JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI

(FACULTY OF LAW)

Interpretation Of Statute

Project On-
CONCEPT AND INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

SUBMITTED TO: - Prof. Rubia Jabeen

B.A.LL.B. (Self-finance) 6th Semester

Batch: 2020-2021
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my professor Rubia Jabeen ma’am, for
instilling confidence in me and entrusting the task to carry this project. It was very difficult task
to carry out research work during the pandemic of COVID-19, but the supportive materials
provided by Ma’am were very useful during my assignment. I am indeed privileged having
being groomed in a prestigious institution like Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. I would also
like to express my gratitude to my friends and family for their support and help during this
research work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

 Introduction

 Importance of Interpretation

 Rules of Interpretation of Statutes

 Strict Interpretation

 Liberal Interpretation

 Literal Rule

 Reasonable Construction

 Golden Rule

 Mischief Rule

 Harmonious Construction

 Ejusdem Generis

 Beneficial Construction

 Purposive Construction

 Conclusion

 References
LIST OF CASES:

 State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, 2003 (2) JCR 309 Jhr.

 Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 184.

 Keshavnanda Bharti v. State of Kerela, AIR (1973)  4 SCC 225.

 Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 SCR (1)

 R v. Allen.

 Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Brij Kishore, AIR 1981 SC 1656.

 Heydon’s Case. (1854) EWHC Exch J36.

 Bengal immunity co. V. State of Bihar, AIR 1995 SC 661.

 CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, AIR2002 SC3491.

 Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohammad Quasium, AIR 1997 SC3280.

INTRODUCTION:

The word ‘Interpretation’ is derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means to explain
or expound or to understand or translate. Interpretation is a process through which one arrives
at the true and correct intention of the law-making body which is laid in the form of statutes.
This helps in finding out the intention of the author.

Interpretation of any data generally means to analyze the available data and come out with an
opinion which is certain and clear. This increases the ability of an individual to understand
and explain it in his/her own way. This helps to find out the ways to understand and analyse
the statute, where it leads the interpreter to the whole new meaning which is completely
different from the general meaning.

It is necessary for all law students, lawyers, judges and anyone who belongs to the legal
fraternity to know how to interpret the statute whenever a legislative house comes up with the
new statute or an amendment because they will be dealing with these legislations on day to
day basis. The main intention of analyzing is to know the new changes which are being
brought due to the legislation and the impacts of that legislation in society.

Usually, the interpretation of the statute is done by the judges, it is the primary function of the
judge as a judicial head. As we all know that our government is divided into three important
wings which are: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Here legislature lays down the law
and intends people to act according to the legislature and the judiciary that is judges will
come up with the proper meaning of the law and puts the law into operation. This helps in
maintaining checks and balances between the wings.

According to Gray, the process by which a judge constructs from the words of a statute book,
a meaning which he either believes to be that of the legislature, or which, he proposes to
attribute to it is interpretation. Salmond on the other hand describes interpretation or
construction as the process by which courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature
through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.

IMPORTANCE OF INTERPRETATION:

 The ambiguity of the words used in the statute: Sometimes there will be words that
have more than one meaning. And it may not be clear which meaning has to be used.
There could be multiple interpretations made out of it. 

 Change in the environment: We all know that society changes from time to time and
there may be new developments happening in a society that is not taken into
consideration, this lacks the predictability of the future event.

 Complexities of the statutes: usually statutes are complex and huge, it contains
complicated words, jargon and some technical terms which are not easy to understand
and this complexity may lead to confusion.

 When legislation doesn’t cover a specific area: Every time when legislations are out it
doesn’t cover all the area it leaves some grey areas and interpretation helps in bridging
the gaps between.

 Drafting error: The draft may be made without sufficient knowledge of the subject. It
may also happen due to the lack of necessary words and correct grammar. This makes
the draft unclear and creates ambiguity in the legislature.

 Incomplete rules: There are few implied rules and regulations and some implied
powers and privileges which are not mentioned in the statute and when these are not
defined properly in the statute this leads to ambiguity.
RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:

 STRICT INTERPRETATION:

Strict interpretation means each word in the statute should be interpreted by the letter and not
with respect to the spirit behind the statute. A judge has to apply the text only as it is written
in the statute when there is clear meaning of the text there will be no scope for any further
investigation regarding the same. Here in strict interpretation, the courts will use the literal
rule of interpretation.

This method is important because judges will not make any wrong inferences from statutes
and will not go out from the letter of the law and the judgment will be purely based on the
text of the statute. This upholds the rule of law by giving importance to the legislature that
passes the laws.

If we take the example when we are dealing with the taxation provisions we can not vary
from the letter of law as it is universally applicable to all the people in the nation. It is applied
as per the text in order to fix the standard in society and clear all the uncertainties which may
arise in the near future.

In the case of State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements1, it was held that the provisions of the
law should be strictly constructed, it should not be let open for the court to interpret, the court
cannot ignore the conditions prescribed in the provision. Wherever there is a mandatory rule
it must be strictly followed, when a statute explicitly mentions the performance of a particular
act in a specific way and lays down the consequences to it, that should be mandatorily
followed. Cardinal rule of interpretation is that when a particular act should be done in a
prescribed manner the courts cannot interpret that in any way of performance.

 LIBERAL INTERPRETATION:

In this method, the judge does not restrict themselves to the literal meaning of the law but
they will give all the opportunity to the lawyers to enlighten them with the different
interpretations of the law. They will try looking at the law from the other perspective, by

1
2003 (2) JCR 309 Jhr
which many of the modern-day problems would be solved. As it is an exhaustive rule of
interpretation it gives a wider scope of expanding the law and helps in creating a new law if
required. Here judges have all the powers and authority to interpret the laws according to the
case requirements and in this rule, there will be no compulsion to follow only the letter of the
law, they can go beyond the meaning of the text and interpret. ..

If we take the example of the ‘CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT’, the main aim of that act
is to protect the interest of the people. All the laws are established for the public interest it
cannot be looked in a narrow way by restricting it into the letter of law.

 LITERAL RULE

The literal rule basically looks into what the law says, not what the law means. It considers
the original meaning of the word. Here judges cannot come up with the words and interpret
according to the case basis. When the language used is simple and the words have only one
meaning to it at that time judges will use this literal rule of interpretation.

When there are no two meanings to a word. This rule helps courts from taking sides in
legislative or political issues. If any word in the statute has a special meaning to it, usually it
will be mentioned in the interpretation clause, all technical words are given ordinary meaning
if the statute has not specified it. Usage of the appropriate words is very important and makes
a lot of difference in the meaning of the context.

In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh 2, the main question was the
interpretation of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that use of
word “shall” leaves no discretion to police officer to hold preliminary enquiry before
recording an FIR. Use of the expression “information” without any qualification also denotes
that police has to record information despite he being unsatisfied by its reasonableness. So
here, the court interpreted the literal meaning of the words used.

In Keshavnanda Bharti v. State of Kerela3 it was held that a word gets its ‘colour’ in the
context in which it is used. The word gathers its meaning not only in the context that it has
been used but from the words used in similar conditions.

2
AIR 2014 SC 184
3
(1973)  4 SCC 225
 REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION:

Reasonable construction follows the principle of ‘Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pareat’ which
means when the interpretation of the statute is made it should be done in a meaningful and
sensible manner. Every word or expression used in an act should receive its natural and fair
meaning which was made in accordance with the legislator.

If a statute is having a two interpretation where one is completely vague and absurd and
other is perfectly making sense then that meaningful interpretation should be used.

In Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration4, it was held that the Courts can depart from the
dictionary meaning of a word and give it a meaning which will advance the remedy and
suppress the mischief provided the Court does not have to conjecture or surmise.
Construction will be adopted in accordance with the policy and object of the statute.

 GOLDEN RULE:

The Golden rule is also called as British rule of interpretation, it is a form of statutory
interpretation which allows a judge to depart from a normal meaning of the word in order to
avoid an absurd result. As we know applying the bare letter of law sometimes may lead us to
confusion and gives us an absurd result, in order to overcome these kinds of results judges
will give an opportunity to the lawyer to come up with the new interpretation to the law
which will be more certain and accurate to the case.

This method of interpretation is also known as the compromise method between literal rule
and the mischief rule. In the literal rule, judges will only use the word meaning nothing else,
but sometimes this may be irrational and gives us unexpected results which will be unlikely
to the legislator’s intention.

In the case of homographs, where a word can have more than one meaning, the judge can
choose the meaning which is suitable at that particular case if the word only has only one
meaning, but applying that would lead to a bad decision where the judge can apply that
decision and arrive at a completely different meaning.

4
AIR 1965 SCR (1) 7
This rule is used in two main situations:

1. When the meaning of the word is too narrow.

2. When the word itself has ambiguity or absurdity.

For example: Whenever you stand near the lift it will be written that ‘’Do not use lifts in case
of fire.’’ if you consider it in a literal meaning you should never use the lifts, this would be an
absurd result because the intention of the person who put the sign is to prevent using of lift
when there is live fire burning anywhere near the lift.

In the case of R v. Allen, the defendant was charged with an offence of bigamy under section
57 of ‘offence against person act 1861’. The statutes states “whomsoever being married shall
marry any other person during the lifetime of husband and wife is guilty of an offence.”
Under the literal rule of interpretation of this section, the offence would be impossible to
commit since the civil law will not recognize a second marriage as an attempt to marry in
such circumstances would not be recognized as a valid marriage.

Court applied the golden rule and held that the word marriage should be interpreted as ‘to go
through a marriage ceremony.’ The defendant was convicted and held guilty.5

In Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Brij Kishore 6, the Supreme Court held that the
expression “landless person” used in Section14 of the ‘U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953,’
which made provision for grant of land to landless persons, was limited to “landless
labourers”. Landless labour is he who is engaged in agriculture but having no agricultural
land.

The Court further said that “any landless person” did not include a landless businessman
residing in a city. The object of the Act was to implement the Bhoodan movement, which
aimed at the distribution of land to landless labourers who were verged in agriculture. A
businessman, though landless cannot claim the benefit of Act.

5
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/critical-analysis-of-the-literal-golden-and-
mischief-rule-law-essay.php
6
AIR 1981 SC 1656
 MISCHIEF RULE:

The mischief rule is a kind of statutory interpretation where it attempts to determine the
intention of the legislators. It basically originated in the 16th century by the Heydon’s case in
the united kingdom, the main objective of this is to find out the mischief and defect of the
previous statute which was in question and how the new statute will come up with the remedy
that resolves the defect. 

The main purpose of bringing the amendments in the statute is to add on additional areas or
to make certain changes in the existing law and make it wider where it covers many other
circumstances. Legislating a new law is to resolve the problem which was unable to resolve
through the other laws which were existing before. And this also helps in finding out the
answers to those questions which were not answered in the previous law. So here we can
observe the retrospective effect in the process of making laws.

This rule is also called as purposive construction as there is a purpose behind making this
ruling. Here court attempts to know the intention of the legislators for bringing in the change
in the law. It also tries to analyze the mischief and the defect which was present in the
previous law which leads to the creation of the new law.

The Heydon’s Case7 helps us to know the 4 important points which we have to keep in mind
while statute interpretation.

1. What was the common law before the making of the act?

2. What was the mischief or defect which the common law did not provide?

3. What remedy the Parliament had resolved by appointing to cure the disease of the
commonwealth?

4. What is the true reason behind the remedy?

7
(1854) EWHC Exch J36
In the case Bengal immunity co. V. State of Bihar8, the court applied the mischief rule in the
construction of Article 286 of the constitution of India. Article 286 was in question because
before the implementation of this section every state had its own powers and privileges to
make its own laws regarding taxation. But the supreme court said that article 286 is made in
order to regulate the interstate taxation system and to maintain a well-organized taxation
system. And make the whole of India as one economic unit.

Here Supreme Court has looked into the history of article 286 and also the reasoning behind
it by considering both of it they have interpreted the statute by mischief rule.

 HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION:

The courts should avoid using such laws which bring ambiguity to the subject and makes
courts inconsistent. This rule of interpretation is adopted when there is a conflict between two
or more statutes or between two provisions of the same statute. Every law has a certain
purpose set, so judges should take those purposes into consideration and it should be read as a
whole while interpreting. Judges should apply such provisions which are in accordance with
the public interest. .

Sometimes it’s impossible to harmonise between two provisions of the statute at that time the
decision of the judges will prevail above everything. When there is “a head-on clash”
between the provisions of law the judges should bring harmony and make justice to both the
parties.

Supreme Court explained harmonious rule as to when the two provisions of the same
legislation are inconsistent with each other, both the provisions must be interpreted in such a
way where it gives equal importance to others. Here one provision will not override on other
provision, it aims at harmonizing between conflicting provisions and avoids destruction one
provision.

Supreme Court has laid down five principles of rule of Harmonious Construction in the
landmark case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers9:

8
AIR 1995 SC 661
9
AIR 2002 SC 3491
 1. The courts should avoid such provisions which are contradicting in nature and which
brings the head-on clash between each other. 

2. The courts should interpret in such a way that brings harmony to the contradicting
provisions.

3. The provision of one section cannot defeat the other provision.

4. When the court fails to bring harmony to both parties, it should at least interpret in
such a manner where both the provisions are given effect as much as possible.

5. Courts should keep in mind that the interpretation which reduces one provision to the
dead is not harmonious, here harmonising doesn’t mean destroying.

 EJUSDEM GENERIS:

Ejusdem Generis means of the same kind. Generally, the words should be given their natural
meaning, unless it requires special meaning based on that context. When general words
follow specific words that are distinct in nature, the general words should also be given the
specific meaning to it.

The courts will interpret such general words follow specific words in a restricted way. It will
be based on the facts and circumstances of the case which may change case to case. The
legislative intent on principle of Ejusdem Generis is if the general words to be used in the
restricted sense that means those words will be having a special meaning to it or else why
would they even use specific words.

For example in an act dealing with the slaughter of animals for food for human consumption,
the expressions used are “cows, goats, sheep, and other animals”.

 Whether the following animals are cover:

1. Cats and dogs 

2. Poultry

3. Wild animals

4. Horseflesh
In the case of Regina v. Edmundson, it was stated by Lord Campbell “Where there were
general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined
to things of the same kind as those specified.” by applying this it helps judges to restrict the
wide ambit of the general expression.

In this case, it gave us the basic requirements which should be present in the case in order to
apply ejusdem generis10:

1. The statue should contain an enumeration of specific words.

2. The general term should follow the specific term.

3. There should be no different intent of the legislature to the general terms.

4. The series of the enumeration should constitute a class or category.

5. The class or category should not be exhausted by the enumeration of specific words.

 BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION:

The general rule of the statute is that if a word used in the statute excludes certain cases in its
common meaning, it should not be forced unnecessarily to include those cases. An exception
to this rule is that when the main objective of the statute is not achieved by excluding those
cases then the word may be interpreted on the basis of the case requires. 

This rule of interpretation will benefit individuals. Whenever there is an ambiguity or when
the which would take the benefit away from the individual, so the meaning which prevails
over the benefit to the individuals should be adopted. 

The courts should be generous towards the persons to whom benefits are conferred by the
statute. Here it involves the judges to give the widest meaning to the statute in order to
protect the interest of the parties, if you look into certain statutes the main purpose is to
benefit and protect the interest of the person, for example, Industrial Disputes Act, Consumer
Protection Act, Juvenile Justice Act and all labour-related laws. Provision is capable of
giving two meanings where one would preserve the benefit and another.

10
https://blog.ipleaders.in/statute-interpretation/
In the case of Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohammad Quasium11, Supreme court applied this rule
of interpretation and held that the rights of maintenance of children below two years old and
the mother under Section 125 of the code of civil procedure 1973 are independent of each
other and any other and subsequent legislature regarding maintenance of children below two
year and mother that maybe Muslim women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
could not affect the same in absence of clear provision to the effect.

 PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION:

It is the modern version of mischief rule. It is actually more flexible compared to literal rule
and golden rule which tends to concentrate more on the meaning of individual words or
phrases. This looks for the purpose of the law. This rule allows judges to add or ignore any of
the words in the statute while interpreting in order to protect the purpose of creating that law
and give fair and equal justice to everyone. 

Court can seek to give effect to the purposive rule where it not only consider the words of the
statute according to their meaning but also according to the context. ‘Context’ here doesn’t
mean only ‘linguistic context’, it takes into consideration the subject-matter, scope, purpose,
and background of the act. 

Important features of this rule are:

1. Here judges do not go by the letter of the law, but they look into the intention and the
spirit of the statute.

2. Legislative intention is a fictitious concept.

3. The legislative intention with respect to a particular statute can be an intention of the
majority of the parliamentarians. 

4. In mischief rule, the court resorts a particular act intended to remedy but purposive
construction looks into the overall intention of the parliament on the statute. In this
way, purposive construction is wider than the mischief rule. 

11
AIR 1997 SC 3280
CONCLUSION:

Interpretation is the primary function of the judges. There are three wings of a Government:
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. It is the legislature which lays down the laws but it is
judiciary which puts the law into operation or in use. There arises need for the judges to
ascertain the correct meaning of the law laid by the legislature.

Everyday working of the courts involves interpretation of statutes because it is the duty of the
judiciary to act according to the true intention of the legislature. The courts are expected not
to act arbitrarily and consequently they are to follow the rules of interpretation. It is basically
finding out the true sense of any form of words that is the sense the author intended to
convey, and of enabling others to derive from them the same idea which the author intended
to convey.

So statutes are to be interpreted to enforce the law and also to avoid miscarriage of justice.
But if any interpretation results in injustice, hardship, inconvenience it should be avoided and
the one which supports the justice should be adopted. Different rules have been developed to
provide the framework for the interpretation and it is the discretion of the judges to apply the
best fitting rule in the case.
REFERENCES:

 KP Chakravarthy, “Interpretations of Statutes”, 2nd Ed., Allahabad : Central Law

 Prof. T. Bhattacharya, “The Interpretation of Statutes”, 8th Ed., Allahabad : Central

 VN Shukla, “Constitutional Law”, 6th Ed., Wadhwa Nagpur: Lexis Nexis