Meaning:

Meaning Of Interpretation Of Statutes

The term has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’, which means
to explain, expound, understand, or to translate. Thus, Interpretation is the
process which is employed by the judiciary to ascertain or to determine the
meaning of the statutes or legal provision.
The objective of the court is not only merely to read the law but is also to apply
it in a meaningful manner to suit from case to case. It is also used for
ascertaining the actual connotation of any Act or document with the actual
intention of the legislature.

It is often referred to as the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by
giving the words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning.

Interpretation of statutes is the backbone of our legal system. This is the process
of determining the meaning of any law. This interpretation of statues is
challenging and complex but this is the most important part to ensuring that, law
is applied fairly and uniformly. Statutes are the primary source of most
jurisdiction in law. It is a law enacted by a legislative body. Statutes play the
most vital role in regulating all aspect of our legal system. But at the same time
it can be quite complex, that time interpretation of statues comes in.
Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by
giving the words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the
process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute. The
Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been
certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the
Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’.
Interpretation thus is a familiar process of considerable significance.
With respect to statute law, interpretation is of importance because of the
inherent nature of legislation as a source of law. The process of statute making
and the process of interpretation of statutes are two distinct activities. In the
process of interpretation, several aids are used. They may be statutory or non-
statutory. Statutory aids may be illustrated by the General Clauses Act, 1897
and by specific definitions contained in individuals Acts whereas non-statutory
aids is illustrated by common law rules of interpretation (including certain
presumptions relating to interpretation) and also by case-laws relating to the
interpretation of statutes. The law that has its source in legislation is called
enacted law or statute law. A statute law is expressed in general or abstract
terms. Statute law is the principal source of modern law. It is quickly made,
definite, ease of access and easy to prove. A statute, it is said, is law as soon as
it is passed; it does not have to wait for recognition by the courts before
becoming entitled to the name ‘law’. The courts recognize a statute because it is
law; it is not law merely because the courts recognize it. Statute may be
regarded as a body of universal, absolute, binding rules.
Law in its legislative sense is of much wider import than the juristic notion of
law as the command of a sovereign or as a rule laying down a general course of
conduct. A statute is better described as an instruction to administrators and
courts to accomplish a definite result, usually the securing or maintaining of
recognized social, political or economic values. The statute is expressed in
definite written words. Statutes are not always rational and it may not be within
the province of the court to import rationality in an enactment under the guise of
interpretation.

Need For Interpretation:

In modern times, the enacted laws are drafted by legal experts, yet they are
expressed in language and no language is so perfect as to leave no ambiguities.
Further, by its very nature, a statute is an edict of the legislature and many-a-
time the intent of the legislature has to be gathered not only from the language
but the surrounding circumstances that prevailed at the time when that particular
law was enacted. If any provision of the statute is open to two interpretations,
the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of
the legislature. Also, it is not within human powers to foresee the manifold set
of facts which may arise in the future and even if it were so it is not possible to
provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity. All these aspects add to give
great prominence to the subject of interpretation and construction in the
practical administration of the law.
The process of understanding the meaning of a law or legal provision is known
as interpretation. It is an aspect of our system enabling courts and other bodies
involved in adjudication to apply the law to specific cases and resolve legal
disputes fairly. Interpretation plays a role, in preventing the exercise of power
and ensuring that duties are fulfilled. If a statute is written in ambiguous
language government officials may interpret it in ways that allow them to wield
their powers arbitrarily. However when courts interpret statutes they can ensure
fair application of the law while preventing abuse of power by government
officials. Interpretation is also instrumental, in preventing crime and
safeguarding welfare. If criminal statutes are interpreted narrowly they may not
effectively deter crime.
Conversely if they are interpreted broadly individual’s rights may be violated.
Courts have a role to play in interpreting statutes in a manner that both prevents
crime and safeguards individual rights. Lastly interpretation contributes to
expediting the delivery of justice. If the courts struggle to promptly and
accurately understand the law it can result in delays, within the proceedings.
Such delays can have effects on both plaintiffs and defendants eroding trust in
the judicial system. To guarantee justice courts should establish consistent
guidelines, for interpreting the law.
Interpretation of something means ascertaining the meaning or significance of
that thing or ascertaining an explanation of something that is not immediately
obvious. Construction and Interpretation of a statute is an age-old process and
as old as language. Interpretation of statute is the process of ascertaining the
true meaning of the words used in a statute. When the language of the statute is
clear, there is no need for the rules of interpretation. But, in certain cases, more
than one meaning may be derived from the same word or sentence. It is
therefore necessary to interpret the statute to find out the real intention of the
statute.

Scope Of Interpretation Of Statutes:

Objectives Of Interpretation:

The goals and objectives which interpretation of statutes seeks to be achieved

can be summarized as follows:
1. Understanding the intent of the legislators: The main goal of
interpretation is to comprehend what the lawmakers intended when they
made and passed a law. This involves analysing the language used in the
statute taking into account its context and examining the circumstances
surrounding its creation.
2. Achieving the purpose for which the statute was brought into force:
Once we have determined the intent the next objective is to ensure that
the statutes purpose is fulfilled. This means interpreting it in a way that
aligns with the goals intended by lawmaker.
3. Protecting rights and freedoms: Statutory interpretation should also
prioritize safeguarding individual’s rights and liberties. It entails
interpreting laws in a manner that does not unreasonably infringe upon
people’s rights and freedoms, but rather help them.
In addition, to these objectives there may be aims to certain cases. For example,
a court might interpret a statute in a way that minimizes its impact, on the
economy or promotes welfare.

What are Statutes?

The term “Statutes” has a specific legal meaning. As per Black’s Law
Dictionary, a “Statute” refers to a formal written rule created by a legislative
authority, such as a country, state, city or county. Statutes often dictate what is
allowed or not allowed or they lay out official policies. This term is typically
used to distinguish laws created by legislative bodies from the judgments made
by common law courts and the rules established by government agencies.
In the Indian Constitution, the term “Statute” is not used; instead, the term
“law” is employed. According to Article 13(3)(a) of the Indian Constitution, the
definition of “law” includes ordinances, orders, by-laws, rules, regulations,
notifications, customs or practices that have the power of law within the
territory of India.
A Statute, essentially, represents the intent of the legislative body. It may
include various components, such as a short title, long title, preamble, marginal
notes, section headings, interpretation clauses, provisions, examples,
exceptions, saving clauses, explanations, schedules and punctuation. These
elements collectively make up the content and structure of a statute.

What is the Classification of Statutes?

Classification of Statutes can be done based on their duration, nature of
operation, purpose and scope.
Classification of Statutes by Duration
Temporary Statute: A temporary statute is one that specifies a fixed period of
operation and validity within the statute itself. It remains in effect until the
specified time elapses unless repealed earlier. If the legislature wishes to extend
its effect, a new enactment is required. For example, the Finance Act is a
temporary statute, requiring annual reauthorisation.

Permanent Statute: A permanent statute doesn’t have a predefined expiration

date. However, this doesn’t make the statute unchangeable. It can be amended
or repealed by another act.
Classification of Statutes by Method
Mandatory, Imperative or Obligatory Statute: A mandatory statute compels
the performance of certain actions or dictates that specific things must be
carried out in a particular manner or form. Non-compliance typically leads to
legal consequences.
Directory or Permissive Statute: A directory statute merely provides guidance
or permission for actions without compelling their performance. In some cases,
statutes prescribe conditions or forms that are considered essential for the
regulated action and their omission can render the action invalid. In other cases,
these prescriptions are seen as non-binding and failure to follow them might
result in penalties if any are stipulated by the statute.
In the case of H.V. Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, it was determined that
mandatory provisions must be strictly adhered to, while substantial compliance
with directory provisions is generally sufficient to meet legal requirements.

Classification of Statues with Reference to Object

Codifying Statute
A codifying statute is one that aims to comprehensively outline the entire body
of law on a specific subject. It seeks to provide a thorough and authoritative
statement of the key legal rules pertaining to that subject. This includes existing
provisions from various statutes on the subject and may also incorporate
common law principles.
An example is the Bill of Exchange Act of 1882 in England, which codified
laws regarding bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes. Similarly, the
Hindu Succession Act of 1956 in India is a codifying statute that addresses
intestate succession among Hindus.
Consolidating Statute
A consolidating statute consolidates all statutory enactments related to a
particular subject into a single law, making it easier to access and understand. It
brings together existing statutory provisions on the subject, often with minor
modifications.
For example, in England, the Law of Property Act of 1925 consolidated the acts
of 1922 and 1924. In India, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 is a
consolidating statute concerning criminal procedures. Such statutes not only
compile earlier laws but also repeal the earlier acts for the sake of clarity.
Declaratory Statute
A declaratory statute is one that clarifies and removes doubts or
misunderstandings about the meaning of terms or expressions within the
common law or statutory law. When courts have interpreted an expression
differently from what the legislature intended, a declaratory statute is passed to
set the correct meaning of that expression. In India, the Income Tax
(Amendment) Act of 1985, which added explanation 2 to section 40 of the
Income Tax Act of 1961 and the Finance Act of 1987, which amended the
definition of “Owner of house property” in section 27, are examples of
declaratory acts.
It’s important to note that the mere use of the phrase “it is hereby declared”
does not automatically make a statute a declaratory statute. A declaratory statute
typically contains a preamble and uses terms like “declared” and “enacted” to
signal its intent.
Remedial Statute
A remedial statute is a kind of law that offers new help or a new solution. Its
main purpose is to improve how rights are protected and address problems or
errors in the old law. Examples of remedial statutes include the Maternity
Benefits Act of 1961 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923. In these
laws, you’ll often find the phrase “for remedy whereof” right before the actual
law.
Blackstone, a legal scholar, thought that remedial statutes could either expand
or limit rights. They could expand rights when they made the law more
generous or they could limit rights when they restricted existing legal rights. In
a case called Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath, the court
decided that all laws in a welfare state aim to promote general well-being. Some
laws are more responsive to urgent social needs and have a more direct and
noticeable impact on fixing social problems.
Enabling Statute
An enabling statute is a law that allows something that was previously
forbidden, with or without specific rules on how to do it. It widens the scope of
what’s allowed under common law. An enabling statute makes an action lawful,
even if it wouldn’t be otherwise.
In a case called Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association v.
State of Bombay, the court explained that an enabling act not only permits
something to happen but also gives the necessary authority to do what’s needed
to achieve the law’s goal. Any conditions set by an enabling statute for the
public good must be followed because they are essential. An example is Section
49-A(1) and 49-A(2) of the Advocates Act of 1961, as amended by Act 21 of
1964.
Disabling Statute
A disabling statute is one that limits or reduces a right granted by common law.
It’s a law that restricts a common law right.
Penal Statute
A penal statute is a law that punishes certain actions or wrongdoings. This type
of law can be in the form of a detailed criminal code with many sections that
define punishments for different wrongs. For example, the Criminal Procedure
Code, the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954
and the Arms Act of 1959 are all examples of penal statutes.
Penalties for breaking these laws can include fines, the loss of property,
imprisonment or even the death penalty. When the law enforces obedience not
through individual lawsuits but by imposing punishments as commanded by the
law, it’s considered a penal statute. Penalties can only be imposed when the law
explicitly states so and any doubts should benefit the accused.
Taxing Statute
A taxing statute is a law that imposes taxes on income or certain types of
transactions. Examples include income tax, wealth tax, sales tax and gift tax.
These taxes help the government collect money to support public welfare.
However, it’s essential that a statute clearly states that taxes must be paid and
any doubts about this should benefit the person being taxed.
Explanatory Statute
An explanatory statute is a law that explains another law. It’s created to fill in
gaps or clarify confusing parts of a previous law. An explanatory statute aims to
make the meaning of an expression used in an earlier law clearer. For instance,
in Britain, the Royal Mines Act of 1688 was passed to encourage the mining of
certain base metals. The Royal Mines Act of 1963 was enacted to provide a
better explanation of the earlier law.
Amending Statute
An amending statute is a law that adds to or changes the original law to improve
it or better achieve its original purpose. It doesn’t cancel out the old law; it
becomes part of it. Examples include the Direct Taxes Amendments Act of
1974 and the Land Acquisition (Amendments) Act of 1984.
Repealing Statute
A repealing statute is a law that cancels out an earlier law. It can do this
explicitly by saying so in the statute or implicitly through its language. For
example, the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act of 1956 repealed the
Hyderabad Municipal and Town Committees Act of 1951.
Curative or Validating Statute
A curative or validating statute is one passed to fix problems in a previous law
or to make legal proceedings, documents or actions valid, even if they didn’t
meet the legal requirements. These statutes often include phrases like
“notwithstanding any judgment, decree or court order.” They’re meant to make
previously unlawful actions legal or to overturn court decisions.
In a case involving Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and others v. State of
Orissa and others, the Supreme Court of India explained that while deciding
legal rights is a job for the courts, only the legislature can pass laws to validate
illegal actions or laws. However, when the validity of a validating law is in
question, the court must consider three things:
 Whether the law fixes the problems that made the action or law invalid.
 Whether the legislature had the authority to validate what was declared invalid
before.
 Whether the validation respects the rights guaranteed by the constitution. A
validating law is effective only if the answers to these three questions are “yes.”

Conclusion
The classification of statutes refers to the categorisation of laws based on their
distinctive characteristics or purposes. Statutes can be grouped into various
categories depending on their intent, effect or content. Common classifications
include remedial statutes, which aim to correct legal flaws and penal statutes,
which outline punishments for specific actions.
Enabling statutes expand legal permissions, while explanatory statutes clarify
unclear provisions in prior laws. Amending statutes modify existing laws and
repealing statutes annul or replace earlier regulations. Curative or validating
statutes rectify legal defects. These classifications aid in understanding and
interpreting the diverse functions and implications of statutory law.

Construction meaning

In simple words, construction is the process of drawing conclusions of the

subjects which are beyond the direct expression of the text. The courts draw
findings after analysing the meaning of the words used in the text or the
statutes. This process is known as legal exposition. There are a certain set of
facts pending before the court and construction is the application of the
conclusion of these facts.
The objective is to assist the judicial body in determining the real intention of
the legislature. Its aim is also to ascertain the legal effect of the legal text.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTER AND CONSTR

1. In law, interpretation refers to 1. Construction, on the other hand,
exposing the true sense of the refers to drawing conclusions from
provisions of the statutes and to
understand the Exact meaning of the the written texts which are beyond the
words used in any text. outright expression of the legal text.

2. Interpretation refers to the 2. The purpose of construction is to

linguistic meaning of the legal text. determine the legal effect of words
and the written text of the statute.
3. In the case where the simple 3. In the case where the literal
meaning of the text is to be adopted meaning of the legal text results in
then the concept of interpretation is ambiguity then the concept of
being referred to. construction is adopted.
What are The Presumptions of Statutory
Interpretation?
The interpretation of statutes is guided by several presumptions that
help maintain the rule of law and ensure justice. These
presumptions of statutory interpretation play a crucial role in
understanding the legislative intent behind the enactment of
statutes.
All the presumptions of statutory interpretation can be briefed as:
 Firstly, there is a presumption of validity, which assumes that
statutes are enacted within constitutional limits and are presumed
to be valid unless proven otherwise.
 Secondly, the territorial operation presumption limits the application
of an act to the territories of the country where it is enacted unless
specifically provided otherwise.
 Thirdly, the presumption against taking away the jurisdiction of the
courts emphasizes that interpretations should not readily strip
courts of their authority unless the statute clearly and explicitly
intends to do so.
 Lastly, the prospective operation presumption indicates that
statutes are generally meant to have an effect on future acts or
events rather than retroactively impacting past circumstances
unless the legislature expressly indicates otherwise.
Presumption of Validity
In legal interpretation, there is a presumption that statutes are valid
and do not violate the Constitution. Laws enacted by the Parliament,
State legislatures or their subordinate bodies should adhere to
constitutional boundaries and not contradict the provisions and spirit
of the Constitution. When faced with two possible interpretations,
one that upholds the constitutionality of the statute and another
that renders it void, the interpretation that preserves the
constitutionality of the law should be followed.
There is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an
enacted law. If someone claims that a law is unconstitutional, they
must demonstrate a violation of constitutional boundaries. When the
validity of a statute passed by a competent legislature is challenged,
the court assumes its validity.
However, if the law appears arbitrary and discriminatory, the
presumption of constitutionality cannot be upheld. In cases of doubt
regarding the constitutional validity of a law, the benefit of the
doubt should lean towards its constitutionality. The court should
assume that the legislature acted intentionally and expressed its
intention appropriately in the law. Every word used by the
legislature carries significance and unless it is proven that the
legislation has crossed constitutional limits, it is presumed to be
constitutionally valid.
When statutory language can be interpreted in multiple ways, the
statute should be construed in a manner that upholds its
constitutional validity and avoids any doubts about its
constitutionality. This is the rule of harmonious construction and
applies even to bylaws and constitutional amendments.
In the case of Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, the constitutional
validity of the “Rajasthan Nathdwara Temple Act” was brought into
question. The interpretation of Section 16 of the Act was a key issue.
The words “affairs of temple” in that section were construed
narrowly to refer only to secular matters, ensuring its
constitutionality. If a broader interpretation had been given to
Section 16, it would have violated Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution, which guarantee the freedom of religion and the right
to manage religious affairs.

The Territorial Operation of the Act is within the

Country
The general principle regarding acts of parliament is that they are
applicable within the territories of the country in which they are
enacted unless stated otherwise. Statutes passed by parliament are
binding within the boundaries of the country and do not have extra-
territorial operation.
However, Article 245(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no
act made by parliament shall be deemed invalid on the ground of
having extra-territorial operation. Courts are obligated to enforce
such legislation.
For instance, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has extra-territorial
application. Section 3 states that any person bound by Indian law
who commits an offence outside India shall be tried in India as if the
offence was committed within the country. Section 4 further extends
the application of the IPC to offences committed by Indian citizens in
any place outside India or by any person on a ship or aircraft
registered in India, regardless of its location in the world.
State legislatures in India have the power to enact laws for the
entire state or any specific part of the state. These laws are
applicable only within the territory of that particular state and do not
have extra-territorial operations.
To establish a territorial connection, two factors must be considered:
i) The territorial connection should be real and factual, rather than
illusory.
ii) The liability under the Act being enforced must be related to that
territorial connection only.
In the case of Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, the Supreme
Court ruled that the offence of criminal conspiracy is considered a
continuing offence. As a result, it does not matter where the acts
constituting the conspiracy are committed, whether in Dubai or
Chandigarh. The offence can be tried in India under Section 4 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provides for the extraterritorial
application of the IPC.
In the case of K.K. Kochari v. The State of Madras, the Supreme
Court held that laws enacted by state legislatures apply within the
boundaries of the respective states. These laws can be challenged if
they have an extra-territorial operation. This is because Article
245(2) of the Indian Constitution empowers only the Union
Parliament to make laws with extraterritorial application.

Interpretation That Takes Away Jurisdictions of

Court Must Not Be Enforced
There is a presumption in statutory interpretation that an
interpretation of a statute that restricts or takes away the
jurisdiction of the courts should not be given effect unless the words
of the statute clearly and explicitly provide for it.
In both civil and criminal cases, there is a strong presumption that
civil courts have jurisdiction over matters of a civil nature. The
exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts should not be readily
inferred. This presumption is based on the principle that courts
should be accessible to all seeking justice and that the existing state
of the law should be maintained.
Unless the legislature clearly and expressly ousts the jurisdiction of
the courts or it can be inferred by necessary implication, the courts
should be presumed to have jurisdiction. Statutes should be
construed in a manner that avoids taking away the jurisdiction of
superior courts or extending jurisdiction through the right to appeal.
Statutes that confer jurisdiction on subordinate courts, tribunals or
government agencies should be strictly construed. Unless the
construction of an act clearly indicates the intention of the
legislature to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, the jurisdiction of
ordinary courts of judicature is not taken away. When jurisdiction is
conferred by a statute, it is implied that the act also grants the
power to perform all acts necessary for its execution.
Special powers granted by an act must be limited to the purpose for
which they are granted. The power of control by superior courts
cannot be taken away unless expressly provided by the statute. In
the absence of clear statutory provisions, it is presumed that new
jurisdiction is not created or existing jurisdiction is not enlarged.
Since legislation grants jurisdiction to the courts, only legislation can
take away that jurisdiction. If an interpretation of an act allows for
two constructions, one giving jurisdiction to the court and the other
taking it away, the construction that grants jurisdiction to the court
should prevail. Parties to a dispute cannot, by mutual consent,
create or take away jurisdiction from the court where their dispute
can be adjudicated.
There is a general presumption that civil courts have jurisdiction to
hear all civil matters. The exclusion of civil jurisdiction must be
expressed in clear terms or by necessary implication. The general
rule is that courts have jurisdiction over civil matters and the burden
of proof lies on the party alleging the exclusion of civil jurisdiction. In
cases where the jurisdiction of courts is excluded, civil courts have
the power to examine whether the provisions of the statute have
been complied with and whether the prescribed legal procedures
have been followed by tribunals established by the statute.
Non-compliance with the statute or procedural requirements can be
challenged in a court of law. This principle is based on the
presumption that an aggrieved person should always have recourse
to ordinary civil courts, in addition to any remedies provided by the
statute, unless expressly excluded by the language of the statute or
necessary implication.
In the case of Provincial Government of Madras (now Andhra
Pradesh) v. J.S. Bassappa, the Supreme Court ruled that the
exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts should not be readily
construed. Even if the provisions of an act confer finality to the
orders of a particular authority, civil courts still retain jurisdiction if
the provisions of the act are not complied with or if the statutory
tribunal has failed to adhere to the principles of judicial procedure.
In the case of Bhimsi v. Dundappa, the Supreme Court held that if
a revenue court is granted exclusive jurisdiction to try certain
matters and the jurisdiction of the civil court is completely excluded,
then the civil court should transfer those matters to be tried and
decide by the revenue court alone.
Prospective in the Operation of Statutes
The term “prospective” with reference to statutes refers to the
application of laws in the future or from the date of commencement
of the statute, as indicated by its dictionary meaning. In the Indian
context, the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling was first introduced
by the Supreme Court in the case of I.C. Golak Nath v. State of
Punjab (A.I.R. 1967 SC 1643). In this case, the Supreme Court held
that the Parliament did not have the power to amend fundamental
rights.
Chief Justice Subba Rao raised the question of how Parliament, even
with a two-thirds majority, could abrogate a fundamental right if it
could not affect fundamental rights through ordinary legislation,
even unanimously. He argued that the term “law” in Article 13(2) of
the Constitution includes both ordinary law and constitutional law,
encompassing amendments as well.
Therefore, according to the court’s interpretation, the state was not
authorized to make any constitutional amendment that would curtail
or diminish fundamental rights. The court declared that this principle
would only apply prospectively, meaning it would have no
retrospective effect. This concept came to be known as “prospective
overruling.”
As a result of this decision, all amendments made to the
fundamental rights prior to the court’s ruling remained valid and
effective. However, after the date of the decision, the Parliament
would no longer have the power to amend any of the fundamental
rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
Penal statutes generally have prospective operation and Article 20
of the Constitution of India restricts the retrospective operation of
such statutes. According to Article 20, an act that was legal when it
was committed cannot be made illegal by the enactment of a new
statute.
In the case of Gramma v. Veerupana, it was observed that Section
8 of “The Hindu Succession Act, 1956” applies to the devolution of
property of a Hindu male who dies intestate. The Supreme Court
ruled that the Act is not applicable to successions that occurred
before the Act came into operation, which means it has only
prospective operation. In other words, the Act does not have
retroactive effect on successions that took place prior to 1956.
In the case of Govind Das v. Income Tax Officer, the Supreme
Court considered Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This
provision imposes joint and several liability on the members of a
Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) to pay tax assessed on the HUF
property in case a partition has taken place. The court held that
Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to
assessments made before 1st April 1962, which was the date the
Act came into force. Therefore, the provision has only prospective
operation and does not apply retrospectively to assessments made
prior to that date.
Exceptions to Prospective Operation of Statutes
Procedural statutes, also known as adjunctive statutes, do not
establish or confer new rights. They pertain to procedural matters
and are generally presumed to have retrospective operation,
meaning they can apply to matters that occurred before the
enactment of the statute.
Retrospective operation means that a statute can have an effect on
events or circumstances that took place prior to its enactment. A
statute can be explicitly declared as retrospective or implied as such
by the court. However, the retrospective application should not
impair existing rights or obligations.
If a statute allows for two interpretations, one retrospective and the
other perspective, the prospective interpretation is usually preferred
based on the presumption that the legislature did not intend to
create injustice. Generally, statutes are expected to apply to acts or
circumstances that occurred after their enactment, unless there is
clear legislative intent to apply them retrospectively.
Amendments to procedural laws typically have a retrospective
effect. Declaratory acts, which clarify the meaning and effect of a
statute, are also given retrospective operation. Such acts aim to
rectify judicial errors and remove doubts.
The presumption against the retrospective operation of statutes is
rebuttable, meaning it can be challenged with strong contrary
evidence. Courts should not give a statute a greater retrospective
effect than intended by the legislature.
In cases where a court declares an act void, the parliament has the
power to pass a validating act with retrospective effect to revive the
void act. However, penal laws generally cannot have a retrospective
operation unless expressly allowed by Article 20(1) of the Indian
Constitution. If a retroactive application of a penal law benefits the
accused, it may be allowed.
In Balumar Jamnadas Batra v. State of Maharashtra,
the Supreme Court held that Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962,
which dealt with the burden of proof, pertained to procedural
matters and thus had a retrospective operation.
In Reliance Jute and Industries Limited v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, the Supreme Court stated that while interpreting
taxing statutes, the law in force during the relevant assessment year
should be applied unless there is an express provision or clear
intention suggesting otherwise.
Conclusion
The presumptions of statutory interpretation include validity,
territorial operation, non-interference with court jurisdiction and
prospective operation. These presumptions of interpretation of
statutes ensure fairness and uphold the rule of law in legal systems.
RULES/MAXIMS
EJUSDEM GENERIS
INTRODUCTION
There are broadly two types of principles of interpretation.
Primary Principles.
Secondary Principles.
The principle of Ejusdem Generis falls under the secondary principles.

ETYMOLOGICAL MEANING
•The expression 'ejusdem generis' means of the same kind or class
•Derived from a Latin term meaning 'of the same kind.'
•It is also known as 'eisudem generis'.
MEANING
• When general words follow enumerations of particular classes or
persons or things, the general words shall be construed as applicable only
to person or things of the same general nature or kind as those
enumerated.
LOGIC BEHIND THE RULE
It is presumed that statute will be interpreted so as to be internally
consistent.
A particular section of the statute shall not be separated from the
rest of the act.
WHEN IT IS USED
• The rule is applied to resolve the problem in giving meaning to groups of
words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear or
vague.
EXPLANATION OF THE RULE
•Normally, general words should be given their natural meaning like
all other words unless the context requires otherwise.
•As per this legal term, in any canon of construction, when a
general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, then the general word or
phrase shall be interpreted to include only items of the same type as
those listed.
•In other words, the general expression takes its meaning from the
preceding particular expressions because the legislature by using the
particular words has shown its intention to that effect.
•Specific/Particular meaning of an expression or words apply over
its general/ordinary meaning.
PRINCIPLE
The basis of this expression is that if the legislature intended
general words to be used in an unrestricted sense, it would not have
bothered to use particular words at all.
•The rule like many other rules of statutory interpretation, is a
useful servant but a bad master.
•the rule must be controlled by the fundamental rule that statutes
must be construed so as to carry out the object sought to be
accomplished.
SCOPE
•The rule of 'ejusdem generis' is only an instrumentality to ascertain
the correct meaning of words when there is uncertainty.
• It should not be used to defeat the obvious purpose of
legislation.
• The Ejusdem Generis rule is not a rule of law but is merely a
rule of construction to find out the true intention of the legislature. • The
Supreme Court held that the Ejusdem Generis principle is a facet of the
principle of 'Noscitur a sociis'. The Latin maxim 'Noscitur a sociis'
contemplates that a statutory term is recognised by its associated words.
EXAMPLE/ILLUSTRATION
• If a law refers to horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats or any
other farm animal, the general mention "or any other farm animal" would
be held to include only four legged, hoofed mammals, typically found on
farms and thus would exclude chickens.
• Books, magazines & newspapers and other reading material.
In this case other reading material cannot be construed to mean a pen.

ESSENTIALS OF EJUSDEM GENERIS

• The statute contains an enumeration of specific words.
• The subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category.
• That class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration.
• The general terms follow the enumeration.
• There is a distinct genus which comprises more than one
species.
• There is no indication of a different legislative intent.

INAPPLICABILITY OF THE RULE

• The rule of Ejusdem Generis must be applied with great
caution, because, it implies a departure from the natural meaning of
words, in order to give them a meaning on a supposed intention of the
legislature.
• The rule requires that the specific words are all of one genus,
in which case, the general words may be presumed to be restricted to that
genus.
• For example, the words 'or otherwise' are generally used as
ancillary to the specific proposition which precedes them.
• The rule does not have a universal application.
• Following are some situations when the rule is inapplicable :-
⁃ If the specific words do not belong to a distinct genus or
category.
⁃ If a general word follows only one particular word, then that
single particular word does not constitute a distinct genus.
⁃ If the context of the legislation rules out the applicability of
this rule.
⁃ If the context of the whole scheme of the enactment and the
object and mischief of the enactment do not require such a restricted
meaning to be attached to words of general import.
CONCLUSION
• The Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis is only part of a wider
principle of construction, namely, that, where reasonably possible, some
significance and meaning should be attributed to each and every word
and phrase in the written document.
• Thus, one can conclude that the canons of interpretation is
like a guide to the courts/ judges. By using right canon of interpretation at
the right time the courts ensure that ambiguous statutes are interpreted
as per the intent of legislature as far as possible

UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT

The maxim ‘ut res magis valeat quam pereat’ means that it is better for a
thing to have an effect than for it to become void i.e., it is better to
validate a thing than to invalidate it. While interpreting any provision, the
courts should not lean towards a construction that renders any provision
or statute void or futile. Hence, whenever the words used in a provision
are imprecise, uncertain, and
ambiguous thereby leading to the possibility of alternative constructions,
then the courts should construe the provision in such a manner that none
of the provisions of the statute is turned inoperative . If possible all the
words used in a statute must be given meaning as the legislature is not
expected to use unnecessary or insignificant words.
The maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat is based on the following
principles and presumptions:
• A statute should not be declared void for sheer vagueness.
• When the courts embark on interpreting a provision, the first and
foremost necessity is that the law survives.
• While pronouncing upon the constitutionality of a statute, the courts
must start with the presumption in favor of its constitutionality.
• The true interpretation of a provision or a statute is one that is in
accordance with the
intention of the legislature. The intention of the legislature cannot be
otherwise than to give effect to all the provisions of the statute for
achieving the object for which the law was
enacted.
• Adopting an interpretation by which any provision is rendered
inoperative or unworkable will be adverse to the legislative intent.
• The courts are to interpret the law and the making and repealing of
legislation is the
exclusive domain of the legislature. In such circumstances, any
interpretation by which any provision or statute turns futile amounts to a
rejection of law and that is not within the
jurisdiction of courts.
• Courts can strike down a law on the ground of unconstitutionality but
the courts cannot
introduce any vagueness or unconstitutionality in a provision by adopting
a peculiar construction or construing a provision in a particular manner.

CASES
1. In KB Nagpur, MD (Ayurvedic) v. The Union of India (2012)
case, the question arose regarding the construction of Section 7(1) of the
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. The said provision stated that
the President, Vice President, or member of the Central Council shall
continue until his successor shall have been duly elected or nominated.
The clause “or until his successor shall have been duly elected or
nominated, whichever is longer” was challenged as being unconstitutional
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.The Supreme Court,
while applying the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat, upheld the
constitutionality of Section 7(1) and held that the said provision was made
by Parliament to take care of situations when election to the post of
President, Vice-President or member is delayed for various reasons
thereby ensuring that there is no vacuum in the membership of the
Central Council. The Court thus construed Section 7(1) so as to make it
effective and operative.

THE RULE OF REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS

Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to

each; referring each phrase or expression to its corresponding object. In
simple words
"reddendo singula singulis" means that when a list of words has a
modifying phrase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last. It is a rule
of construction used usually in distributing property. Where there are
general words of description, following a record of particular things uch
general words are to be construed distributively, and if the general words
will apply to some things and not to others, the general words are to be
applied to those things to which they will, and not to those to which they
will not apply; that is to say, each phrase, word or expression is to be
referred to its suitable objects.

The best example of reddendo singula singulis is quoted from Wharton's

law Lexicon, "If anyone shall draw or load any sword or gun the word draw
is applied to sword only and the word load to gun only, the former verb to
former noun and latter to latter, because it is impossible to load a sword
or to draw a gun, and so of other applications of different sets of words to
one another." 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
provide 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.

Thus, Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring

each to each; referring each phrase or expression to its corresponding
object. It is a rule of construction used typically in distributing property.
For example, when a will says "] devise and bequeath all my real and
personal property to A", the principle of reddendo singula singulis would
apply as if it read "I devise all my real property, and bequeath all my
personal property, to B", since the word devise is appropriate only to real
property and the term bequeath is appropriate only to personal property.

EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

I. INTRODUCTION
• Meaning - The maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius'
means that express mention of one person or thing implies the exclusion
of other persons or things.
• Aim of the maxim - The basic aim of the maxim is to gauge
the intention of the legislature.
• Inapplicability - It has no applicability if the words of the
statute are clear and unambiguous.
Case Law :- J.K. Pal v. State of Madhya PradeshHeld :- In many cases,
particular words are used by way of abundant caution, therefore, in such
cases the application of the maxim becomes inadvisable.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE MAXIM
• This maxim is a product of logic and common sense. This rule
is neither conclusive nor of general application and is to be applied with
great caution.
• If one or more things of a particular class are expressly
mentioned in an enactment, then that means that other things belonging
to the same particular class are excluded from the domain of the
enactment.
• For example - If certain things are taxed or subjected to a
charge, it seems probable that it was intended to exclude everything else
even of a similar nature, and a fortiori, all things different in genus and
description from those which are enumerated.

Case Law :- Quarabali v. Govt. of Rajasthan

Held :- On the principle of interpretation that what is left unexpressed,
was in all probability not intended at all.

• Again, where two expressions have been used in a statute,

one of which generally includes the other, the more general expression
excludes the less general.
• This rule is often a valuable servant but a dangerous master
to follow in the construction of statutes or documents.
• The exclusio is often the result of inadvertence or accident,
and the maxim ought not to be applied when its application, having
regard to the subject matter to which it is to be applied, leads to
inconsistency or injustice.
• This principle is a general rule with regard to the effect of an
enabling statute and means express enactment shuts the door to further
implication.
III. APPLICATION OF THE RULE
• Before the principle of construction 'expressio unius est
exclusio alterius' can be applied, the court must find an express mode of
doing something that is provided in a statute, which by its necessary
implication, could exclude the doing of that very thing and not something
else in some other way.
• A specific exclusion may be clear from the words of a statute
even though no specific reference is made to the provision that is being
excluded.
Noscitur a sociis
Meaning
Noscitur a sociis means "it is known by its associates" or "a word is known
by the company it keeps." This is a Latin principle and is often used in
statutory interpretation and legal analysis to determine the meaning of a
particular word or phrase within a law or regulation by considering the
words and phrases that surround it in the same context.
In practical terms, when a word or term is unclear or ambiguous in a legal
document, such as a statute or contract, it is interpreted by looking at the
other words, phrases or terms that are associated with it in that specific
provision. By examining how the word is used within the context of the
surrounding language, one can better understand its intended meaning
and purpose.
Illustration of noscitur a sociis
Example:$Professor Graham explained the noscitur a socis rule with an
example involving an insured person who becomes bankrupt and is
unable to collect insurance proceeds in case of "illness, disability or$
death."
In legal terms, bankruptcy is seen as a form of disability because it
prevents a person from holding certain positions or ofices. However,
according to the noscitur a sociis rule, even though bankruptcy is a form
of disability, it doesn't entitle someone to collect insurance because the
word "disability" is associated with "illness" and
"death" in this context.
In simpler words, when we look at this law, we can see that "disability"
here refers to a physical incapacity, as it is closely connected to the
concepts of "illness" and "death" mentioned alongside it in the same
provision.
Applicability of Rule of noscitur a sociis
The rule of noscitur a sociis is used when a word or phrase in a law can't
be understood on its own. You need to consider the words around it to get
the full meaning.
There's another legal saying that supports this idea: "qua non valeant
singular juna juvant," which means "words that are ineffective on their
own become effective when considered together."
Application of Rule of noscitur a sociis in the Indian Judiciary
There have been several notable cases in the courts where the noscitur a
sociis rule was applied, although it wasn't always referred to by that exact
name. This chapter discusses some of these important cases without a
specific order.
One significant case where the rule of noscitur a sociis was thoroughly
discussed is the$State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, dating back
to 1960, with a judgment authored by Justice Gajendragadkar. In this
case, the Supreme Court rejected the application of the rule, but it
examined its scope. The judgment clarified that the noscitur a sociis rule
is a tool for interpreting laws.It cannot be used when the legislative intent
is clear - that is, when lawmakers intentionally use broad and
unambiguous language. The judgment also outlined the rule's scope,
stating that it can be employed when the legislative intent is unclear
because it associates broad words with those of narrower meaning.
In the case of State of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad, the court applied the
rule for the question of whether the HC had to be consulted by the
Governor in the transfer of a sitting Judge, and held that upon applying
the rule of noscitur a socii in the instant case, the word "posting" in the
context of district judges was associated with the other words of
"appointments" as well as "promotions." But these two words could not be
interpreted to include "transfer" as well, and hence the Governor had to
consult the HC in this circumstance.
Scope of Rule of noscitur a socii
The scope of "Noscitur a sociis" is primarily within the realm of legal
interpretation, particularly in statutory or contractual contexts. This Latin
principle, which means "it is known by its associates," is used to help
determine the meaning of a word or phrase that may be unclear or
ambiguous in a legal document. Here's an overview of its scope:
Statutory Interpretation: "Noscitur a sociis" is commonly employed when
interpreting statutes or laws. It helps clarify the intended meaning of a
specific word or phrase within a statute by considering the context of
other words and phrases used in the same section or provision.
Contractual Interpretation: While primarily used in statutory
interpretation, this principle can also be applied to contracts. When a term
in a contract is unclear, examining the other terms and the overall context
of the agreement can help determine its meaning.
Ambiguity Resolution: The principle is particularly useful when dealing
with ambiguity. If a word or phrase can be reasonably interpreted in
multiple ways, considering its association with other words or phrases can
provide clarity.
Legislative Intent: "Noscitur a sociis" assists in discerning the legislative or
contractual intent. By looking at how a word is used alongside others, it
helps ensure that the interpretation aligns with the broader purpose and
objectives of the legal document.
Avoiding Absurd or Unintended Outcomes: Applying this principle can
prevent absurd or unintended outcomes in legal interpretations. It helps
ensure that a word's meaning is consistent with the surrounding language
and avoids interpretations that would lead to illogical or unreasonable
results.
Exceptions to noscitur a socii
The rule of noscitur a sociis plays a crucial role in legal interpretation, but
its application is not universal and has specific limitations. Here are some
key points and examples that illustrate its use:
Application in Ambiguous Cases
The noscitur a sociis rule is typically applied when the meaning of a law or
word in a statute is unclear or ambiguous. It helps in interpreting words
based on their context within the statute.
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha:$In this landmark case, the
question was whether hospitals fell within the definition of an "industry"
as per the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court applied the
rule to understand the legislative intent. They concluded that "noscitur a
sociis" couldn't be used to restrict the wide meaning of the term
"industry" deliberately used by the legislature.
Limitation in Clear Arrangements
The rule cannot be applied when the arrangement of words in a statute
has a clear and unambiguous meaning. It should only be used when there
is a genuine problem in interpretation.
Defined Terms
When a word is explicitly defined in a statute, the noscitur a sociis
principle cannot be applied. For example, the term "dishonestly" in the
Indian Penal Code is already explained in Section 24.
Exclusions
The rule cannot be used to include something that is already explicitly
excluded in the statute.
Broad Legislative Intent
When the legislature intends to give words a broad connotation, the rule
should not be used to narrow down their meaning.
Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd v. Shankar Prasad:$In this case, the Supreme
Court held that "dismissal" and "discharge" did not have similar meanings,
so the rule of noscitur a sociis couldn't be applied.
Conclusion
"Noscitur a sociis" is a valuable tool in legal interpretation because it helps
ensure that the words and phrases in a legal text are understood in a way
that aligns with the overall legislative or contractual intent, rather than in
isolation, which could lead to misinterpretation or unintended
consequences.
Principles of Constitutional Interpretation

Constitutional interpretation involves the methods and principles used by

courts to understand and apply the Constitution. The interpretation
process is crucial to maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that the
Constitution adapts to changing societal values and conditions.

1. Principle of Colourable Legislation

The doctrine of colourable legislationaddresses situations where the
legislature, within the constraints of the Constitution, attempts to do
indirectly what it cannot do directly. This principle of constitutional
interpretation is based on the Latin maxim “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex
directo, prohibetur et per obliquum,” meaning that what is prohibited
directly is also prohibited indirectly.

Key Features:
• Legislative Competence: The principle is primarily concerned
with whether a legislature has the authority to enact a particular law.
• No Examination of Motives: It does not involve questions of
legislative bona fides or mala fides (good or bad faith).
• Direct vs. Indirect Legislation:The doctrine comes into play
when a legislature tries to achieve an objective indirectly that it cannot
achieve directly due to constitutional constraints.
• Application in India: This doctrine is often applied concerning
Article 246, which delineates the legislative competencies of the
Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies through the Union, State and
Concurrent Lists in the Seventh Schedule.

In cases where the legislature tries to enact laws under the guise of
legitimate objectives while circumventing constitutional limitations, courts
use this principle to determine the validity of such laws.
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, 1952
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singhchallenged the constitutional validity of
the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Act stipulated that the rent from
the landlord’s land, prior to the state’s acquisition of the holding, would
vest with the state. However, half of this rent was to be returned to the
landlord as compensation.

The Supreme Court held that this provision amounted to naked

confiscation. The act of taking the entire rent and returning only half was
essentially the same as taking half without compensation. While the Act
purported to lay down principles for compensation, its actual objective
was confiscation—a subject falling under the Concurrent List.
Consequently, the Court deemed the Bihar Land Reforms Act as
colourable legislation, rendering it void.

Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India, 1997

In Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India, the
Supreme Court clarified the application of the doctrine of colourable
legislation. The doctrine is pertinent only when:
• The true intention behind a legislation is disguised.
• There is an intent to encroach upon the domain of another
legislature.
The purpose of a legislation might differ from its apparent objective.
However, it does not constitute colourable legislation if the issue does not
pertain to the legislative competence to enact it. The doctrine does not
consider whether the legislation was enacted with bona fide or mala fide
intentions. The only relevant question is whether the substance of the
statute falls within the legislative domain of the enacting body.

2. Principle of Pith and Substance

The principle of pith and substance is used to determine the true nature
and essential character of a legislation, especially when there is a conflict
regarding legislative competencies between the Union and State
legislatures.

Key Features:
• True Nature and Substance:“Pith” refers to the true nature or
essence of something, while “substance” refers to its most important or
essential part.
• Resolution of Conflicts: This doctrine of constitutional
interpretation helps resolve conflicts by determining which legislative field
(Union List, State List or Concurrent List) a particular piece of legislation
falls into.
• Intra Vires vs. Ultra Vires: If the pith and substance of the
legislation fall within the legislative competence of the enacting body, it is
deemed intra vires (within powers), even if it incidentally encroaches upon
matters outside its jurisdiction.

State of Bombay v. FN Balsara

In State of Bombay v. FN Balsara, the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, which
prohibited the sale and possession of liquor, was challenged for
encroaching upon the Union List. The court upheld the act because its pith
and substance fell under the State List, despite incidental encroachments
on the Union List.

Premchand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra, 1984

In the case of Premchand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra (1984), the Supreme Court
reiterated that incidental encroachment does not render an enactment
invalid. The Court held that if a law primarily falls within the legislative
powers granted by the Constitution to the enacting legislature, it remains
valid even if it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another
legislature.

State of Bombay v. Narottamdas, 1950

In State of Bombay v. Narottamdas (1950), the Supreme Court held that
to validate incidental encroachment, it must be shown that the pith and
substance of the law lie within the enacting legislature’s domain. The
validity of a statute is determined by its true nature, not merely by the
degree of encroachment. If the core purpose and essence (pith and
substance) of the law fall within the legislative powers of the enacting
body, the law is upheld.

Krishna v. State of Madras, 1956

The Madras Prohibition Act, enacted in 1937, faced a challenge over a
decade later for prescribing procedures and principles of evidence for
trials. The appellants argued that the Act contradicted the central Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. However, the court upheld the Act, stating that it
was ancillary to the central legislation. The court concluded that the Act,
in its pith and substance, pertained to intoxicating liquors—a matter
within the state list.

3. Principle of Eclipse
The doctrine of eclipse states that a law inconsistent with fundamental
rights is not entirely invalid but remains inoperative to the extent of the
inconsistency. This inconsistency can be removed through constitutional
amendments, thereby reviving the law.
Key Features:
• Inoperative vs. Invalid: The law does not become null and void
but is overshadowed by the fundamental right.
• Constitutional Amendments:The eclipse can be removed if a
constitutional amendment eliminates the inconsistency.
• Pre-Constitution Laws: This principle particularly applies to
laws that existed before the commencement of the Constitution and
became inoperative due to conflicts with fundamental rights.

Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay

In the landmark case of Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of
Bombay, the issue revolved around a law that existed before the Indian
Constitution came into force. This pre-constitution law imposed
restrictions on the right to practice any profession, trade or business,
which is guaranteed to citizens of India under Article 19(1)(g).

Key Points of the Case:

• Existing Law: The law in question was already in force when
the Constitution was enacted.
• Inconsistency with Fundamental Rights: The restrictions
imposed by this law could not be justified as reasonable under clause (6)
of Article 19, which allows for reasonable restrictions on the right to
practice any profession, trade or business.
• Article 13(1): According to Article 13(1), any pre-constitution
law that is inconsistent with the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of
the Constitution becomes void to the extent of such inconsistency.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the law did not become void in its entirety or
for all purposes, times and persons. Instead, it became void only “to the
extent of such inconsistency.” This meant that the law remained valid
except for the parts that were inconsistent with the fundamental rights
enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
The Court clarified that the law’s invalidity was limited to its conflict with
the new constitutional provisions. As a result, the law was not entirely
abrogated but was rendered inoperative only to the extent that it
infringed upon the fundamental rights of the citizens.

4. Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

The doctrine of harmonious construction is a judicial principle used to
resolve conflicts between different provisions of the same statute. It
operates on the presumption that the legislature did not intend for one
provision to negate or contradict another and that every provision should
be given effect to the fullest extent possible.

Key Principles of Harmonious Construction:

1. Avoiding Neglect of Provisions:The legislature does not intend
to prioritise one provision over another, nor does it intend to create
contradictions.
2. Ensuring Coherence: Conflicting provisions should be
interpreted in a manner that allows both to coexist without rendering any
part ineffective or redundant.

Sultana Begum v. Premchand Jain, 1996

In this case, the Supreme Court elaborated on the doctrine, stating that
conflicting provisions should be interpreted to ensure neither is ignored.
The court emphasised the need to read the statute as a whole and to
construe it in a way that maintains the effectiveness of all its provisions.

Jagdish Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, 1997

Here, the Supreme Court reiterated the need to read statutes
harmoniously, ensuring that no provision becomes ineffective. The court
emphasised that the objective of harmonious construction is to avoid
conflict and promote the smooth functioning of the legislative intent.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951
Shankari Prasad v. Union of Indiaaddressed the objective of harmonious
construction by stating that when two articles of the Constitution are
broadly phrased and conflict in their operation, they should be controlled
and qualified by each other to maintain harmony.

Ram Krishan v. Vinod, 1951

In this case, the Supreme Court resolved a conflict within the
Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 33 allowed government
servants to nominate candidates, while Section 123 prohibited them from
assisting candidates except by voting. The Court harmoniously construed
these provisions, allowing government servants to nominate and vote for
candidates, but prohibiting any other form of assistance.

Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, 1955

Bengal Immunity Co v State of Biharhighlighted the limits of the doctrine.
The Court held that conflicting provisions should be interpreted to allow
both to be effective. However, if it is impossible to harmonise the
provisions, the less useful provision can be ignored, provided there is no
compulsion to adopt it.

5.Doctrine of Repugnancy
The doctrine of repugnancy addresses conflicts between state and central
laws in India. Article 254 of the Indian Constitution provides the
framework for resolving such conflicts.

Article 254(1)
Article 254(1) states that if a state law is repugnant (i.e., incompatible)
with:
• A law that the Parliament is competent to enact, or
• An existing law under the Concurrent List,
then the central or existing law prevails and the state law is void to the
extent of the repugnancy. The chronology of the laws’ enactment is
irrelevant.
Key Points:
• Central Law Prevails: In case of conflict, the central law
overrides the state law.
• Repugnant Provisions: The conflicting parts of the state law do
not become ultra vires (beyond powers); they are merely eclipsed. If the
central law is repealed, the state law provisions become operative again.
• Doctrine of Pith and Substance:This doctrine is used to
determine if the true nature of the state law falls under a matter listed in
the Concurrent List. If the repugnancy is with a central law, it must be
assessed whether Parliament intended to create an exhaustive code on
the matter. If not, any qualifications or restrictions by the state law are
not considered repugnant.

Article 254(2)
Article 254(2) provides an exception where a state law on a concurrent
matter, repugnant to a central law, can prevail if it receives Presidential
assent. However, this only applies to the state concerned and not
uniformly across the country.
Key Points:
• Presidential Assent: The state law can override the central law
if it receives Presidential assent, but it must be specified that the assent is
sought for the repugnancy with a particular act. Failing to specify this
makes the state law invalid.
• State-Specific Application: The inconsistent provisions apply
only within the state that enacted the law.
• Subsequent Central Laws: If the central government enacts a
new law conflicting with the state act that had Presidential assent, the
central law prevails, as held in Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum (1995).

Srinivasa Raghavachar v. State of Karnataka, 1987

The case involved a state law restricting legal practitioners from
appearing before land tribunals. The Supreme Court found the state law
invalid due to its repugnancy to the Advocates Act, 1961.

Sukumar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, 1993

The West Bengal State Health Service Act, 1990, barred state health
service members from private practice, conflicting with the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956, which allowed practitioners to practice anywhere in
India. The Court upheld the state law, distinguishing it from the Srinivasa
Raghavachar case by noting that health service members voluntarily gave
up private practice rights.

Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka, 1990

This case held that repugnancy must concern a matter in the Concurrent
List. If the subject matters of the conflicting laws are different, both can
stand together. However, a dissenting opinion argued that irreconcilable
conflicts should lead to the state law being struck down.

Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Education & Charitable

Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996
This case dealt with a Tamil Nadu statute on the affiliation of medical
colleges, challenged for repugnance against the Indian Medical Council
Act. The Court held that Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive
code for the subject, making the state act invalid.

6.Doctrine of Occupied Field

The doctrine of occupied field is a vital legal principle in India’s federal
structure, ensuring clarity and resolving conflicts between central and
state laws. It determines the legislative competence of the central
government (Union) and state governments in specific matters.
As India operates under a quasi-federal system, with powers distributed
between the Union and States, the doctrine of occupied field seeks to
address legislative overlaps and prevent jurisdictional conflicts. This
article explores the concept, constitutional provisions, judicial
interpretations, its application, exceptions, and the relationship with other
doctrines.

Meaning and Definition of the Doctrine of Occupied Field

The doctrine of occupied field essentially refers to the principle that if a
subject or field has been occupied by the legislation of one level of
government, i.e., either the Union or a State, the other level of
government cannot legislate on the same subject. This prevents
legislative encroachment by the other level and ensures that laws passed
by one legislature are not interfered with by another. The doctrine serves
to maintain harmony and certainty in the law-making process, preventing
confusion and potential conflicts.
The doctrine primarily applies to subjects listed under the Concurrent List
of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, where both the Union
and States are competent to legislate. Once Parliament enacts a law on a
subject in the Concurrent List, the States are restricted from passing laws
that are inconsistent with the central law. In simple terms, if Parliament
has enacted comprehensive legislation on a subject, a State cannot
legislate on the same matter if it obstructs or is inconsistent with the
central law.

Constitutional Provisions: Articles 246 and 254

The Indian Constitution delineates the distribution of legislative powers
between the Union and the States. Articles 246 and 254 are the key
provisions in this regard.
Article 246 of the Constitution divides subjects into three lists: Union List,
State List, and Concurrent List.
• The Union List contains subjects over which only Parliament
has exclusive legislative authority.
• The State List includes subjects over which only State
Legislatures can legislate.
• The Concurrent List lists subjects on which both Parliament
and State Legislatures can make laws. However, if any conflict arises
between central and state laws on the same subject, Article 254dictates
that the central law will prevail.

Article 254 provides for the resolution of conflicts between central and
state laws on Concurrent List subjects. If a state law is inconsistent with a
central law, the central law prevails, and the state law is void to the
extent of the inconsistency. However, if the state law receives Presidential
assent, it may override the central law in that particular state.

The principle of the doctrine of occupied field stems directly from these
articles. It ensures that once Parliament enacts a comprehensive law on a
subject, the states are precluded from legislating on that subject in a
manner that contradicts the central law.

Application of the Doctrine of Occupied Field

The doctrine of occupied field comes into play when the following
conditions are met:
1. Central Legislation on a Concurrent List Subject: Parliament
must enact a law comprehensively covering a subject in the Concurrent
List.
2. Conflict with State Legislation: The State Legislature enacts a
law on the same subject, but the law is inconsistent with the central law.
3. Occupation of the Field by the Central Law: Once the central
law occupies the field, the state law becomes inoperative to the extent of
the conflict.

In such instances, the central law is deemed to have occupied the entire
legislative field, and the state law becomes ineffective to the extent it
conflicts with the central law. This ensures that Parliament’s legislation
has uniformity across the country and is not undermined by state laws.

Landmark Cases on Doctrine of Occupied Field

The doctrine of occupied field has been judicially interpreted in various
landmark cases. The following case laws highlight its application and
nuances:

State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. (2012)

In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the Chit Funds Act, 1982, a
central legislation governing chit funds. The Kerala state government
enacted a law regulating chit funds, but the court held that the central
legislation had already occupied the field regarding chit funds.
Consequently, any state legislation inconsistent with the central act was
deemed void unless it had received Presidential assent.

M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979)

M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India caseclarified the application of the
doctrine of occupied field. The Supreme Court held that for the doctrine to
apply, there must be direct inconsistency between central and state laws.
If both laws can operate without conflict, the doctrine does not apply. The
court ruled that the central law would prevail only if there was a direct
inconsistency, thus protecting the legislative competence of both levels of
government.
These cases illustrate the application of the doctrine in resolving conflicts
between state and central laws, ensuring that the legal framework
remains consistent and coherent.
Exceptions and Limitations to Doctrine of Occupied Field
While the doctrine of occupied field is a crucial mechanism for maintaining
legislative harmony, there are certain exceptions and limitations:

Presidential Assent
Under Article 254(2), a state law inconsistent with a central law can
prevail in the state if it receives Presidential assent. This provision allows
a state to retain control over a subject in certain circumstances. However,
Parliament can override this assent by enacting a law that reasserts its
authority.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance

Another exception is the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, which applies
when there is a conflict between the form and substance of laws passed
by central and state legislatures. According to this doctrine, if the true
nature (or pith and substance) of the law falls within the competence of
the enacting legislature, incidental encroachments on another’s field do
not render the law invalid. This exception ensures that minor overlaps
between central and state laws do not lead to their invalidity.

Doctrine of Repugnancy vs. Doctrine of Occupied Field

The Doctrine of Repugnancy and the Doctrine of Occupied Field are
closely related but distinct concepts. Both address conflicts between
central and state laws, but they do so in different contexts.

Doctrine of Repugnancy
The Doctrine of Repugnancy applies when both central and state laws are
validly enacted but are inconsistent with each other. In such cases, the
central law prevails, and the state law becomes void to the extent of the
inconsistency. This doctrine specifically addresses direct conflicts between
central and state laws.

Doctrine of Occupied Field

In contrast, the Doctrine of Occupied Field applies when the central law
occupies the entire legislative field. If Parliament has enacted
comprehensive legislation on a subject, the state is precluded from
making laws that interfere with or contradict the central law. This doctrine
prevents legislative encroachment by the states once the central
government has legislated on a matter comprehensively.
While both doctrines deal with conflicts between central and state laws,
the Doctrine of Occupied Field focuses on the exclusivity of legislative
competence once a subject is occupied by central legislation, whereas the
Doctrine of Repugnancy focuses on resolving conflicts between central
and state laws when both have validly legislated on the same matter.

Essentials of the Doctrine of Occupied Field

The doctrine of occupied field is essential for maintaining a structured and
efficient legal system in a federal state like India. Some key essentials of
the doctrine include:
1. Enumerated Powers: The Constitution must specify the
distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States. The
doctrine can only be applied if there is a clear delineation of powers.
2. Exclusive Legislation: The doctrine applies when a particular
subject falls within the exclusive legislative competence of one level of
government, preventing interference by the other.
3. Constitutional Intent: The application of the doctrine is based
on the intent of the Constitution. If the Constitution has expressly
empowered one level of government to legislate on a subject, the other
level cannot encroach on that power.

Importance of the Doctrine of Occupied Field

The doctrine of occupied field plays an indispensable role in India’s legal
framework. Its importance can be highlighted in the following points:
1. Preventing Conflict: The doctrine ensures that conflicts
between central and state laws are avoided, maintaining clarity in the
legal system.
2. Efficiency: By assigning exclusive authority over certain
subjects to one level of government, the doctrine enables more efficient
governance.
3. Protecting Legislative Intent: It upholds the intent of the
Constitution by ensuring that the powers of the Union and States are
exercised within their defined spheres.
4. Clarity in Law: The doctrine ensures predictability and clarity
in the legal framework, benefiting both citizens and businesses by
creating a stable legislative environment.

Conclusion
These principles of constitutional interpretation play a critical role in
maintaining the balance of power between different branches of
government, protecting individual rights and ensuring the Constitution
remains a living document capable of addressing contemporary issues. By
applying these doctrines, courts can interpret the Constitution in a
manner that respects its text and underlying principles while adapting to
changing societal needs.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISIM

Judicial Activism- Evolution of the concept, Reasons in defence of judicial

Activism.
Constitution of India and Judicial activism. Role played by the Supreme
Court of India. The tools and techniques of Judicial activism, Need for care
and caution.

A. Black’s Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as: “a philosophy of

judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about
public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usually with
the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find
constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent”.

B. Judicial Activism refers to a judicial approach where judges interpret the

law broadly, and sometimes go beyond the traditional role of interpreting
the law to shape social, economic, or political policies. In other words, it is
a judicial philosophy where judges use their powers to advance specific
values or objectives, rather than simply applying the law to the facts of a
case. Judicial activism can take many forms, such as overturning laws or
policies deemed unconstitutional, interpreting laws in a way that expands
individual rights, or issuing rulings that mandate specific actions by
government or private entities. The term “Judicial Activism” denotes the
judiciary’s proactive involvement in defending citizens’ rights. Judicial
Activism in India means that
the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to rule those laws
that
contradict or are incompatible with one or more constitutional provisions
that are
unconstitutional and invalid. The inferior courts lack access to this
function. The lower
courts lack the authority to determine the legality of laws and conduct
judicial reviews.

C. ORIGIN AND MEANING OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: The term ‘judicial

activist’
was first used by Arthur Schlesinger in an article published in Fortune in
1947.
Schlesinger targeted Justices Douglas and Black as being especially
activist. But he
offered no clear definition. Further, this term was used for the first time in
any judicial
opinion by Judge Joseph C Hutcheson in 1959 in the matter of Theriot v
Mercer.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘judicial activism is a philosophy of
decision
making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy,
among other
factors, to guide their decisions’. Further, Justice JS Verma said that
‘judicial activism
must necessarily mean the active process of implementation of the rule of
law, essential for the preservation of a functional democracy’. According
to Justice William Rehnquist ‘judicial activism means judicial legislation.
Judicial activism is when judges cross the line that separates judging from
legislating – as when the Supreme Court invents constitutional rights out
of thin air, despite the fact that the right in question is not even hinted at
in the text of the Constitution, and was totally unknown at the time that
the Constitution [or, in the case of Roe, the 14th Amendment] was
enacted’. Thus, in simple words judicial activism means creative and
innovative interpretation of law.

D. Constitution of India and Judicial Activism:

1. Constitutional Framework:
Preamble: The Preamble of the Constitution sets forth the ideals of justice,
liberty,
equality, and fraternity, providing a guiding framework for judicial
interpretation and
activism.
Fundamental Rights: Part III of the Constitution guarantees fundamental
rights to Indian citizens. Judicial activism often revolves around the
protection and expansion of these rights, including the right to life and
personal liberty, freedom of speech and
expression, and the right to equality.
2. Directive Principles of State Policy:
Balancing Rights and Duties: The Directive Principles of State Policy,
outlined in Part
IV of the Constitution, guide the state in promoting social and economic
justice. Judicial activism often involves balancing fundamental rights with
directive principles,
emphasizing the interplay between individual liberties and the state's
obligation to create
a just society.

3. Judicial Review and Activism:

Article 13: Article 13 empowers the judiciary to review and strike down
laws inconsistent with the fundamental rights. This provision forms the
basis for judicial review, allowing the courts to ensure legislative and
executive actions adhere to constitutional principles.
Expansive Interpretation: The judiciary's activist role is evident in its
expansive
interpretation of constitutional provisions to protect and enhance
individual rights.
Landmark cases like Golaknath v. State of Punjab and Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of
Kerala affirm the scope of judicial review.

4. Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

Article 32 and 226: Articles 32 and 226 grant the Supreme Court and High
Courts,
respectively, the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental
rights. PIL, an
innovative tool introduced by the judiciary, allows citizens to approach the
courts directly in matters of public interest, contributing significantly to
judicial activism.

5. Socio-Economic Rights and Judicial Activism:

Expanding the Horizon: Judicial activism in India goes beyond traditional
civil and
political rights to encompass socio-economic rights. The judiciary has
creatively
interpreted the right to life (Article 21) to include the right to education,
health, and a
clean environment, contributing to an inclusive jurisprudence.
Affirmative Action: The judiciary has actively supported affirmative action
policies,
emphasizing the state's duty to address historical inequalities and
promote social justice. The Mandal Commission case is a notable example.
6. Environmental Protection and Continuing Mandamus:
Expansive Interpretation of Article 21: The judiciary's activism is evident in
cases
related to environmental protection, where Article 21 has been
interpreted expansively to
include the right to a healthy environment. Continuing mandamus, as
seen in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, ensures ongoing judicial supervision
to enforce environmental
safeguards.

7. Innovative Remedies and Structural Injunctions:

Adapting to Challenges: Judicial activism is marked by the judiciary's
willingness to
adapt and devise innovative remedies to address emerging challenges.
Structural
injunctions, where the court directs systemic changes in policies and
administrative
structures, exemplify the judiciary's proactive approach.

8. Challenges and Criticisms:

Overreach Concerns: Critics argue that judicial activism may lead to
overreach, with
the judiciary delving into policy matters that should be the domain of the
elected
branches. Concerns about the judiciary assuming a legislative role have
been raised.
Democratic Legitimacy: Some critics question whether unelected judges
should play such an active role in shaping public policy, suggesting that
certain decisions should be left to the democratic process.

9. Balancing Act:
Separation of Powers: Judicial activism necessitates a delicate balance
between the
judiciary, legislature, and executive. The courts must respect the
separation of powers
while ensuring that constitutional values are upheld. Striking this balance
is essential for the legitimacy of judicial interventions.
10. Conclusion:
Dynamic Relationship: The Constitution of India establishes a dynamic
relationship
between the judiciary and other branches of government. Judicial
activism, grounded in constitutional principles, has been a crucial aspect
of India's legal landscape, contributing to the protection of individual
rights and the advancement of social justice. As India continues to evolve,
the judiciary's role in activism will likely remain a central feature in
shaping the country's legal and social landscape.

Q. In India, the post emergency period is known as the period of

Judicial activism because it was during this period that the
Supreme Courts jurisprudence blossomed with the doctrinal
creativity and processual innovations. Discuss

The post-emergency period in India, which occurred from 1977 onwards,

is indeed often referred to as the era of judicial activism. The emergency
period (1975-1977) was a dark chapter in Indian history when civil
liberties were suspended, political opposition was suppressed, and there
was a significant curtailment of individual freedoms. However, with the
end of the emergency,
the judiciary played a crucial role in upholding and reinforcing
constitutional values.
During this period, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice P.N.
Bhagwati, became more proactive in protecting fundamental rights and
promoting social justice. Several factors contributed to the rise of judicial
activism during this time:

1. Reassertion of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary sought to

reassert the importance of
fundamental rights, which had been compromised during the emergency.
There was a renewed focus on protecting individual liberties, including the
right to life and personal liberty.

2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The concept of PIL gained

prominence during this
period. PIL allowed individuals or organizations to approach the court on
behalf of those who couldn't do so themselves. This widened the scope of
access to justice and facilitated the judiciary in addressing issues affecting
the public at large.
3. Expanding the Scope of Article 21: The Supreme Court expanded
the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the
right to life and personal liberty. The court held that the right to life
includes the right to live with dignity, environment free from pollution, and
other socio-economic rights.

4. Innovative Remedies: The judiciary introduced innovative remedies

to address social issues. For example, in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of
India, the court issued directives to address environmental concerns,
leading to the establishment of the concept of "continuing mandamus."

5. Judicial Review: The judiciary asserted its role as the guardian of the
Constitution by
actively reviewing legislative and executive actions. This involved
scrutinizing government policies and decisions to ensure they complied
with constitutional principles.

6. Protection of Minorities and Marginalized Groups: The judiciary

played a pivotal role
in protecting the rights of minorities and marginalized groups. Landmark
decisions were made to ensure equality and affirmative action, promoting
social justice.
While judicial activism during this period is generally praised for its role in
safeguarding
democratic values, it has also faced criticism for allegedly overstepping its
boundaries and
encroaching on the domain of the executive and legislative branches.
Despite the criticisms, the post-emergency period marked a significant
phase in the evolution of Indian judicial activism, shaping the
jurisprudential landscape and reinforcing the judiciary's role as a defender
of constitutional values.

Q. Write a detailed note on the tools and techniques of the

Judicial Activism.
Judicial activism involves the judiciary taking an active role in shaping and
influencing
public policy, particularly in areas where the executive and legislative
branches may be
perceived as failing to address constitutional principles or protect
fundamental rights. The tools and techniques employed by courts in
practicing judicial activism can vary, and they often evolve in response to
the specific legal and social context. Here are some key tools and
techniques associated with judicial activism:

1. Expansive Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions:

Broad Interpretation of Rights: Courts may adopt a liberal and expansive
interpretation of constitutional rights, extending their scope to cover
evolving societal norms and values.
Dynamic Construction of Fundamental Rights: Judges may interpret
fundamental
rights in a dynamic and evolving manner to address contemporary issues.
This allows for
the application of constitutional principles to new situations.

2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

Access to Justice: Courts may entertain public interest litigation filed by
individuals or
organizations on behalf of those who cannot approach the court
themselves. This widens the scope of litigation beyond traditional parties
and allows for the adjudication of issues affecting the public at large.
PIL as a Catalyst for Social Change: PIL serves as a tool for social justice,
enabling
the judiciary to take cognizance of matters concerning the public interest
and human
rights.

3. Innovative Remedies:
Continuing Mandamus: The court may issue directives in the form of
continuing
mandamus, ensuring ongoing supervision and enforcement of its orders to
address
persistent issues. This is particularly relevant in cases involving
environmental
protection and socio-economic rights.
Structural Injunctions: Courts may issue injunctions that go beyond mere
prohibitions,
requiring systemic changes in government policies or administrative
structures to
remedy constitutional violations.
4. Judicial Review:
Scrutiny of Legislative and Executive Actions: Activist courts engage in
robust
judicial review, scrutinizing laws and executive actions to ensure
compliance with
constitutional principles. This involves assessing the constitutionality of
statutes and government decisions.
Striking Down Unconstitutional Laws: Courts may declare laws
unconstitutional and strike them down if they violate fundamental rights
or constitutional provisions.

5. Social Rights Jurisprudence:

Expanding the Notion of Rights: Activist judges may recognize and protect
socio-
economic rights as part of the broader spectrum of fundamental rights.
This involves
acknowledging the right to education, healthcare, and a clean
environment as integral to human dignity.
Affirmative Action: The judiciary may actively support and monitor
affirmative action policies aimed at promoting equality and addressing
historical injustices.

6. Public Pronouncements and Judicial Activism:

Public Statements: Judges may make public pronouncements, speeches,
or observations on issues of public concern. This can serve to highlight
societal issues and put pressure on other branches of government to
address them.
7. Dialogue with Other Institutions:
Coordination with Executive and Legislative Branches: Activist judges may
engage
in a constructive dialogue with other branches of government to
encourage policy
changes and collaboration in addressing social issues.
While judicial activism is often seen as a necessary means of safeguarding
constitutional values, it also raises concerns about the separation of
powers and the potential for the judiciary to encroach upon the domains
of the executive and legislative branches. The effectiveness and
legitimacy of judicial activism depend on a delicate balance between
judicial intervention and
respect for the democratic processes.

Statute Interpretation :
Overview and Analysis
Introduction
The legislature makes laws with a specific intent in mind. The
responsibility of deciphering that intent lies with the judiciary.
This process of getting to know the intent behind the law is known as
statute interpretation.

Interpretation
According to its dictionary meaning, interpretation is an act of explaining
the meaning of a thing. In legal context, interpretation means the act of
interpreting and deciphering the intent behind a statute.
The term 'interpretation' has its roots in the Latin word 'interpretari' which
means to explain, or to translate. The main aim of interpreting a statute is
to determine the intention behind the law.
The government is made up of three branches,
1. The Legislature,
2. The Executive, and
3. The Judiciary.
These three branches perform different functions. The legislature makes
the laws, the executive implements the laws that are made and the
judiciary interprets the laws and makes them operational.
When is interpretation done?
Interpretation is done only when,
1. The language of the provision ambiguous.
2. It is not clear what the law is made for.
3. When a provision has two or more meanings.
4. When two or more views are possible about the provision.
5. The meaning of the provision defeats the purpose of the
statute.

Need of Interpretation
Drafting a law is a complex task, the legislature has to keep in mind
thousands of scenarios so that the legislation drafted is complete in itself.
In an ideal world, the meaning of the statute would be clear and direct. In
the real world that we live in, most of the times the law drafted is
complicated and vague.
Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher
In this case, the need for interpretation of statutes was highlighted. It was
stated that when a defect appears in a statute, the judge
cannot simply wash his hands off the responsibility and blame the
legislature, he should interpret the statute by finding the intent behind it.
The judge should not only focus on the language of the statute but also on
the social considerations that made the parliament draft a particular
statute.
Interpretation is needed because,
1. The complicated process of drafting laws leads to a variety of
gaps and ambiguity in the statute.
2. The words, phrases, terms used in the statute can have
varying meanings due to the multifaceted nature of the language.
3. A law is never drafted by a single person but rather by a
group of people, this leads to incoherence in the language.
4. Some statues use technical language because of their
complicated subject matter.
5. The applicability of law changes with new developments.
Kinds of Interpretations
There are various kinds of interpretations. These are,
Literal Interpretation: It is also known as grammatical interpretation.
While doing this kind of interpretation, the judges are not in any way
allowed to add or modify the letter of the law. They should strictly follow
the language and directly translate its meaning.

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh

In this case, the judges dealt with the interpretation of Section 154 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The judges used literal interpretation for
interpreting the section and stated that the word "shall" used in the
provision makes it mandatory and no other meaning will be given to the
word. The other expression that the court gave meaning to was
"information". The court stated that the police officer has to record
information even if he considers it to be unreasonable.
Functional Interpretation: In this kind of interpretation, the judges
deviate from the literal meaning and look elsewhere to decipher the intent
behind the law. Functional interpretation is done in four cases,
• When the statute is inconsistent.
• When the statue is incomplete.
• When the language of the statute is ambiguous.
• When there is a logical flaw in the letter of the law.

Rules of Interpretation of Statutes

Since the judiciary has been entrusted with the responsibility of
interpreting the law to administer justice. It is very important that the
interpretation is made according to some rules so that the decisions
delivered by the judges are just and bring some coherence to the
operational aspects of the law.
The rules of interpretation of statutes are divided into two categories.
1. Primary Rules
2. Secondary Rules
Rule of Strict Interpretation
The rule of strict construction is used for interpreting criminal legislation.
According to this rule, the interpretation which is most favorable to the
defendant would be applicable.
Rule of Liberal Interpretation
The rule of liberal construction states that a law must be interpreted in the
context of the document and in accordance with the intent of the author.

Golden Rule
This rule states that if the normal meaning of the word given in a statute
gives an absurd result then the judges are allowed to deviate from that
meaning.
Meaning
This rule gives the words used in a statute their ordinary meaning. But if
that ordinary meaning ends up giving an absurd result which is not
according to the intent of the legislature then the judge can give the word
a meaning which makes the statute rational.
This is done so that the statute can remedy the weakness that it was
made to cure. There are two cases,
1. If the word is a homograph i.e. it has two meanings, then the meaning
which is suitable will be given.
2.If the word has only one meaning, then the judge can give a completely
different meaning.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Rule
Advantages:
1. It helps to give a rational result.
2. It helps in closing any loophole.
3. It brings common sense to the law.
Disadvantages:
1. Judges have power only in case there is ambiguity.
2. Judges cannot add or modify a statute.
Case Laws
Case Law 1: Grey v. Pearson
In this case, the court stated that usually the literal and normal meaning
of the word should be used but if the normal meaning gives an absurd
result, then that meaning should be avoided. A different meaning should
be given to the word so that the inconvenience can be avoided
Case Law 2: Adler vs. George
Facts: The defendant, in this case, was charged under the Official Secrets
Act, 1920.

The defendant was charged with obstructing a member of the armed

forces in the execution of his duty. It was an offense to obstruct a member
of the armed forces 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited place.
Defense: The defendant argued that he was on the place and not in the
vicinity of the place.
Decision: The defendant was found guilty.
Basis for the Decision: The court interpreted the phrase "in the vicinity" to
mean on or near the place. On this basis, the defendant was convicted.
Criticism
The idea of absurdity is unclear. It is very difficult to ascertain what would
be an absurd result?