“The essence of law lies in the spirit, not its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it.” – Salmond
The only means through which we communicate in today’s era are words spoken or written, and where these words have only one possible meaning, there is no problem. The problem arises in such situations where these words have two possible meanings, then in order to sort this issue the real intention must be looked at. Where two persons are communicating, it is generally not that difficult to communicate the real meaning of the word, but the problem arises if a provision in statute conveys more than one meaning. The answer to this major issue as to how to interpret the law lies in the various rules of Interpretation of Statutes. One of the most substantial and principle duty vested in judiciary is interpretation of the statutes and the laws which are in force.
Interpretation is basically an art of finding out the true sense of any enactment by giving the words of the statute their ordinary meaning and by keeping in mind the intent of the legislature. The term Interpretation has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’, which means to explain, understand or to translate. Interpretation is the process of ascertaining the true meaning and words used in a statute. The necessity of interpretation arises when the language of a statutory provision is ambiguous, not clear, or where two views are possible, or where the provision gives a different meaning defeating the object of the statute. If the language is clear and unambiguous, no need for interpretation would arise. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and for this reason there have been certain principles that have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Superior Courts. These principles are called ‘Rules of Interpretation’. Some of the primary and basic rules of interpretation are discussed below in this article.
The principle which should be followed for the statutory interpretation is that the words in a statute should be read in their entire context and in their ordinary sense. The statute should be read in harmony with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of the legislature. Other important factors which should be taken into consideration for interpretation of statutes are as follows:
The process of construction of any statute combines both the literal and purposive approaches. The rule of reasonable construction is based upon a maxim “Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pareat” which means it is better to give effect to a thing than to declare it void. Every enactment is drafted with a purpose in mind, but if the literal meaning of any statute is defeating its very purpose, then the law should be construed keeping in mind the intention with which it was drafted. The interpretation should be in such a manner that it gives effect to the intention of the legislature. The Supreme Court in Tirath Singh V. Bachittar Singh, 1955 opined that if the language of any statute leads to absurdity or injustice, then it should be construed in a way that it modifies the meaning of the words used in the statute.
The question of interpretation of statute will only come into play where the language of any statutory provision is ambiguous or not clear. The Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak V. A.R. Antulay, 1984 held that “If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity, or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self-defeating.” The purpose of interpretation of statutes is to help the judiciary to ascertain the intention of the Legislature, and the best interpretation is the one that best harmonises the words with the object of the statute.
In order to understand the object and intent of the legislature with respect to a statute, the courts across the globe uses several rules of interpretation. These rules are significant in ascertaining the true meaning of a statute. One such rule of interpretation is ‘Literal Rule’ or also known as ‘Grammatical Rule’. Literal rule is the oldest and therefore, a primary rule of interpretation.
As the term suggests, the courts are of the belief that the term ‘Literal’ signifies that the text of the statute has to be construed literally i.e., the words and expressions used in the statute are to be taken up as they are and has to be read in the light of ‘Statement of Objects, Reasons and Preamble of the Act’. In this form of interpretation, the words used in the statute are to be construed in accordance with the plain and dictionary meaning of the term and therefore, Literal Rule is also known as ‘Plain Rule of Interpretation’
Chief Justice Jervis in Abley v. Gale has explained the term ‘Literal meaning’ and indicated that “If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, in our judgment we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense even though it too leads in our view of the case to an absurdity or manifest injustice”. The words of a statute are to be interpreted in their natural and ordinary meaning and if the interpretation brings forth clear and unambiguous meaning of the text then the same shall be taken into consideration and effect shall be given to the provision of the statute, irrespective of the consequences it renders. Therefore, it would be correct to say that the ‘Literal Rule of Interpretation’ is concerned only with the meaning and not the consequence of the provision.
Generally, it is the duty of the court to interpret the text of the law in its grammatical meaning and if it comes up with an ambiguous meaning then the court has to go beyond such words and ascertain the true meaning of the text and the intent of the legislature. However, where the text of the statute furnishes a lucid meaning then it is not the duty of the court to go beyond such words. This idea is based on the maxim ‘Absoluta Sentania Expositore Non-Indigent’ i.e., ‘plain words need no exposition’.
The ‘Literal Rule’ is based upon the maxim ‘Verbis Legis Non-Est Recelendum’ which means that there shall be no departure from the words of law. However, there might be a situation where the meaning of the words is unclear and is affected by the context it carries, therefore, in such a case, recourse shall be taken of the legal maxim ‘Noscitur A Sociis’ that is, the meaning of the ambiguous word shall be taken up in accordance with the surrounding it carries. The same has also been pointed out by Justice Ray in the case of Keshavnanda Bharti v. State of Kerala, 1973, that a word gets its true colour through the context it is used in. Not only the literal meaning, but also the antecedent history of the legislation shall also be taken into consideration in order to ascertain the meaning of the provision of the statute. The same has also been supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. V. State of Bihar,1955.
Since every coin has two faces, similarly, every rule is capable of being judged on the basis of its merits and demerits.
Merits: The supporters of Literal Rule of Interpretation claims that it eliminates the chances of court being partial in favour of legislative and political departments. Furthermore, it provides consistency in interpretation by eliminating the possibility of adding new words and phrases
Demerits: There are several demerits of Literal Rule of Interpretation, such as:
The concept of separation of powers made it clear that it is the duty of the legislature to make the law and the interpretation of law has to be done by the judiciary. There might be a situation where legislature fail to clearly manifest its intention, then in that case, courts have the discretionary power to intervene and interpret the law in order to bring out the true essence of the legislature.
Generally, the term ‘mischief’ is used to denote some kind of injury or damage caused to a person as a result of action of another person, but in context of rules of interpretation, the term ‘Mischief’ means ‘A Defect’. The mischief rule of interpretation is used to prevent the abuse of any provision of statute.
The concept of ‘Mischief Rule of Interpretation’ emerged as a supreme authority through the Heydon’s Case’,1584. In the Heydon’s Case, four rules were laid down by the Lord Coke, that has to be taken into consideration by the courts before application of ‘Mischief Rule of Interpretation’. These rules act as grundnorm for the application of mischief rule of interpretation. Such rules are:
Furthermore, the concept of ‘Mischief Rule of Interpretation’ is better understood by the UK case of Smith v, Hughes,1960. This is a case under ‘The Street Offences Act, 1959”. As per the said Act, it is an offence for the prostitute to wander and advertise on the streets for the purposes of prostitution. The defendants started calling the men from their windows and balconies. They were charged under the Act. In their defence, they claimed that they did not solicit from ‘The streets’ as mentioned under the provision of the Act. The courts took a view that the purpose of the Act was to prevent prostitution. The courts applied ‘Mischief Rule of Interpretation’ and held that “The windows and balconies of their homes would count for an extension of the word and would come within the ambit of the word ‘street’
The ‘Mischief Rule of Interpretation’ acts as a bridge in building the gap between legislature and the judiciary, if there is any. In addition to that, it promotes justice by providing remedy to the aggrieved person. Also, it reduces the chance of absurdity by lucidly manifesting the true intent of the legislature.
Demerits: While interpreting, it might be difficult for the courts to figure out the true intent of the legislature. Another demerit of the ‘Mischief Rule of Interpretation’ is that if the interpretation by the judge changes the meaning of the statute, then it will lead to uncertainty. Furthermore, the said rule is outdated and might not suffice to the modern needs.
Golden rule is based upon the principle of statutory construction that the grammatical and ordinary sense of words may be modified so as to avoid an absurdity or inconsistency, but no farther. The Golden Rule of interpretation permit judges to depart from a word’s normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.
In the year 1857, the Golden rule was originated by Lord Wensleydale in the case Grey v Pearson. After that this rule has become famous by the name of Wensleydale’s Golden Rule. Wensleydale stated that:
“The grammatical and ordinary sense of words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.”
Therefore, it is the modification of the literal rule of interpretation. The ‘Literal Rule’ emphasise on the plain meaning of the legal words or words used in the legal context which may often lead to ambiguity and absurdity. The ‘Golden Rule’ tries to avoid anomalous and absurd consequences arising from literal interpretation. In view of the same, the grammatical meaning of such words is usually modified.
The golden rule can be applied in two ways:
The Golden rule of Interpretation may be applied when an application of Literal Rule would lead to an absurdity. The Golden rule gives the words of a statute their basic and ordinary meaning. This rule allows a judge to depart from a statute’s normal meaning to avoid an absurd result.
The word “absurdity” is a vague concept and arises in a few cases where it is necessary for the court to apply the golden rule of interpretation. Golden rule suffers from the same problems which were faced by the Literal approach i.e., lack of wider contextual understandings of “meanings.”
Harmonious construction is a principle of statutory construction used in the legal system. It means when there are two provisions in a statute, which are in apparent conflict with each other, they should be interpreted so that each has a separate effect and neither is redundant or nullified. It is applied when inconsistency arises between two or more statutes, sections or provisions of a particular statute. According to this rule, every statute has a purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole, so as to remove any inconsistency or repugnancy. In cases in which it is impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the court’s decision regarding the provision shall prevail.
The rule of Harmonious Construction is the thumb rule to interpretation of statutes. In the words of the Apex Court, the conflict between the different parts of an enactment and between the various provisions should be harmonized. The rule of harmonious construction has been briefly explained by the Supreme Court, thus, “where in an enactment two provisions are there that cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted, that possible effect should be given to both.” A construction which makes one portion of the enactment a dead letter should be avoided since harmonization is not equivalent to destruction.
Objective: The objective of harmonious construction is to avoid any inconsistency between two enacting provisions of a statute and to construe the provisions in such a way so that they harmonize. The normal presumption should be consistency and it should not be assumed that what is given with one hand by the legislature is sought to be taken away by the other.
In the landmark judgment of Shri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, 1951, the rule of harmonious construction can be tracked all the way back to the first amendment to the constitution of India, 1951. The disagreement between Part III (Fundamental rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution was the subject of the Case. Therefore, in Kerala Education Bill (1957), the Supreme Court has propounded the doctrine of Harmonious Construction to avoid a situation of conflict while enforcing DPSPs and the Fundamental Rights.
There are five principles of rule of harmonious construction which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57 the following principles are as follows:
The rule of Harmonious construction is expressed in the following maxims:
The Judicature should expound the law in a manner that suppresses the evil and the wrong and advances the true meaning and scope of the statute. The Legislature cannot predict every possible future situation that might arise and it is impossible to draft a perfect law to meet all situations in future. This conflict is inevitable and thus it is the duty of the judges to use the techniques of interpretation to give the most desired and required meaning to ensure that justice prevails. Interpretation of statutes helps in finding the meaning of words and expressions given in the statute and helps in resolving inconsistency lying therein. 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. Therefore, courts play an effective role in the interpretation of statutes.
The law always comes into existence to address some socio, economic, political, environmental, and technological problem. Therefore, at the time of interpretation of laws. We have to understand and appreciate the reasons for law making and consider interpreting the law in the light of such Socio, Economic, Political, Environmental and Technological needs.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
