INTERPRETITION DEFINATION
Meaning of Interpretation
The term interpretation literally means "To give meaning to" a particular thing.
Governmental power has been divided into three tiers namely the legislature, the
executive and the judiciary. The primary function of the judiciary is the Interpretation of
the Statutes in the manner in which they were intended. It is the duty of the Court to
interpret the Act and give meaning to each and every word of the Statute.
Meaning of the term 'Statute' -The term 'Statute' can be defined precisely as, "the will of
the legislature". Basically, Statute is the will of the legislature for the people, by the
representatives of the people.
A Statute is an Act passed by the legislature. Statute is "Sententia legis" It means, "the spirit
of law and intention of the legislature".A Statute is made by the Parliament or State
Legislature.
To interpret means, to show or make clear, translate, explain the meaning of (either in
words, or by artistic performance) (interpretation' is an act of interpreting, explanation,
meaning, translation, exposition, etc.
The term "Construction' is an act or process or method of building or putting together. In
its legal terminology, it means a sense in which words, statements are taken. It is an
arrangement and relationship of words in a sentence.
Salmond defines - Interpretation is a process by which Courts seek to ascertain the
meaning of the legislations. Such interpretation is through the medium of authoritative
forms in which it is expressed.
Cross defines Interpretation is a process by which Courts determine the meaning of a
statutory provision. It is for the purpose of applying it to the situations before them.
Prof. Gray defines - Interpretation is a process by which a Judge constructs the words from
a statute book. He constructs a meaning which he believes to be that of legislature or
which he proposes to attribute to it.
Justice Hidayatullah defines Interpretation as a rule of construction of statutes that the
judicature, in their interpretation, have to discover and act upon the meaning or sententia
legis (logical meaning). Normally, Courts do not look beyond the litera legis (literal
meaning).
In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. Vs. Asher, Lord Denning has observed "A Judge must not alter
the material of which the Act is woven but he can and should iron out the creases".
In Tejkumar Balkrishna Rula vs. A.K. Mohan, the Court explained interpretation as
follows: "The Court must interpret the law as it needs. While a purpose interpretation is
permissible, where two interpretations are possible, the purposive interpretation must be
such as it preserves the constitutionality of the provision".
In Nathibai vs. Maheswari Samaj Ramola Trust, the Court held "interpretation means that
it is not open to Courts to curtail or enlarge the provision beyond obvious meaning.
Interpretation has to carry the object and meaning without destruction"
In Santi Swarup Sarkar vs. Pradeep Kumar Sarkar The Supreme Court held that if two
interpretations are possible of the same statute, the one which validates the statute must
be preferred.'
The Supreme Court R.S. Nayak v A.R. Antulay has held that, if the words of the Statute are
clear and unambiguous, it is the duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of
the words used in the provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an
ambiguity otherwise the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self
defeating.
THE OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION
The Object Of Interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature
conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used. As stated by SALMOND, “by
interpretation or construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain
the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is
expressed.”
Elaborate rules of interpretation were evolved even at a very early stage of Hindu
civilization and culture. The rules given by ‘Jaimini’, the author of Mimamsat Sutras,
originally meant for srutis were employed for the interpretation of Smritis also.
In the process of interpretation, several aids are used. They may be statutory or non-
statutory. Statutory aids may be illustrated by the General Clauses Act, 1897 and by specific
definitions contained in individuals Acts whereas non-statutory aids are illustrated by
common law rules of interpretation (including certain presumptions relating to
interpretation) and also by case-laws relating to the interpretation of statutes.
In Santi Swarup Sarkar Vs. Pradeep Kumar Sarkar (AIR 1997 Cal 201)
The Supreme Court held that, if two interpretations are possible for a legislation, the
interpretation that validates the statutes and shorten the legislation should be preferred
than that which invalidates or prolongs the legislation. In this context, it was held that the
Courts must avoid multiplicity of legislation.
Thus, the Parliament and State legislatures make the laws, but the executive and the
judiciary apply them. If there is any doubt about the meaning of any provision in the
legislation, it is the duty of the Courts to interpret it.
IMPORTANCE OF INTERPRETATION:
In modern times, the Acts and Rules are drafted by legal experts and while drafting, they
take maximum effort to use the correct language so that the meaning is not vague and
does not give room for interpretation. However, while applying the law, quite often,
difficulties arise to know the meaning of the words used, as words tend to have different
meanings in different contexts and circumstances.
The will of the legislature is expressed generally in the form of statute and it is for the Court
to find out the real intention of the legislature from the language used in the statute. Thus
the need for interpretation/construction becomes necessary.
However the Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and hence it was necessary to
evolve principles to find out the real meaning for the language used in the legislature. Thus
the interpretation of statutes has developed in a large way, to be studied separately.
According to Cooley, Interpretation is "the art of finding out the true sense of any form of
words;" ie., the sense "which their author intended to convey;" and of enabling others to
derive from them "the same idea which the author intended to convey".
Some Important points to be remembered at the time of interpretation of Statutes may
be as follows:-
(a) Statute must be read as a whole in Context
(b) Statute should be construed in a manner so that they are made Effective, practical
and Workable. If a statutory provision is ambiguous, vague, unclear and confusing
and capable of various constructions, then those constructions must be adopted
which will give meaning and effect to the other provisions of the enactment rather
than that which will give none.
(c) The process of construction combines both the literal and purposive approaches. The
purposive construction rule highlights that one should shift from literal construction
at that very moment when it is thought that it would lead to absurdity and
ambiguity.
(d) Statutes may appear simple at first glance, but upon closer examination, they may
not directly address legal issues due to ambiguous or vague terms. This is because
the legislature did not consider the specific factual situation when drafting the
statute. Additionally, changes in circumstances may require the old statute to be
applied to new issues, which the legislature could not have foreseen or anticipated.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
Although the words 'Interpretation' and 'Construction' convey the same meaning to
a common man and are used interchangeably and synonymously by many, there exists a
fine difference between the two of them. Interpretation means the art of finding out the
true sense of an enactment by giving the words their natural and ordinary meaning.
Whereas construction means drawing conclusions on the basis of the true spirit of the
enactment even though the same does not appear if the words used in the enactment are
given their natural meaning.
Thus, in simple terms it can be said that, in Interpretation, we find out the true
meaning of the words used in the enactment but in construction we draw the real sense of
the enactment itself which might not prima facie reflected by the words used in the
enactment.
However, a thin line of distinction was often drawn between Interpretation and
construction in the good old days when the judges had uncharted freedom of judicial
legislation. Cooley made an effort to distinguish between Interpretation and construction.
According to him, Interpretation is the art of finding out the true sense of any form of
words and enabling others to derive from them the same meaning which the author
intended to convey, Whereas construction is the process of drawing conclusions,
respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text, which are in the spirit
though not within the letter of law. It is hard to find out the difference, yet not altogether
impossible.
Cooley says: "Interpretation differs from construction in the sense that the
interpretation' is the art of finding out the true sense of any form of words, ie the sense
which their author legislature intended to convey and of enabling others to derive from
them the same idea which the author/legislature intended to convey, The term
'construction on the other hand, is the drawing of conclusions, respecting subjects that lie
beyond the direct expression of the text from elements known from and given in the text
conclusions. which are in the spirit though not within the letter of law",
Construction on the other hand, is the drawing of conclusion of respective subjects that lie
beyond the direct expression of the text from elements known from and given in the text;
conclusions which are in the spirit though not within the letter of the law." This view of
Cooley has been supported by the Supreme Court in Re-Sea Customs Act, and The
Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Hassmatunnisa Begum. But, in common usage, the words
that are construction and interpretation are taken as synonymous of each other and are
also used synonymously.
One school of jurists say, Interpretation is 'the art of finding out the true sense (meaning) of
any form of words i.e., what the author intended to convey and of enabling others to
derive from them the same idea which the author intended to convey'.
The words Interpretation and construction are generally used synonymously even though
jurisprudentially they are perhaps different.
However, in modern times when statutes are enacted after great deliberation and careful
scrutiny, the freedom of judicial legislation curbed to a great extent and as such the
distinction between Interpretation and construction hardly exist Regarding the distinction
forwarded by Cooley, Sutherland stated that the distinction is 'erroneous'. Such distinction
is, according to him is based on the wrong assumption that Interpretation determines the
meaning of words, and construction determines the application of words to facts, for one
process cannot exclude the other, or if one does, it means that Interpretation must include
construction or that there is no such thing as Interpretation and that all is construction.
Salmond does not distinguish between the terms Interpretation and construction. Justice
White also confirmed the above view of Salmond. In United States vs F.W. Keitel (211 US
370:53 Law Ed 230) Justice White observed that although there is some distinction
between them, they are so hard to disentangle that they cannot afford a suitable basis for
discussion; and in common usage Interpretation and construction are usually understood
as having the same significance.
According to Dias, it is difficult to distinguish between Interpretation and construction,
since it is difficult to say when Interpretation leaves off and construction begins. He further
stated that the distinction between the two is so thin that it is hard to distinguish between
them.
Interpretation Construction
1. In law, interpretation refers to exposing 1. Construction, on the other hand, refers
the true sense of the provisions of the to drawing conclusions from the written
statutes and to understand the exact texts which are beyond the outright
meaning of the words used in any text. expression of the legal text.
2. Interpretation refers to the linguistic 2. The purpose of construction is to
meaning of the legal text. determine the legal effect of words and
the written text of the statute.
3. In the case where the simple meaning of 3. In the case where the literal meaning
the text is to be adopted then the concept of of the legal text results in ambiguity then
interpretation is being referred to. the concept of construction is adopted
GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETITION
RULES OF INTERPRETATION : There are certain rules which limit the power of the
interpretation, and these general rules can be studied under the following heads.
I. INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATORS: The conventional interpretation of a statute is to seek
the intention of its maker, as words are not scientific symbols with precise meanings. This
makes it difficult for even imaginative legislatures to foresee situations and circumstances
that may emerge after enacting a statute. The meaning of words can refer to different
referents in different contexts and times, making it difficult to interpret. The legislature can
amend or repeal a previous statute to declare its meaning as intended to convey, which can
only be done by a fresh statute after going through the normal process of law making.
Some words have both a hard central core of meaning and a dim fringe, leading to sharp
differences of opinion and interpretation to find the intention of its maker.
Words with indefinite'referents' lack clarity and precision, leading to controversial
questions of construction. Courts are called "finishers, refiners, and polishers of
legislation," and every process of construction is a search for 'intention' either express or
implicit in the statute. The most fair and rational method for interpreting a statute is by
exploring the intention of the Legislature through the most natural and probable signs,
such as the words, context, subject-matter, effects and consequence, or the spirit and
reason of the law. A right construction of the Act can only be achieved if its whole scope
and object, along with an analysis of its wording and circumstances, are taken into
consideration.
The Quarry Owners Association Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2870:Words in statute
Dynamic meaning which gives full thrust and satisfaction to achieve objectivity intended by
legislature is to be adopted.To conclude, it is expected that the judges should only assume
the role of interpreters and not the role of reformers which belong to the legislators, and if
they do so, such decisions can be overruled and nullified legislators.
II. STATUTE TO BE MADE EFFECTIVE AND WORKABLE: The Courts are strongly against a
construction which makes a statute to a futility or nullity. A statute or any provision therein
must be so construed as to make it effective and operative "on the principle expressed in
the maxim: ut res magis valeat quam pereat". Every statute is designed to be workable, and
the interpretation by a Court should be to secure that object. Unless the words were so
absolutely senseless, it is necessary to find some meaning, and not to declare them void for
uncertainty. If there are two interpretations and if it narrowly fails to achieve the purpose
of the legislation, one should avoid such construction. He should accept broader
construction only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result.Now-a-days
purposive construction is gaining momentum.
The Quarry Owners Association Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2870:Every word is
flexible to give a different meaning, when used in different context. Words are not static
but dynamic and Courts must adopt its dynamic meaning to uphold the validity of any
provision. This dynamism is the cause of saving many statutes from their being declared
void.
III. STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE: The meaning of a provision in a statute can be
determined by examining the statute as a whole, considering its context, previous state of
the law, and other statutes. The intention of the Legislature can also be found by reading
the statute as a whole, known as an "elementary rule" or "compelling rule". Inaccuracy and
inconsistency in any part of the instrument must be considered. The court must ascertain
the Legislature's intention by examining the entire statute, not just the clauses to be
construed. The language used by the Legislature must be examined in its widest sense,
including other enacting provisions, the preamble, existing state of the law, other statutes
in pari materia, and other legitimate means. The principle of reading a statute as a whole
applies to different parts of the same section, and it is not permissible to omit any part of
it.
In State of West Bengal vs. Union of India : Court must ascertain the intention of the
legislature by directing the attention to the entire Statue. It must compare clause with
other parts of law.
In Bhatia International vs. Bulk trading: The court held that the roots of the past, facts of
the present and seeds of the future must be taken into account. We must not concentrate
too much on one word and too little attention to other words should not be read in
isolation.
In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. G.S.Dall and Flour Mills: The court held that a Statute must
be read as a whole.
IV. IF STATUTE'S MEANING IS PLAIN, EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN (IRRESPECTIVE OF
CONSEQUENCES): When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they
refer to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective
of consequences whether bad or good.. When a language is plain and ambiguous and
admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute arises, for the Act
speaks for itself and even if meaning is strange, surprising, unreasonable, unjust or
oppressive.
V. APPRAISAL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PLAIN MEANING: For a proper application of the rule
of interpretation to a given statute, it is first necessary to determine whether the language
used is plain or ambiguous. 'Ambiguous' means a phrase fairly and equally open to diverse
and different meanings. A provision is not ambiguous, just because it contains a word
which in different contexts is capable of different meanings. Ambiguity should not be
assumed where there is none. If the language is fairly and reasonably open to only one
meaning, hardship or inconvenience or surprising results are no considerations for refusing
to give effect to that meaning
In Union of India vs. Devki Nandan & Org, held that the powers of judges to interpret the
Statute are not unlimited.They have following limited powers:
(i) Court cannot rewrite, recast, reframe, etc.
ii) Court cannot go beyond Central Rules of Interpretation.
(iii) Court shall decide what law is and not what it should be.
(iv) Court cannot add words to a Statute or read words into which are not there
(v) Court cannot legislate
(vi) Statute should be constructed to make it effective.
VI. MORALITY AND INTERPRETATION: Morality, or moral standards, is a crucial aspect of
interpreting statutes, similar to Law and Justice. Ethics focus on principles affecting human
conduct, determining the standard of right and wrong. Law may contain minimum ethics,
but these rules are not obligatory. Positive morality is actual moral standards adopted in a
community, enforced by public opinion. It determines the upper and lower limits of the
effective operation of law. Law resembles religion more closely than ethics, as religion
believes that sanction for immoral acts will be through God's authority. Morality helps
develop legal rules and fills gaps in the legal system and statute interpretation. Morality
and law reciprocally influence each other, with moral standards being the concern of law in
both private and public settings. Moral standards have been inherited through centuries by
ancestors' codes of conduct, determined by religious precepts.
