Basic Principles of Interpretation Dr Ananya Bibave Synopsis

Basic Principles of Interpretation Dr. Ananya Bibave

Synopsis • Meaning of Interpretation or Construction • Intension of the Legislature • Statute must be read as a whole in its context • Statute must be construed to make it effective and workable • If meaning is plain, effect must be given to it regardless of the consequences

Meaning of Interpretation or Construction • 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. ” • Cross: “Interpretation is the process by which the Courts determine the meaning of the statutory provision for the purpose of applying it to the situation before them. ”

Meaning of Interpretation or Construction • Cooley: “Interpretation differs from Construction in that the former is the art of finding out the true sense of any form of words; that is the sense which their author intended to convey; and of enabling others to derive from the same idea which the author intended to convey. • Construction, on the other hand is the drawing of conclusions, respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text of elements known from and given in the text; conclusions which are in spirit though not in the letter of the law.

Intention of the legislature • Mens or sententia legis • RMD Chamarbaugwala v. UOI, 1957: “A statute is to be construed according to the intent of those who make it and the duty of the judiciary is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature – i. e the mens or sentnetia legis. ” • Justice Gajendragadkar: “The forst and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislaturemust be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. ” - Kannailal Sur v. Paranmidhi Sadhukhan, 1957

Intention of the legislature • Sir John Nicholl: “the key to the opening of every Law is the reason and the spirit of the law. ” • Learned Judge Hand: “Statutes should be construed not as theorems of eluclid with some imagination of the purposes behind them” • Mukheraja, J: “Each word, phrase or sentence is to be construed in the light of the general purpose of the act itself. ” Popatlal Shah v. State of Madras, 1953 Ashwinikumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, 1952

Statute must be read as a whole in its context • Context here means the statute as a whole, the previous state of the Law, other statues in pari materia , the general scope of the statute and the mischief that it was intended to remedy. Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. , 2001 • Every clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the act, so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or a series of statutes relating to the subject matter. ” M. Pentiah v. Veeramallapa Muddala, 1961

Statute should be construed to make it effective and workable • The statute or every enacting provision must be so construed so as to make it effective and operative. • Ut res magis valeat quam pereat: • The Court will strongly lean against the construction which tends to refute a statute to futility. • Farwell, J: Unless the words were so absolutely senseless that I could do nothing at all with them, I should be bound to find some meaning and not to declare them void of uncertainty. Manchester Ship Canal Company v. Manchester Rececourse Co. , 1904 Followed in Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. v. State of Assam, 1990

Statute should be construed to make it effective and workable • Lord Denning: “But when a statute has some meaning even though it is obscure, or several meanings, even though it is little to choose between them, the Courts have to say what meaning the statute is to bear than reject it as nullity. ” Fawcett Properties v. Bukhingham County Council, 1960 Followed in Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. v. State of Assam, 1990

If meaning is Plain, Effect must be given to it regardless of consequences • When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i. e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. Nelson Motis v. Union of India, 1992 • Tindal, CJ: “If the words of a statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. Sussex Peerage Case, 1844

If meaning is Plain, Effect must be given to it regardless of consequences • Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 lays down a rule of evidence enabling the court to raise a presumption of guilt in certain circumstances – the rule which is a complete departure from the established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence charged and the burden never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge frames against him. ” C. S. D. Swami v. State, 1960 Also followed in Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1964

If meaning is Plain, Effect must be given to it regardless of consequences • It is not possible to decide whether certain words are plain or ambiguous unless they are studied in the context and construed. D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India, 2003 • Viscount Simonds: “No one should profess to understand any part of a statute or of any other document before he has read the whole of it. Until he has done so, he is not entitled to say that, it or any part of it, is clear and unambiguous. ” Attorney General v. HRH Prince Augustus of Hanover • Ambiguity not necessarily grammatical but one of appropriateness of the meaning in a particular context. Nydar Singh v. Union of India, 1988

Questions