IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)

Volume 22, Issue 9, Ver. 14 (September. 2017) PP 96-100

e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.
www.iosrjournals.org

Courts and Intention of Legislature Enacting The Statute

*G.V.Akshaya
(BBA.LLB(Hons)., III Year/Saveetha School Of Law/Saveetha University/India)
Corresponding Author: *G.V.Akshaya

ABSTRACT: Interpretation means the art of finding out the exact meaning and true sense of an enactment
passed by the legislature by looking into the words of the enactment and find out their natural and ordinary
meaning. It is the process of determining the true meaning of words used in the statute. The courts follow
certain procedure and principles for construction and these are principles are called ‘Rules of Interpretation’.
The main object of this paper is to discuss about how the statutes are interpreted by courts by relying on the
intention of the legislature.

Keywords: Construction, Enactment, Interpretation, Legislature, Statutes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Submission: 16-09-2017 Date of acceptance: 27-09-2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. INTRODUCTION
We all live in a world where we have duties and obligations towards the state and society. The order is
maintained in society because of the presence of law. The Law and order is maintained for just and stable
existence of mankind as is evident that the human tendency needs some kind of sanctions to regulate the
behaviour and it is mainly done by the actual presence of law. Law is some kind of element which actually binds
all the members in the community together for recognizing the values and standards.

The ancient law derived its actual presence in society from sources like Customs, Precedents and
Legislations. But, the authentic and most reliable source is „statutes‟ or which is known as Enacted laws. The
modern Acts are made by legislature (parliament) for the needs of society. These are used as the basic and
primary source by a judicial authority for carrying out their day to day operation. Every judicial and
administrative body are working according to the enacted laws and statutes.

With the source of law and with the change of time, the problem is that the society changes and this
finally changes the mindset leading for a court to interpret. The enacted laws, specially the modern rules and
acts are mainly drafted by the legal experts and scholars and the language used will leave a very little room for
interpretation. Some people find difficulty in interpreting the words as their meanings are ambiguous and certain
expressions are inconsistent. One of the reasons is that there is no coordination between the person who involve
in drafting the law and the person who applies it in working. In order to look after this certain rules of
Interpretation or construction have been formulated and one of the rules is called the Intention of Legislature.
The court will involve in interpretation or construction when it cannot proceed through the ordinary
rules of interpretation and it will look into the intention of legislature and try to derive the words from statute.

In certain cases, the courts have gone beyond the words of the statute and they have interpreted various
statutory provisions in a manner as to be morally sound. The extent to which the legislature and its intent can
shape the understanding and implementation of a statute is indeterminate. The value of time varies with time as
well as across jurisprudences. In India, it becomes necessary for the court to evaluate the role of legislature and
its intent in statutory interpretation.

II. Interpretation Of Statute

The means of communication are the words spoken or written. When there is a possibility of giving
one and only meaning there will not be any problem arising. But, when there are possible chances of two
meanings, a problem will arise where the court will look into the real intention of legislature. There will be a
problem arising when a provision in any statute is found to convey more than one meaning. So the Judges will
interpret the meaning of a word. The legislature, after enacting these statutes becomes functus officio.
Legislature enacts and the judges interpret the words and meaning.

DOI: 10.9790/0837-22091496100 www.iosrjournals.org 96 | Page

 Courts and Intention of Legislature Enacting The Statute

The judges cannot rely on something which they don‟t understand in the provision of an enactment.
They are under an obligation to interpret and find out the exact meaning. They cannot refuse or refer back the
matter to the legislature for interpretation. This exact situation led to the birth of principles of Interpretation to
find out the exact and real intention of the legislature.

Those with least ambiguities, inconsistencies or lacunae are considered to be good enactment. The
actual purpose of the interpretation of statutes is to find out the precise meaning of a word, which is achieved by
using certain aids or methods. The aids of interpretation are divided into two categories called Internal and
External Aids.

1.1 The internal aids are found within the statute:-

1. Long title
2. Preamble
3. Chapter Headings
4. Marginal Notes to every section of statute
5. Punctuations
6. Illustrations given below the sections
7. Definitions
8. Provisos
9. Explanation
10. Saving Clauses and non-Obstante clauses.

1.2 The External aids for Interpretation are those which are not present in the statute but it can be found
somewhere else:-
1. Historical background
2. Statement of Objects and reasons
3. The original bill as drafted and introduced
4. Debates in the legislature
5. State of things at the time a particular legislation was enacted
6. Judicial construction
7. Legal dictionaries
8. Common sense

The court applies this process of interpretation to find out the true meaning of the ambiguous word or
any phrase contained in the legislation. In the process the judge will try to ascertain the exact meaning the
parliament had in its mind. In some cases there will be different interpretations by different judges. The
meaning taken by one judge in interpreting the statute of the same word will be different from the second judge.
More precaution will have to be taken while interpreting the vague and undefined word of the statute. The
judge during interpretation of statute should not pursue his own thoughts and ideologies to interpret a statute and
he should interpret only according to the statue and its objectives.

The meaning of the word Interpretation means how a judge will look into a particular word with matter
or exact principle. SALMOND has defined the term interpretation in Jurisprudence as, “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”.

Thus it has been said that, Interpretation is an art of finding the true sense which their author has
intended to convey, and to enable others to derive the same idea which he has intended to convey. Clearing any
ambiguity is construction and it is synonymous to the word Interpretation.

III. COURTS AND INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE

The legislative intent is more than the purpose of legislature and the implication of words while
framing it. The purpose behind framing any statute is mainly for the public benefit. 1 The legislature is presumed
to have certain meaning of the words of any particular statute. Any statute framed should be in accordance with
such meaning. During any interpretation of any statute an advocate or a judge should always go by the rules of
interpretation and all these rules are used to gather the facts and they are processed to clear the ambiguity and
vagueness of the statute and will give a clear meaning to the word. The process of interpretation is done going

1
United Bank of India, Culcutta v. Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2957
DOI: 10.9790/0837-22091496100 www.iosrjournals.org 97 | Page
 Courts and Intention of Legislature Enacting The Statute

by the words of these statutes which is open to more than one interpretation. In this case, the court will have to
choose the intention of the legislature which is used in enacting a statute representing the true intention of the
legislature.2 So in this case, the court will look into the legal meaning or true meaning of all the statutory
provisions.

3.1 The role a Judiciary plays:-

1. When words are imperfect and they are ambiguous and they keep changing meaning over time which does
not appear to be directly addressing a particular issue and which appears to have a drafting error. 3
2. Some situations are inevitable and new technologies make existing laws difficult.
3. Some uncertainties can be added to the statute in course of enactment.
4. When any statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts stated that, the inquiry into legislative intents ends at
that particular point. The intention of the legislature is to be construed when there is a possibility of two
interpretations differently arising and this has to be essentially constructed of two aspects, one is the
concept of meaning i.e what the words mean and another is the words that state the concept of purpose and
object or the reason and spirit coming through the statute.
5. The process of construction combines both literal and logical. The legislative intention is the true or legal
meaning of an enactment which is derived by considering the meaning of words which is used in the
enactment for a purpose or object to which the enactment is directed.
6. The courts will have to keep in mind while reading any statute, by certain legislative intent. They are the
text of any statute which has proposed to the legislature. These proposed amendments to the stature can be
accepted or rejected with reasons. They include the record of court hearings on a particular topic.
Parliamentary debates and speeches are made prior to the bill on vote. They maintain the legislative records
or journals. The General Clauses Act, 1897 can be used to understand the relevant definitions in the statute. 4
7. Prior to the formation of statute, the case laws demonstrates the problems or issues which the legislative
was dealing with tackling the problem. Legislative intent is the reason for passing the law.
8. Other relevant statutes which indicate the limits of the statute in question; such as previous statutes on the
same matter.

The intention of legislature is a shorthand reference to the words meaning which is used by the
Legislature and determined with guidance accepted principles of Interpretation. This interpretation is done by
judges when the legislation was drafted because a statute is an edict of the Legislature. It is considered to be a
reason that interpretation of a stature is done according to the intention of those persons who make it. It is the
duty of the judicature to act upon the true intention of legislature –the mens or sentential legis. The main object
of interpreting the statute is to ascertain the intention in which a legislature is made. 5 The primary function of
all the appellate courts is the interpretation of statures and it is also conventional for courts to make it use of the
rules in the actual course of interpretation. Some of the rules in interpretation of law are considered to be very
ancient and others are actually recent. Some statutes are applicable only to one field such as criminal law or
constitutional law. 6

2.2 Certain principles of interpretation are formulated by the Superior Courts to find out the intention of the
legislature.
1. Literal construction:
The first and foremost construction is that of a literal construction. The courts are bound by the legislature and
once any legislature has expressed its intention in clear words they are binding. If any provision is unambiguous,
the legislative intent is clear and the other rules of construction are not clear they need not be called for any aid.
They will be aided only when the legislative intention is not clear. If the words are clear in a legislature they
should be applied even though their intention may be different or the result is harsh or undesirable.
2. No external aid where words plain and unambiguous:
The words of a statute are unambiguous and precise, the intention of every legislature or statute is gathered from
the language itself and no need of construction of any words. Where a statue is not exhaustive or it is ambiguous
or uncertain the external aid may be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the object for framing any
statute in the legislature.

2
Venkataswami Naidu, R v. Narasarn Naraindas, AIR 1966 SC 361
3
Legislative Intent in Interpretation of Statutes, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
4
Guru Prasanna Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ed., 12(2010)
5
Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends (2008)
6
Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (Pvt) Ltd. V. Chief Inspector of Stamp, AIR 1968 SC 102
DOI: 10.9790/0837-22091496100 www.iosrjournals.org 98 | Page
 Courts and Intention of Legislature Enacting The Statute

3. Mischief rule (Heydon's case):

Whenever there arises any question as to determine any interpretation in an enactment, the court will
have to ascertain the intention of making them and they must be gathered from the words used in the statute.
The decision should not rest on a literal interpretation. Literal construction should have a prima facie preference.
The rule gives more discretion than a literal or a golden rule of interpretation as it allows to effectively decide
on parliament‟s intent.

4. Words coupled together to take colour from each other:

This rule states that, when two or more words which have analogous meaning are coupled together, they are to
be understood in proper sense and not in a wrong way. This rule will not apply in a case where the legislature
has used more or wider words to widen the scope of any provision.

5. The golden rule:

A hypothetical consideration should not have much weight in interpreting a statue. If the language permits, it is
open to the court to give the statute any meaning which promotes the intent of legislation. The court will always
have the power to depart from the construction if there is a strict adherence to the construction which will defeat
the object of the legislature.
6. Absurdity or hardship:
The court will have no power to give the language of a statue a meaning which is wider than the literal
one, until there is any reason compelling to give another meaning. If an interpretation of a statute has or leads to
any absurdity or hardship then the construction may be put which modifies the meaning of the words and the
sentence also. If the language which is to be constructed is plain, the legislature should step in and remove the
absurdity. The considerations of the hardship should be ignored.
7. Liberal construction:
It is necessary and legitimate to adopt the rule of liberal construction as to give a reason and meaning to
all parts present in a statue and to make it effective and operative. The narrower and wider sense of a term is
adopted and it depends on the provisions of the statute in which the term occurs depending on the various facts
and circumstances of the case. If any words used in the provision are capable of only one construction, the
doctrine of liberal construction cannot be of any help. The enactments related to procedures should be construed
liberally in a manner as to render the enforcement of rights effective. This rule will apply to the interpretation of
constitutional and statutory provision.
8. Harmonious construction:
The statue should be construed and the construction has to be harmonious. The provisions which are in
conflict with each other cannot stand together. They should be interpreted in a harmonious way and the effect
should be given to both hand that a construction renders either of them inoperative. It is also the duty of the
courts to avoid conflicts between the provisions and whenever it is possible the rule of harmonious construction
applies and to different cognate acts such as the court fees or the civil procedure code. It can be unreasonable
and illegitimate for a court to limit its scope arbitrarily or solely for the purpose of establishing harmony
between them.
IV. CONCLUSION
The usage of the intention of a legislature by every court should be justified by a proper reason and it
should not be left open to statutes which are present. Errors are committed and should be rectified as soon as
possible. Every court is assigned a task of statutory interpretation and that should always be done with a proper
care and caution which is taking care of all the rules and regulations regarding the construction. The court can
always interpret legislation in its own way as to what considers for them to be right and they are taken care for
finding out the intention of legislature in enacting the statute.
There are different statutes where every intention can be looked upon on the case of „Taxation‟and
„Penal code‟ statutes which is never looked by the court. The interpretation of all the statutes is different from
ordinary ones as they have clear provisions as to what impose tax or liability on certain subjects. People will
suffer if the interpretation goes in a wrong way. Both statutes should be clear for interpretation and if it is
ambiguous or unclear, there will be no interpretation. In these statutes, the court will not give effect to all the
word. They will only interpret if the word is clear and in the case of any ambiguity the court will look into
enacting provisions of the statute. Here the court will apply only the Literal Interpretation by taking a popular or
an ordinary meaning and the court will not apply any canon of construction for Interpretation of statute.
Regarding law, every word has a meaning and the interpretation will become the scope and beyond the reach of
objectives and reasons for which the statute was enacted in the legislature. Hence the court should understand
this construction on for determining any statute or constitutional provision.

DOI: 10.9790/0837-22091496100 www.iosrjournals.org 99 | Page

 Courts and Intention of Legislature Enacting The Statute

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
[1]. Justice G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (14th edn, Lexis Nexis
Publications 2016).
[2]. Dr. M.P. Tandon, Interpretation of Statutes & Legislation (12th edn, Allahabad Law Agency 2016).
[3]. Quintin Johnstone. Án evaluation of the Rules of Staturory Interpretation”, 2 YLJ 1-2 (1954)
Website references:
[4]. Legislative Intent in Interpretation of Statutes, available at: https (Visited on September 12, 2017).
[5]. Judicial Interpretation, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation (Visited on
August 27, 2017).
[6]. Statutory Interpretation, available at: http://www.ijtr.nic.in/articles/art21.pdf (Visited on September 5,
2017).
Case laws:
[7]. Venkatachalam V. Dy. Transport Commissioner, AIR 1977 SCC 842, page 853, 854
[8]. R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment exparte Spath Holme, [2001] 1 ALL ER 195

G.V.Akshaya. “Courts and Intention of Legislature Enacting The Statute.” IOSR Journal Of
Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) , vol. 22, no. 9, 2017, pp. 96–100.

IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) is UGC approved Journal with
Sl. No. 5070, Journal no. 49323.

DOI: 10.9790/0837-22091496100 www.iosrjournals.org 100 | Page