Interpretation of statutes

Table of Contents

Introduction

Need and Object of Interpretation

General Principles of Interpretation

The Primary Rule: Literal Interpretation

The Mischief Rule: Heydon’s Case

Rule of Reasonable Construction or Golden Rule

Rule of Harmonious Construction

Rule of Ejusdem Generis

Expressio Units Est Exclusio Alterius

Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege

Noscitur a Sociis

Strict and Liberal Construction

Introduction
Maxwell’s ‘Interpretation of Statutes’ has defined statute as the will of the legislature. Usually, it
refers to the act that is enacted by the legislature. The term statute is generally applied to laws
and regulations of every sort law which ordains, permits or prohibits anything which is
designated as a statute, without considering from what source it arises.

Constitution of India has no particular definition for the word statute but it uses the term “law”
for denoting the actions of legislature and its primary power. Statutes are divided into classes
as mentioned below:

Codification: It is one when they codify the unwritten law on a particular subject.

Declaration: When there is no change in the existing law but merely clarification or explanation
of what it is.

Remedial: This is when they alter the common law or the judge makes a non-statutory law on a
particular subject.

Amendment: This is when the judge or the legislature changes or alters the statute law.

Consolidation: This is combining several previous statutes relating to the same subject matter
with or without making changes in the same.

Enabling: Removal of restriction or disability.

Disabling or Restraining: Restrain on the alienation of property.

Penal: When there is imposition of penalty or forfeiture.

Need and Object of Interpretation

Salmond directed that, “Interpretation or construction is the process by which the Court’s seek
to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which
it is expressed.”

Lord Denning commented on the need of interpretation in Seasford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher.
He said that it is not within an ordinary man’s power to realise what new facts will arise from a
case at hand. Considering the facts, all laws cannot be free from ambiguity when applied to
them. There can be no legislature or judge that can make a perfect law written in perfect English
for ordinary people to understand and not get criticized. Therefore, interpretation of a law is very
important as what one writes can be converted into various meanings and various judgments. A
judge should ask himself the question: If the makers of the Act had themselves come across
this luck in the texture of it, how would they have straight ended it out? He must then do as they
would have done. A judge must not alter the material of which it is woven, but he can and should
iron out the creases.

The main and most important objective of interpretation is to see the intention that has been
merely expressed by the words. The words of the statute are to be interpreted so as to ascertain
the mind of legislature from natural and grammatical meaning of the words which it has used.

General Principles of Interpretation

When the intention of legislature is not clearly expressed, a court needs to interpret the laws
using the rules of interpretation. There are two types of Rules of Interpretation with sub-
categories:

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

To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include “definitions” sections within a statute, which
explicitly define the most important terms used in that statute. But some statutes omit a
definitions section entirely, or (more commonly) fail to define a particular term. The plain
meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term
not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself.

Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking sides in
legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have
extensive access to secondary sources. In probate law the rule is also favoured because the
testator is typically not around to indicate what interpretation of a will is appropriate. Therefore,
it is argued, extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or
their meaning. It can help to provide for consistency in interpretation.

One criticism of the rule is that it rests on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed
meaning. In fact, words are imprecise, leading justices to impose their own prejudices to
determine the meaning of a statute. However, since little else is offered as an alternative
discretion-confining theory, plain meaning survives.

Case Law:

In Municipal board v. State transport authority, Rajasthan, the location of a bus stand was
changed by the Regional Transport Authority. An application could be moved within 30 days of
receipt of order of regional transport authority according to section 64 A of the Motor vehicles
Act, 1939. The application was moved after 30 days on the contention that statute must be read
as “30 days from the knowledge of the order”. The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation
must be made and hence rejected the application as invalid.

Lord Atkinson stated, ‘In the construction of statutes their words must be interpreted in their
ordinary grammatical sense unless there be something in the context or in the object of the
statute in which they occur or in the circumstances in which they are used, to show that they
were used in a special sense different from their ordinary grammatical sense.’

The Mischief Rule: Heydon’s Case

In Heydon‟s Case, it was resolved by the Barons of the Exchequer “that for the sure and true
interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the
Common Law) four things are to be discerned and considered:

What was the Common Law before the making of the Act?

What was the mischief and defect for which the Common Law did not provide?

What remedy the Parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the
Commonwealth?

What is the true reason of the remedy?

The office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief,
and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the
mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according
to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico.

The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule
as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament’s intent. It can be argued that this
undermines Parliament’s supremacy and is undemocratic as it takes law-making decisions
away from the legislature.

There are certain advantages and disadvantages of the rule. The Law Commission sees it as a
rule that is far more satisfactory way of interpreting acts as it avoids unjust or absurd results in
sentencing but for some it is considered to be out of date as it was established in 16th century
when conditions were very different from now.

Case Law:

The Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, applied the mischief rule in
construction of Article 286 of the Constitution of India. After referring to the state of law
prevailing in the province prior to the constitution as also to the chaos and confusion that was
brought about in inter-state trade and commerce by indiscriminate exercise of taxing powers by
the different Provincial Legislatures founded on the theory of territorial nexus, Chief Justice S.R.
Das, stated “It was to cure this mischief of multiple taxation and to preserve the free flow of
interstate trade or commerce in the Union of India regarded as one economic unit without any
provincial barrier that the constitution maker adopted Article 286 in the constitution”.

A principle to be valued must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it
existence. These are designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can
approach it’. Mischief Rule is applicable where language is capable of more than one meaning.
It is the duty of the Court to make such construction of a statue which shall suppress the
mischief and advance the remedy.

Rule of Reasonable Construction or Golden Rule

The words used in a statute have to be construed in their ordinary meaning, but in many cases,
judicial approach finds that the simple device of adopting the ordinary meaning of words, does
not meet the ends as a fair and a reasonable construction. Exclusive reliance on the bare
dictionary meaning of words may not necessarily assist a proper construction of the statutory
provision in which the words occur. Often enough interpreting the provision, it becomes
necessary to have regard to the subject matter of the statute and the object which it is intended
to achieve.

According to this rule, the words of a statute must be construed ut res magis valeat quam
pareat, so as to give a sensible meaning to them. A provision of law cannot be so interpreted as
to divorce it entirely from common sense, every word or expression used in an Act should
receive a natural and fair meaning.

It is a compromise between the plain meaning (or literal) rule and the mischief rule. Like the
plain meaning rule, it gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning. However, when
this may lead to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature’s intention, the judge can
depart from this meaning. In the case of homographs, where a word can have more than one
meaning, the judge can choose the preferred meaning; if the word only has one meaning, but
applying this would lead to a bad decision, the judge can apply a completely different meaning.

Case Law:

In RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd, the Supreme Court stated that if a
statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute makers
provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour
and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the
context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section,
each clauses each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme
of the entire Act.

Rule of Harmonious Construction

When there is a conflict between two or more statues or two or more parts of a statute then the
rule of harmonious construction needs to be adopted. The rule follows a very simple premise
that every statute has a purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole. The
interpretation consistent of all the provisions of the statute should be adopted. In the case in
which it shall be impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the court’s decision regarding the
provision shall prevail.

When there are two provisions in a statute, which are in apparent conflict with each other, they
should be interpreted such that effect can be given to both and that construction which renders
either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort.

The important aspects of this principle are:

The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must
construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.

The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in another unless
the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences.

When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the

courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given to both the provisions as much
as possible.

Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless
number or a dead lumbar, is not harmonious construction.

To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it loose.

Case Law:

In Raj Krishna v. Binod, two provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951, which were in
apparent conflict, were brought forth. Section 33 (2) says that a Government Servant can
nominate or second a person in election but section 123(8) says that a Government Servant
cannot assist any candidate in election except by casting his vote. The Supreme Court observed
that both these provisions should be harmoniously interpreted and held that a Government
Servant was entitled to nominate or second a candidate seeking election in State Legislative
assembly. This harmony can only be achieved if Section 123(8) is interpreted as giving the govt.
servant the right to vote as well as to nominate or second a candidate and forbidding him to
assist the candidate in any other manner.

Rule of Ejusdem Generis

Ejusdem Generis (pronounced as “eh-youse-dem generous”) is a Latin term which means “of the
same kind.” The term ‘Ejusdem Generis’ in other words means words of a similar class. The rule
is that where particular words have a common characteristic (i.e. of a class) any general words
that follow should be construed as referring generally to that class; no wider construction
should be afforded.

It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. A particular

section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the Act. The Ejusdem Generis rule
applies to resolve the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is
ambiguous or inherently unclear.

Normally, general words should be given their natural meaning like all other words unless the
context requires otherwise. But when a general word follows specific words of a distinct
category, the general word may be given a restricted meaning of the same category. The
general expression takes its meaning from the preceding particular expressions because the
legislature by using the particular words of a distinct genus has shown its intention to that
effect.

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 must be controlled by the fundamental rule that statutes must be
construed so as to carry out the object sought to be accomplished. 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.

Case Law:

The Supreme Court in Maharashtra University of Health and others v. Satchikitsa Prasarak
Mandal & Others has examined and explained the meaning of Ejusdem Generis as a rule of
interpretation of statutes in our legal system.

While examining the doctrine, the Supreme Court held that the expression Ejusdem Generis
which means “of the same kind or nature” is a principle of construction, meaning thereby when
general words in a statutory text are flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general
words are taken to be restricted by implication with the meaning of restricted words.

The Supreme Court has further held that the Ejusdem Generis principle is a facet of the principle
of ‘Noscitur a sociis’(A latin term for ‘it is known by the company it keeps’, it is the concept that
the intended meaning of an ambiguous word depends on the context in which it is used). The
Latin maxim Noscitur a Sociis contemplates that a statutory term is recognized by its
associated words. The Latin word ‘sociis’ means ‘society’. Therefore, when general words are
juxtaposed with specific words, general words cannot be read in isolation. Their color and their
contents are to be derived from their context. But like all other linguistic canons of construction,
the Ejusdem Generis principle applies only when a contrary intention does not appear.

Expressio Units Est Exclusio Alterius

The maxim is given to gauge the intent of the legislature. If the words of the Statute are plain
and its meaning is clear then there is no scope for applying the rule. The rule means that
express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.

At the same time, general words in a statute must receive a general construction, unless there is
in the statute some ground for limiting and restraining their meaning by reasonable construction;
because many things are put into a statute ex abundanti cautela, and it is not to be assumed
that anything not specifically included is for that reason alone excluded from the protection of
the statute. The method of construction according to this maxim must be carefully watched.
The failure to make the “expression” complete may arise from accident. Similarly, the
“exclusion” is often the result of inadvertence or accident because it never struck the draftsman
that the thing supposed to be excluded requires specific mention. The maxim ought not to be
applied when its application leads to inconsistency or injustice.

Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege

The maxim means that a contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in law. Where
the words used in a statute have undergone alteration in meaning in course of time, the words
will be construed to bear the same meaning as they had when the statute was passed on the
principle expressed in the maxim. In simple words, old statutes should be interpreted as they
would have been at the date when they were passed and prior usage and interpretation by those
who have an interest or duty in enforcing the Act, and the legal profession of the time, are
presumptive evidence of their meaning when the meaning is doubtful.

But if the statute appears to be capable of only interpretation, the fact that a wrong meaning
had been attached to it for many years, will be immaterial and the correct meaning will be given
by the Courts except when title to property may be affected or when every day transactions
have been entered into on such wrong interpretation.
Noscitur a Sociis
The “Noscitur a Sociis” i.e. “It is known by its associates”. In other words, meaning of a word
should be known from its accompanying or associating words. It is not a sound principle in
interpretation of statutes, to lay emphasis on one word disjuncted from its preceding and
succeeding words. A word in a statutory provision is to be read in collocation with its
companion words. The pristine principle based on the maxim „noscitur a socitis‟ has much
relevance in understanding the import of words in a statutory provision (K. Bhagirathi G. Shenoy
v. K.P. Ballakuraya, AIR 1999 SC 2143). The rule states that where two or more words which are
susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are understood in their cognate
sense. It is only where the intention of the legislature in associating wider words with words of
narrower significance, is doubtful that the present rule of construction can be usefully applied.

The same words bear the same meaning in the same statute. But this rule will not apply:

When the context excluded that principle.

If sufficient reason can be assigned, it is proper to construe a word in one part of an Act in a
different sense from that which it bears in another part of the Act.

Where it would cause injustice or absurdity.

Where different circumstances are being dealt with.

Where the words are used in a different context. Many do not distinguish between this rule and
the ejusdem generis doctrine. But there is a subtle distinction as pointed out in the case of State
of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha.

Strict and Liberal Construction

In Wiberforce on Statute Law, it is said that what is meant by ‘strict construction’ is that “Acts,
are not to be regarded as including anything which is not within their letter as well as their spirit,
which is not clearly and intelligibly described in the very words of the statute, as well as
manifestly intended”, while by “liberal construction” is meant that “everything is to be done in
advancement of the remedy that can be done consistently with any construction of the statute”.
Beneficial construction to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy is generally preferred.

A Court invokes the rule which produces a result that satisfies its sense of justice in the case
before it. “Although the literal rule is the one most frequently referred to in express terms, the
Courts treat all three (viz., the literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule) as valid and refer
to them as occasion demands, but do not assign any reasons for choosing one rather than
another. Sometimes a Court discusses all the three approaches. Sometimes it expressly rejects
the “mischief rule” in favour of the “literal rule”. Sometimes it prefers, although never expressly,
the “mischief rule” to the “literal rule”.
Table of Contents

Introduction

Interpretation meaning

Construction meaning

Difference between Interpretation and Construction

Interpretation

Construction

Classification of Statutes

Codifying statutes

Consolidating statutes

Declaratory statutes

Remedial statutes

Enabling statutes

Disabling statutes

Penal statutes

Taxing statutes

Explanatory statutes

Amending statutes

Repealing statutes

Curative or repealing statutes

Rules of Interpretation

Literal or Grammatical Rule

The Mischief Rule

The Golden Rule

Five part analysis of the golden rule of interpretation

Applicability and usage of golden rule of interpretation

The judicial criticism faced on the application of golden rule

Case laws

Harmonious Construction

Conclusion

Introduction

One of the most substantial and the principal duty which are vested on the judiciary is the
interpretation of the statutes or law which are in force. When the courts deliver justice in a legal
dispute, they strictly abide with the boundaries framed by the legal frameworks which
encompasses certain laws, statutes, The Constitution and delegated legislations. The legal
framework of a democratic country like India includes a plethora of legislations and regulations.
The Legislature with the compliance of the procedural Parliamentary rules, formulates and
drafts certain written statutes and legislations. The courts deliver justice in a legal matter by
interpreting the underlying principles in these legislations. The written laws are substantiated by
the courts and justice is administered by the courts through the pronouncement of verdict over
the legal dispute. For the purpose of interpreting statues and to prevent any wrongful
interpretation of the laws, the court should follow certain rules to shape these laws. So, one of
the most basic rules of interpretation is the Literal rule of Interpretation of statutes where the
court interprets the wordings of the law as it is. However, there may be certain loopholes which
may be found in the law due to which it is not interpret a straight-forward understanding of the
language of the statutes. It may lead to ambiguity and absurdity if the courts interpret the
natural meaning of the language used in the statute.

Interpretation meaning
The term has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’, which means to explain, expound,
understand, or to translate. Interpretation is the process of explaining, expounding and
translating any text or anything in written form. This basically involves an act of discovering the
true meaning of the language which has been used in the statute. Various sources used are only
limited to explore the written text and clarify what exactly has been indicated by the words used
in the written text or the statutes.

Interpretation of statutes is the correct understanding of the law. This process is commonly
adopted by the courts for determining the exact intention of the legislature. Because 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.

There can be mischief in the statute which is required to be cured, and this can be done by
applying various norms and theories of interpretation which might go against the literal meaning
at times. The purpose behind interpretation is to clarify the meaning of the words used in the
statutes which might not be that clear.

According to Salmond, “Interpretation” is the process by which the court seeks to

ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in
which it is expressed.

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 Interpretation and Construction

Interpretation

Construction

In law, interpretation refers to exposing the true sense of the provisions of the statutes and to
understand the exact meaning of the words used in any text.

Interpretation refers to the linguistic meaning of the legal text.

In the case where the simple meaning of the text is to be adopted then the concept of
interpretation is being referred to.

Construction, on the other hand, refers to drawing conclusions from the written texts which are
beyond the outright expression of the legal text.

The purpose of construction is to determine the legal effect of words and the written text of the
statute.

In the case where the literal meaning of the legal text results in ambiguity then the concept of
construction is adopted.

Classification of Statutes

Codified statutory law can be categorized as follows-

Codifying statutes

The purpose of this kind of statute is to give an authoritative statement of the rules of the law
on a particular subject, which is customary laws. For example- The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
and The Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Consolidating statutes

This kind of statute covers and combines all law on a particular subject at one place which was
scattered and lying at different places. Here, the entire law is constituted in one place. For
example- Indian Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure.

Declaratory statutes

This kind of statute does an act of removing doubts, clarifying and improving the law based on
the interpretation given by the court, which might not be suitable from the point of view of the
parliament. For example- the definition of house property has been amended under the Income
Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985 through the judgement of the supreme court.

Remedial statutes

Granting of new remedies for enforcing one’s rights can be done through the remedial statutes.
The purpose of these kinds of statutes is to promote the general welfare for bringing social
reforms through the system. These statutes have liberal interpretation and thus, are not
interpreted through strict means. For example- The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, The
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 etc.

Enabling statutes

The purpose of this statute is to enlarge a particular common law. For example- Land
Acquisition Act enables the government to acquire the public property for the purpose of the
public, which is otherwise not permissible.

Disabling statutes

It is the opposite of what is provided under the enabling statute. Here the rights conferred by
common law are being cut down and are being restrained.

Penal statutes

The offences for various types of offences are provided through these statutes, and these
provisions have to be imposed strictly. For example- Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Taxing statutes

Tax is a form of revenue which is to be paid to the government. It can either be on income that
an individual earns or on any other transaction. A taxing statute thus, levies taxes on all such
transactions. There can be income tax, wealth tax, sales tax, gift tax, etc. Therefore, a tax can be
levied only when it has been specifically expressed and provided by any statute.

Explanatory statutes

The term explanatory itself indicates that this type of statute explains the law and rectifies any
omission left earlier in the enactment of the statutes. Further, ambiguities in the text are also
clarified and checked upon the previous statutes.

Amending statutes

The statutes which operate to make changes in the provisions of the enactment to change the
original law for making an improvement therein and for carrying out the provisions effectively
for which the original law was passed are referred to as amending statutes. For example- Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973 amended the code of 1898.

Repealing statutes

A repealing statute is one which terminates an earlier statute and may be done in the express or
explicit language of the statute. For example- Competition Act, 2002 repealed the MRTP Act.

Curative or repealing statutes

Through these statutes, certain acts which would otherwise be illegal are validated by curing the
illegality and enables a particular line of action.

Rules of Interpretation
Literal or Grammatical Rule

It is the first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the words used in this text are to be
given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. After the interpretation, if the meaning
is completely clear and unambiguous then the effect shall be given to a provision of a statute
regardless of what may be the consequences.

The basic rule is that whatever the intention legislature had while making any provision it has
been expressed through words and thus, are to be interpreted according to the rules of
grammar. It is the safest rule of interpretation of statutes because the intention of the
legislature is deduced from the words and the language used.

According to this rule, the only duty of the court is to give effect if the language of the statute is
plain and has no business to look into the consequences which might arise. The only obligation
of the court is to expound the law as it is and if any harsh consequences arise then the remedy
for it shall be sought and looked out by the legislature.
Case Laws

Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, In this case, the appellant, a citizen of India after arriving
at the airport did not declare that he was carrying gold with him. During his search was carried
on, gold was found in his possession as it was against the notification of the government and
was confiscated under section 167(8) of Sea Customs Act.

Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947.
The appellant challenged this trial to be violative under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
According to this article, no person shall be punished or prosecuted more than once for the
same offence. This is considered as double jeopardy.

It was held by the court that the Seas Act neither a court nor any judicial tribunal. Thus,
accordingly, he was not prosecuted earlier. Hence, his trial was held to be valid.

Manmohan Das versus Bishan Das, AIR 1967 SC 643

The issue in the case was regarding the interpretation of section 3(1)(c) of U.P Control of Rent
and Eviction Act, 1947. In this case, a tenant was liable for evidence if he has made addition and
alternate in the building without proper authority and unauthorized perception as materially
altered the accommodation or is likely to diminish its value. The appellant stated that only the
constitution can be covered, which diminishes the value of the property and the word ‘or’ should
be read as land.

It was held that as per the rule of literal interpretation, the word ‘or’ should be given the meaning
that a prudent man understands the grounds of the event are alternative and not combined.

State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others, 1987 AIR 33 SCR(1) 317, in this case a person
was caught along with the counterfeit currency “dollars” and he was charged under section
120B, 498A, 498C and 420 read with section 511 and 34 of Indian Penal Code for possessing
counterfeit currency. The accused contended before the court that a charge under section 498A
and 498B of Indian Penal Code can only be levied in the case of counterfeiting of Indian
currency notes and not in the case of counterfeiting of foreign currency notes. The court held
that the word currency notes or bank note cannot be prefixed. The person was held liable to be
charge-sheeted.

The Mischief Rule

Mischief Rule was originated in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is the rule of purposive construction
because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying this rule. It is known as
Heydon’s rule because it was given by Lord Poke in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is called as
mischief rule because the focus is on curing the mischief.

In the Heydon’s case, it was held that there are four things which have to be followed for true
and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as follows-

What was the common law before the making of an act.

What was the mischief for which the present statute was enacted.

What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved and appointed to cure the disease of
the commonwealth.

The true reason of the remedy.

The purpose of this rule is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

Case laws

Smith v. Huges, 1960 WLR 830, in this case around the 1960s, the prostitutes were soliciting in
the streets of London and it was creating a huge problem in London. This was causing a great
problem in maintaining law and order. To prevent this problem, Street Offences Act, 1959 was
enacted. After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started soliciting from windows and
balconies.

Further, the prostitutes who were carrying on to solicit from the streets and balconies were
charged under section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that they were not
solicited from the streets.

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

Pyare Lal v. Ram Chandra, the accused in this case, was prosecuted for selling the sweeten
supari which was sweetened with the help of an artificial sweetener. He was prosecuted under
the Food Adulteration Act. It was contended by Pyare Lal that supari is not a food item. The
court held that the dictionary meaning is not always the correct meaning, thereby, the mischief
rule must be applicable, and the interpretation which advances the remedy shall be taken into
consideration. Therefore, the court held that the word ‘food’ is consumable by mouth and orally.
Thus, his prosecution was held to be valid.

Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 SC 871.

Issues of the case were as follows- section 418 of Delhi Corporation Act, 1902 authorised the
corporation to round up the cattle grazing on the government land. The MCD rounded up the
cattle belonging to Kanwar Singh. The words used in the statute authorised the corporation to
round up the abandoned cattle. It was contended by Kanwar Singh that the word abandoned
means the loss of ownership and those cattle which were round up belonged to him and hence,
was not abandoned. The court held that the mischief rule had to be applied and the word
abandoned must be interpreted to mean let loose or left unattended and even the temporary
loss of ownership would be covered as abandoned.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sri Krishna Manufacturing Company, AIR 1962 SC
1526, Issue, in this Case, was that the respondent concerned was running a factory where four
units were for manufacturing. Out of these four units one was for paddy mill, other three
consisted of flour mill, saw mill and copper sheet units. The number of employees there were
more than 50. The RPFC applied the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 thereby
directing the factory to give the benefits to the employees.

The person concerned segregated the entire factory into four separate units wherein the
number of employees had fallen below 50, and he argued that the provisions were not
applicable to him because the number is more than 50 in each unit. It was held by the court that
the mischief rule has to be applied and all the four units must be taken to be one industry, and
therefore, the applicability of PFA was upheld.

The Golden Rule

It is known as the golden rule because it solves all the problems of interpretation. The rule says
that to start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the interpretation given through the
literal rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity, injustice, inconvenience, hardship, inequity,
then in all such events the literal meaning shall be discarded and interpretation shall be done in
such a manner that the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled.

The literal rule follows the concept of interpreting the natural meaning of the words used in the
statute. But if interpreting natural meaning leads to any sought of repugnance, absurdity or
hardship, then the court must modify the meaning to the extent of injustice or absurdity caused
and no further to prevent the consequence.

This rule suggests that the consequences and effects of interpretation deserve a lot more
important because they are the clues of the true meaning of the words used by the legislature
and its intention. At times, while applying this rule, the interpretation done may entirely be
opposite of the literal rule, but it shall be justified because of the golden rule. The presumption
here is that the legislature does not intend certain objects. Thus, any such interpretation which
leads to unintended objects shall be rejected.

Five part analysis of the golden rule of interpretation

Whenever there is a shadow of scepticism casted on the grammatical construction of any law
then in such circumstances, the golden rule of interpretation can be applied on the law in order
to apply it to the facts in a legal dispute. The external manifestation of the underlying law which
is interpreted from reading between the lines projects the true intent of the legislature for which
the golden rule is used. By taking into consideration the consequences of the judgement, the
judges have the discretion to interpret the law in a rational manner. The analysis of Golden Rule
can be divided into five categories as discussed below:

WARBURTON’S CASE

Explaining the principle underlying the Golden rule, Justice Burton in the case of Warburton v.
Loveland observed that in the very first instance of application of law the grammatical sense of
the wordings of law must be paid heed. But if there is involvement of any absurdity,
inconsistency, or is against the declared purpose of the statute then in such circumstance, the
grammatical sense of the law can be modified or interpreted so far as there is no injustice
caused to the parties of the case. Even though the elementary rule of interpreting the words as
it is in their grammatical sense has been upheld by the courts in numerous cases like Madan Lal
v. Changdeo Sugar Mills, the courts should still be open to various interpretations of the law so
that no injustice is caused. This well-known rule was strictly formulated by Parke B. in the case
of Becke v. Smith wherein it was held that, the wordings of the law which are unambiguous and
plain nature should be construed in their regular sense even though, if in their assessment it is
absurd or promotes injustice. We assume the function of the legislature when we deviate from
the ordinary meaning of the statute due to which from the adherence to its literal meaning we
prevent the manifestation of injustice.

LORD WENSLEYDALE’S GOLDEN RULE

The term golden rule was coined by Lord Wensleydale which was later adopted in the case of
Gray v. Pearson due to which it is primarily called the Lord Wensleydale’s Golden Rule of
Interpretation. Lord Wensleydale expressing this opinion of the rule, mentioned that he is deeply
awestruck with the perception of the rule which is being universally accepted by the courts all
over the world in order to understand all the written laws, construing wills and other written
frameworks. He also mentioned that the ordinary derivative and the grammatical construction
of the law should be abided by in the first instance unless there is any absurdity or repugnancy
due to which it is necessary to modify the ordinary understanding of the words. In the case of
Matteson v. Hart the golden rule was elaborately discussed by Jervis CJ where he relied on the
Golden Rule of Construction in order to understand the words used by the Legislature in the
Acts and also to prevent any absurdity and injustice which may stem from the intention of the
statute.

HEYDON’S RULE OF MISCHIEF

In the Heydon’s Rule of Mischief, he elaborated that only in such circumstances where the
intention of the legislature appears to be unjust, only in such cases the intervention of the office
of judges in interpreting the law is reasonable. Slightly deviating from what Lord Wensleydale
has opined, instead of viewing the legislative intent as a whole and construe it all-together, the
reasons for the enactment of the laws in retrospect should be taken into consideration so that
we can derive the object it plans to subserve and the evil it plans to end. In the case of
Newspaper Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, the Latin maxim “ex visceribus actus” was cited
which meant that while determining the intention of the legislation, detached sections of parts
of the Act should not be taken, instead the intention of the act as a whole which construes the
constituent parts should be considered. This principle was reaffirmed in the case of Inland
Revenue Commissioners. V. Herbert where Lord Haldane interpreted a legislation which was
newly enacted and he adjudged that “Where words of general understanding are used, the
common understanding of men is one main clue to the meaning of legislature.” But the Golden
Rule of Interpretation laid by Lord Wensleydale has been a principle accepted worldwide.

LITERAL GOLDEN MISCHIEF

As described by Lord Granworth LC, this is a “Cardinal Rule ” which is a rule based on common
sense which is as strong as can be”. In the English cases, there are three basic rules as
elucidated by GW Paton. Those are:

Whatever the result, if the meaning of the wordings of law is plain then they should be applied
as per the Literal Rule.

Unless there is any ambiguity or absurdity in the wordings of the law, the ordinary sense of the
law should be resorted to as per the Golden Rule.

The general policy or intention of the statute must be considered and eliminate the evil which
was directed as per the Mischief Rule.

LATTER PART OF THE RULE

There is a lot of care which must be taken with regards to the later part of the Golden Rule and
in the case of Christopher v. Lotinga, every word of the Golden Rule was subscribed to by
Justice Willes. In the case of Woodward v. Watts, Justice Crompton expressed his doubts
regarding this rule and opined that the Legislature must have enacted the legislation with a
particular intent which may be destroyed if the courts reinterpret it due to some absurdity which
defeats the whole purpose of the enactment. To understand the applicability of the three
methods of judicial approach which is the literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief that the
statute is designed for in order to prevent it, the case of Vacher v. London Society of
Compositors can be referred to. In this case, the validity of Section 4(1) of the Trade Disputes
Act, 1906 was in question as to whether any torturous acts which are committed by the trade
unions are included under the protection or is it only such are which was torturous in nature in
furtherance of any trade dispute. Deciding on the former view, the House of Lords relied on the
aforementioned three judicial approaches in which Lord Macnaughten adopted the golden rule
of interpretation which is derived from the case of Grey v. Pearson, while Lord Atkinson
espoused the literal approach which is derived from the case of Cooke v. Charles A Vageler and
lastly, the history of the enactment of the stature and the application the mischief method has
been relied upon by Lord Moulton.

Applicability and usage of golden rule of interpretation

If there is a choice between two interpretations, then the interpretation which reduces the futility
or which is narrower in nature fails to incorporate the purpose of the legislation due to which
such a construction must be avoided as discussed in the case of Nokes v. Doncaster
Amalgamated Collieries Ltd by Viscount Simon L.C. Instead, we should admit the bolder form of
the construction which is the intention of the Parliament to enact the legislation only for the
purpose of making the result effective. The transfer of an undertaking which includes, property,
duties, liabilities and rights from the old company to a new company is dealt with under Section
154 of the Companies Act, 1929. In the case of Luke v. R.R.C. an issue was raised with regards
to the transfer of contract of service existing between the former company and the individual.
The House of Lords adjudged that the notice of amalgamation should be provided to the
individual. The golden rule of interpretation has been used in this case where if the prima facie
meaning of the words would be taken into consideration, then no consent would be required of
the employee during amalgamation, but this would lead to injustice. But in the present case the
court deviated from the wordings of the law and decided that it is the duty of the transferor
company to inform the workers about the amalgamation.

A restricted Construction was adopted by the legislature while drafting the Central Services
(Classification, Appeal And Control) Rules, 1956 specifically Rule 11(VI) due to which it was
interpreted by the court by using the Golden Rule in the case of Nyadar Singh v. Union of India.
This provision imposes a penalty if there is any reduction in the grade post or service or the pay
scale of the employee. It was adjudged by the Supreme Court that if any person is appointed to
a bigger post or pay grade, then he cannot be abridged to a lower pay grade or post due to
which this provision acquired a wider construction as interpreted by the Court. As per Maxwell,
the applicability of Golden Rule is significant in the area which is dedicated to the construction
of legislations to adjudge consequences and also the construction of certain provisions which
eliminate injustice and inconvenience or also evasion.

To explain the applicability of the Golden rule, the case of Free Lanka Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Panasinghe can be referred where it was held that if a prisoner escapes from prison due to fire
accident, then he did not commit a felony under the Statute as this act committed by him was
not with the intention of getting freedom but it is to save his life. Similarly, if there is any act
which is done on certain justifiable grounds then that act would not qualify as criminal in nature.

The Supreme Court and High Court in India have applied the Golden Construction of Statutes in
various judgements as previously discussed. But there is a certain confusion which is observed
between the Golden rule and the Literal Rule as even though initially the literal meaning of the
statute is taken into consideration if it is plain and logical but if there is any trace of absurdity or
uncertainty then the interpretation of the court would pay a significant role. But if there is a
possibility that there is more than one meaning of the wording in the statute, then any addition,
substitution or rejection should be done by the court modifying the language so that the
intention of the legislature is expounded. Some of the landmark Indian cases in which the
Golden Rule was used was with respect to the interpretation of the provisions like “Section 23 of
the Representation of People’s Act, 1951” and Section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 which
were dealt with in Narendra Kiadivalapa v. Manikrao Patil and Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing
Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U P respectively. Therefore, the applicability of the Golden
Rule of Interpretation in the Indian cases and the foreign cases has a narrow and wide approach
which needs to be observed by the courts in their working.

The judicial criticism faced on the application of golden rule

The golden rule of interpretation should be adopted with caution because of certain reasons
which were discussed by the Court in the case of Lord Moulten in Vacher & Sons v. London
Society of Compositor. There is a possibility that this rule could develop into a conventional
jurisdictive critique of the legislature’s acts’ legality. The statutes must be interpreted on the
basis of the wordings of the law, and while the respective resultants of two competing
interpretations may occasionally direct us in our options, we can only do so if we are in a
position to convince ourselves that the words could not have been used as per the sense of the
suggested arguments by looking at the Act as a whole and comparing it to the prevailing law of
the land at the time of the enactment of the legislation. The legal rights or laws which are
formulated for the advantage of the community at large may come in struggle with the
individual interest of the public due to which it may cause injustice in the form of repugnancy or
absurdity. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money has
judged that the duty of the courts of justice is to take care of the rights of the public at large
instead of individual rights. If the words of the statute are absurd in their nature, then they
should even come under the term of repugnancy in order to use the Golden Rule due to which
the scope of the term is wide.

The Golden Rule is considered to be an old law which has been used since the 16th century,
when British law was the fundamental basis for law and parliamentary sovereignty had not yet
been constituted. It is contended that it gives the unelected judiciary too much jurisdiction and
responsibility, which is undemocratic in nature. The Golden Rule also clearly violates the law of
the land by constructing a crime after the occurrence of the events, as observed in in Smith v
Hughes and Elliot v Grey. It encroaches on the separation of powers by assigning judges a
legislative role, and judges can bring their own opinions, conscience, and preconceptions to a
matter, as seen in the case of DPP v Bull and Smith v Hughes.

Case laws
Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 850

In this case, there was an issue with regard to issuing of the notice under section 99 of
Representation of People’s Act, 1951, with regard to corrupt practices involved in the election.

According to the rule, the notice shall be issued to all those persons who are a party to the
election petition and at the same time to those who are not a party to it. Tirath Singh contended
that no such notice was issued to him under the said provision. The notices were only issued to
those who were non-parties to the election petition. This was challenged to be invalid on this
particular ground.

The court held that what is contemplated is giving of the information and the information even if
it is given twice remains the same. The party to the petition is already having the notice
regarding the petition, therefore, section 99 shall be so interpreted by applying the golden rule
that notice is required against non-parties only.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company, AIR 1967 SC 276, Issues of the
case are as follows.

A transporting company was carrying a parcel of apples was challenged and charge-sheeted.
The truck of the transporting company was impounded as the parcel contained opium along
with the apples. At the same time, the invoice shown for the transport consisted of apples only.

Section 11 of the opium act 1878, all the vehicles which transport the contraband articles shall
be impounded and articles shall be confiscated. It was confiscated by the transport company
that they were unaware of the fact that opium was loaded along with the apples in the truck.

The court held that although the words contained in section 11 of the said act provided that the
vehicle shall be confiscated but by applying the literal rule of interpretation for this provision it is
leading to injustice and inequity and therefore, this interpretation shall be avoided. The words
‘shall be confiscated’ should be interpreted as ‘may be confiscated’.

State of Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, a period of limitation was prescribed
for, under section 18 of land acquisition act, 1844, that an appeal shall be filed for the
announcement of the award within 6 months of the announcement of the compensation. Award
was passed in the name of Quiser Jehan. It was intimated to her after the period of six months
about this by her counsel. The appeal was filed beyond the period of six months. The appeal
was rejected by the lower courts.

It was held by the court that the period of six months shall be counted from the time when
Quiser Jehan had the knowledge because the interpretation was leading to absurdity. The court
by applying the golden rule allowed the appeal.

Harmonious Construction
According to this rule of interpretation, when two or more provisions of the same statute are
repugnant to each other, then in such a situation the court, if possible, will try to construe the
provisions in such a manner as to give effect to both the provisions by maintaining harmony
between the two. The question that the two provisions of the same statute are overlapping or
mutually exclusive may be difficult to determine.

The legislature clarifies its intention through the words used in the provision of the statute. So,
here the basic principle of harmonious construction is that the legislature could not have tried to
contradict itself. In the cases of interpretation of the Constitution, the rule of harmonious
construction is applied many times.

It can be assumed that if the legislature has intended to give something by one, it would not
intend to take it away with the other hand as both the provisions have been framed by the
legislature and absorbed the equal force of law. One provision of the same act cannot make the
other provision useless. Thus, in no circumstances, the legislature can be expected to
contradict itself.

Cases –

Ishwari Khaitan Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in this case, the State Government
proposed to acquire sugar industries under U.P Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971.
This was challenged on the ground that these sugar industries were declared to be a controlled
one by the union under Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. And accordingly, the
state did not have the power of acquisition of requisition of property which was under the
control of the union. The Supreme Court held that the power of acquisition was not occupied by
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The state had a separate power under Entry
42 List III.

M.S.M Sharma v. Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395.

Facts of the case are as follows- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for freedom of
speech and expression. Article 194(3) provides to the Parliament for punishing for its contempt
and it is known as the Parliamentary Privilege. In this case, an editor of a newspaper published
the word -for- word record of the proceedings of the Parliament including those portions which
were expunged from the record. He was called for the breach of parliamentary privilege.

He contended that he had a fundamental right to speech and expression. It was held by the
court that article 19(1)(a) itself talks about reasonable freedom and therefore freedom of
speech and expression shall pertain only to those portions which have not been expunged on
the record but not beyond that.

Conclusion

Every nation has its own judicial system, the purpose of which to grant justice to all. The court
aims to interpret the law in such a manner that every citizen is ensured justice to all. To ensure
justice to all the concept of canons of interpretation was expounded. These are the rules which
are evolved for determining the real intention of the legislature.

It is not necessary that the words used in a statute are always clear, explicit and unambiguous
and thus, in such cases it is very essential for courts to determine a clear and explicit meaning
of the words or phrases used by the legislature and at the same time remove all the doubts if
any. Hence, all the rules mentioned in the article are important for providing justice.
This article is written by Karunashankar K.N. a 2nd-year law student from School of Law Christ
University, Bengaluru.

Table of Contents

Interpretation

Need for interpretation

Rules of interpretation of statutes

Strict Interpretation

Liberal Interpretation

Literal Rule

Criticism

Reasonable Construction

Golden Rule

Criticism

Mischief Rule

Heydon’s Case

Advantages:

Disadvantages:

Harmonious Construction

Supreme Court has laid down five principles of rule of Harmonious Construction in the landmark
case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers:

Ejusdem Generis

Beneficial Construction

Purposive Construction

Other Rules

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

Noscitur a Soclis

Aids in Interpretation

Internal Aids

External Aids

Conclusion

References

Interpretation

The word ‘Interpretation’ is derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means to explain or
expound or to understand or translate. Interpretation is a process through which one arrives at
the true and correct intention of the law-making body which is laid in the form of statutes. This
helps in finding out the intention of the author.

Interpretation of any data generally means to analyze the available data and come out with an
opinion which is certain and clear. This increases the ability of an individual to understand and
explain it in his/her own way. This helps to find out the ways to understand and analyse the
statute, where it leads the interpreter to the whole new meaning which is completely different
from the general meaning.

It is necessary for all law students, lawyers, judges and anyone who belongs to the legal
fraternity to know how to interpret the statute whenever a legislative house comes up with the
new statute or an amendment because they will be dealing with these legislations on day to day
basis. The main intention of analyzing is to know the new changes which are being brought due
to the legislation and the impacts of that legislation in society.

Usually, the interpretation of the statute is done by the judges, it is the primary function of the
judge as a judicial head. As we all know that our government is divided into three important
wings which are: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Here legislature lays down the law and
intends people to act according to the legislature and the judiciary that is judges will come up
with the proper meaning of the law and puts the law into operation. This helps in maintaining
checks and balances between the wings.

Need for interpretation

The ambiguity of the words used in the statute: Sometimes there will be words that have more
than one meaning. And it may not be clear which meaning has to be used. There could be
multiple interpretations made out of it.

Change in the environment: We all know that society changes from time to time and there may
be new developments happening in a society that is not taken into consideration, this lacks the
predictability of the future event.

Complexities of the statutes: usually statutes are complex and huge, it contains complicated
words, jargon and some technical terms which are not easy to understand and this complexity
may lead to confusion.

When legislation doesn’t cover a specific area: Every time when legislations are out it doesn’t
cover all the area it leaves some grey areas and interpretation helps in bridging the gaps
between.

Drafting error: The draft may be made without sufficient knowledge of the subject. It may also
happen due to the lack of necessary words and correct grammar. This makes the draft unclear
and creates ambiguity in the legislature.

Incomplete rules: There are few implied rules and regulations and some implied powers and
privileges which are not mentioned in the statute and when these are not defined properly in the
statute this leads to ambiguity.

Rules of interpretation of statutes

Strict Interpretation

Strict interpretation means each word in the statute should be interpreted by the letter and not
with respect to the spirit behind the statute. A judge has to apply the text only as it is written in
the statute when there is clear meaning of the text there will be no scope for any further
investigation regarding the same. Here in strict interpretation, the courts will use the literal rule
of interpretation.

This method is important because judges will not make any wrong inferences from statutes and
will not go out from the letter of the law and the judgment will be purely based on the text of the
statute. This upholds the rule of law by giving importance to the legislature that passes the laws.

If we take the example when we are dealing with the taxation provisions we can not vary from
the letter of law as it is universally applicable to all the people in the nation. It is applied as per
the text in order to fix the standard in society and clear all the uncertainties which may arise in
the near future.

State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, 2005

In this case, it was held that the provisions of the law should be strictly constructed, it should
not be let open for the court to interpret, the court cannot ignore the conditions prescribed in the
provision. Wherever there is a mandatory rule it must be strictly followed, when a statute
explicitly mentions the performance of a particular act in a specific way and lays down the
consequences to it, that should be mandatorily followed. Cardinal rule of interpretation is that
when a particular act should be done in a prescribed manner the courts cannot interpret that in
any way of performance.[1]

Liberal Interpretation

Liberal or beneficial interpretation means the interpretation of the statute should be made
liberally in order to get a wider and enhanced meaning to it. Here judges have all the powers and
authority to interpret the laws according to the case requirements and in this rule, there will be
no compulsion to follow only the letter of the law, they can go beyond the meaning of the text
and interpret. The courts will use the golden rule of interpretation or the Mischief rule of
interpretation.

In this method, the judge does not restrict themselves to the literal meaning of the law but they
will give all the opportunity to the lawyers to enlighten them with the different interpretations of
the law. They will try looking at the law from the other perspective, by which many of the
modern-day problems would be solved. As it is an exhaustive rule of interpretation it gives a
wider scope of expanding the law and helps in creating a new law if required.

If we take the example of the ‘CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT’, the main aim of that act is to
protect the interest of the people. All the laws are established for the public interest it cannot be
looked in a narrow way by restricting it into the letter of law.

Madan Singh v. UOI, 1999

In this case, it was held that it is the duty of the court to interpret the provisions of the law, as
every case will not be having the same situation, and the court should interpret especially when
there are beneficial provisions related to the parties. The interpretation as to be made in the
liberal sense so as to get a wider meaning and understanding of the word rather than restricting
the meaning which would probably negate the whole case. And this would destroy the complete
purpose of the law which is to protect the public interest. [2]

Literal Rule

The literal rule basically looks into what the law says, not what the law means. It considers the
original meaning of the word. Here judges cannot come up with the words and interpret
according to the case basis. When the language used is simple and the words have only one
meaning to it at that time judges will use this literal rule of interpretation.

When there are no two meanings to a word. This rule helps courts from taking sides in
legislative or political issues. If any word in the statute has a special meaning to it, usually it will
be mentioned in the interpretation clause, all technical words are given ordinary meaning if the
statute has not specified it. Usage of the appropriate words is very important and makes a lot of
difference in the meaning of the context.
Courts should never go beyond the intention of the legislators. When the words of the statute
are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then there is no need of explaining that in the
natural or ordinary sense.

R v. Harriss, 1836

The defendant bit off the victim’s nose. The statute says it is offence ‘to stab cut or wound’ a
person. Here the court applied the literal rule, the act of biting did not come within the meaning
of stab cut or wound as these words implied an instrument had to be used. Therefore the
defendant’s conviction was quashed.[3]

Fisher v. Bell, 1960

Under the ‘offensive weapons act of 1959’, it is an offence to offer certain offensive weapons
for sale. Bristol shopkeeper, James Bell displayed a flick knife in his shop window. When
brought to trial it was concluded that Bell could not be convicted given the literal meaning of the
statute. The law of contract states that having an item in a window is not the intention of sale
but is an invitation to treat. Given the literal meaning of this statute, Bell could not be convicted.

Pritipal Singh V. Union Of India

There was the criminal case was against the defendant, the charge sheet was filed as per the
violations and provisions under the ‘Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985’ and
the interpretation of words was in question. The court emphasized the literal rule of
interpretation.

It was held that there is a presumption that the words which are used in the statutes are correct
and exact and it is inappropriately made.[4]

Criticism

Judges started giving more importance to the literal meaning of the statutory provisions without
considering the wider meaning of the context.

This method ignores the limitations of the language.

Words undergo changes in their meaning as time passes.

Basing it on a wrong assumption that a word has only one fixed meaning.

Lack of clarity in the statute.

This leads us to prejudices and determines the meaning of the statute.

Reasonable Construction
Reasonable construction follows the principle of ‘Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pareat’ which
means when the interpretation of the statute is made it should be done in a meaningful and
sensible manner. If a statute is having a two interpretation where one is completely vague and
absurd and other is perfectly making sense then that meaningful interpretation should be used.

A provision of law cannot be so interpreted where it is made without using common sense.
Every word or expression used in an act should receive its natural and fair meaning which was
made in accordance with the legislator.

Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh

It is only when the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction,
leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some
inconvenience or absurdity, hardship of injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may
be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the
sentence.[5]

Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965

Courts can depart from the dictionary meaning of a word and give it a meaning which will
advance the remedy and suppress the mischief provided the Court does not have to conjecture
or surmise. Construction will be adopted in accordance with the policy and object of the
statute.[6]

Golden Rule

The Golden rule is also called as British rule of interpretation, it is a form of statutory
interpretation which allows a judge to depart from a normal meaning of the word in order to
avoid an absurd result. As we know applying the bare letter of law sometimes may lead us to
confusion and gives us an absurd result, in order to overcome these kinds of results judges will
give an opportunity to the lawyer to come up with the new interpretation to the law which will be
more certain and accurate to the case.

This method of interpretation is also known as the compromise method between literal rule and
the mischief rule. In the literal rule, judges will only use the word meaning nothing else, but
sometimes this may be irrational and gives us unexpected results which will be unlikely to the
legislator’s intention.

In the case of homographs, where a word can have more than one meaning, the judge can
choose the meaning which is suitable at that particular case if the word only has only one
meaning, but applying that would lead to a bad decision where the judge can apply that decision
and arrive at a completely different meaning.

This rule is used in two main situations:

When the meaning of the word is too narrow.

When the word itself has ambiguity or absurdity.

For example:

Whenever you stand near the lift it will be written that ‘’Do not use lifts in case of fire.’’ if you
consider it in a literal meaning you should never use the lifts, this would be an absurd result
because the intention of the person who put the sign is to prevent using of lift when there is live
fire burning anywhere near the lift.

When a son murdered his mother and committed suicide, now the court has to decide who will
inherit the property is its mother’s family or the son’s descendants. The judgment came out in
favour of the mother’s family, here what we have observed here is son never had the intention of
making a profit by his crime, but now this judgment will be binding on all the lower courts.

R v. Allen, 1872

The defendant was charged with an offence of bigamy under section 57 of ‘offence against
person act 1861’. The statutes states “whomsoever being married shall marry any other person
during the lifetime of husband and wife is guilty of an offence.”

Under the literal rule of interpretation of this section, the offence would be impossible to
commit since the civil law will not recognize a second marriage as an attempt to marry in such
circumstances would not be recognized as a valid marriage.

Court applied the golden rule and held that the word marriage should be interpreted as ‘to go
through a marriage ceremony.’ The defendant was convicted and held guilty.[7]

Adler v George case, 1964

Under section 3 of the ‘official secrets act,1920’ it was an offence to obstruct HM Forces in the
vicinity of a prohibited area. Adler was arrested for obstructing forces whilst in a prohibited area.
Under The Literal Rule, Adler was not in the vicinity of the area, he was in the area and so was
not infringing the terms of the act. The Golden Rule was applied to extend the meaning of
‘vicinity’ and avoid the possible absurd outcome.

Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Brij Kishore

The Supreme Court held that the expression “landless person” used in Section 14 of the ‘U.P.
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953,’ which made provision for grant of land to landless persons, was
limited to “landless labourers”. Landless labour is he who is engaged in agriculture but having
no agricultural land.

The Court further said that “any landless person” did not include a landless businessman
residing in a city. The object of the Act was to implement the Bhoodan movement, which aimed
at the distribution of land to landless labourers who were verged in agriculture. A businessman,
though landless cannot claim the benefit of Act.[8]

Criticism
This infringes the separation of power among the wings of the government that is between
judiciary and legislature.

Here judges can technically change the law by changing the meaning of the words in the statute.

This method can be used only when there is an absurdity in the statute.

Mischief Rule
The mischief rule is a kind of statutory interpretation where it attempts to determine the
intention of the legislators. It basically originated in the 16th century by the Heydon’s case in the
united kingdom, the main objective of this is to find out the mischief and defect of the previous
statute which was in question and how the new statute will come up with the remedy that
resolves the defect.

The main purpose of bringing the amendments in the statute is to add on additional areas or to
make certain changes in the existing law and make it wider where it covers many other
circumstances. Legislating a new law is to resolve the problem which was unable to resolve
through the other laws which were existing before. And this also helps in finding out the
answers to those questions which were not answered in the previous law. So here we can
observe the retrospective effect in the process of making laws.

This rule is also called as purposive construction as there is a purpose behind making this ruling.
Here court attempts to know the intention of the legislators for bringing in the change in the law.
It also tries to analyze the mischief and the defect which was present in the previous law which
leads to the creation of the new law.

Heydon’s Case

This case helps us to know the 4 important points which we have to keep in mind while statute
interpretation.

What was the common law before the making of the act?

What was the mischief or defect which the common law did not provide?

What remedy the Parliament had resolved by appointing to cure the disease of the
commonwealth?

What is the true reason behind the remedy?[9]

Thomas v. Lord Clan Morris

Here it was stated that interpretation of any statutory enactment should not only restrict them
to the interpretation of words and phrases used, but they should also look at the history of the
act and the reasons behind passing such acts.

Bengal immunity co. V. State of Bihar, 1955

In this case, they have applied the mischief rule in the construction of Article 286 of the
constitution of India. Article 286 was in question because before the implementation of this
section every state had its own powers and privileges to make its own laws regarding taxation.
But the supreme court said that article 286 is made in order to regulate the interstate taxation
system and to maintain a well-organized taxation system. And make the whole of India as one
economic unit.

Here Supreme Court has looked into the history of article 286 and also the reasoning behind it
by considering both of it they have interpreted the statute by mischief rule.[10]

Elliot V. Grey, 1960

According to the Road Traffic Act of 1930 uninsured cars are not allowed to be driven or parked
on the road. The defendant’s car was parked on the road near the public place but he was not
using it.

The defendant was held guilty because the parliament has passed a bill which states that
people should insure their car only then they can drive the car.

The mischief rule was applied by the court by stating that the car being used in the road if in
case the car causes an accident, insurance would be required. The reason behind this was that
people should be compensated when they are injured by such incidents and danger caused to
them by others.

Advantages:
Law commission finds mischief rule more efficient as it opposed to Literal and Golden rule.

It avoids unjust and absurd results in sentencing.

Disadvantages:

It is considered as an outdated rule as it came into the picture in the 16th century.

Gives excess power to the judiciary who are unelected and it is considered undemocratic.

This makes the law uncertain.

In the 16th century, the kings used to give judiciary complete power to draft laws so at that time
they were well qualified about the mischief acts.

Harmonious Construction
This rule of interpretation is adopted when there is a conflict between two or more statutes or
between two provisions of the same statute. Every law has a certain purpose set, so judges
should take those purposes into consideration and it should be read as a whole while
interpreting. Judges should apply such provisions which are in accordance with the public
interest. The laws which are applied must be consistent and shouldn’t overlap with other
existing laws. The courts should avoid using such laws which bring ambiguity to the subject and
makes courts inconsistent.

Sometimes it’s impossible to harmonise between two provisions of the statute at that time the
decision of the judges will prevail above everything. When there is “a head-on clash” between
the provisions of law the judges should bring harmony and make justice to both the parties.

Supreme Court explained harmonious rule as to when the two provisions of the same legislation
are inconsistent with each other, both the provisions must be interpreted in such a way where it
gives equal importance to others. Here one provision will not override on other provision, it aims
at harmonizing between conflicting provisions and avoids destruction one provision.

Supreme Court has laid down five principles of rule of Harmonious Construction in the
landmark case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers:

The courts should avoid such provisions which are contradicting in nature and which brings the
head-on clash between each other.

The courts should interpret in such a way that brings harmony to the contradicting provisions.

The provision of one section cannot defeat the other provision.

When the court fails to bring harmony to both parties, it should at least interpret in such a
manner where both the provisions are given effect as much as possible.

Courts should keep in mind that the interpretation which reduces one provision to the dead is
not harmonious, here harmonising doesn’t mean destroying.[11]

Ejusdem Generis

Ejusdem Generis means of the same kind. Generally, the words should be given their natural
meaning, unless it requires special meaning based on that context. When general words follow
specific words that are distinct in nature, the general words should also be given the specific
meaning to it.

The courts will interpret such general words follow specific words in a restricted way. It will be
based on the facts and circumstances of the case which may change case to case. The
legislative intent on principle of Ejusdem Generis is if the general words to be used in the
restricted sense that means those words will be having a special meaning to it or else why
would they even use specific words.

For example in an act dealing with the slaughter of animals for food for human consumption,
the expressions used are “cows, goats, sheep, and other animals”.

Whether the following animals are cover:

Cats and dogs

Poultry

Wild animals

Horseflesh

Regina v. Edmundson, 1859

It was stated by Lord Campbell “Where there were general words following particular and
specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those
specified.” by applying this it helps judges to restrict the wide ambit of the general expression.

In this case, it gave us the basic requirements which should be present in the case in order to
apply ejusdem generis:

The statue should contain an enumeration of specific words.

The general term should follow the specific term.

There should be no different intent of the legislature to the general terms.

The series of the enumeration should constitute a class or category.

The class or category should not be exhausted by the enumeration of specific words.

Beneficial Construction

The general rule of the statute is that if a word used in the statute excludes certain cases in its
common meaning, it should not be forced unnecessarily to include those cases. An exception to
this rule is that when the main objective of the statute is not achieved by excluding those cases
then the word may be interpreted on the basis of the case requires.

This rule of interpretation will benefit individuals. Whenever there is an ambiguity or when the
which would take the benefit away from the individual, so the meaning which prevails over the
benefit to the individuals should be adopted.

The courts should be generous towards the persons to whom benefits are conferred by the
statute. Here it involves the judges to give the widest meaning to the statute in order to protect
the interest of the parties, if you look into certain statutes the main purpose is to benefit and
protect the interest of the person, for example, Industrial Disputes Act, Consumer Protection Act,
Juvenile Justice Act and all labour-related laws. Provision is capable of giving two meanings
where one would preserve the benefit and another.

Hindustan Level Ltd v Ashok Vishnu Kate

In this case, the court held that in a case which is related to the prevention of unfair labour
practices it should be made completely in accordance with the labour point of view as they are
benefitting people here and while interpreting Social Welfare Legislation also they should
consider the benefitting people of the society.[12]

Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohammad Quasium

The supreme court held that the rights of maintenance of children below two years old and the
mother under Section 125 of the code of civil procedure 1973 are independent of each other
and any other and subsequent legislature regarding maintenance of children below two year and
mother that maybe Muslim women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 could not affect
the same in absence of clear provision to the effect.[13]

Purposive Construction

It is the modern version of mischief rule. It is actually more flexible compared to literal rule and
golden rule which tends to concentrate more on the meaning of individual words or phrases.
This looks for the purpose of the law. This rule allows judges to add or ignore any of the words
in the statute while interpreting in order to protect the purpose of creating that law and give fair
and equal justice to everyone.

This rule is always compared with the mischief rule. As mischief rule looks into the gap between
the old and new law and how parliament came up with the new law and what are the new
remedies brought out to resolve the problems which were exiting before, whereas the purposive
construction rule is broader where it not only figure out the gap between the old and new laws
but it also helps judges to make an attempt to identify what parliament meant to achieve.

The days have passed by when judges used to use only strict rule where they interpret the law
only based on the meaning of the words used in the statute, but now court seeks to give effect
to the purposive rule where it not only consider the words of the statute according to their
meaning but also according to the context. ‘Context’ here doesn’t mean only ‘linguistic context’,
it takes into consideration the subject-matter, scope, purpose, and background of the act.

Important features:
Here judges do not go by the letter of the law, but they look into the intention and the spirit of
the statute.

Legislative intention is a fictitious concept.

The legislative intention with respect to a particular statute can be an intention of the majority of
the parliamentarians.

In mischief rule, the court resorts a particular act intended to remedy but purposive construction
looks into the overall intention of the parliament on the statute. In this way, purposive
construction is wider than the mischief rule.

Regina V Barnet London Borough Council, Ex Parte Shah

In this case, there were five students who were immigrants came to London for the purpose of
studies. They challenged the refusal to allow them grants for their education.

The court held that the House construed the expression ‘ordinarily resident’ in the 1962 and
1980 Acts. Long-standing authority on the meaning of the expression was referred to. The
natural and ordinary meaning of ordinary residence had been settled by two tax cases. At least
for educational purposes, ‘ordinary residence’ did not include a person whose residence in a
particular place or country was unlawful.[14]

Other Rules

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

It is a Latin phrase that says ‘Express Mention and Implied Exclusion’ that means express
mention of one thing excludes all other things. Here it is considered that the items which are not
on the list are not covered by the statute. When something is expressly mentioned in the statute
it leads to the presumption that the things which are not specified in the statute are excluded.

General words in a statute must receive a general construction unless the statute is specifying
any special meaning to the general words. Whenever something is added in the statute it is
added with the due consciousness. It is assumed that if something is not added in the statute
there is a reason behind it, which is to exclude that from the particular statute.

Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege

It is one of the best and the strongest way of interpretation. As time passes by words used in
the statute will undergo changes in their meaning but when it is interpreted the word should
bear its original and same meaning as the statute intended when it was passed.

The meaning of the law should be interpreted in the context when the law was formulated. Old
statutes must be interpreted in such a way where that defines its purpose of introducing it. And
it also considers the prior usage and interest or of enforcing the act at the time when the law
was enacted.

If the word is wrongly interpreted for all these years those kinds of words will not be eligible for
interpretation. The words can only be interpreted by the court when the title of the property may
be affected or when everyday transactions have been affected.

Noscitur a Soclis

Noscitur a soclis is a Latin term which means associated words, the meaning of unclear words
or phrases is to be determined or interpreted on the basis of its context and the words and
phrases surrounding it.

Associated words try to explain the meaning of the general words and also limit the
interpretation of specific or special terms. When a word used in a statute is ambiguous or vague,
the meaning of such words will be determined by looking associated words around it. These
surrounded associate words will give clear and specific meaning to it.

The importance of this rule is it aims to interpret by reading the whole statute. It doesn’t
emphasize one particular word but it tends to interpret the word by looking into its preceding
and succeeding words. The words are understood in a cognitive sense and the intention of the
legislatures can be easily understood.

Aids in Interpretation
Interpretation is the process of finding out the true essence of the enactment, by giving natural
and ordinary meaning to the words of enactment. This helps in ascertaining the true meaning of
the words used in a statute.

The main objective of the interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the
legislature where the meanings of the words are expressly or impliedly mentioned. Courts
sometimes interpret the statute In an arbitrary manner, so in order to overcome all these
confusions, certain principles have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the courts. These
principles are called ‘Rules of Interpretation’.

Rules of interpretation act as a tool in determining the meaning of the particular act which is
mainly divided into two they are:

External Aid: the external evidence derived from extraneous circumstances, such as previous
legislation and decided cases, etc.

Internal Ais: the internal evidence derived from the Act itself.

Internal Aids
Judges while interpreting a statute takes many things into consideration. Determining the
primary meaning of the statutory words. And where there is ambiguity in the meaning of the
words in the statute. Answers to the many questions of ambiguity will be there in the statute
itself. Those are called ‘Internal Aids’.

Title of the Statute

Long title

Every statute starts with the long title, it gives the description of the object of that Act.

For example, the long title of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is – “An Act to consolidate and
amend the laws relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature”.

The long title is used by the court to interpret certain provisions of the statute. It helps in
removing the ambiguity and confusion of the act and not in giving conclusive aid in interpreting
the provisions of the statute.

Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab

The long title of the Act is relied upon as a guide to decide the scope of the Act.

Short Title

Usually, the short title is used for the purpose of referring and identification of any Act. it ends
with the year of the passing of the Act. This is one of the important part of the statute but its
role in interpretation is very minimum.

For example, Section 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, says –“This Act may be cited as the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It shall come into force on the first day of January 1909.”

Preamble

The main aim and objective of the act is found in the preamble of the statute. All the Acts starts
with the preamble, stating the reasons behind the enactment of the act and the main objective
of the act.

For example, the Preamble of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is “Whereas it is expedient to provide
a general Penal Code for India; it is enacted as follows”.

Kashi Prasad v. State

The court held that even though the preamble cannot be used to defeat the enacting clause of a
statute, it can be treated as a key for the interpretation of the statute.

Heading and Title of a chapter

Heading gives the key to the interpretation of the clauses under it and helps to know what the
intent of the provision. Headings might be treated as the preamble to the provision.
Durga Thathera v. Narain Thathera and Anr

The court held that the headings are like a preamble which helps as a key to the mind of the
legislature but does not control the substantive section of the enactment.

Marginal Notes

Marginal notes are inserted at the side of the section and help to understand the effect of the
section. This cannot be used for interpretation of the section.

Wilkes v. Goodwin

It was held that the side notes are not part of the Act and hence marginal notes cannot be
referred.

Definitional/Interpretation Clauses

Definition clause is used to define all the important terms and to avoid the necessity of frequent
repetitions in describing the same subject matter to which the word or expression defined is
intended to apply.

Definition clause of one particular Act is applied only on the particular Act, not on any other Acts.

Illustrations

Illustrations are the examples given in the statutes for a better understanding of the section.

Mahesh Chandra Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma

It was held that illustrations are parts of the Section and help to elucidate the principles of the
section.

Proviso

Proviso provides examples of specific cases. These specific examples are given to such cases
where general words require special meaning for it.

‘Exception’ is intended to restrain the enacting clause to particular cases.

‘Proviso’ is used to remove the special cases of the general enactment and give them special
recognition.

‘Saving Clause’ is used to protect the destruction of certain rights, privileges and remedies
already existing.

Explanations
Explanations are added to the section to explain and elaborate on the meaning of the words in
the section. The purpose behind this explanation is to explain, clarify, subtract or include
something by elaboration. This forms an important part while interpreting the laws.

Schedules

The schedule forms an important part of the statute. This should be read along with the section.
It contains minute details which adds information to the provisions of the enactment. The
expressions of the schedule cannot override the meaning of the provision.

Punctuation

Punctuation is one of the minor element of the statue. It should be given importance only when
there is proper punctuation used and when there is no doubt about its meaning.

External Aids
When internal aids that are preamble, explanation, illustrations, etc are inadequate for the
purpose of interpretation, Judges may take external aids into consideration. When the words of
the Act are clear and unambiguous, the external aids are not required.

Historical Background

This includes the original idea of drafting such an Act. The reason behind enacting such laws
the cases which influenced the parliamentarians to bring out such laws. It also includes the
debates made during passing the laws. And the first-hand hand information collected while
making the laws.

Reference to Reports of Committees

The reports made by the various committees during the enactment of the legislation can be
referred as it gives more clarity to the words and also helps us to understand the intention
behind the act, by this, we can figure out what was the defect or mischief which was present in
the previous law.

When parliament passes the enactment based on the committee report and there is any
confusion or ambiguity in the terms of the statute that can be easily clarified by referring that
committee reports and it helps in the interpretation of the statute very efficiently.

Rosy and another v. State of Kerala and others

The Supreme Court Considered Law Commission of India, 41st Report for interpretation of
section 200 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Judicial Decisions (Precedents)

Every enactment made by the parliament is based on some or other case, so by referring to the
previously giving judgments by the higher courts helps us to analyse and form laws. These
judgements may be Indian judgements or foreign judgements. Foreign decisions can be taken
into consideration when other countries also follow the same system of jurisprudence. But the
priority should be given to the Indian judgements.

Dictionary

When the meaning of the word is not clear in the statute, the meaning of those words can be
figured by looking into the dictionary. And there are certain words which have a different legal
definition and common English definition, so whenever we are looking for the legal meaning of
any word it is good to search that in the black dictionary.

Social, Political and Economical and Scientific Developments

When the statute is being interpreted it should consider the present system in society. It should
take into consideration the changes in the situations and circumstances which have occurred
after the implementation of any act. And most importantly the changes in the social conditions
and the scientific changes in terms of technology should be given at most importance. When
court starts doing this kind of interpretation this helps the legislature to bring out the new
amendments for the statute.

Other materials

Courts can also refer to the books, journals, papers, articles which are published by the eminent
scholars who are expert in that field.

Conclusion

The article covers all most all the tools of interpretation, by following these interpretations one
can understand and analyse the statute in a better way. This also helps legal fraternity to
analyse newly enacted laws by the parliament and to find out the pros and cons of it. It is an
extensive article covering most of the relevant topics, for further information you can refer
bibliography.