There are various principles of interpretation of statute such as:
- Literal Rule of interpretation
- Mischief Rule of interpretation
- Golden rule of interpretation
- The statute should be read as whole
- Construction Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat
- Identical expressions to have same meaning
- Construction Noscitur A Sociis
- Construction Ejusdem Generis
- Construction Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
- Construction Contemporanea Expositio Est Fortissima In Lege
The principles of interpretation given under point 4 to 10 is mentioned in this article.
THE STATUTE SHOULD BE READ AS WHOLE
The statute should be read as a whole is one of the important general principles of the interpretation. It is derived from a latin maxim ‘ex visceribus actus’. As per this principle the statute should be read as a whole. No provision in statute and no word in a section should be construed in isolation because there may be situations where a provision given a statute is connected with the other provision of a statute or the omission of word in a section leads to wrong interpretation of the section.
This rule is not useful when the meaning of a provision is clear. It is applicable only when the sections or provisions are very closely connected to each other. Phrases like ‘unless the context otherwise requires, ‘unless a contrary intention implies’ and ‘ if not inconsistent with the context or subject matter’ are indications of application of this principle.
Case- State of West Bengal vs Union of India (AIR 1963 SC 1241)- In this case it was held that in considering the true meaning of words or expression used by the Legislature, the Court must have regard to the aim, object and scope of the statute to be read in its entirety. The Court must ascertain the intention of the Legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the entire Statute.
Case- Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2003 SC 511)- In this case it was held that the basic principle of construction of statute is that the statute should be read as whole, then chapter by chapter, section by section and word by word.
Case- Poppatlal Shah vs State of Madras (AIR 1953 SC 274)- In this case supreme court held that it is a settled rule of construction that in order to ascertain the legislative intent, all the constituent parts of the statute is to be taken together and each phrase, or sentence is to be considered in the light of general purpose and object of the act.
Case- State of Punjab vs O.G.B. Syndicate Limited (AIR 1964 SC 669)- In this case it was held that to consider the true meaning of the words or expressions used by legislation, the court must have regard to aim, object and scope of the statute to be read in its entirety.
CONSTRUCTION UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT
The latin phrase ‘ut res magis valeat quam pereat’ means that it is better for a thing to have effect than to be void. This maxim states that while interpreting any law if there are two interpretations possible, one which is intra vires or valid and the other which is ultra vires or void than the court will use the first meaning. This doctrine is applicable in the interpretation of an instrument, document or deed etc.
In simple words if the language used in statute is ambiguous, leading to more than one construction then the principle which will give effect to the word of statute and makes it valid is preferred.
Case- Tan Bug Taim vs Collector of Bombay [(1945) 47 BOMLR 1010]- In this case it was held that a broad and liberal interpretation should be given to law but it did not imply that the courts are free to stretch or pervert the language of the enactment in interest of any legal or constitutional theory.
Case- H.S. Vankani vs State of Gujarat (AIR 2010 SC 1714)- In this case it was held by the supreme court that if the obvious intention of the statute give rise to obstacles in implementation, then the court must find the ways to overcome such obstacles.
IDENTICAL EXPRESSIONS TO HAVE SAME MEANING
Identical expressions to have same meaning is one of the general principles of interpretations. This principle states that if same words are used in same statute in same context then they bear the same meaning. But if the words are used in the different context then it may indicate that it was intended by legislature to have different meaning. In the cases of different context the definitions provided in the statute generally commence with the expression “unless the context otherwise requires”.
It is a very difficult task for court to examine that whether the word used in the statute is used in the same context or in the different context. The courts while examining it should also give the reasons for the same.
Case- Maharaj Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 2602)- In this case the word vest was interpreted in Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and and Land Reforms Act, 1951. In this case supreme court held that the word vest was used in two different context firstly vesting in the state was absolute vesting and vesting in the gaon sabha was for the limited purpose.
CONSTRUCTION NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
‘Noscitur a sociis’ is a latin term which contains two words Noscitur and Sociis. The word ‘noscitur’ means to know whereas the word ‘Sociis’ means association, so this latin maxim combinedly means ‘to know from the association’.
This latin maxim means that a word is to be judged by the company it keeps. When two or more words which have a analogous meaning are put together, they are to be understood in their cognate sense. This principle also provides that an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it. As per this maxim if multiple words having similar meaning are put together then they are to be understood in their collective. This principle is used when the intention of legislation is not clear.
Case- Alamgir vs State of Bihar (AIR 1959 SC 736)- In this case the meaning of word detain under section 498 was challenged. Supreme court in this case while interpreting the word detain states that the word detains generally means detention against the will but here the general meaning of word detain cannot be attributed and it should be interpreted in the lights of other words mentioned in section 498 such as takes, entices or conceals. So here the word detention means detention without the consent of the husband.
Case- Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association vs Administrative Officer (AIR 2004 SC 1426)- In this case, supreme court interpreted word ‘employee’ mentioned under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by applying the principle of ‘noscitur a sociis’ and held that a teacher employed in a school does not fall under any of the categories mentioned under Section 2(e) because it is a noble profession so legislature should extend benefits of gratuity to them by enacting a new legislation.
CONSTRUCTION EJUSDEM GENERIS
The expression ‘ejusdem generis’ means of the same kind. This principle states that when a general word follows specific words of distinct category then the general word may be given a restricted meaning of the same category. This condition is applicable when the following conditions are satisfied=:
- The statute contains an enumeration of specific words.
- The subjects of enumeration contains a class or category.
- The class or category is not exhaustive.
- The general terms follow the enumeration
- There is no indication of a different legislative intent.
All the above conditions are enshrined in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board vs Harishanker (AIR 1979 SC 65)
Case- Circuit City Stores Inc. vs Adams [532 U.S. 105 (2001)]- In this case US supreme court defines ejusdem generis as a situation in which “ general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.”
CONSTRUCTION EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS
The maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusion alterius’ means that when one or more thing of a class are mentioned then the other things of same class are excluded. This maxim states that if one or more things are clearly specified in a statute, then it excludes the same things. This maxim is applicable in the cases where specific words are mentioned in statutes.
For Example- If a statute clearly refers dairy products then it will only refers to dairy products and will not include any other food items.
Case- Khemka and Company vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1975 SC 1579)- In this case supreme court applied the principle of ‘expressio unius est exclusion alterius’ and held that penalty provisions in the Central and state legislations were special provisions of each act and are not part of general sales tax law of the Centre or the State.
CONSTRUCTION CONTEMPORANEA EXPOSITIO EST FORTISSIMA IN LEGE
The maxim ‘contemporanea exposition est fortissimo in lege’ means that the contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in the law. Coke was the first person who propounded this principle. This principle states that the best way to construe a document is to read as it would read when made. This is generally applicable to the old statutes because while interpreting the old statutes high regard must be paid to the meanings given to them by the judges of that time because they were in a better position to judge the intention of legislature at that time.
But in the cases where it is clearly established that an enactment has been wrongly interpreted again and again, then the court should correct the past mistakes and construe the meaning which is correct.
Case- Raja Ram vs State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 828)- In this case supreme court refused to apply the rule of contemporonea expositio while interpreting section 25 of the Indian evidence act, 1872 on the ground that the act is comparatively a modern act.
Case- M/s J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited vs Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 191)- In this case it was held that the maxim contemporonea exposition is applicable in construing ancient statutes and not in interpreting acts which are comparatively modern.
References:
- Interpretation of Statutes by Prof. T. Bhattacharya
- Interpretation of Statute by BM Gandhi
