C L Ispl: ASE Aws of

CASE LAWS OF ISPL
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, AIR 1984
SC 684 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.” (para 18)
Again Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002)4
SCC 297 has followed the same principle and observed:
“Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention
of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for court to take upon itself the task of
amending or altering the statutory provisions.” (para 10)
B. Prabhakar Rao and others v State of A.P. and others , AIR 1986 SC 120 O.Chennappa,
Reddy J. has observed : “Where internal aids are not forthcoming, we can always have recourse to
external aids to discover the object of the legislation. External aids are not ruled out. This is now
a well settled principle of modern statutory construction.” (para 7)
District Mining Officer and others v Tata Iron & Steel Co. and another , (2001) 7 SCC 358
Supreme Court has observed: “It is also a cardinal principle of construction that external aids are
brought in by widening the concept of context as including not only other enacting provisions of
the same statute, but its preamble, the existing state of law, other statutes in pari materia and the
mischief which the statute was intended to remedy.” (para 18)
K.P. Varghese v Income Tax Officer Ernakulam, AIR 1981 SC 1922 The Supreme Court has
stated that interpretation of statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything
which is logically relevant should be admissible.
This was set out in Heydon's Case [1584] 3 CO REP 7a. where it was stated that there were four
points to be taken into consideration when interpreting a statute:
1. What was the common law before the making of the act?
2. What was the "mischief and defect" for which the common law did not provide?
3. What remedy the parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the
commonwealth?
4. What is the true reason of the remedy?
In the case of Thomson vs. Lord Clan Morris, Lord Lindley M.R. stated that in interpreting any
statutory enactment regard must be had not only to the words used, but also to the history of the
Act and the reasons which lead to its being passed.
In the case of CIT vs. Sundaradevi (1957) (32 ITR 615) (SC), it was held by the Apex Court that
unless there is an ambiguity, it would not be open to the Court to depart from the normal rule of
construction which is that the intention of the legislature should be primarily to gather from the
words which are used. It is only when the words used are ambiguous that they would stand to be
examined and considered on surrounding circumstances and constitutionally proposed practices.
The Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. V. State of Bihar, (AIR 1995 SC 661) applied the
mischief rule in construction of Article 286 of the Constitution of India. After referring to the state
of law prevailing in the province prior to the constitution as also to the chaos and confusion that
was brought about in inter-state trade and commerce by indiscriminate exercise of taxing powers
by the different Provincial Legislatures founded on the theory of territorial nexus, Chief Justice
S.R.Das, stated “It was to cure this mischief of multiple taxation and to preserve the free flow of
interstate trade or commerce in the Union of India regarded as one economic unit without any
provincial barrier that the constitution maker adopted Article 286 in the constitution”.
It is a settled rule that an interpretation which results in hardship, injustice, inconvenience or

anomaly should be avoided and that which supports the sense of justice should be adopted. The
Court leans in favour of an interpretation which conforms to justice and fair play and prevents
injustice (Union of India vs. B.S. Aggarwal) (AIR 1998 S.C. 1537).
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.
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.
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.
In S.P. Gupta v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, it was stated - “The interpretation of every
statutory provision must keep pace with changing concepts and values and it must, to the extent to
which its language permits or rather does not prohibit, suffer adjustments through judicial
interpretation so as to accord with the requirement of the fast changing society which is undergoing
rapid social and economic transformation … It is elementary that law does not operate in a vacuum.
It is, therefore, intended to serve a social purpose and it cannot be interpreted without taking into
account the social, economic and political setting in which it is intended to operate. It is here that
the Judge is called upon to perform a creative function. He has to inject flesh and blood in the dry
skeleton provided by the legislature and by a process of dynamic interpretation, invest it with a
meaning which will harmonise the law with the prevailing concepts and values and make it an
effective instrument for delivery of justice.” (Para 62)

C L Ispl: ASE Aws of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C L Ispl: ASE Aws of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C L Ispl: ASE Aws of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE LAWS OF ISPL

It is a settled rule that an interpretation which results in hardship, injustice, inconvenience or

You might also like