Meaning of statute

A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs the legal entities of a city,
state, or country by way of consent.[1] Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare
policy.[1] Statutes are rules made by legislative bodies; they are distinguished from case law or
precedent, which is decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies.

The purposes of statutory law include:

 to provide for new situations or technologies - for example Civil Aviation law
 to provide for newly identified problems - for example competition law
 to change common or traditional law in line with changed opinion - for example abolition of the
death penalty
 to provide for security in times of crisis or emergency.
 to cover deficiencies in the other forms of law.

Statutory interpretation

It means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words of the enactment,
their natural and ordinary meaning. The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention
of the legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used.

As stated by SALMOND, “by interpretation or construction is meant, the process by which the courts
seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is
expressed.”

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of
interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have
a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the
words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use
various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory
interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply
rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated
legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

It has been said that there is a distinction between the two expressions. As explained by Cooley:
“Interpretation differs from construction in the sense that the former is the art of finding out the true
sense of any form of words; i.e. the sense that their author intended to convey. Construction on the
other hand, is the drawing of conclusions, respecting the subjects that lie beyond the direct expression
of the text.[4] This distinction has been widely criticized.

Interpretation of statute is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute.
When the language of the statute is clear, there is no need for the rules of interpretation. But, in certain
cases, more than one meaning may be derived from the same word or sentence. It is, therefore,
necessary to interpret the statute to find out the real intention of the statute.
Interpretation of Statutes is required for two basic reasons:-

1. Legislative Language – Legislative language may be complicated for a layman, and hence may
require interpretation; and
2. Legislative Intent – The intention of the legislature or Legislative intent assimilates two aspects: a.
the concept of ‘meaning’, i.e., what the word means; and b. the concept of ‘purpose’ and ‘object’ or
the ‘reason’ or ‘spirit’ pervading through the statute.

Some Important points to be taken care of in the context of interpreting Statutes:

 Intention of the legislature.

 Statute must be read as a whole in its Context.
 Statute should be Construed so as to make it Effective and Workable – if statutory provision is
ambiguous and capable of various constructions, then that construction must be adopted which
will give meaning and effect to the other provisions of the enactment rather than that which will
give none.
 If meaning is plain, effect must be given to it irrespective of consequences.
 The process of construction combines both the literal and purposive approaches. The purposive
construction rule highlights that you should shift from literal construction when it leads to
absurdity.

Nature and Scope

Necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of a statutory provision is ambiguous,
not clear or where two views are possible or where the provision gives a different meaning defeating the
object of the statute.

If the language is clear and unambiguous, no need of interpretation would arise. In this regard, a
Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v A.R. Antulay,[5] has held:

“… If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to give
effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The question of construction arises only
in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self-
defeating.”

GENERAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION

Introduction

The term interpretation means “To give meaning to”. Governmental power has been divided into three
wings namely the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Interpretation of statues to render justice is
the primary function of the judiciary. It is the duty of the Court to interpret the Act and
give meaning to each word of the Statute.

The most common rule of interpretation is that every part of the statute must be
understood in a harmonious manner by reading and construing every part of it together.The maxim “A
Verbis legis non est recedendum” means that you must not vary the words of the statute while
interpreting it.

The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed
expressly or impliedly in the language used.

In Santi swarup Sarkar v pradeep kumar sarkar, the Supreme Court held that if two interpretations
are possible of the same statute, the one which validates the statute must be preferred.

Kinds of Interpretation

There are generally two kind of interpretation; literal interpretation and logical interpretation.

Literal interpretation

Giving words their ordinary and natural meaning is known as literal interpretation or litera legis. It is
the duty of the court not to modify the language of the Act and if such meaning is clear and
unambiguous, effect should be given to the provisions of a statute whatever may be the consequence.
The idea behind such a principle is that the legislature, being the supreme law making body
must know what it intends in the words of the statute. Literal interpretation has been called
the safest rule because the legislature’s intention can be deduced only from the language
through which it has expressed itself.

The bare words of the Act must be construed to get the meaning of the statute and one need not probe
into the intention of the legislature. The elementary rule of construction is that the language
must be construed in its grammatical and literal sense and hence it is termed as litera legis or litera
script.

The Golden Rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.
This interpretation is supreme and is called the golden rule of interpretation.

In Ramanjaya Singh v Baijnath Singh, the Election tribunal set aside the election of the appellant under
s 123(7) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 on the grounds that the appellant had employed
more persons than prescribed for electioneering purpose. The appellant contended that the
excess employees were paid by his father and hence were not employed by him. The Supreme Court
followed the grammatical interpretation of S 123(7) and termed the excess employees as
volunteers.

In Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay, the appellant, a citizen of India, on arrival at an airport did not
declare that he brought gold with him. Gold, found in his possession during search in violation of
government notification, was confiscated under S 167 (8) Sea Customs Act, 1878. He was charged under
s 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The appellant pleaded that his trial under the Act
was violative of Art 20(2) of the constitution relating to double jeopardy as he was already punished for
his act by was of confiscation of the gold. It was held by the Supreme Court that the sea customs
authority is not a court or a judicial tribunal and the confiscation is not a penalty.
Consequently his trial was valid under the Act of 1947.

In Madan mohan v K.Chandrashekara, it was held that when a statute contains strict and stringent
provisions, it must be literally and strictly construed to promote the object of the act.

In Bhavnagar University v Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd, it was held that according to the fundamental
principles of construction the statute should be read as a whole, then chapter by chapter, section by
section and then word by word.

In Municipal board v State transport authority, Rajasthan, an application against the change of
location of a bus stand could be made within 30 days of receipt of order of regional transport authority
according to s 64 A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939. The application was moved after 30 days on the
contention that statute must be read as “30 days from the knowledge of the order"

The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation must be made and hence rejected the application as
invalid.

In Raghunandan Saran v M/s Peary Lal workshop Pvt Ltd, the supreme court validated 14 ( 2) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act 1958 and provided the benefit of eviction on account of non payment of
rent. The Supreme Court adopted grammatical interpretation.

Exceptions to the rule of literal interpretation

Generally a statute must be interpreted in its grammatical sense but under the following circumstances it
is not possible:-Logical defects

A) ambiguity

B) inconsistency

C) incompleteness or lacunae

D) unreasonableness

Logical interpretation

If the words of a statute give rise to two or more construction, then the construction which validates the
object of the Act must be given effect while interpreting.

It is better to validate a thing than to invalidate it or it is better the Act prevails than perish.

The purpose of construction is to ascertain the intention of the parliament.

The mischief rule

The mischief rule of interpretation originated in Heydon’s case. If there are two interpretations possible
for the material words of a statute, then for sure and true interpretation there are certain
considerations in the form of questions.

The following questions must b considered.

1. What was the common law before making the Act?

2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide a remedy?

3. What is the remedy resolved by the parliament to cure the disease of the common wealth?

4. The true reason of the remedy.

The judge should always try to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. The mischief rule says
that the intent of the legislature behind the enactment should be followed.

Rule of casus omissus

Generally, the court is bound to harmonize the various provisions of an Act passed by the legislature
during interpretation so that repugnancy is avoided. Sometimes certain matters might have been
omitted in a statute. In such cases, they cannot be added by construction as it amounts to
making of laws or amending which is a function of legislature. A new provision cannot be
added in a statute giving it meaning not otherwise found therein. A word omitted from
the language of the statute, but within the general scope of the statute, and omitted due to
inadvertence is known as Casus Omissus.

In Padma Sundara Rao v State of Tamil Nadu it was held that the cassus omissus cannot be
supplied by the court except in the case of a clear necessity and when reason for it is found within the
four corners of the statute itself.

Rule of ejusdem generis

Ejusdem generis means “of the same kind”. Generally particular words are given their natural meaning
provided the context does not require otherwise. If general words follow particular words
pertaining to a class, category or genus then it is construed that general words are limited to mean
the person or thing of the same general class, category or genus as those particularly exposed.

Eg: if the husband asks the wife to buy bread, milk and cake and if the wife buys jam along with them, it
is not invalidated merely because of not specifying it but is valid because it is of the same kind.

The basic rule is that if the legislature intended general words to be used in unrestricted sense, then it
need not have used particular words at all. This rule is not of universal application.

In Devendra Surti v State of Gujarat, under s2 (4) of the Bombay shops and Establishments Act, 1948
the term commercial establishment means “an establishments which carries any trade,
business or profession”. Here the word profession is associated to business or trade and hence a private
doctor’s clinic cannot be included in the above definitions as under the rule of Ejusdem Generis.

In Grasim Industries Ltd v Collector of Customs, Bombay, the rule of Ejusdem Generis is applicable when
particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words.In such a case
the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified.

Every clause of a statute must be construed with reference to other clauses of the Act.

INTERNAL AID OF INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

Statute generally means the law or the Act of the legislature authority. The general rule of the
interpretation is that statutes must prima facie be given this ordinary meaning. If the words are
clear, free from ambiguity there is no need to refer to other means of interpretation. But if the words
are vague and ambiguous then internal aid may be sought for interpretation.

INTERNAL AIDS

1. Context

If the words of a statute are ambiguous then the context must be taken into consideration. The context
includes other provisions of the statute, its preamble, the existing state of law and other legal provisions.
The intention behind the meaning of the words and the circumstances under which they are framed
must be considered.

2. Title

Title is not part of enactment. So it cannot be legally used to restrict the plain meaning of the words in
an enactment.

Long title

The heading of the statute is the long title and the general purpose is described in it.

E.g. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the long title reads as follows “An Act to make provisions
for the prevention of adulteration of food”.

In Re Kerala Education bill, the Supreme Court held that the policy and purpose may be deduced from
the long title and the preamble.

In Manohar Lal v State of Punjab, Long title of the Act is relied as a guide to decide the scope of the Act.

Short Title

The short title of the Act is purely for reference only. The short title is merely for convenience. E.g. The
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3.Preamble

The Act Starts with a preamble and is generally small. The main objective and purpose of
the Act are found in the Preamble of the Statute. “Preamble is the Act in a nutshell. It is
a preparatory statement. It contains the recitals showing the reason for enactment of the Act. If the
language of the Act is clear the preamble must be ignored. The preamble is an intrinsic aid in
the interpretation of an ambiguous act.

In Kashi Prasad v State, the court held that even though the preamble cannot be used to defeat the
enacting clauses of a statute, it can be treated as a key for the interpretation of the statute.

4.Headings

A group of Sections are given under a heading which act as their preamble. Sometimes a
single section might have a preamble. S.378-441 of IPC is “Offences against property”.

Headings are prefixed to sections. They are treated as preambles. If there is ambiguity in the words of a
statute, headings can be referred.In Durga Thathera v Narain Thathera, the court held that the headings
are like a preamble which helps as a key to the mind of the legislature but do not control the substantive
section of the enactment.

5. Marginal notes

Marginal notes are the notes that are printed at the side of the section in an Act and it summarizes the
effect of the section. They are not part of the statute. So they must not be considered. But if there
is any ambiguity they may be referred only as an internal aid to the construction.

In Wilkes v Goodwin, the Court held that the side notes are not part of the Act and hence marginal notes
cannot be referred.

6. Proviso

A proviso merely carves out something from the section itself. A proviso is a subsidiary to
the main section and has to be construed in the light of the section itself. Ordinarily, a proviso is
intended to be part of the section and not an addendum to the main provisions. A proviso should
receive strict construction. The court is not entitled to add words to a proviso with a view to
enlarge the scope.

7. Definition/ Interpretation clause

The legislature can lay down legal definitions of its own language, if such definitions are embodied in the
statute itself, it becomes binding on the courts.

When the act itself provides a dictionary for the words used, the court must first look into that dictionary
for interpretation.
In Mayor of Portsmouth v Smith, the court observed “The introduction of interpretation clause is a
novelty.”

8. Conjunctive and Disjunctive words

The word “and” is conjunctive and the word “or” is disjunctive. These words are often interchangeable.
The word ‘and’ can be read as ‘or’ and ‘or’ can be read as ‘and’.

9. Gender

Words’ using the masculine gender is deemed to include females too.

10. Punctuation

Punctuation is disregarded in the construction of a statute. Generally there was no punctuation in

the statutes framed in England before 1849.

Punctuation cannot control, vary or modify the plain and simple meaning of the language of
the statute.

11. Explanations

IN certain provisions of an Act explanations may be needed when doubts arise as to the
meaning of the particular section.

Explanations are given at the end of each section and it is part and parcel of the enactment.

12. Exceptions and savings clause.

To exempt certain clauses from the preview of the main provisions, and exception clause is provided. The
things which are not exempted fall within the purview of the main enactment.

The saving clause is also added in cases of repeal and re-enactment of a statute.

13. Schedules

Schedules form part of a statute. They are at the end and contain minute details for working out
the provisions of the express enactment. The expression in the schedule cannot override the provisions
of the express enactment.

Inconsistency between schedule and the Act, the Act prevails. ( Ramchand textiles v sales tax
officer)

14. Illustrations

Illustrations in enactment provided by the legislature are valuable aids in the understanding the real
scope.
15. Meaning of the words

The definition of the words given must be construed in the popular sense. Internal aid to construction
is important for interpretation.

EXTERNAL AID TO INTERPRETATION

Introduction

Other than the internal aid to interpretation which are part of a statute itself there are other aids which
are not part of the statute. These are known as external aid to interpretation. The court can
consider recourse outside the Act such as historical settings, objects and reasons, bills,
debates, text books, dictionaries etc.

Recourse to external aid is justified only to well-recognized limits.

External aids

1. Historical settings

The surrounding circumstances and situations which led to the passing of the Act can be considered for
the purpose of construing a statute.

Objects and reason

The statements and object cannot be used as an aid to construction. The statements of object and
reason are not only admissible as an aid to construction of a statute.

Objects and reasons of a statute is to be looked into as an extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent,
only when the language is obscure or ambiguous.

Text books and dictionaries.

The use of dictionaries is limited to circumstances where the judges and Counsels use different words.

In such cases the court may make use of standard authors and well known authoritative dictionaries.
Text books may also be refereed to for assistance in finding out the true construction of a statute.

International Conventions

International conventions are generally not resorted to for the purpose of interpretation, but it helps as
an external aid for the purpose of resolving ambiguities in the language.

5. Government publications

They are:-

A) Reports of commissioner or committee

B) Other documents.

Only if the above documents are expressly referred to in the statute, they can be looked at for the
purpose of construction.

6. Bill

Only when the language is ambiguous, bills can be referred.

7.Select Committee Report

To ascertain the legislative intent of a doubtful meaning of a statute, report of legislative committee of
the proposed law can be referred.

The report of the Select committee can be looked into from an historical angle to find out
what was the previous law, before and at the time of enacting the statute.

8. Debate and proceedings of the legislature.

A speech made in the course of a debate on a bill could be referred to find out the intent of the speaker.
Speeches made in the parliament can also be referred.

9. State of things at the time of passing of the bill

10. History of legislation.

The history of legislation usually denotes the course of events which gibe rise to enactments. The
court may refer historical facts if it is necessary to understand the subject matter.

11.Extemporaneous exposition

In interpreting old statutes, the construction by the judges who lived at the time of the enactment
could be referred as 9it is best to understand the intentions of the makers of the statute.

12. Judicial interpretation of words

It is an accepted principle of law that if a word has received clear judicial interpretation, then
the word is interpreted according to the judicial meaning.

E.g. Rule in Ryland v Fletcher, absolute liability has become a fixed and standing rule.

If definition is not given, popular meaning must be construed.

13.Analogy and legal fiction

Analogy means governed by the same general principle.

14.Previous English law

It is not legal and correct to apply decisions of English acts to the construction of an Indian statute.

Others external aids include interpretation by the executive, foreign decisions which include policy of
the legislature and government policy, purpose of the Act conventions and practices.

Spirit and reason of law.

The purpose of a statute is the reason of enactment, but the spirit or reason of law is connected with the
legislative intent.

Acts in Pari material.

When a statute is ambiguous, the intention of the legislature may be gathered from statutes relating to
same subject. The definitions cannot be generally imported.

Other external aids include interpretation of later Acts with the help of earlier Acts and words and
expressions used in different Act.

(A) THE RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

1. THE MISCHIEF RULE

The mischief rule is contained in Heydon’s Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7, where it was stated that for the true
interpretation of all statutes four things are to be considered:

1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act.

2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.

3rd. What remedy Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the disease.

4th. The true reason of the remedy; and then the function of the judge is to make such construction as
shall supress the mischief and advance the remedy.

The mischief rule was the product of a time when statutes were a minor source of law by comparison
with the common law, when drafting was by no means as exact a process as it is today and before the
supremacy of Parliament was established. The mischief could often be discerned from the lengthy
preamble normally included.

The mischief rule was regarded by the Law Commission, which reported on statutory interpretation in
1969, as a “rather more satisfactory approach” than the other two established rules.

2. THE LITERAL RULE

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw a trend towards a more literal approach. Courts took an
increasingly strict view of the words of a statute: if the case before them was not precisely covered they
were not prepared to countenance any alteration of the statutory language. One of the leading
statements of the literal rule was made by Tindal CJ in the Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl&Fin 85:
“… the only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is, that they should be construed according to
the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise
and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and
ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver.”

An example of the literal rule is:

Whiteley v Chappell (1868) LR 4 QB 147.

What did Lord Esher MR state in R v Judge of the City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273?

The literal rule was favoured by the Law Commission on a variety of grounds:

* It encouraged precision in drafting.

* Should any alternative approach be adopted, an alteration of the statutory language could be seen as a
usurpation by non-elected judges of the legislative function of Parliament, and other statute users would
have the difficult task of predicting how doubtful provisions might be rewritten” by the judges.

On the other hand the literal rule was criticised by the Law Commission (1969) on the ground that:

* Judges have tended excessively to emphasise the literal meaning of statutory provisions without giving
due weight to their meaning in wider contexts.

* To place undue emphasis on the literal meaning of the words is to assume an unattainable perfection
in draftsmanship.

* It ignores the limitations of language.

3. THE GOLDEN RULE

Some judges have suggested that a court may depart from the ordinary meaning where that would lead
to absurdity. In Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 61, Lord Wensleydale said:

“… the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some
absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and
inconsistency, but no farther.”

This became known as “Lord Wensleydale’s golden rule”. It only applies where the words are ambiguous.
An interpretation that is not absurd is to be preferred to one that is. An example is:

R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367.

The Law Commission (1969) noted that:

* The rule provided no clear means to test the existence of the characteristics of absurdity, inconsistency
or inconvenience, or to measure their quality or extent.
* As it seemed that “absurdity” was in practice judged by reference to whether a particular
interpretation was irreconcilable with the general policy of the legislature “the golden rule turns out to
be a less explicit form of the mischief rule”.

Difference Between Interpretation and Construction

The statute is defined as the will or order of legislature, which is expressed in the form of text. The
traditional way to interpret or construe a statute is to understand the intention of the legislature. The
intention of the legislature could incorporate the actual meaning and the object. The process of
interpretation and construction assist the judiciary body in determining the meaning and purpose of the
legislature. Interpretation helps in determining the real meaning and intention of the legislature.

On the other hand, construction is used to ascertain the legal effect of the legal text. The two terms are
used interchangeably, but there exists a fine line of difference between interpretation and construction
in their connotations. So, check out this article in which we’ve simplified it for you.

Definition of Interpretation

The term ‘interpretation of the statute’, means an understanding of the law. It is the process adopted by
the courts to determine the meaning of legislature, by way of legislative form. It is used to ascertain the
actual connotation of the act or document along with the intention of the legislature. It tends to clarify
the meaning of those terms and writings which are difficult to understand.

The process of enactment of the law and its interpretation takes place at different points of time and
performed by two different government bodies. The interpretation of an act creates an understanding
between these two and bridges the gap.

It aims at finding out the intention of the author, i.e. the court needs to identify, what the author means
by the words he/she has used in the text, that helps in getting what is written in the document. In short,
interpretations object to ascertain the intention of the statute by the words used.

Definition of Construction

In law, ‘construction’ means the process of legal exposition which determines the sense and explanation
of abstruse terms, writings etc. in the statute and draws a conclusion on the basis of logical reasoning,
with respect to the subject that lies above the direct expression of the legal text.

The basic principle of construction of a statute is to read it in a literal manner, meaning that by
elucidating the words used in the statute, ordinarily and grammatically, if it results in ambiguity and is
likely to convey another meaning then the court can opt for its literal meaning. However, if no such
absurdity is possible, the fundamental rules of interpretation can be adopted.

Key Differences Between Interpretation and Construction

The difference between interpretation and construction can be drawn clearly on the following grounds:
1. In law, interpretation refers to, understanding the words and true sense in the provisions of the
statute. On the other hand, construction is described as drawing conclusions, in relation to the case,
that lie beyond the outright expression of the legal text.
2. While interpretation is all about the linguistic meaning of the legal text, Construction determines the
legal effect of the words and writings of the statute.
3. When the simple meaning of the legal text is to be drawn, then that will be called an interpretation.
Conversely, when the literal meaning of the words used in the legal text results in ambiguity, then
construction is opted, so as to decide whether the case is covered by it or not.

Conclusion

When it comes to the legal exposition of the statute, act or any agreement, interpretation precedes
construction. While the interpretation of the statute, is all about exploring the written text, whereas
construction is used in the broader sense, i.e. it not only helps in determining the sense and explanation
of the provisions of the act but also elucidates its legal effect.

THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

Interpretation differs from Construction, however. The former is the art of finding out the true sense of
any form of words, which also means the sense that the author intends to convey. It may also be
understood as the process by which the courts determine the meaning of a statutory provision for the
purpose of applying it to the situation before them. Construction on the other hand, is the drawing of
conclusions, respects subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text from elements known
from and given in the text.

Intention of the Legislature

A statute is an edict of the Legislature and the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is
to seek the ‘intention’ of its maker. It is to be understood according to the intent of its maker, with the
guidance furnished by the accepted principles of interpretation. “The object of interpreting a statute is
to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it”, South Asia Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. S. Sarup Singh,
AIR 1966 SC 346.

Words in any language are not scientific symbols having any precise or definite meaning, and language is
but an imperfect medium to convey one’s thought, to an audience consisting of persons of various
shades of opinion. The function of courts too, is only to expound, and not to legislate.

The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature must be found in the
words used by the Legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed to have been intended
but what has been said. The key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of the law. Each
word, phrase or sentence, is to be construed in the light of the general purpose of the Act itself.
Interpretation must depend on the text and the context, as they are the bases of interpretation.If the
text is the texture, context gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. A particular clause or expression is
construed by construing the whole instrument and any dominant purposes that it may express. The
Legislative function cannot be usurped under the disguise of interpretation, and the danger of an priori
determination of the meaning of a provision based on the preconceived notions of ideological structure
or scheme should be avoided. Caution is all the more necessary.

The correct interpretation is one that best harmonizes the words with the object of the statute. A right
construction of the Act can only be attained if its whole scope and object together with an analysis of its
wording and the circumstances in which it is enacted are taken into consideration. It s all about
interpretation and not about interpolation.

The rules of interpretation are not rules of law; they are guides and such of them which serve no useful
purpose, can be rejected and new rules can be evolved in their place. They are aids to construction,
presumptions or pointers.

Difference between purposive and literal construction: The difference is in truth of one degree only. The
real distinction lies in the balance to be struck in the particular case between literal meaning of the
words on the one hand and the context and purpose of the measure in which they appear on the other.

Statute must be read as a whole in its context

The statute as a whole, the previous state of the law, other statutes in pari materia, the general scope of
the statute, and the mischief it is to remedy, is the basic context of any statute. The elementary rule
states that the intention of the Legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. Every clause
needs to be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, to make a consistent
enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject-matter. It is the most natural
and genuine exposition of a statute.

The conclusion that the language is plain or ambiguous can only be truly arrived at by studying the
statute as a whole. How far and to what extent each component influences the meaning of the other ,
would be different in each given case. Each word, must however, be allowed to play its role, however
significant or insignificant it may be. in achieving the legislative intent. Each section must be construed as
a whole, whether or not one of the parts is a saving clause or a proviso. They may be interdependent,
each portion throwing light, if need be on the rest.

A question of construction only arises when one side submits that a particular provision of an Act covers
the facts of the case and the other submits that it does not or it may be agreed it applies, but the
difference arises to its application.

Statute to be construed to make it effective and workable: However plain the meaning be

The interpretation should be construed to make the statute workable, which secures the object, unless
crucial omissions or clear direction makes that end unattainable. The doctrine of purposive
reconstruction may be taken recourse to for the purpose of giving it full effect to the statutory
provisions. The meaning of the statute must be considered rather then the rendering the statute a
nullity.

Appraisal of the principle of plain meaning

Plain words require no construction. This starts with the premise that the words are plain and that the
conclusion can be arrived at after construing the words. This also means that once the conclusion has
been arrived at, that the words/ sentence can bear only one meaning, the effect to that meaning is to be
given.

Language which on its construction results in absurdity, inconsistency, hardship or strange consequence
is not readily accepted as unambiguous. Here unambiguous means ‘unambiguous in its context. So
ambiguity need not necessarily be a grammatical ambiguity, but one of appropriateness of the meaning
in a particular context. Also, difference of judicial opinion as to the true meaning of certain words need
not necessarily lead to the conclusion that those words are ambiguous.

“Statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be
added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being
unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the test of the statute.”
[Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P.) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 : AIR 2003]

What is Legislation ?

Legislation is a law making body. Among all the sources of law, legislation is one of the most patent
and sovereign source law making. It has all the powers of enacting laws and repealing old laws. The term
"legislation" is derived from two Latin words, legis meaning law and latum meaning to make, put or set.
Entomologically legislation means the making or the setting of law. There are two kinds of legislation-
Supreme legislation and subordinate legislation.

Definition of Legislation -

Some important definitions of legislation are as follows -

Salmond-

According to Salmond, "Legislation is that source of law which consists in the declaration of legal
rules by a competent authority".

Austin -

According to John Austin, legislation includes an activities, which results into law making or
amending, transforming or inserting new provisions in the existing law. thus "there can be no law
without a legislative act.

Holland-

According to Holland, " the making of general orders by our judges is as true legislation as is
carried on by the Crown", but we confine ourselves to the use of them term legislation in the sense
which is commonly understood.
Kinds of Legislation -

According to Sir John Salmond, legislation is either Supreme or Subordinate.

I) Supreme legislation -

Supreme legislation is that which proceeds from the sovereign power in the state. It cannot be
repealed, annulled or controlled by any other legislative authority. It is enacted by the highest law-
making authority in the state. For example parliament in India, USA and England.

In England, Supreme legislation cannot be questioned in a court of law. The British Parliament is in
every sense of sovereign law making body. In Britain, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty implies
supremacy and omnipotence of British Parliament. Therefore. It possesses the power of Supreme
legislation. In India and United States of America however, the parliament is sovereign but not supreme
because legislation can be declared ultra vires or unconstitutional by a court of law. It may therefore, be
amended or altered.

II) Subordinate legislation -

Subordinate legislation is legislation made by the authority or other than the supreme authority in
the state in the exercise of the power delegated to it by Supreme authority. This is controlled by the
supreme authority. Thus legislative authority is dependent for its continued existence and validity on the
supreme authority. It can be repealed. Subordinate or delegated legislation increased in 19th and 20th
century because of number of a reaction.

Kinds of subordinate legislation -

According to Salmond, delegated legislation is that which proceed from any authority other than
sovereign power. Salmond refers to five Kinds of Subordindte Legislation which are as follows -

(1) Municipal legislation

(2) Executive legislation

(3) Colonial legislation

(4) Autonomous legislation

(5) Judicial legislation

(1) Municipal legislation -

The municipal authorities are given limited powers to enact laws for their governance. it is called
Municipal legislation. It also called bye-laws. The power is conferred by Supreme legislation. for
example, Bombay Municipal Corporation, Pune Municipal Corporation etc.

(2) Executive legislation -

 These powers are expressly delegated to the executive by the Parliament. Executive consists of
President, Prime Minister, Governor, and govt. officers, who are interested, with the working
administrative department of the State. Parliament simply delegates its functions to the executive to
make their own laws. E.g. Dfence of India Act. President can make a rule for himself to regulate his office.

(3) Colonial legislation -

It is the outcome of colony or colonies. by way of settlement. The colonies of British Empire were
delegated with certain legislative authority for their own government. Such legislation is called colonial
legislation. For example, laws passed by the Indian legislature before independence

(4) Autonomous legislation -

Sometimes the state allows private persons like universities, Railway companies, etc to make bye-
laws which are recognized and enforced by law courts.Such legislation is usually called autonomic.
Railway Company may make bye-laws for the regulation of its undertaking. Likewise, a University may
take students for the Government of its members.

(5) Judicial legislation -

Judiciary is given powers to make certain rules to regulate the procedure. Such act of court during
judicial proceeding is called judicial legislation. Bombay High Court Rules, which are rules governing
Bombay High Court and matter coming before this Court.

Difference Between Common (judicial) Law and Statutory Law

There are two types of laws, that are adopted in many countries, namely common law and statutory law.
The common law implies the law that emerges from new decisions made by the judges, courts and
tribunals.

On the other hand, the statutory law means a formal written law, that the legislature adopts as a statute.
The basic difference between common and statutory law lies in the way the two legal systems are
created, the authority who set down the acts and their relevance.

Definition of Common Law

The law that has been evolved from the decisions made in appellate courts and judicial precedent, is
known as common law or sometimes as case law. The common law system gives pre-eminence to the
common law, as it considers unfair to treat the same facts in a different manner in different situations.

The judges refer to the cases that took place in the past to arrive at a decision, called as the precedent
which is recognized and enforced in future judgements rendered by the court. Therefore, when the
similar case is reported in the future, the court has to give the same judgement, that is followed in the
previous case.
Sometimes, the judgement made by court comes out as a new law, that is considered in subsequent
court decisions.

Definition of Statutory Law

Statutory law can be defined as a system of principles and rules of law, that is available in written form
and laid down by the legislative body to govern the conduct of the citizens of the country. When a bill
passed by both the house of parliament through enactment, it becomes a statutory law. In finer terms,
legislation is the statutory law, which is the fundamental structure of the legal system, based on the
statutes.

A statute is nothing but the formally written act that expresses the will of the legislature. It is the
declaration or command made by the law which must be followed or prohibits a course of action or
governs the behavior of members. The statutory law encompasses the rules for regulating the society
and is made considering the future cases.

Key Differences Between Common Law and Statutory Law

The difference between common law and statutory law can be drawn clearly on the following premises:

Common law or otherwise known as case law is a legal system in which decision made by the judges in
the past forms as a basis for similar cases in future. On the other hand, statutory law is a formally written
law established by legislative body and regulates the behavior of the members.

The common law instructs, what decision should be rendered in a particular case. In contrast, the
statutory law prescribes the best governing rules of the society.

Common law relies on the recorded judicial precedent, meaning that the judges will take into account
the relevant facts and evidences of the case but also look for prior decisions made by the court in similar
cases in the past. As against, statutory law is based on the statutes enacted and imposed by the
legislative body of the country.

Common law is a procedural law, such that it comprises the set of rules that regulates the court
proceedings in various lawsuit. On the contrary, statutory law is substantive in nature, in the sense that it
states the rights and duties of the citizens, along with punishment for non-compliance of rules.

Common law can be amended by statutory law, whereas to amend the statutory law, a separate statute
must be established.

Conclusion

To sum up the discussion, statutory law is more powerful than the common law, as the former can
overrule or modify the latter. Therefore, in case of any contradiction between the two, statutory law may
prevail. Statutory law is nothing but the legislation made by the government bodies or parliament.
Conversely, common law is the one that arises out of the decisions made by the judges in the court of
justice.
Advantages of Legislation over Precedent as Sources of Law

1. Abrogative Power:

Legislation is both constitutive and abrogative whereas precedent merely possesses constitutive efficacy.
Legislation is not only a source of law, but it is equally effective in amending or annulling the existing law.

Precedent, on the other hand, cannot abrogate the existing rule of law although it may produce very
good law and in some respects better than legislation. What it does, it docs once for all. It cannot retrace
its steps. Legislation as a destructive and reformative agent has no equal.

2. Efficiency:

Legislation allows an advantageous division of labour by dividing the two functions of making the law
and administering it. This results in increased efficiency. President, however, unites those two functions
in the same hands.

3. Declaration:

Justice demands that law should be known before they are applied and enforced by the law courts, but
the ease law operates retrospectively, being applied to facts which are prior in date to the law itself.
Statute law is seldom retrospective in its operation.

Then legislation withstands the test of an interpretation of the statute by the courts of justice. If any
alterations are proposed in the enacted law, they are published and opinions invited. Case law, on the
contrary, is created and declared at one and the same time.

4. Provision for future cases:

Legislation can make rules in anticipation for cases that have not as yet arisen, whereas precedent must
wait for the occurrence of some dispute before the court can create any definite rule of law. Precedent is
dependent on, and legislation is independent of, the accidental course of legislation.

Legislation can till up vacancy or settle a doubt in legal system as soon as the defect is Drought to the
notice of the legislature. This is not possible in the case of precedent. Case law, therefore, is incomplete,
uncertain and unsystematic.

5. Form:

Legislation is superior in form brief, clear, easily accessible and understandable, whilst valuable part of
case law has to be extracted from a ton of dross. One has to wade through the whole judgment before
the ratio decided can be found out or case law discovered. Figuratively, as Salmond observes, ease law is
gold in mine a few grams of precious metal to the ton of useless material while statute law is coin of the
realm, ready for immediate use.

The advantages of precedent over statute law may also be studied. “The morality of the courts”, says
Professor Dicey “is higher than the morality of politicians.
Legislation is the product of the will of politicians who are affected by the popular feelings and passions.
That is why the judiciary often denounces statutes as wrong, tyrannical, unjust or contrary to
fundamental principle laid down in the written Constitution.”

John Salmond points out that enacted law is rigid, strictly bound w within the limits of authoritative
formulae, while the case-law, with all its imperfections, is flexible.

In the case of statute law the letter of the law supersedes the true spirit of law. The phraseology may fail
to convey the true meaning intended by the enactment, but the courts are bound by the literal
expression.

Public Law vs. Private Law

If you saw a man run from a convenience store with a few pilfered products under his arm, he is violating
public law. He committed the crime of theft, and that affects everyone.

On the other hand, if your neighbor filed suit against you because your barbeque smoke traveled to his
yard, you may be violating private law. You infringed on your neighbor's right to peaceful enjoyment of
his property.

Essentially, the difference between public law and private law is whether the act or acts affect society as
a whole or is an issue between two or more people.

Public Law Explained

To simplify things, public law deals with issues that affect the general public or state - society as a whole.
Some of the laws that its wide scope covers are:

Administrative law - laws that govern government agencies, like the Department of Education and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Constitutional laws are laws that protect citizens' rights as afforded in the Constitution

Criminal laws are laws that relate to crime

Municipal laws are ordinances, regulations and by-laws that govern a city or town

International laws are laws that oversee relations between nations

Let's use Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) to better understand public law as it relates to
an administrative agency.

In Brown v. Board of Education, Linda Brown, the plaintiff (brought about by her father, Oliver),
contended that his daughter was not being protected under the Constitution. Since Brown was suing the
Board of Education, this falls under constitutional law, but an administrative agency was sued for the
violation.
Linda had to walk several blocks to the school bus stop even though a closer whites-only school existed
within a few blocks from her home. Brown's parents believed that Linda's 14th Amendment rights were
violated when she was banned from a white school closer to home because of her race.

The case was won because the U.S. Supreme Court declared segregation a violation of Brown's
constitutional rights. This falls under public law because issues of segregation and discrimination affect
society as a whole, not just this particular child.

Private law is different. Private law help citizens resolve issues between themselves.

Private Law Explained

Private law affects the rights and obligations of individuals, families, businesses and small groups and
exists to assist citizens in disputes that involve private matters. Its scope is more specific than public law
and covers:

Contract law - governs the rights and obligations of those entering into contracts

Tort law - rights, obligations and remedies provided to someone who has been wronged by another
individual

Property law - governs forms of property ownership, transfer and tenant issues

Succession law - governs the transfer of an estate between parties

Family law - governs family-related and domestic-related issues