1

CHAPTER 1
INTERPRETATION IN GENERAL

 INTRODUCTION:

Interpretation is as old as language. Elaborated rules of interpretation were evolved even at a very
early stage of the Hindu civilization and culture. The importance of avoiding literal interpretation
was also stressed in various ancient text books.
Interpretation thus is a familiar process of considerable significance. In relation to statute law,
interpretation is of importance because of the inherent nature of legislation as a source of law. The
process of statute making and the process of interpretation of statutes are two distinct activities.
Words spoken or written are the means of communication. Where they are possible of giving one
and only one meaning there is no problem. But where there is a possibility of two meanings, a
problem arises and the real intention is to be sorted out. It two persons communicating with each
other are sitting together; they can by subsequent conversation clear the confusion and make things
clear. But what will happen if a provision in any statute is found to convey more than one meaning?
The Judges and the Lawyers whose duty it is to interpret statutes have no opportunity to converse
with the Legislature which had enacted a particular statute. The Legislature, after enacting statutes
becomes functus officio so far as those statutes are concerned. It is not their function to interpret
the statutes. Thus two functions are clearly demarcated. Legislature enacts and the Judges interpret.
The difficulty with Judges is that they cannot say that they do not understand a particular provision
of an enactment. They have to interpret in one way or another. They cannot remand or refer back
the matter to the Legislature for interpretation. That situation led to the birth of principles of
interpretation to find out the real intent of the Legislature. Consequently, the Superior Courts had
to give us the rules of interpretation to ease ambiguities, inconsistencies, contradictions or lacunas.
The rules of interpretation come into play only where clarity or precision in the provisions of the
statute are found missing.
Good enactments are those which have least ambiguities, inconsistencies, contradictions or
lacunas. Bad enactments are gold mine for lawyers because for half of the litigation the legislative
draftsmen are undoubtedly the cause.
 2

Interpretation of something means ascertaining the meaning or significance of that thing or

ascertaining an explanation of something that is not immediately obvious. Construction and
Interpretation of a statute is an age-old process and as old as language.
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.

 REASONS FOR INTERPRETATION:

Interpretation of statutes has been an essential part of English law since Heydon's Case in 1854
and although it can seem complex, the main rules used in interpretation are easy to learn.
We can say, interpretation of Statutes is required for two basic reasons to ascertain:
1. Legislative Language - Legislative language may be complicated for a layman, and hence
may require interpretation; and
2. Legislative Intent - The intention of legislature

 INTERPRETATION: WHEN NECESSARY

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, 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
 3

only in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be
self-defeating.” (Para 18)

1. Language Problems:
Language is considered as the most important invention of human beings but as a matter of
fact it is the most unsuccessful medium of communication, as it is full of ambiguities,
vagueness, incorrectness and impreciseness.
As all the statutes are drawn up in form of language, therefore, these problems are inherent in
statutes as well, which will give rise to uncertainty and inexactness, hence, there will always
be a need of interpreting statutes so that their correct meanings may be ascertained as was
intended by the legislature.
Following are the common language problems that making language obscure.

2. Problem of Indirect Communication:

Language may either be speech or written language. However, in case of speech language,
the uncertainty may be resolved at the spot through Socratic Method. Whereas, the written
language (which is an indirect means of communication) offers finality as there would be no
opportunity of asking its author for clearing the idea he has presented in his text (written
language).
As the statutes are drawn up in written language there is always a necessity of interpreting
them.
3. Ambiguity:
Every language is full of ambiguities.
The term ambiguity is having its origin in the old French word ambiguite and Latin word
ambiguitas derived from another Latin word ambiguus which means doubtful .
Online Oxford Dictionary defines ambiguity as, the quality of being open to more than one
interpretations or inexactness .
It means a word or phrase which is fairly and equally open to diverse meanings.
In other words the ambiguous term or phrase is capable of either giving several meanings or
being understood in more than one senses.
FOR EXAMPLE: Consider the following sentences
1. I will meet you at the bank.
 4

2. The Bill was killed in the house.

In the first sentence the word bank is ambiguous because it may mean commercial bank or
sea bank . Hence, the hearer or reader may be confused as to where the meeting will be held.

Whereas, in the second sentence the words bill , killed and house are all ambiguous. Bill
is the name of a bird or of a person. It also means a draft document introduced in the
parliament to be passed as a law. The word killed may either mean the act of murdering a
person or destruction of something. Further, the word house may either mean the place of
dwelling or the place where the legislators (Parliamentarians) are assembled.

Now, therefore, the sentence may be open to the following multiple meanings:

1. The bill (bird) was murdered in the house (home)

2. The bill (bird) was murdered in the house (Parliamentary house)
3. The bill (a man) was murdered in the house (home)
4. The bill (a man) was murdered in the house (Parliamentary house)
5. The bill (a document) was destroyed in the house (someone s home)
6. The bill (a document) was destroyed in the house (Parliamentary house)

Hence, both of the above sentences are ambiguous as both of them are open to more than one
meanings.

4. Vagueness:
According to Oxford English Dictionary, Vague means not precise or exact in meaning.
Thus, vagueness occurs when though a word or phrase may be having a single
unambiguous meaning but is not giving an exact and precise idea.
For example, the words poor, rich, hot heavy, tall, short, big, brave, sufficient, enough,
ugly, handsome, beautiful, etc. are all vague terms.

Example:

If someone says Adil is a rich man . We can understand that Adil is having enormous
wealth. But the word rich is not giving an exact account of Adil s fortunes. Hence, it is
vague.
 5

Here the question would be that how much wealth can make a person rich? There may be
certain persons who are absolutely rich like Bill Gates, and yet there may be other persons
who are absolutely poor like a slum dog. However, there are certain persons who are
living between the two extremes. In other words, these persons are lying at the borderline
of the rich and not rich persons. Therefore, there would be uncertainty that whether these
persons shall be called rich or not.

Statutory Example: ( Sufficient Cause used in Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908)

Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 provides for condonation of delay for filing of an appeal
or application for revision or review of judgment or leave to appeal. Whereas, this delay
can only be enjoyed if the sufficient cause is to be shown. PLD 1968 Lah. 923, defines
a sufficient cause as being something beyond the control of the party.
However, the question may arise that what things are beyond the control of the party
and what are not?
Hence, there would be certain causes which would absolutely be beyond the control of
the party like, being out of country or being in jail , and there would also be certain
grounds which would absolutely not be beyond the control of the party, e.g. being busy
in exam or being busy in marriage. However, there may be certain grey area or
borderline cases where it would not be clear whether these causes are being beyond or
not of the control of the party .
To understand this concept let us consider the following case study.

Case Study I: (Mujahid Shah and another v. Suhail Ikram et al.; PLD 2006 Lah. 26)

Brief Facts:

Suhail Ikram et al. filled a suit against Mujahid Shah and another for recovery of Rs 2
cror in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Attock.
The case was decreed against defendants/Appellants on 04.09.2004 for Rs. 5,00,000.
Mujahid Shah and other (Appellants/Defendants) filed an appeal against the judgment in
the District Court of Attock on 01.11.2004.
However, the appeal was returned to the appellants on 07.04.2005, for its presentation
before appropriate forum, on the ground that the appeal against Court of Civil Judge could
 6

only lie before the District Court if the valuation of the Suit does not exceed Rs. 25,00,000,
in which case the appeal shall lie before the High Court.
Consequently, the Appellants/Defendants have filed the appeal in Lahore High Court on
04.07.2005, along with an application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of
Limitation Act, 1908.
Condonation was sought on the ground of pursuing the appeal in wrong forum under
Section 14 of Limitation Act, which is basically a ground for condoning delay in filing of
a suit.

Issue Framed:

Whether time consumed in District Court of Attock could be excluded from the period of
Limitation?

Appellants Plea:

That the Appeal was preferred in the Court of District Judge, Attock, on the wrong advice
of their Advocate.
That the advocate misconstrued the law and keeping view the decreed amount of Rs.
5,000,00, hence they may not be prejudiced by the act of their Advocate. That therefore,
institution of the appeal before wrong forum constitutes sufficient cause within the
meaning of Section 5 and 14.

Findings of the Court:

In Karamatullah (1999 SCMR 1892), the principle was established that if delay seems
to be condonable on the ground of the time consumed in the wrong forum the same may
be condoned. (i.e. the appeal pursuing in wrong forum may be a sufficient cause).
However, Section 14 requires that time consumed in wrong forum may only be excluded
from limitation period if it was in good faith .
Moreover, beyond control is also suggesting situations in good faith .
The court further relied on the following principle established in Ghulam Ali Case (PLD
1991 SC 957):
 7

That the mistake of the council could not be treated an act done in good faith as the
same was not done with due care and caution and would not amount to sufficient cause,
as contemplated by Section 5.
Hence, the Court rejected the appeal by establishing that pursuing appeal in wrong
forum could not amount to sufficient cause .

Discussion:
The phrase sufficient cause is a vague term. In the instant case the question was that
whether pursuing appeal in a wrong forum amounts to sufficient cause or not. In
Ikramatullah case, it was determined that this ground may be categorized in sufficient
cause . It then gave rise to another vague situation, that whether pursuing appeal in the
wrong forum due to mistake of the council amount to sufficient cause . To find this
answer the court diverted its attention to the nature of the mistake and determined that it
was due to the carelessness and negligence of the council, hence, it may not be bona fide
(in good faith), therefore, the Court ruled that this cannot become a sufficient cause .

5. Hasty Legislation
The legislature may face certain urgent situations for which former legislation may
not exist. Hence, to cope with the urgency of the situation, parliament may legislate in
an hasty way which may logically bring obvious uncertainty in Statutes. Therefore,
the Courts may be needed to interpret the Statutes so as to determine the meanings of
such Statutes in accordance with the intention of the legislature.
6. Clerical Mistakes
While drafting a Statute passed by the Parliament, the chance of clerical mistakes
may not avoided. Hence, if such is the situation then the Courts will interpret the
concerned Statute and remove such mistakes.
 8

 OBJECTS OF INTERPRETATION

There are following two fold objects of interpretation:

1. Determination of Meanings:

As it has already been stated that statutes are composed of language and language is consisting on
words and phrases. Whereas, the words are carrying sometimes multiple meanings and
connotations.

Therefore, the first task of the Courts is to determine the meanings of different words and phrases
used in a statute.

2. Finding the Intention of the Legislature:

As we know that legislation is the task of the legislature and the Courts cannot assume that position
while interpreting. Hence, while determining the meanings of the words and phrases during
interpretation, the Court must find out the intention of the legislature, and in accordance with this
intention it shall assign the meaning to the words and phrases used in the Statutes.

 RESTRICTIONS/LIMITS ON JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

As stated earlier, the sovereign power of a state is divided into three organs, namely, legislature,
judiciary and executive. Each organ has its specific task. The task of the legislature is to make
laws, the function of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws and work of the executive is
to enforce those laws. The smooth running of the state affairs can only be ensured, if all these three
organs functions in their respective circles and refrain from reproaching the functions of others.
To this end, it is important that while interpreting statues, Courts must not assume the position of
legislature which may give rise to judicial activism. Therefore, to avoid the evils of judicial
activism there are following limitations on Courts in interpreting statutes.

1. Interpret not Legislate:

While interpreting statutes, the only duty of the Court is to determine the literal meaning of the
words and phrases used in a statute, if the meanings of the words are clear and unambiguous. In
such a case, the only task of the Court shall be to give effect to these natural/dictionary meanings
 9

to the words or phrases. To go beyond those natural meanings and assign specialized meanings to
the words and phrases, would imply that the Court has overtaken the power of the legislature and
has laid down something very different from what the legislature enacted. Therefore, the Court
should be limited to interpret but not legislate.

2. Discover not Invent:

Whereas, if there exists an ambiguity, vagueness or uncertainty in the meaning of a word or phrase,
then the Courts can go beyond the natural/dictionary meaning of that word or phrase and can assign
any other specialized meaning.

However, in such cases too the Court is not free to assign whatever meaning it pleases. In case of
ambiguity and vagueness, the Court, while assigning meanings to the words and phrases, has to
discover the intention of the legislature first. In so determining the intention of the legislature, the
Court must not arbitrary by saying that the legislature would have meant, rather it should take
into consideration certain sources for opening the minds of the legislature.

In other words, in such a situation, the Court shall determine the intention of the legislature by
analyzing the mischief the sought to cure, the legislative history of the statute, the parliamentary
debates etc.

3. Remove not Add:

If, however, there happens any lacuna in the statute then the job of the Court would be remove the
same so that the statute may be become operative. But in doing so, the Court cannot go further and
add certain things which have not been conceived by the parliament.

 SUBJECTS OF INTERPRETATION

Simply saying any Act or document may be interpreted by Court, which is validly creating rights,
duties and relationships among individuals or individuals and State. Following are the most
common subjects of interpretation by Court:

1. Constitution
2. Legislation including Statutes, Ordinances, Orders or Subordinate Legislation
 10

3. Agreements Any kind of agreement if enforceable under law

4. Other Instruments Wills, Gift Instruments, Wakf Instruments, Trusts Instruments,
5. Dying Declarations etc.

 SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION IN PAKISTAN

Interpretation is a process and must be regulated by certain rules and principles. In Pakistan, while
interpreting statutes, the Courts must take help of the following sources:

1. Interpretive Clause:

Almost in all statutes there is a Definition/Interpretive Clause which is defining the terms and
phrases used in that Statute. Therefore, the first source of interpretation for the Court is to sort out
the meanings of the words and phrases in accordance with the interpretive clause of the concerned
Statute.

2. General Clauses Act, 1887:

In Pakistan the Interpretation Act is General Clauses Act, 1887 which is defining a list of words
and phrases commonly known to Pakistan Legal System. Moreover, it also providing certain
principles of interpretation in certain situations. Therefore, the next source of interpretation for
Courts in Pakistan is this Act.

3. Rules and Principles of Interpretation:

Beside these sources, there are certain rules and principles of interpretation developed (both
through case laws and academic scholarship) in Pakistan and also under other civilized legal
systems of the world. Hence, while interpreting a statute the Court must bear in mind these rules
and principles of interpretation.