INTRODUCTION

By interpretation or construction is meant, says Salmond, 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.2 A statute is an edict of the Legislature3 and
the conventional way of interpreting and construing a statute is to seek the intention of its
maker. A statute is to be construed according to the intent of them that make it and the
duty of judicature is to act upon the true intention of the legislature- the mens or
sentential legis.4
There are two types of aids to interpretation- The internal and the external aids. The
following are considered internal aids to interpretationLong Title- it is now settled that Long Title of an Act is a part of the Act and is
admissible as an aid to its construction.5 The title although part of the Act is in
itself not an enacting provision and though useful in case of ambiguity of the
enacting provision, is ineffective to control their clear meaning.6
Preamble- the preamble of a statute like the long title is a part of the Act and is
an admissible aid to construction. Although not an enacting part, the preamble is
expected to express the scope, object and purpose of the Act more
comprehensively than the long title.
Preamble of the Constitution- the majority judgments in Keshavananda Bharti7
and Minerva Mills8 relied upon the Preamble in reaching the conclusion that the
power of amendment conferred by Art 368 was limited and did not enable
parliament to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
Headings- the view is now settled that the Headings or Titles prefixed to Sections or
group of Sections can be referred to in construing an Act of the legislature.9
Marginal Notes- one cannot ignore the fact that the headings and sidenotes are
included on the face of the Bill throughout its passage through the legislature.
They are there for guidance. They provide a context for the examination of those
parts of the Bill that are open for debate.10
Punctuations
Illustrations- They form part of the statute and although forming no part of the
section, are of relevance in the construction of the text of the Section.11
Interpretation Clauses- it is common to find in a statute definitions of certain
words and expressions used elsewhere in the body of the statute. These definitions
are generally very useful while interpreting the meaning of the ambiguous terms.
Proviso- when one finds a proviso to a section the natural presumption is that, but
for the proviso, the enacting part of the section would have included the subjectmatter
of the proviso.
Explanation- an explanation is at times appended to a section to explain the
meaning of words contained in the Section.12
Schedule- schedules appended to statutes form part of the statute. They are added
towards the end and their use is made to avoid encumbering the sections in the
statute with matters of excessive details.
External aids to interpretation of statutes include Parliamentary History, Historical
Facts and Surrounding Circumstances, Later Scientific Inventions, Reference to
Other Statutes (pari materia) & Use of Foreign Decisions. Each of the above

mentioned constituents of external aids to construction have been dealt briefly in the due
course of my work.

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY
The ingredients of Parliamentary History are the bill in its original form or the
amendments considered during its progress in the Legislature, Speech of the
minister who introduced the bill in the Parliament which is also referred to as
Statements of Objects and Reasons, Reports of Parliamentary debates and
resolutions passed by either House of the Parliament and the Reports submitted
different Parliamentary Committees.
According to the traditional English view the Parliamentary History of a statute was not
considered as an aid to construction. The Supreme Court of India in the beginning
enunciated the rule of exclusion of Parliamentary History in the way it was traditionally
enunciated by the English Courts but on many an occasion, the court used this aid in
resolving questions of construction.13
In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India14, while interpreting Article 16(4) of the
Constitution the Supreme Court referred to Dr. Ambedkars speech in the Constituent
Assembly as the expression backward class of citizens is not defined. The court held that
reference to Parliamentary debate is permissible to ascertain the context, background and
objective of the legislatures but at the same time such references could not be taken as
conclusive or binding on the courts. Thus in the Mandal Reservation Case, the Supreme
Court resorted to Parliamentary History as an aid to interpretation.
In the Ashwini Kumars Case15 (1952), the then Chief Justice of India Patanjali Shastri
quoted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons should not be used as an aid to
interpretation because in his opinion the Statement of Objects and Reasons is presented
in the Parliament when a bill is being introduced. During the course of the processing of
the bill, it undergoes radical changes. But in the Subodh Gopals Case16 (1954), Justice
S.R. Das although he fully supported Chief Justice Patanjali Shastris views in the
Ashwini Kumars Case17 but he wanted to use the Statement of Objects and Reasons to
protect the sharecroppers against eviction by the new buyers of land since zamindari
system was still not abolished and land was still not the property of the farmers. So
Justice S.R. Das took the help of Statements of Objects and Reasons to analyse the social,
legal, economic and political condition in which the bill was introduced.
In Harsharan Verma v. Tribhuvan Narain Singh18, the appointment of Tribhuvan
Narayan Singh as the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh was challenged as at the time of his
appointment he was neither a member of Vidhan Sabha nor a member of Vidhan
Parishad. While interpreting Article 164(4) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held
that it did not require that a Minister should be a Member of the Legislature at the time of
his being chosen as such, the Supreme Court referred to an amendment which was
rejected by the Constituent Assembly requiring that a Minister at the time of his being
chosen should be a member of the Legislature.

HISTORICAL FACTS AND SURROUNDING

CIRCUMSTANCES
Historical facts are very essential to understand the subject matter of the statute or to have
regard to the surrounding circumstances which existed at the time of passing of the
statute. The rule of admissibility of this external aid is especially useful in mischief rule.

The rule that was laid down in the Heydons Case19 (1584), has now attained the status
of a classic. The mischief rule enables the consideration of four matters in construing an
act:
What was the law before the making of the Act?
What was the mischief for which the law did not provide?
What was the remedy provided by the Act?
What was the reason of the remedy?
This rule was applied in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar20 in the construction of
Article 286 of the Constitution in which the Supreme Court held that a state has the
legislative competence to impose sales tax only if all the ingredients of a sale have a
territorial nexus. Thus on the same transaction sales tax cannot be imposed by several
states.
Since the function of the court is to find the meaning of the ambiguous words in a statute,
a reference to the historical facts and surrounding circumstances that led to the enactment
assist the courts in efficient administration of speedy justice. The rule permits recourse to
historical works, engravings, pictures and documents where it is important to ascertain
ancient facts of a public nature. Historical evolution of a provision in the statute is also
sometimes a useful guide to its construction.

LATER SCIENTIFIC INVENTIONS

The laws made in the past are applied in the present contemporary society in the light of
changed social, political, legal and economic circumstances taking into consideration the
advancement in science and technology. Statutes must be interpreted in accordance with
the spirit of the Constitution of India even though the statutes were passed before
independence of India or before the commencement of our Constitution.
The case State v. J.S. Chawdhry22 relates to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 which only mentions about handwriting experts and not typewriting experts for the
reason that typewriters were invented much later than 1872.In the instant case the state
wanted to use the opinion of a typewriting expert as evidence in a murder case. The
Supreme Court then overruled its decision in the case Hanumant v. State of Madhya
Pradesh23 which held that the opinion of the typewriting expert was inadmissible as
evidence in the court of law.
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Prafulla Desai24 case relates to Section 388 of the Indian
Penal Code which deals with gross medical negligence resulting in the death of the
patient. The prosecution wanted to produce the statements of a New York Doctor
Dr.Greenberg as evidence. The problem arose when Dr.Greenberg refused to appear in
the Indian Court to record his statements. There is no such provision which can compel a
witness residing outside the domestic territory of India to come to an Indian court as a
witness. Thus in such circumstances video conferencing became the only viable option.
But the accused opposed video conferencing under Section 273 of Criminal Procedure
Code which clearly says that evidence can be recorded only in the presence of the
accused. The Supreme Court interpreted presence not merely as physical presence but as
a situation in which the accused can see, hear and question the witnesses.

REFERENCE TO OTHER STATUTES

Statutes must be read as a whole in order to understand the words in their context.
Problem arises when a statute is not complete in itself i.e. the words used in the statute
are not explained clearly. Extension of this rule of context permits reference to other
statutes in pari materia i.e. statutes dealing with the same subject matter or forming part
of the same system. The meaning of the phrase pari materia was explained in an
American Case, United Society v. Eagle Bank (1829) in the following words: Statutes
are in pari materia which relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of
persons or things. The word par must not be confounded with the word similes. It is used
in opposition to it- intimating not likeness merely but identity. It is a phrase applicable to
public statutes or general laws made at different times and in reference to the same
subject.25
In the case, State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers syndicate Ltd., Okara26 , the
Supreme Court held that when two pieces of legislation are of differing scopes, it cannot
be said that they are in pari materia. However it is not necessary that the entire subject
matter in the statutes should be identical before any provision in one may be held to be in
pari materia with some provision in the other.27
In the case State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanath Aiyer 28, the respondent, an income tax
officer was accused of accepting bribe. The Trial Court convicted him and awarded a
rigorous imprisonment of six months. When an appeal was made in the High Court, the
High Court set him free on the ground of a possibility that he might have borrowed the
money and not accepted it as bribe. The Supreme Court held the accused guilty and made
an observation that the judgement of the High Court was extremely perverse.
In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act,1947, which directs that on proof that the accused has accepted any gratification
other than legal remuneration, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is established by
the accused that the gratification was accepted as bribe, has been held to be in pari
materia with subject-matter dealt with by the Indian Evidence Act,1872; and the
definition shall presume in the Indian Evidence Act has been utilized to construe the
words it shall be presumed in section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947.

USE OF FOREIGN DECISIONS

Reference to decisions of the English Courts was a common practice in the
administration of justice in pre independent India. The reason behind this was that the
Modern Indian Legal System owes its origin to the English Common Law System. But
after the commencement of the Constitution of India as a result of the incorporation of
the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court of India gave more access to American
precedents.
It cannot, however, be doubted that knowledge of English law and precedents when the
language of an Indian Act was not clear or express, has often been of valuable assistance.
Speaking about Indian Codes Shri M.C.Setalvad has stated: Where the language of the
code was clear and applicable, no question of relying on English Authority would arise.
But very often the general rule in the Indian Code was based on an English Principle and
in such cases the Indian Courts frequently sought the assistance of English Decisions to
support the conclusions they reached. They could not otherwise for not only the general
rules contained in the codes but some of the illustrations given to clarify the general rules

were based on English decisions.29

In the case General Electric Company v. Renusagar Power Company30, the Supreme
Court of India held that when guidance is available from Indian decisions, reference to
foreign decisions may become unnecessary.
Different circumstances may also result in non acceptance of English precedents by the
Indian Courts. In the case M.V.Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt.
Ltd.31, the Supreme Court differed from English decisions and interpreted the words
damage caused by a ship in Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 as not
limited to a physical damage caused by a ship by reason of its coming into contact with
something; it intended to include damage to the cargo carried in a ship. The Supreme
Court in this case differed in its opinion because in India there is no other Act covering
claim of damages for damage to the cargo carried in a ship but in England this subject is
covered expressly by a different Act.

CONCLUSION
The chief source of law is legislation, though there are other sources of law such as
precedents and customs. Every source of law finds its expression in a language. Often the
language has a puzzling effect, i.e., it masks and distorts. Often it is found that the
language of a statute is not clear. The words used in the statute too at times seem to be
ambiguous. Sometimes it is not possible to assign the dictionary meaning to certain
words used in legislation. Meaning which is to be assigned to certain words in a
legislation. Even the dictionary does not give the clear-cut meaning of a word. This is so
because the dictionary gives many alternative meanings applicable in different contexts
and for different purposes so that no clear field for the application of a word is easily
identified. So long as expansion of meaning takes place uniformly, the law will develop
along healthy lines. But if one judge takes the narrow view and the other the broad view,
the law will mean different things for different persons and soon there will be confusion.
Hence, it is necessary that there should be some rules of interpretation to ensure just and
uniform decisions. Such rules are called rules of interpretation. There are various aids to
the rule of interpretation and in case the ambiguity is not removed even after applying the
internal aids, then the external aids can come in handy. They provide various methods by
the help of which a statute can be interpreted and used by the judiciary in deciding cases.