INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

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 ”.

In a welfare State, rule of law plays a very vital role. As we are familiar with that law is codified
into statutes. To give effect to a statute it should be interpreted as it is. Interpretation is the breath
of a statute. Whenever the words are ambiguous the statute should be interpreted according to the
intention of the legislature. Interpretation should not stop, because of interpretation we come to
know the intention of the legislature as to why the statute has been passed. Laws enacted by the
legislatures are interpreted by the judiciary. Enacted laws, specially the modern Acts and Rules,
are drafted by legal experts and it could be expected that the language will leave little room for
interpretation or construction. But the experience of all, who have to bear and share the task of
application of law, has been different. It is quite often observed that courts are busy unfolding the
meaning of ambiguous words and expressions and resolving inconsistencies. The age old process
of the application of the enacted laws has led to formulation of certain rules of interpretation or
construction. 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.”

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.

JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 1
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

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 SC 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.

In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India,1 while interpreting Article 16(4) of the Constitution, the
Supreme Court referred to Dr. Ambedkar‟s 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,2 the Supreme Court resorted to Parliamentary
History as an aid to interpretation.

The Supreme Court in a numbers of cases referred to debates in the Constituent Assembly for
interpretation of Constitutional provisions. Recently, the Supreme Court in S.R. Chaudhuri v
State of Punjab,3 has stated that it is a settled position that debates in the Constituent Assembly
may be relied upon as an aid to interpret a Constitutional provision because it is the function of
the Court to find out the intention of the framers of the Constitution.

1
AIR 1993 SC 477.
2
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. the Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1.
3
(2001) 7 SCC 126
JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 2
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

In the Ashwini Kumar’s Case,4 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 Gopal’s Case,5 J. S.R. Das although he fully supported C.J. Patanjali Shastri’s views
in the Ashwini Kumar’s Case 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 Singh, 6 the appointment of Tribhuvan Narayan

Singh as the chief minister of U.P. 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 Art
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.

Reports of Commissions including Law Commission or Committees including Parliamentary

Committees preceding the introduction of a Bill can also be referred to in the Court as evidence
of historical facts or of surrounding circumstances or of mischief or evil intended to be remedied.
Law Commission’s Reports can also be referred. The SC in Rosy and another v State of Kerala
and others,7 considered Law Commission of India, 41st Report for interpretation of sec. 200 (2)
of the CPC, 1898.

4
Ashwini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369.
5
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92.
6
AIR 1971 SC 1331.
7
(2000) 2 SCC 230.
JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 3
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

HISTORICAL FACTS & 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 Heydon’s Case,8 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 Bihar9 in the construction of Article
286 of the Constitution in which the SC 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.10

8
Exchequer v. Hayden, (1584) 76 ER 637.
9
AIR 1955 SC 661.
10
R. v. Ireland, (1997) 4 All ER 225.
JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 4
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

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. Chawdhry11 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 M.P.,12 which
held that the opinion of the typewriting expert was inadmissible as evidence in the court of law.
The State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Prafulla Desai13 case relates to Section 388 of the IPC 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.

11
AIR 1996 SC 1491.
12
AIR 1952 SC 343.
13
AIR 2003 SC 2053.
JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 5
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

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 Bank14 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”.

In the case, State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers syndicate Ltd.,15 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.

In the case State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanath Aiyer,16 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.

14
(1829) 7 Conn 470 179.
15
AIR 1964 SC 669.
16
AIR 1958 SC 61.
JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 6
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

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,1947.17

The application of this rule of construction has the merit of avoiding any contradiction between a
series of statutes dealing with the same subject; it allows the use of an earlier statute to throw
light on the meaning of a phrase used in a later statute in the same context. On the same logic
when words in an earlier statute have received an authoritative exposition by a superior court,
use of same words in similar context in a later statute will give rise to a presumption that the
legislature intends that the same interpretation should be followed for construction of those
words in the later statute. However, a later statute is normally not used as an aid to construction
of an earlier statute, but when an earlier statue is truly ambiguous; a later statute may in certain
circumstances serve as a parliamentary exposition of the former.18

17
Rajkumar S. Adukia, Interpretation Of Statutes.
18
Swati Rao, External Aids to Interpretation of Statutes: A Critical Appraisal.

JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 7
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

DICTIONARIES

It is conventional principle of construction of statutes that in the absence of there being anything
contrary to the context, the language of a statute should be interpreted according to the simple
dictionary meaning of the terms used in the dictionary. When a word is not defined in the Act
itself, it is permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the general sense in which that word is
under-stood in common parlance.

It is not always safe way to construe a statute by dividing it by a process of etymological

dissection and then to give each word some particular definition given by lexicographers. The
duty of the court is to interpret and give full effect to the words used by the legislature and it is
really not relevant to find out what a particular branch of the public may or may not understand
to be the meaning of those words.19

It is for the courts to interpret them as the best as they can. The courts in doing so may assist
themselves in the discharge of their duty by any literary help which they can obtain, including of
course, the consultation of standard authors and also a reference to well known and authoritative
dictionaries which state where the interpretations which they give to the words of the English
language are to be found.

In Midland Rail Co. v. Robinson,20 Lord Herschell used Dr. Johnson's dictionary to know the
meaning of the word ‘mine' but Lord Machnaghten said that on such a point the opinion of such
Judges as Kindersly, V.C. Turner, L.J. and Jessel, M.R. was probably a safer guide than any
definition or illustrations to be found in dictionaries.

19
http://sandeeprn007.blogspot.in/2011/11/external-aids-to-construction-in.html
20
37 Ch. Div. 386.
JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 8
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

Dictionaries cannot be taken as authoritative exponents of the meaning of words used because
the plainest words may be controlled by reference to the context. A dictionary meaning cannot be
adopted if it will make some existing words redundant or will require reading of some additional
words. The words and expressions at times have a technical or a legal meaning and in that case
they are understood in that sense.21

A explanation of a particular word given in a lexicon in terms of a court's decision should not be
used unless the decision was given under an Act in pari materia with the Act in question.
Judicial decisions expounding the meanings of words in construing statutes in pari materia will
have more weight than the meaning furnished by the dictionaries. Dictionaries and reports from
foreign countries are not safe guides. The safest guide is always the statute itself which is under
consideration.22

Now days, dictionaries mainly law lexicons are becoming authoritative because they furnish the
meaning of a term by referring to a statute or a judicial decision which may be landmark.

21
Swati Rao, External Aids to Interpretation of Statutes: A Critical Appraisal.
22
Rajkumar S. Adukia, Interpretation Of Statutes.
JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 9
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

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.23

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.”

In the case General Electric Company v. Renusagar Power Company,24 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.

23
Swati Rao, External Aids to Interpretation of Statutes: A Critical Appraisal.
24
(1987)4 SCC 137.
JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 10
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

In the case M.V.Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd.,25 the SC 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 SC 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.

For the purpose of construction of Indian statutes, courts also refer to decisions of foreign courts
which are following same system of jurisprudence as ours. The assistance of such decisions is
subject to the qualification that prime importance is always to be given to the language of the
relevant Indian statute, the circumstances and the setting in which it is enacted and the relevant
conditions in India where it is to be applied. In cases where an International Convention is
involved, it is obviously desirable that decisions in different jurisdictions across the world should
so far as possible be kept in line with each other. Therefore, in such cases foreign decisions are
more useful for guiding the courts.26

25
AIR 1993 SC 1014.
26
P. Sandeep, External Aids to construction in Interpretation of Statutes.
JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 11
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION SEM-VI

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 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.

JHANKAR CHHETRI
102/LLBG/13015 Page 12