interpretation of statutes

Module name: Interpretation of statutes

Module lecturer's name: Ms. Eranga Dissanayake

Assignment number: No.02

Student number: 29601

Discussing about the Constitutionality of the Religious Education
Act in Veridia
Interpretation of statutes is a craft and science, with judges as judges selecting and applying rules
as tools. They are not legislators but finishers, refiners, and polishers of legislation. Interpretation
is the process by which courts and legal authorities determine the meaning and application of
legislative texts and legal documents, resolving ambiguities, ensuring consistency in legal
application, and upholding the rule of law. It involves finding the true sense of an enactment by
giving its words their natural and ordinary meaning. Interpreting statutes requires considering the
legislature's intention, the context of the statute, and its effectiveness. If a statute is ambiguous, it
should be interpreted to give meaning and effect to other provisions. If the meaning is clear, it
should be given effect regardless of consequences. Interpretation is necessary for legislative
language and intent, as legislative language can be complex for laypeople. The intention of the
legislature involves the concept of meaning and purpose.

The intent of the legislature can be deduced from various sources, including statute text,
proposed amendments, case law, and legislative records. The current government's Religious
Education Act (AER) can also be used to deduce the legislature's intent. Judicial interpretation is
necessary to ensure justice, uphold legislature intentions, and maintain consistency. The
Nallratnam Singarasa case, involving a Tamil man arrested during the civil war, highlighted
human rights abuses and the challenges faced by victims in seeking justice. Despite international
pressure, Singarasa faced difficulties in obtaining justice within Sri Lanka's domestic legal
system.

Moreover, there are aids of interpretation. It is important that using aids done through various
tools, it evolved for a long period of time by courts and aids facilitate to determine the intention
of the legislature at the time of enacting a particular statute. There are two types of aids such as,
internal aids and external aids. Internal aids are key part of the statutes. Internal aids are key part
of the statute. They are title, preamble, definition, sections, illustration etc. they are very
important to identify the purposes, scope of the statute. External aids are resorted to when
ambiguity persists even after exhausting the internal aids. External aids like parliamentary
debates and dictionaries can be used to determine the intent of the legislature in a true sense. In
B. Prabhakar Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh, where internal aids are unavailable external aids
can be used to determine the purpose of legislation, a principle now widely accepted in modern
statutory construction.

A constitution is a fundamental legal document that outlines the principles, structures, powers,
and functions of a government. It establishes the basic framework for governance and defines the
rights and duties of citizens. Constitutional interpretation refers to the methods and principles
used by courts, particularly constitutional or supreme courts, to interpret and apply the provisions
of a constitution. It plays a crucial role in shaping the meaning of constitutional text and
resolving conflicts between laws, governmental actions, and individual rights.

They are distinctions between constitutional texts and ordinary statutes. First one is that
constitutional Text has broader scope. According to the statutes, typically focus on specific areas
of law and have a more definite, narrow scope, addressing particular legal issues. And, according
to the Constitution has broader, open-ended instruments that establish the fundamental principles
and framework for the functioning of the state. It provides long-term, overarching governance
structures and are intended to endure over time. When talking about amendment Process, statutes
can generally be amended through a relatively simple legislative process, requiring only a
majority vote in the legislative body. But constitutions have a more rigid amendment process,
often requiring a higher threshold, such as supermajorities in parliament or approval through
referendums. This complexity ensures stability and prevents frequent changes.

Veridia's education and religious freedom are crucial in public discourse, reflecting the nation's
relationship with diverse religious communities. The state promotes national unity through
secular education while protecting religious freedom. However, tensions have arisen between
state regulation and religious minorities' rights, particularly regarding the Religious Education
Act. The analysis suggests that while the Act aims for national unity, it should balance
government regulation with individual freedom protection to maintain constitutional integrity
and social harmony in Veridia.

The constitutional issue at hand revolves around the right to education free from government
interference, as outlined in Article 12 of the Constitution. This right allows every citizen to
access education without undue government interference, ensuring the autonomy of educational
institutions, including private and faith-based schools. Any law or policy that restricts education
content, particularly in religious contexts, may be deemed a violation of this fundamental right.
Article 18 grants freedom of religion, subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly in public
order, morality, or health. The Religious Education Act (REA) may conflict with this provision
by imposing uniform curriculum requirements on religious schools, potentially limiting their
ability to teach faith-specific doctrines. The key legal issue is determining whether the REA's
restrictions are reasonable and necessary for broader societal objectives. Article 45 grants the
government the power to enact laws for national unity and public welfare, justifying the REA to
foster unity and prevent religious divisiveness. The balance between governmental authority and
individual rights is crucial in achieving these broader national goals.

There are the different approaches to constitutional interpretation. It depends on the reasonings
of courts. Such as, textualism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that emphasizes the
literal meaning of the text as it was understood at the time of its enactment. This approach does
not rely on external factors, such as the intent of the framers, societal changes, or the potential
consequences of a decision. The focus is strictly on the words as written.

Application to the Religious Education Act (REA), Textualism applies to the REA, focusing on
the plain language of Articles 12 and 18, and how the REA aligns or conflicts with them. Article
12 guarantees the right to education, and a textualist would analyze the specific wording to
determine if it is meant to be free from religious or governmental interference. If the REA
imposes conditions that alter or restrict this right based on religious considerations, a textualist
may argue that the plain language of Article 12 is violated. Article 18 protects freedom of
religion, and a textualist would scrutinize the specific language used to ensure the REA does not
encroach on individuals' religious freedoms, particularly in the context of education. If the REA
disrupts the balance between education and religious freedom, it could be deemed
unconstitutional. In case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a U.S. Supreme Court
case that ruled that state-sponsored segregation in public education violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case highlighted the importance of equal access to
education and the potential unconstitutionality of religious interference in a neutral education
setting.

Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation that seeks to understand the Constitution

based on the intent of the framers at the time it was written. It involves examining the historical
context, including the framers' views and societal conditions, to determine the meaning of
constitutional provisions. Originalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in line
with the original understanding of its text.

Application to the Religious Education Act (REA), an originalist approach to interpreting the
REA would involve looking at the historical context surrounding the drafting of the Veridian
Constitution, particularly the framers' views on education and religious freedom.

The historical records, debates, and societal attitudes toward education at the time would provide
insight into the framers’ intent. If the framers intended for education to be free from religious
interference, the REA could be seen as conflicting with this original intent. And article 18
(Freedom of religion), the framers’ views on religious freedom would also be key. Originalists
would assess whether the framers intended for religion to be kept separate from state-run
education, or whether they envisioned a role for religious teachings within certain public
institutions. If the framers sought to protect individual religious autonomy and prevent the state
from imposing any religious views through education, the REA may be seen as violating this
principle. In case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that
ruled that public funds should not be used to reimburse parents for transportation costs to
parochial schools, despite the court upholding the practice but reinforcing the separation between
church and state.

Living Constitutionalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that views the Constitution as

a dynamic document that evolves with societal changes. Under this approach, constitutional
provisions are interpreted considering current values, norms, and circumstances, rather than
being confined to the original intent of the framers or the literal meaning of the text. It allows the
Constitution to adapt to new realities and challenges that were not foreseen at the time it was
written.

Application to the Religious Education Act (REA), A living constitutionalist would interpret the
REA by considering contemporary societal needs, particularly in the context of education and
religion, and how the Constitution should be applied to meet those needs in today’s world. In
case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court established the Lemon Test to
determine if a law or government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment. The Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law providing financial aid to religious schools
violated the Constitution by promoting religion. This decision emphasized the importance of
maintaining a secular educational environment free from government endorsement of religion.
Living constitutionalists argue that the Religious Education Act (REA) may fail the Lemon Test
by promoting a particular religious viewpoint.

Judicial Pragmatism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that focuses on practical outcomes

and the real-world consequences of judicial decisions. Unlike more rigid interpretive methods
like textualism or originalism, judicial pragmatism emphasizes balancing competing interests to
ensure decisions that are workable, beneficial to society, and contextually relevant. This
approach often involves considering the social, political, and economic implications of a ruling
rather than strictly adhering to the text or historical context of the law. In the context of the
Religious Education Act (REA), a pragmatic judge would focus on balancing the Government
Interests vs. Individual Rights, Balancing Competing Interests, Practical Consequences etc. A
judicial pragmatist would interpret the constitutionality of the REA as a balanced solution that
balances government concerns about educational standards and national unity with religious
freedom and the right to education, aiming to ensure a workable solution that benefits society,
considering both legal principles and practical realities.

In conclusion, A living constitutionalist would evaluate if the Religious Education Act (REA)
aligns with societal goals like unity, tolerance, and individual rights. Critics argue that the Act
may exacerbate divisions and marginalize students who do not follow religious teachings.
However, if religious education serves a public interest, such as promoting moral values or
cultural understanding, a living constitutionalist might argue that the REA could be justified if
implemented with respect for all students' rights.

References
 Veridia Constitution: Article 12, Article 18, Article 45
 Veridia Parliamentary Records on the Religious Education Act (REA)
 Case laws: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Employment Division v.
Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
 Berman, Mitchell N. "Constitutional Theory and Judicial Pragmatism." University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 125, No. 3 (1995): 685-750.