Introduction

One of the most substantial and the principal duty which are vested on the
judiciary is the interpretation of the statutes or law which are in force. When
the courts deliver justice in a legal dispute, they strictly abide with the
boundaries framed by the legal frameworks which encompasses certain laws,
statutes, The Constitution and delegated legislations. 

Interpretation meaning
The term has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’, which means to
explain, expound, understand, or to translate. Interpretation is the process of
explaining, expounding and translating any text or anything in written form.

According to Salmond, “Interpretation” is the process by which the court

seeks to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of
authoritative forms in which it is expressed.

Construction meaning
In simple words, construction is the process of drawing conclusions of the
subjects which are beyond the direct expression of the text. The courts draw
findings after analysing the meaning of the words used in the text or the
statutes. This process is known as legal exposition. There are a certain set
of facts pending before the court and construction is the application of the
conclusion of these facts.

The objective is to assist the judicial body in determining the real intention of
the legislature. Its aim is also to ascertain the legal effect of the legal text.

Difference between interpretation and

construction 
Interpretation Construction

 Interpretation is the process of  Construction is the process of using the legal

ascertaining the true meaning of the text to draw conclusions that go beyond its
words and the Purpose of the legislation plain language to solve Inconsistencies

 Interpretation may be performed when a  Construction may occur when the language and
certain term or phrase in law has an the meaning attached to specific phrases in the
 unambiguous meaning, laws are unclear and ambiguous.

 The process of interpretation identifies

the methods that can be used to interpret  Construction intends to bring it to a conclusion.
any statute.

 Interpretation is used to determine the  The legal impact of the legislative text can be
linguistic meaning of a legal text. ascertained through construction.

 Construction works to create standards to

 Ambiguity is removed by interpretation.
overcome ambiguity

 It is necessary to complete construction as a

 A legal text can be partially interpreted.
whole.

 Interpretation can be seen as a broad  Construction is almost like an interpretation in

form of construction which the words are considered 

Rules of Interpretation

Literal or Grammatical Rule

The literal rule of interpretation is also known as the grammatical rule of
interpretation. It is the first rule to integrate the statutes and laws by the
judiciary. Also, it is the most usable rule of interpretation.

The meaning of the literal rule of interpretation is to provide the natural and

ordinary meaning to the words used in the law. The rule says that
words must be read and understood in their literal sense. This rule gives
reference to the supremacy of the parliament. 

Implementation of literal rule of interpretation

A single word can change the whole meaning of the law that is why it
becomes more important to interpret that word without any mistakes.
In litigation in which there are two meanings of one word are given by
two advocates, now it is the duty of the court to decide which meaning is
true and considerable. 

When a code starts doing a literal interpretation of statute,

Firstly the court will identify the natural, ordinary or popular meaning of that
word. 

Second, the court will check whether:

 Was the interpretation done by the court creating some absurdity or

not? 

 Does the interpretation solve the purpose of the statute? 

 Is the interpretation contrary to the object of the statute? 

If the interpretation done by the court is not creating absurdity and it is not
contrary to the object of the statute then the court will apply the literal rule
of interpretation. 

But in a case, where the literal interpretation is done by the court is contrary
or creates absurdity, then the court will apply another rule for the
interpretation of that word. 

R v. Harriss, 1836

The defendant bit off the victim’s nose. The statute says it is offence ‘to stab
cut or wound’ a person. Here the court applied the literal rule, the act of
biting did not come within the meaning of stab cut or wound as these words
implied an instrument had to be used. Therefore the defendant’s conviction
was quashed.

Fisher v. Bell, 1960

Under the ‘offensive weapons act of 1959’, it is an offence to offer certain

offensive weapons for sale. Bristol shopkeeper, James Bell displayed a flick
knife in his shop window. When brought to trial it was concluded that Bell
could not be convicted given the literal meaning of the statute. The law of
contract states that having an item in a window is not the intention of sale
but is an invitation to treat. Given the literal meaning of this statute, Bell
could not be convicted.

Pritipal Singh V. Union Of India

There was the criminal case was against the defendant, the charge sheet was
filed as per the violations and provisions under the ‘Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985’ and the interpretation of words was in
question. The court emphasized the literal rule of interpretation.
It was held that there is a presumption that the words which are used in the
statutes are correct and exact and it is inappropriately made.

criticism

 Judges started giving more importance to the literal meaning of the

statutory
 provisions without considering the wider meaning of the context.
 This method ignores the limitations of the language.
 Words undergo changes in their meaning as time passes.
 Basing it on a wrong assumption that a word has only one fixed
meaning.
 Lack of clarity in the statute.
 This leads us to prejudices and determines the meaning of the statute.

Mischief Rule
When the literal rule of interpretation is not applicable on the statute to
remove the ambiguity and to know the intention of the legislature, the court
can take other rules of interpretation where the mischief rule of
interpretation is also part of these rules. 

Mischief rule of interpretation is also known as:

  Rule of beneficial construction. 

 Heydon’s rule 

 Purposive construction

Firstly, the rule of mischief was developed in Heydon’s case in

1584 and that is why this rule is also called Heydon’s rule. 

India has adopted this rule from English law. 

The application of the mischief rule of interpretation is done to prevent the

misuse of the provisions given in the statute. 

Implementation of the mischief rule of interpretation

There are mainly four points that have to be followed while using the
mischief rule of interpretation which are as follows:
  What was the law (common law or statute) before the making of the
statute?

 What was the mischief or defects in the previous law?

 What was the remedy that was sought by parliament?

 What is the true reason behind the remedy?

These are four points that should be taken into consideration while doing the
interpretation of statute with the help of the mischief rule. The main purpose
of the rule of mischief is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
The best advantage of the rule of mischief is that it clauses loopholes in the
law or statute. It allows the law to develop. 

And the disadvantage of the rule of mischief is that it allows the judiciary to
apply their opinions which is an infringement of the separation of powers. 

Heydon’s Case

This case 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?

Elliot V. Grey, 1960

According to the Road Traffic Act of 1930 uninsured cars are not allowed to
be driven or parked on the road. The defendant’s car was parked on the road
near the public place but he was not using it.
The mischief rule was applied by the court by stating that the car being used
in the road if in case the car causes an accident, insurance would be
required.

Thomas v. Lord Clan Morris

Here it was stated that interpretation of any statutory enactment should not
only restrict them to the interpretation of words and phrases used, but they
should also look at the history of the act and the reasons behind passing
such acts.
Golden Rule
The golden rule of interpretation is the most repeated and important question
ever in the topic of interpretation of statute. 

The golden rule of interpretation is also known as:

 Modifying rule of interpretation

 British rule of interpretation
Meaning of golden rule of interpretation
The golden rule of interpretation is the modification of the literal or
grammatical rules of interpretation. In ordinary cases, the judiciary must have
found the true intention of the legislature by the words and laws used in the
statute by finding the natural, grammatical or ordinary meaning of the word.
The literal rule of interpretation is the first rule which is applied by the court to
solve any ambiguity in the statute. But what is the remedy if the literal rule
makes the absurdity, inconvenience, hardship or injustice in the law?

Here comes the golden rule of interpretation which modifies the literal rule of
interpretation which is facing the problem of absurdity, inconvenience or
injustice. The golden rule modifies the meaning of such words to such an
extent to prevent such consequences by removing the absurdity, hardship,
injustice and evasion from the word. While using the golden rule of
interpretation it should be kept in mind that the court must modify the words to
an extent or requirements only. The court cannot change the full statute. 

R v. Allen, 1872

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.”
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.

Adler v George case, 1964

Under section 3 of the ‘official secrets act,1920’ it was an offence to

obstruct HM Forces in the vicinity of a prohibited area. Adler was arrested
for obstructing forces whilst in a prohibited area. Under The Literal Rule,
Adler was not in the vicinity of the area, he was in the area and so was
not infringing the terms of the act. The Golden Rule was applied to extend
the meaning of ‘vicinity’ and avoid the possible absurd outcome.

Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Brij Kishore

The Supreme Court held that the expression “landless person” used in
Section 14 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.

Criticism

 This infringes the separation of power among the wings of the

government that is between judiciary and legislature.

 Here judges can technically change the law by changing the

meaning of the words in the statute.

 This method can be used only when there is an absurdity in the

statute.

Rule of Constraction
1.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 cannot 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.
State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, 2005

In this case, 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.

2.Harmonious Construction
According to the doctrine of harmonious construction, the conflict
between two or more statutes or two or more than two provisions of the
same act must be interpreted in such a manner that should give effect to
both the statutes and provisions of the same act. 

In simple words, it is the duty of the court to interpret two or more

inconsistent provisions of the same statute in a way so that both the
provisions can survive or both remain in force. 
Where it becomes impossible to use the doctrine of harmonious
construction, the court’s decision regarding those provisions shall prevail.

The objective of the doctrine of harmonious construction

The object of harmonious construction is to avoid the conflict between the

provisions of a statute by making some changes so that they harmonize
with each other. 

Principles of harmonious construction

The Supreme Court of India laid down the main five principles of the rule
of harmonious construction, giving the landmark judgement in the case
of CIT vs Hindustan bulk carriers.
So let’s read all these principles of harmonious construction:
1. It is the duty of the court to avoid the clash between the provisions
of a statute by harmonizing them in a way that both the provisions
remain in force without any conflict.
2. One provision of the statute cannot be used to defeat the other
provision of these same acts unless decode doesn’t find a way to
reconcile the differences between them. 
 3. If it is impossible to reconcile both the provisions in that case the
court must interpret both the provisions in such a way so that both
provisions remain in force. 
4. While doing the harmonious construction between the provisions of
a statute, the court must keep in mind that the interpretation
should not reduce the power of one provision and give more power
to another provision. 
5. Harmonious construction cannot be used to destroy any statutory
provision or to render its effects.

Shankari Prasad vs Union of India

In this case, article 13 (2) and Article 368 of the constitution of India
were contrary to each other.

The Supreme Court India held in that case that Article 368 gives the
power to parliament to enact the laws. But according to article 13, the
parliament cannot take away the fundamental rights given under the
constitution of India, like the right to equality etc. while exercising the
power given under Article 368 of the Indian constitution.

M.S.M Sharma v. Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395.

It was held by the court that article 19(1)(a)  itself talks about reasonable
freedom and therefore freedom of speech and expression shall pertain only
to those portions which have not been expunged on the record but not
beyond that.

3.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.

This rule is always compared with the mischief rule. As mischief rule looks into
the gap between the old and new law and how parliament came up with the new
law and what are the new remedies brought out to resolve the problems which
were exiting before, whereas the purposive construction rule is broader where it
not only figure out the gap between the old and new laws but it also helps
judges to make an attempt to identify what parliament meant to achieve.
The days have passed by when judges used to use only strict rule where they
interpret the law only based on the meaning of the words used in the statute, but
now court seeks 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
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.

4.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 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 labourrelated laws. Provision is capable of giving
two meanings where one would preserve the benefit and another.

Hindustan Level Ltd v Ashok Vishnu Kate

1996 AIR 285, 1995 SCC (6) 326
In this case, the court held that in a case which is related to the prevention of
unfair labour practices it should be made completely in accordance with the
labour point of view as they are benefitting people here and while interpreting
Social Welfare Legislation also they should consider the benefitting people of
the society.

Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohammad Quasium

29 July, 1997
The supreme court 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.

Conclusion
Interpretation and construction are necessary to ensure that every citizen of
a nation receives fair justice. The court must be quick to apply the law to the
situation. By using interpretation, the court can examine the meaning of the
statutes’ words, while construction aids in the explanation of the laws.