Interpretation of Statute (2nd ed., LexisNexis Butterworths,

Nagpur 2007)
 Law Dictionary (15th ed., Universal Law Publishing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 2009)
 Dr. Rega Surya Rao “Lecture on Interpretation of Statutes” 2015, (6th Edition, Asia Law
House Publication)

WEBSITES.

 http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statute
 www.legalservicesindia.com
 http://study.com/academy/lesson/rules-of-construction-and-interpretation-in-law.html
 http://welaw.blogspot.in/2013/11/distinction-between-interpretation-and.html

23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e