Interpretation of Statutes

Module 2
Interpretation

➢Latin term interpretari which means “to explain, to expound, to

understand or to translate.”

➢Interpretation is the process by which the court seeks to ascertain the

meaning of a particular legislation, what the legislature has actually
said and what the legislature intended to have said.
• There are 3 organs of the state
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary
• Legislature enacts the law
• Executive implements the law
• Interpretation is done by judiciary
• Process whereby the courts determine the true meaning of the words
employed in a statute
Interpretation
➢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.”
➢Ancient Indian Philosophy – Jaimini’s Mimansa - rules of
interpretation.
➢Benjamin Cardozo lamented that “life is too complex” to make
attainable “a code at once so flexible and so minute, as to supply in
advance for every conceivable situation the just and fitting rule.”
Interpretation and Construction
➢Charles Cooley - "Interpretation differs from construction. Interpretation is the
art of finding out the true sense of any form of words; construction, on the
other hand, is the drawing of conclusions respecting subjects that are beyond
the direct expression of the text; conclusions which are in the spirit, though not
within the letter of the law.“
➢White J., in United States v. F. W. Keitel held “In common usage interpretation
and construction are usually understood as having the same significance.”
➢ Only for academic discussion
Needs of Interpreting Statutes
Problems of Language
1) Problem of Indirect Communication
2) Ambiguity
Eg. The Bill was killed in the house.
The bill (a man) was murdered in the house (home)
The bill (a man) was murdered in the house (Parliamentary house)
The bill (a document) was destroyed in the house (someone s home)
The bill (a document) was destroyed in the house (Parliamentary house)
Needs of Interpreting Statutes

Ambiguity can be
1. Lexical or Semantic Ambiguity
A word with more than one meaning
2. Syntactical or Grammatical or Structural Ambiguity
Eg. The skinny General’s daughter got 1st rank in LL.B
Needs of Interpreting Statutes
3. Vagueness
Vague means not precise or exact in meaning.
Eg. poor, rich, tall, short, big, sufficient, enough etc.
4. Technicality of Legal Language
Eg. Words in definition clause.
Needs of Interpreting Statutes
5. Presumptive Legal Behavior v. Real Factual
Behavior
Statutes - to avoid or permit a particular presumed type of
future action, whereas,
Courts - concerned with real factual case, which
sometimes may and sometimes may not be covered by the
express language of Statutes.
Needs of Interpreting Statutes

6. Hasty Legislation

7. Clerical Mistakes
Objects of Interpretation

➢Determination of Meaning

➢Finding the Intention of the Legislature

Restrictions/Limits on Judicial Interprétation

➢Interpret not Legislate

➢Discover not Invent

➢Remove not Add

Subjects of Interpretation
➢Constitution
➢Legislation including Statutes, Ordinances, Orders or
Subordinate Legislation
➢Agreements - Any kind of agreement if enforceable
under law.
➢Other Instruments - Wills, Gift Instruments, Trusts
Instruments, Dying Declarations etc.
Sources of Interpretation

➢Rules of Interpretation

➢Aids for Interpretation

➢General Clauses Act, 1897

Refer:
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Others (1988)
Rules of Interpretation
➢Literal Rule

➢Golden Rule

➢Mischief Rule
Literal Rule
• Unless there is any ambiguity in the language of the provisions the court
should adopt literal construction if it doesn’t lead to any absurdity.
• Oldest rule of construction still in use
• The judges are not in any way allowed to add or modify the letter of law.
• They should strictly follow the language and directly translate the meaning.
• Also known as Plain rule of interpretation.
• Basis – Because Judges may not legislate
• Words, phrases and sentences are to be interpreted by using natural,
ordinary or popular meaning.
• If clear, unambiguous and admits only one meaning, the judge should
accept it and enforce even if its harsh.
• The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law means
Literal Rule
• It prevents the court from taking sides in legislative or political issues.
• Words must be considered in the sense which they bore when the
statute was enacted
• The language employed is a determinative fact of the legislative
intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no mistake
• It prevents the court from taking sides in legislative or political issues.
• Words must be considered in the sense which they bore when the
statute was enacted
• The language employed is a determinative fact of the legislative
intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no mistake
Literal Rule
When the words of a statute are plain, clear and unambiguous, the
courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the
consequences -> Nelson Mortis v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1981
Abley v. Dale (1851) 11 CB 378
If the precise words are plain and unambiguous, in our judgement, we
are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense, even through it so
lead in our view of the case to an absurdity or manifest injustice.
Literal Rule
Rihitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, AIR 2013 SC 30,
The SC laid down that there may be a statute which cause great hardship
or inconvenience, the court has no choice but to enforce it in full rigour.
Hardship can’t be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language,
if such meaning is clear.
Literal Rule
Application of Rule
Fischer v. Bell (1961)1QB 394
Under offensive weapon act,1959, it is an offence to offer certain
offensive weapons for sale. Shopkeeper Bell displayed a 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 an
intention of sale but an invitation to treat
Literal Rule
• R v. Harris (1836)
The defendant bit the nose of the victim. Statute states the offence was
to stab, cut or wound.
Literal rule-> biting is not stabbing, cutting or wounding
Literal Rule
Advantage of Rule:
• No scope for judging own opinion
• Upholds the separate powers
• Encourages drafting precision, promotes certainty and reduce litigation
Literal Rule
Disadvantage of Rule:
• It is not always easy to determine whether a word is plain or not
• It is ill suited for modern social legislation
• It can’t be applied to the challenging needs of developing society
• It creates loopholes in law
Partridge v. Crittenden,(1968)2 A11 ER 421
Def -> Advertisement offering birds for sale
- offence to birds
It was an invitation to treat not an offer for sale
Literal Rule
• It can lead to injustice
London and North Eastern Railways v. Berriman(1946) AC 278
Railway worker was killed while oiling a track,
under statute compensation -> death of worker
‘replacing or relaying trade’
Hence no compensation
RAMAVATAR VS. ASSISTANT SALES TAX
OFFICER (1961)
Three writ petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the imposition of
sales tax on betel leaves by the Sales Tax Officer, Akola.
The contention of the petitioners was that under s. 6 read with the second schedule of
the Act betel leaves were not taxable. Under S. 6 of the Act articles mentioned in the
said Schedule were exempt from Sales Tax and articles not mentioned were taxable.
There were two items in the Schedule, namely, item 6, "vegetables", and item 36,
"betel leaves", but subsequently item No. 36 was omitted by an amendment of the Act.
It is contended that in spite of this omission they were exempt from Sales Tax as they are
vegetables.
Held, that the use of two distinct and different items i.e., "vegetables" and "betel leaves"
and the subsequent removal of betel leaves from the Schedule were indicative of the
Legislature’s intention of not exempting betel leaves from taxation.
The word "vegetable" must be interpreted not in a technical sense but in its popular sense
as understood in common language i.e., denoting a class of vegetables which are grown
in a kitchen garden or on a farm and are used for the table.
ALAVI v. SAFIA (1992)
A Muslim husband cannot refuse to give maintenance to his divorced
wife on the ground that she is living an immoral life. Section 3 of the
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights) on Divorce Act does not lay
down such a disqualification. It is not possible to read something into
the Act which is not there. It is a corollary to the general rule of literal
construction that nothing is to be added or taken from a statute unless
there are strong grounds to justify the inference that legislature
intended something which it omitted to state.
STATE OF KERALA v. MATHAI VARGHESE
(1986)
• Offence of counterfeiting money under Sec 489 A and B of IPC does
not use the word “Indian” before currency notes
• Offences are applicable to both Indian and foreign currency
KENYON VS. EASTWOOD (1888)
• An Act provided that order of committal should be in open court.
Magistrate passed it in a nearby room which was near the actual
courtroom.
• This room was also open to public.
• Applied literal rule and order was held invalid.
SHORT VS. MC.CARTHY(1820)
• The Statute of limitation provided that an action should not be
brought after the lapse of one year from the accrual of course of
action
• Actually, injured party could not discover the cause of action because
of the fraud of the wrongdoer
• Court did not entertain the suit and result was harsh and unjust
MANGULU SAHU RAMAHARI SABU VS. SALES
TAX OFFICER,ORISSA
• Writ petition was given under Art 227 to the HC to include chilli and lemon
in the category of Vegetables
• Writ petition quashed.
• Held that, in order to qualify lemon and chilli as a vegetable it should be a
principal object of food
• Appeal was moved to SC and SC allowed the appeal and held that chilly
and lemon can be included in the category of vegetables for sales tax
exemption
• Reason :- Vegetables are something which is grown in kitchen garden and
they are used for tables and chilly and lemon are grown in kitchen garden.
• In common parlance, chilly and lemon is considered as vegetable.
2 MAXIMS
• VERBIS LEGIS NON EST RECELENDUM
(FROM THE WORDS OF LAW, THERE SHOULD BE NO DEPARTURE
• VERBIS STANDUM UBI NULLA AMBIGUITAS
(ONE MUST ABIDE BY THE WORDS WHERE THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY)

Refer:
Khushboo Enterprises vs Forest Range Officer And Anr. (1992)
CRITICISM
• Judges started giving more importance to the literal meaning of the
statutory provisions without considering the wider text.
• 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, leads to prejudice.
Types of interpretation : Two types: Literal (Grammatical) and Functional
(Logical)
Literal ( Litera Legis-Letter of the Law) :Regard to the verbal expression of
law- Does not look beyond “litera legis”
Functional (Sententia Legis- Intention of the legislature) Also known as free
interpretation : Departs from the letter of the law
Looks beyond the letter of law to identify the true intention of the legislature
A balance needs to be sought between the two, between the letter and spirit
of the law.
The essence of the law lies in its spirit, not in its letter.
However, in ordinary cases, the courts must accept the litera legis as the
exclusive and conclusive evidence of sententia legis.
The Golden Rule
Rule of reasonable construction
• Golden rule is a modification of literal rule to be used to avoid an
absurd outcome
The Golden Rule seems to have originated in Matterson v. Hart,(1854)
14 CB 357, where Jervis CJ said as follows:
‘We must take recourse to what is called the golden rule as applied to
the Act of Parliament, viz, to give to the words used by the Legislature
their plain and natural meaning unless it is clear from the general scope
and intension of the statute injustices and absurdity would result from so
construing them’.
The Golden Rule
In Grey v. Pearson (1857) 6 HL 61 Lord Wensleydale restated the
Golden Rule
“In construing statute and all written instruments, the grammatical and
ordinary sense of the word is to be adhere to, unless that would lead to
some absurdity or some repugnancy or inconsistency with the rest of the
instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the
word may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity or inconsistency but
no further”
-The courts can interpret the words only to avoid the repugnancy or
absurdity
• Salmond points out that though the literal interpretation must be
accepted and applied as a general rule, but it should be applied very
carefully. It should not be followed if the statute is apparently
defective i.e it suffers from
• ambiguity b) inconsistency c) law in itself is incomplete.
• In such cases the court may go beyond the words of the statute and
take up help of other sources.
• This is called Golden Rule of Interpretation
• Maxwell in his book ‘ Interpretation of Statutes’explains the meaning
of Golden Rule as follows:
‘ The Golden Rule is that words of a statute mustprima facie be given
their ordinary meaning. At the same time , if the choice is between two
interpretations the narrower of which would fail to achieve the
manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction
which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept
the bolder construction based on view that parliament would legislate
only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result’.
The Golden Rule
Jugal Kishor v. Raw Cotton co ltd. AIR 1955 SC 376
“The cardinal rule of interpretation is to read the statute literally. If,
however, such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible
of another meaning the court may adopt the same. If no such alternative
construction is possible, the court may adopt the ordinary rule of
interpretation”
The Golden Rule
R v. Allen, (1872) LR 1 CCR 367
Defendant charged with bigamy
Statute provides “whoever being married shall marry any other person
during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an
offence”
Literal Rule – bigamy impossible as civil courts do not recognize
second marriage
Golden Rule – ‘Marry’ to be seen as ‘to go through ceremony’
The Golden Rule
In Re Sigsworth: Bedford v. Bedford (1935) Ch 89
Son murdered his mother and committed suicide, according to
succession laws, in the absence of a will, the next kin, ie, in this case
the son would inherit the property.
It could result in profiting from the crime – thus applied golden rule
The Golden Rule
Adler v. George (1964)2 QB 7
In Alder v. George to avoid an absurd result golden rule was applied. Under
section 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1920 it was an offence to obstruct H. M.
Forces ( British Royal Force) in the vicinity of a prohibited place.
Frank Adler had in fact been arrested whilst obstructing such forces within
such a prohibited place.
He argued that he was not in the vicinity of a prohibited place as he was
actually in a prohibited place. The court applied the golden rule to extend the
literal wording of the statute to cover the action committed by the defendant.
If the literal rule had been applied , it would have produced absurdity, as
someone protesting near the base would be committing an offence whilst
someone protesting in it would not.
State of Punjab v. O. J. Begum
Under Land Acquisition Act, an Appeal against an award should be
preferred within 6 months from the date of the award. Grammatical
interpretation
would lead to injustice if an aggrieved party is not given the right to
appeal where he comes to know about the award after six months
without any fault on his part.
Supreme Court applied Golden Rule and said the six months period will
reckoned from the date on which the award is communicated to the
party in question.
The Golden Rule
Lee v. Knapp (1967) 2 QB 442
S.77(1) of Road Traffic Act,1960
“A driver causing accident shall stop after accident”
Section 77 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 required the driver of the motor
vehicle to stop after an accident. In this case the driver stopped his vehicle
and driven away. The question arised here is ‘within how many second or
minutes’ the driver should stop the vehicle if any accident occurs. The court
applied the Golden Rule and interpreted the term ‘shall stop’ is properly to
be construed as meaning the driver of the vehicle shall stop till the
authorities come.
DAY VS SIMPSON
• THE THEATRES ACT, prescribed penalty for the performance without
license on the stage
• Group of players performed the play in a chamber below the stage,
reflected by the mirrors, appeared to the audience as it was on the
stage, bound to take license under the act
State’s power to regulate industrial alcohol:
State of Uttar Pradesh v Lalta Prasad Vaish (2024)
By 8:1 majority, the Supreme Court overturned Synthetics and Chemicals v
State of Uttar Pradesh (1990) which held that “intoxicating liquor” under
Entry 8 of the State List referred only to potable liquor and industrial alcohol
is not included in the term ‘intoxicating liquor’ taking it out of the scope of
states’ powers to levy tax on industrial alcohol.
On 23 October 2024, eight out of nine judges upheld state governments’
power to regulate industrial alcohol, opening up a massive source of revenue
for states. Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, holding that the supremacy of
the Union government in controlling Scheduled Industries is clear in the
constitutional and legislative framework.
Entry 8 of List II (State List) in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian
Constitution deals with "Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production,
manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating
liquors". This means that the state governments have the power to legislate
on matters related to the production, manufacture, possession, transport,
purchase, and sale of alcoholic beverages
Mischief Rule
• When the words in a statute leads to one or more interpretation, the
court must adopt the interpretation that would suppress the mischief
and advance the remedy
• It was propounded by Lord Coke in 1584 while deciding Heydon’s
case.
• Popularly known as rule in Heydon’s case.
• Applied to find out what parliament meant.
Mischief Rule
Heydon’s case (1584) 74 ER 67
Lord Coke described the process through which the court must interpret legislation.
“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:
1. What was the common law before the making of the Act?+
2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.
3. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of
the commonwealth. And,
4. The true reason of the remedy;
and then 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 (for private advantage), and to add force and life to the cure
and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the ct, pro bono publico.(for the public
good)
• After considering the four aspects, the judge has to make such a
construction which would suppress the mischief and advance the
remedy
• where the word are open to only one meaning and no alternative
construction is reasonably open, this rule has no application
Mischief Rule
• Smith v. Hughes (1960) 1 WLR 830
Street Offences Act, 1959 prohibited prostitutes soliciting from the streets.
It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to solicit in the street or public
place for the purpose of prostitution.
Defendant was a common prostitute.
Solicited men passing through the street for prostitution from balcony.
She contended that balcony is not in street and no offence.
The court held that her solicitation is projected to and addressed to somebody
walking in the street.
So Mischief rule is applied
Mischief Rule
• Elliot v. Grey [1967] 1 QB 367
The defendant’s car was parked on the road. It was jacked up and had its
battery removed. He was charged with the offence under the Road
Traffic Act for using an uninsured vehicle. The defendant argued he was
not “using” car on the road as it was not drivable.
Applied Mischief Rule - The car was being ‘used on the road’
It represented a hazard and hence insurance would b required in the
event of an accident.
Mischief Rule
• Corkery v. Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102
The defendant was riding his bicycle under the influence of alcohol
S.12 of the Licensing Act, made it an offence to be drunk in charge of a
‘carriage’ on highway
The court applied Mischief Rule holding that riding a bicycle was
within a mischief on the act.
TUKKARAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Sensational case which led to major Amendment in IPC and Evidence Act.
15 year old harijan girl was raped by 2 constables Ganpat and Tukkaram.
The Sessions court acquitted the accused.
Bombay High Court found both the accused guilty.
Supreme Court acquitted the accused as girl could not prove that she did not give consent.
The judgement of Supreme court which led to widespread criticism.
After the judgement Sec 376(2) and Sec 376 (A)(B)(C)(D) were inserted in IPC making
custodial rape liable to greater punishment.
Sec 114 A was newly inserted in Indian Evidence Act which lays down a presumption of
absence of consent in rape cases.
Burden of proving the consent is on the accused. The true reason for introduction of these
new sections is to suppress the mischief of custodial rape and heavy burden of proof on
rape victims and to bring maximum justice to rape victims.
KELAPPAN v. STATE
Two males and two females were found in an untimely manner in
school varandh.
Prosecuted under sec 74 of Kerala Police Act according to which willful
entry into public buildings without reasonable cause was punishable.
Accused contended that they have not caused any criminal trespass.
Court rejected the contentions and held them liable.
Object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of public buildings by anti
social elements.
Basic Principles of Interpretation

➢Intention of the Legislature (mens legis/ intentia legis)

➢If more than one meaning is possible the court to choose that
interpretation which represents the true intention of legislature
➢intention of Legislature – two aspects – meaning and purpose or
object
➢ meaning of the words in the light of purpose gives true
meaning or legal meaning
Basic Principles of Interpretation

➢Statute must be read as a whole in its context

➢ also applicable to different parts of the same section
➢i.e. section has to be read as a whole
➢Attar Singh v. Inder Kumar, 1967
➢Statute must be read as a whole in its context
Attar Singh v. Inder Kumar (1967)
S. 13(a)(ii) of Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 enables a landlord to obtain
possession in the case of rented land if
a) he requires for his own use.
b) he is not occupying in the urban area for the purpose of his business any other
such rented land
c) he has not vacated such rented land without sufficient cause after the
commencement of the act in the urban area
HC held that close (a) “for his own use” permitted the landlord to claim eviction
for his own use whatever the nature
SC reversing the HC decision held that clause (a) was restricted to business use by
clause (b) and (c) if restricted meaning were not given the latter two clauses would
become inapplicable
 ‘"ut res magis valeat quam pereat"’

translates to- ‘It is better for a thing to have effect than to be void’.

A statute to be construed to make it effective and operative

In legal contexts, this maxim emphasizes that when interpreting statutes,

contracts, or other legal documents, a construction that gives effect to the
document should be preferred over one that would nullify or invalidate it.
Essentially, courts should strive to uphold the validity and enforceability
of legal instruments rather than interpreting them in a way that renders
them ineffective.
• A law should not be declared invalid just because it is vague or unclear.
• When the courts interpret a law, the primary goal is to ensure that the law
remains valid and effective.
• When determining the constitutionality of a law, the courts should start
with the assumption that the law is constitutional.
• The correct interpretation of a law is one that aligns with the intention of
the lawmakers. The legislature’s goal is to make all parts of the law useful
for achieving its intended purpose.
• Interpreting a law in a way that makes any part of it useless or unworkable
goes against the legislature’s intent.
• Courts have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional, but they
should not introduce vagueness or unconstitutionality into a law by
adopting an unusual interpretation or construing it in a specific manner.
Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab (1965) SC
• In the case of Avtar Singh v. the State of Punjab (1965) SC, there was a dispute
over the interpretation of Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The appellant
had been found guilty of stealing electricity from the Punjab State Electricity
Board under Section 39 of the Electricity Act. The respondent had also taken
action against him under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
• In his appeal, the appellant did not contest the fact that he had committed theft
but argued that his conviction was unlawful due to certain statutory provisions.
• Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 stated that anyone who dishonestly
abstracts, consumes, or uses energy would be considered to have committed
theft under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, according to Section 39, a person
found guilty would be punished under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
• Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 outlined the procedure for
prosecution and stated that no prosecution could be initiated against anyone for
an offence under the Act unless it was done at the behest of the Government, an
Electrical Inspector, or a person who was affected by the offence.
• The appellant argued that he could not be convicted under Section 39
because the required procedure for prosecution, as specified in
Section 50, had not been followed.
• The Supreme Court ruled that since the offence was related to the
Electricity Act and not the Indian Penal Code, the procedure outlined
in Section 50 must have been adhered to. Consequently, the
appellant’s conviction was overturned.
• In this case, the Court applied the doctrine of ‘ut res magis valeat
quam pereat,’ ensuring that the interpretation adopted did not
render Section 50 ineffective and pointless.
Rev. Manager Mark Netto v. State of Kerala A.I.R.1977 Ker
• Appellant the manager of a minority education institution admitted girls to a boys school –
district administration denied Admission under rule 12(3) of Kerala Education Rules 1959 under
which conditions were laid and permission of director of education was required.
Rule 12 (iii) is in the following terms:--
"Girls may be admitted into Secondary Schools for boys in areas and in towns where there are no
Girls' Schools and, in such cases, adequate arrangements should be made for the necessary
conveniences. The admissions will be subject to general permission of the Director in particular
Boys' Schools which will be specified by him.
The petitioner has amended the original petition to include a prayer to strike down Rule 12 (iii) of
Chapter VI, Kerala Education Rules, on the ground that it violates Article 30 (1) of the Constitution
which gives protection to religious minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of
their choice.
This is only in the nature of a regulation for discipline and morality. It does not interfere with the
power of administration of an educational institution by a minority community. Therefore, we do
not find any reason to hold that the rule in so far as it applies to religious minorities is invalid.
• Wider interpretation of rule will make it violative of Article 30 of the Constitution – Maxim
applied
Basic Principles of Interpretation
➢If meaning is plain, effect must be given to it irrespective of
consequence.
➢when words are clear plain and unambiguous i.e. they are
reasonable susceptible to only one meaning the courts are bound
to give effect to that meaning respective of the consequences
➢the Act speaks for itself
➢Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh, 1954
Basic Principles of Interpretation
➢Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh, 1954
Interpretation of 123(7) of Representation of the People Act 1951
Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, defines a corrupt
practice related to government assistance during elections. It prohibits candidates or
their agents from obtaining assistance for election prospects from specific classes of
government servants.
Issue: Persons employed by the father of the candidate and paid by him who assisted
the son in his election .
SC rejected an argument from the unsuccessful candidate that a candidate with rich
friends/relatives have an unfair advantage over a poor rival and is against the spirit of
law
SC held the spirit cannot be given effect in opposition to the plain language of the
sections of the act
Guiding Rules
1. Language of the statute should be read as it is
- attention to be laid on what has been said and what has not been said
-avoiding addition and substitution of words
• it is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an act unless it is
absolutely necessary to do so; similarly to substitute words
• in short, the court cannot reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has
no power to legislate
State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh AIR 2005 SC 294
Section 52(3) and 68 of the Forest Act as amended in Bihar provided for confiscation
of vehicle used in forest offence and do not provide for release of the vehicle on
payment of fine.
The State of Jharkhand appealed against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court,
which had allowed the release of a seized vehicle upon payment of a fine in lieu of
confiscation under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the Bihar Act, 1990.
• The Supreme Court underscored the fundamental principle that the
judiciary is bound by the clear and unambiguous language of the
statute. It rejected the notion of inferring additional powers, such as
levying fines in lieu of confiscation, where the statute did not
explicitly provide for them. The Court stressed that any gaps (casus
omissus) in the legislation should not be filled by judicial
interpretation unless there is a clear necessity explicitly indicated
within the statute's context.
Casus Omissus

• Latin for "omitted case":

• The casus omissus rule dictates that courts cannot supply omissions in a
statute by judicial interpretation, meaning if a specific situation or case is
not explicitly covered by a law, the court cannot step in to create a rule or
provision to cover that gap. This principle is rooted in the idea that it is the
legislature's role to make laws, while the judiciary's role is to interpret
them.
• The casus omissus rule is based on the separation of powers principle. It
prevents the judiciary from encroaching on the legislative domain by
creating new laws or provisions where the legislature has not.
• This principle promotes consistency and predictability in the application of
the law, as courts are discouraged from creating new legal provisions to fill
gaps
When omitted words can be supplied:
When the lacuna in the language is of such a nature that unless the
omitted is supplied the statute cannot operate or the true intention of
the legislature cannot be established the courts have added missing
words in the language of the statute to ensure that the law is not
turned to a nullity.
In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab ( 2005), section 304 A of IPC was
construed by the Supreme Court and Causes Omissus was supplied.
The expression rash and negligent as occurring in section 304 A has to
be read qualified by the word ‘gross’
Casus Omissus
• Basavantappa v. Dharwadkar, AIR 1987 SC 53
• Unni v. Nirmala Industries, AIR 1990 SC 933
• Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu, AIR 2001
SC 2699
• All 3 cases relate to construction of Rule 89 of Order
21 of the CPC after the amendment of Sec. 127 of the
Limitation Act, 1973 in 1976.
Casus Omissus
• O. 21 R. 89 – if any person claiming an interest in the
property sold in execution of a decree applies to have
the execution of sale set aside and deposits within
thirty days from the date of sale, five percent of the
purchase money for payment to the purchaser and the
amount payable to the decree holder for recovery of
which the sale was held, the court shall make an
order setting aside the sale.
Casus Omissus

• The period of limitation for applying under R. 89 was

also thirty days under S. 127 of Limitation Act,
1963.
• It was enlarged to sixty days by amendment in 1976.
• The object of amendment was stated as that thirty
days was considered too short for making the
deposit, often causing hardship.
Casus Omissus

• Having regard to the object of the amendment,

divisional bench in Dharwadkar held that not only
the period of limitation for making application was
extended but also the period for making the deposit.
• But this view was not accepted in Nirmala Industries
by three-judge bench on the reason that an omission
cannot be supplied by the Court.
Casus Omissus
• A five-judge bench in Ramulu overruled Nirmala
Industries. Though accepting that the court cannot make
up deficiencies left by the legislature, it was observed that
the court must try to harmonize the conflicting provisions.
• Thus in the view of this decision if an application for
setting aside a sale is made within sixty days and deposit
is also made within sixty days though beyond thirty days,
the court will have discretion to set aside the sale.
Ejusdem Generis
‘of the same kind’
• where the particular words are followed by General words the general words are
not to be constructed in their widest sense but should be constructed ejusdem
generis i.e. They are held to be intended to describe only other things of the same
kind as enumerated by particular words.
• When a statute lists specific items and then adds general words, the general words
are interpreted to include only items similar to those specifically listed, rather than
having a broad, unrestricted meaning.
• For example, when a statute includes a list of specific items (like "cars, trucks, and
motorcycles") followed by a general term (like "or other vehicles"), the rule of
ejusdem generis suggests that the general term ("other vehicles") should be
interpreted to include only things similar to those specifically listed (e.g., other
land-based vehicles like vans or buses).
• It is an ancient doctrine, commonly called Lord Tenterden's Rule, dating back to
Archbishop of Canterbury's Case in 1596.
Ejusdem Generis

• Conditions for application of the rule laid down by

SC in Amar Chandra v. Collector of Excise, Tripura
AIR 1972 SC 1863
• statutes contains an enumeration of words
• subjects of enumeration constitutes a class or category
• the class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration
• the general terms follow the enumeration and
• there is no indication of a different legislative intent
Ejusdem Generis

Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co., 1889 AC

143
S.1 of Betting Act prohibited betting in “a house,
office room or other places”
House of Lords following the rule restricted the words
“other places” to covered enclosures and betting in
uncovered place was held not to be prohibited
Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd v. UOI, 1989
• In this case, the Supreme Court applied the rule of ejusdem generis while
interpreting the general words 'any other process' under section 2(f) of the
Central Excise & Salt Act. This general word followed the specific words
which were "bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, printing, water-proofing,
rubberizing, shrink-proofing, organic processing". The Court here by
applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis held that "the specific words
from a class of process which is importing a change which is of lasting
nature. And therefore 'any other process' must share one or any other of
that process/incident".
• It was argued in the court that, though calendering is a process, it does not
meet the criterion of “any other processes” indicated in section 2(f)(v)
which include “bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, printing, water-proofing,
rubberizing, shrink-proofing, and organdic processing.”
Evans v. Cross (1938)
• In this case the court applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis to
interpret the term "other devices" within the context of "traffic
signals" under section 48(9)the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
• The court held that a painted line on a road did not fall under the
definition of "other devices" because it was not of the same nature as
the specific examples listed under the section were “all signals,
warning sign posts, direction posts signs or other device”.
• In the context of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, the principle of
ejusdem generis is relevant in interpreting the phrase "other
authorities".
• Supreme Court has generally avoided a strict application of ejusdem
generis when interpreting Article 12, favoring a broader
interpretation to ensure the protection of fundamental rights.
Refer: Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
(2002).
Noscitur a Sociis
• "Noscitur a sociis" is a legal principle meaning
"it is known by its associates."
• The meaning of a word to be judged from the
company it keeps.
• Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the
philosophy is that the meaning of a doubtful
word may be ascertained by reference to the
meaning of words associated with it.”
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
• One significant case where the rule of noscitur a sociis was thoroughly discussed
is the State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, dating back to 1960. In this
case, the Supreme Court rejected the application of the rule, but it examined its
scope. The judgment clarified that the noscitur a sociis rule is a tool for
interpreting laws. It cannot be used when the legislative intent is clear – that is,
when lawmakers intentionally use broad and unambiguous language. The
judgment also outlined the rule’s scope, stating that it can be employed when the
legislative intent is unclear because it associates broad words with those of
narrower meaning.
• The State of Bombay vs Hospital Mazdoor Sabha addresses the interpretation of
what constitutes an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This case
emerged from disputes between hospital employees and management,
specifically focusing on whether government hospitals could be classified as
industries and thus subject to the provisions of the Act.
• In this case, the State of Bombay argued that the term "industry"
should be interpreted narrowly, limited to profit-making enterprises,
and thus not include government hospitals. They contended that the
doctrine noscitur a sociis should be applied, as the term "industry"
was used alongside other terms which implied profit-making
activities.
• The court emphasized that the Industrial Disputes Act was intended
to protect workers and that the definition of "industry" should be
interpreted broadly to achieve this purpose. Therefore, the court
concluded that noscitur a sociis should not be used to restrict the
wide meaning of the term "industry" deliberately used by the
legislature.
Noscitur a Sociis
• Rainbow Steels Ltd v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, AIR 1981
• The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of "old
machinery" under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act.
• The core issue in Rainbow Steels was whether the sale of a thermal
power plant, which was in perfect working condition at the time of
sale, could be classified as "old machinery" under the relevant sales
tax notification. The notification specified "old, discarded,
unserviceable or obsolete machinery". The Supreme Court,
applying the principle of noscitur a sociis, interpreted "old" in light
of the accompanying words "discarded, unserviceable or obsolete“
• The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting legal terms
within their specific context, rather than in isolation.
Ejusdem Generis and Noscitur A Sociis
• Ejusdem Generis, meaning "of the same kind," restricts general words
to the class or category of the specific words preceding them.
• On the other hand, Noscitur A Sociis, meaning "to know by
association," interprets words based on the context of associated
terms, making it broader in scope.
Reddendo Singula Singulis

Meaning- ‘Referring each to each’

ie. Referring each phrase or expression to its corresponding object
• It's a principle of legal interpretation that dictates that when a sentence or phrase contains a list
of items and a qualifying phrase, the qualifying phrase should be applied to each item
individually, rather than to the list as a whole. This helps to clarify the meaning and avoid
misinterpretations.
Eg: In a sentence like "Pets, such as dogs, cats, and fish, must be kept in cages, on leashes, or in
aquariums," "on leashes" would logically apply to dogs, and "in aquariums" would apply to fish.
Consider the statutory phrase:
“Buildings, vehicles, and machinery used for manufacturing, transportation, or storage.”
Using Reddendo Singula Singulis, “manufacturing” would apply to machinery, “transportation”
to vehicles, and “storage” to buildings. This interpretation aligns the qualifiers with the
appropriate nouns based on context.
Reddendo Singula Singulis

• Different words in one part of the statute are to

be applied respectively to portions of sentence to
which they respectively relate.
Reddendo Singula Singulis
• K.V Kamath v. Rangappa Baliga & Co., AIR 1969
SC 504
• Proviso to Art. 304 of Constitution
“Provided that no bill or amendment for the purpose of
clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in legislature of a
state without the previous sanction of the President.”
Held – word “introduced” referred to bill and “moved”
referred to amendment.
Expressio unis est exclusio alterius

“the express mention of one thing implies the

exclusion of another.”
• Expressium facit cesare tacitum
• “what is expressed makes what is implied silent”
Expressio unis est exclusio alterius
• Where certain specific things, persons, properties, powers, obligations are
clearly expressed in the enactment it logically follows that the legislature
intends to cover only those expressed and excludes the others.
Example:
• If a law regulates "the sale of apples, oranges, and bananas," the maxim
suggests that the sale of other fruits is not regulated by that specific law.
Consider a law stating:
“Only doctors and nurses are allowed access to the hospital’s restricted area.”
Applying the Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius maxim, it is inferred that
other medical personnel (such as paramedics or medical assistants) are excluded
Expressio unis est exclusio alterius
• State of UP v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358
• S. 164 CrPC
"Any Presidency Magistrate, anyMagistrate of the first
class and any Magistrate of the second class specially
empowered in this behalf by State.
In a case where a confession had been recorded under s.
164(1) by a Magistrate of the second class not specially
empowered is not admissible in evidence.
Director General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan (2006)
The appellant in the present matter is Doordarshan who have decided not to
telecast the documentary film made by the respondent titled "Father, son
and Holy War".
• The Supreme Court of India addressed film censorship regulations under
the Cinematograph Act. Section 5-B of the Act outlined specific grounds for
film censorship. The Court ruled that no additional grounds could be
introduced beyond those explicitly mentioned. In the instant case, the
documentary of the respondent has been cleared by the Central Board for
Film Certification, the Film Certification Board, which is a body of experts
was obviously not of the view that the film promotes communal violence,
otherwise, the film would not have been certified by the Board for public
exhibition. In view of this background, we are unable to appreciate the
view taken by the Prasarbharti Board.
Generalia Specialibus non Derogant

• General things do not detract from special things

• Where there is a conflict between a general and a
special provision, the latter shall prevail.
• Means that, “for the purposes of interpretation of two
statutes in apparent conflict, the provisions of a
general statute must yield to those of a special one.”
Generalia Specialibus non Derogant

• A special provision should be given effect to the

extent of its scope, leaving the general provision to
control cases where the special provision does not
apply.
• If they are inconsistent with each other, such that it
cannot be harmonized by the case of the maxim, the
subsequent legislation repeals the earlier one.
Anvar P.V. v. P. K. Basheer & Ors
Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence
Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the
admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to
sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may
be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act…
The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a
special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read
with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia
specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It
appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the
admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the
case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly
governed by Sections 65A and 65B.
Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (AIR
1977 )
Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947("ID Act") puts a bar
upon advocates on appearing before authorities (such as the Labour
Courts and Tribunals) mentioned under the Act, without the consent of
the opposite side and the permission of the authority(s) in
consideration. While S 30 of Advocates Act allows advocates to appear
before any kind of court/tribunal.
By applying this maxim, the Supreme Court held that the special
provision in the Industrial Disputes Act would prevail in that regard
over the Advocates Act which was held to be a general piece of
legislation.
K. G. Suresh v. Union of India ( 2021)
Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition is that petitioner has challenged the
validity of Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007, (Act 56 of 2007). He has contended that the said provision is
against the authority or right conferred by Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961,
which speaks about the right of advocates to practice before any court or tribunal.
Petitioner has further stated that Government of India have notified Section 30 of
the Advocates Act, 1961, with effect from 15.06.2011, which according to him, is a
subsequent legislation and overrides Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. According to him, by virtue of Section 30 of
the Advocates Act, Section 17 of the Act 56 of 2007 is invalid.
The Kerala High Court declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing
parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under section 17
of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Contomporanea Exposito
Contomporanea exposito est optima et fortissimo, in
lege
• “A contemporary or contemporaneous exposition is
the best and strongest in law". This principle suggests
that when interpreting laws, especially older ones, the
best approach is to understand them in the way they
were understood at the time they were created,
considering the language, context, and intent of the
lawmakers during that period.
Contomporanea Exposito
• The language of a statute must be understood in the sense
in which it is understood in the statute when it was
passed.
• The maxim emphasizes the importance of historical
context when interpreting legal texts, particularly statutes.
Avoiding Modern Bias:
• By considering the contemporary understanding, courts
can avoid imposing modern interpretations that might not
align with the original intent of the law.
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam, (1981)
Court held that, the rule of construction by reference to contemporanea
expositio is a well established rule for interpreting a statute by reference to
the exposition it has received from contemporary authority, though it must
give way where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous.
J.K. Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills ... vs Union Of India – 1987
Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules before its amendment was as follows:-
"Rule 49. Duty chargeable only on removal of goods from the factory
premises or from an approved place of storage.
In 1980, Rule Amended to include goods even if it is not removed from the
premises. Supreme Court has observed that the maxim is applicable in
construing ancient statutes but not in interpreting acts which are
comparatively modern such as Central Excise Act.