D ream

J udiciar y
CIVIL JUDGE
dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com
+91 81810 30300

INTERPRETATION

MEANING

The term Interpretation has been derived from the Latin

phrase “Interpreteri” which is an ability to explain, expound––,
apprehend, or translate. It entails an act of discovering the real
meaning of the language which has been used in the statute.
Interpretation is regularly described as “Correct appreciation of the
Law”.
Interpretation is a specialized branch of legal studies,
where provisions under statutes are given a meaning which is
free from ambiguities. Interpretation refers to the method
adopted by the judiciary to ascertain the meaning of the statutes
or legal provisions. It is primarily a procedure vide which a
judicial court seeks to determine the actual meaning of a word
or phrase or expression which is in dispute in any statute before
the said judicial court and ascertain the true intention of the
legislature for the introduction of the concerned statutory
provision in the form of law.
There exists three branches of Government in India. They
are The Legislative, The Judiciary, and The Executive. The law-
making power rests with the Legislature. It is the Legislature,
who enjoys the authority to legislate, Law is enacted by the
Legislature with a definite purpose in mind. The Legislature
opens its mind in form of certain language. Hence, every law
finds its expression in the language itself. A statute therefore is
the formal expression of the will of Legislature.The legislated
law or statute law has attained supremacy over all other sources
of law. The other sources have almost yielded before it. It has
become a type of standard. It is embodied in an authoritative
form of written words. This literary expression is an essential
part of the law.
The purpose of the Judiciary is to interpret the law and
the purpose of the Executive is to execute the final orders. Here
the courts come under the branch of the Judiciary whose work is
to mainly interpret the law. The courts are supposed to
administer justice according to the mandate of law enacted by
the Legislature. In other words, it is the duty of the courts to
apply the letter of the law, Therefore, it is necessary to
understand the language of the statute in its correct and true
sense so that the intention of legislature is carried out properly

dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com 1|Dream
+91 81810 30300 Judiciary
 D ream
J udiciar y
CIVIL JUDGE
dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com
+91 81810 30300

and the object and purpose for which statute was enacted is
achieved. To ascertain the true sense of the language, it is
necessary to assign correct meaning to the words and
expressions used in the language.
Interpretation means giving an explanation, meaning, or
translation of a word or a sentence to pull out the real intention
of the legislature.
According to Salmond, “Interpretation or construction is the
process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the
legislature through the medium of authoritative forms by which it is
expressed.”
According to Gray, “The process by which a judge constructs
from words of a statute book, a meaning which he either believes to be
the legislature, or which he proposed to attribute to it, is called
interpretation.”
In the case of Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal1, it
was observed that Interpretation is a process by which the court
determines the meaning of a statutory provision for the purpose
of applying it.
In Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A.2, it was held
that judicial art of interpretation is imbued (diffused) with
creativity as well as realism (practicality) because interpretation
implies a degree of discretion and choice, regardless of the
conventional principle that Judges are to expound, not legislate.

INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION

Two expressions are used to refer to the process of

determination of the meaning of language used in the statute,
i.e., ‘Interpretation’ and ‘Construction’. According to Webstar's
New World Dictionary, interpretation means the act or result of
interpreting, explanation, meaning, translation, exposition etc.
Construction is an act or process of constructing, the way in which
something is constructed, manner or method of building.
COOLEY made an effort to distinguish these two terms.
According to him, "interpretation" is the art of finding out the true
sense of any form of words and enabling others to derive from
them the same idea which the author intended to convey
whereas "construction" is the process of drawing conclusions
respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of text

1 (2018) 9 SCC 691

2 (2002) 4 SCC 105 / AIR 2002 SC 1432
dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com 2|Dream
+91 81810 30300 Judiciary
 D ream
J udiciar y
CIVIL JUDGE
dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com
+91 81810 30300

which are in the spirit though not within the letter of law. In
simpler terms, it can be said that in "interpretation", we find out
true meaning of the words used in the language but in
"construction" we draw the real sense of the language itself
which might not be prima facie reflected by the words used in
the language.
In most cases, when interpretation doesn't solve the issue
then the construction comes into play. However, today in
common usage, both these words are taken as synonyms of each
other and also used synonymously.

OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF INTERPRETATION

Search & Discovery of “Legislative Intent”
The object of interpretation is to discover what the
Legislature intended. It is presumed that the Legislature speaks
its mind by use of correct expressions and therefore, unless there
is an ambiguity in the words used in the language, the provisions
should be read and understood in their grammatical sense.
When the language of a provision is clear, it should not be
twisted or strained to arrive at a "supposed intention". The words used
in the provision should be assigned their plain and ordinary meaning
and then the language should be understood in its literal sense. If the
results drawn are absurd, then the courts should look for some other
"logical" meaning of those words to remove the ambiguity and
absurdity.
The idea behind this is that the Legislature is not expected
to have used the words capable of bearing more than one
meaning, so as to lead to alternative constructions, but if such a
situation arises, then the construction which advances the policy
of the enactment must be upheld.
It was for the first time in 1584 that the principle of
legislative intent was used by Courts in England to interpret a
statute. After this, the doctrine rapidly grew to become one of
the prominent principles that aids the process of interpretation
of legislations by the courts. Intention of legislative command is
an exclusive function of judiciary. The task is an effortful one.
Very often there are competing claims as to the meaning of
words used in the statutory provisions. To find out the most

dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com 3|Dream
+91 81810 30300 Judiciary
 D ream
J udiciar y
CIVIL JUDGE
dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com
+91 81810 30300

appropriate meaning is full of difficulties. Regarding legislative

intention Maxwell, in The interpretation of Statutes writes :
“For at least six centuries, common law courts have
maintained that the primary object of statutory
interpretation ‘is to determine what intention is conveyed
either expressly or by implication by the language used’, or
in other words, ‘to give effect to the intention of the
[lawmaker] as that intention is to be gathered from the
language employed having regard to the context in
connection with which it its employed’.”
Dias has rightly identified five difficulties mostly faced in
an interpretative enterprise-
First is to ascertain the ‘intention of parliament’ which ‘is
no less elusive than the search for the ratio decidendi of a case.’
Second, ‘whose intention is it that is relevant?’ It cannot be
the intention of recommendatory body like law commission ‘nor
of the draftsman nor even’ legislators for a good number may
not be present when it was voted, or may have voted in
obedience of a mandatory whip. ‘Ascertaining the ‘intention of
legislature’, therefore, boils down to finding the meaning of
words used the ‘intent of statute, rather than that of Parliament’.
Third difficulty “arises from the fact that ‘meaning’ and
‘intention’ are ambiguous words. Does the present case fall
within what the legislature ‘meant’ to refer to by the wording it
has used (reference), or does it fall within the purpose which is
‘meant’ to accomplish (purpose)?” Dias designate these two
methods as interpretation and construction, “but the activities of
the judiciary cannot be separated in this way, for the distinction
between interpretation and construction is not clear-cut. Where
language is equivocal, the decision whether the wording was
‘meant’ to refer to the situation before the court, which no one
may have contemplated at the time of passing of the statute,
inevitably imports a measure of ‘construction.’ In such cases it is
difficult to see where ‘interpretation’ leaves off and
‘construction’ begins.” To ascertain purpose means to ‘permit a
court venture outside the enactment for available evidence as to
the policy behind it. The practical question is how far a court is

dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com 4|Dream
+91 81810 30300 Judiciary
 D ream
J udiciar y
CIVIL JUDGE
dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com
+91 81810 30300

expected to go in search of such evidence, for without some limit

the inquiry might be pursued to unreasonable lengths.’
Fourth challenge is that ‘the statutes control the future by
using broad terms of classes and categories.’ Casus omissi is
unescapable as human error is unavoidable which mandates a
measure of discretion in every decision of a case.
Fifth, every word can have three meanings that being (i) of
user, (ii) of receiver and (iii) usual meaning. Which meaning
would be preferred as most appropriate?
Judges in India face similar challenges. Intention
gathering, therefore, has remained a formidable task. They
gathered the intention some time by presumption or sometime
by means of interpretation. In those cases the guideline for court
could be found in State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.A.
Mehta(Retd), where the court observed :
“A statute must be construed in such a manner so
as to ensure that the Act itself does not become a dead letter,
and the obvious intention of the legislature does not stand
defeated, unless it leads to a case of absolute intractability
in use.”
If the intention is not obvious the words of the statute must
be seen. And in cases where issue of reservation is subject matter
of discussion, the court has to balance various competing
interest.
National Federation of the Blind3 case discusses
legislative intention in detail. The main question in this case was
‘is it obligatory on the part of the Government establishments to
provide at least 3% reservation of posts in the total cadre
strength and not in the identified vacancies.’ In other words, the
controversy was reservation in cadre strength vis a vis vacancy.
The controversy raised because of conjoint reading (or
misreading) and contradictory interpretation of Section 32, 33
and 36 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Section
32 stipulates for identification of posts which can be reserved for
persons with disabilities. Section 33 provides for reservation of

3 (2013) 10 SCC 772

dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com 5|Dream
+91 81810 30300 Judiciary
 D ream
J udiciar y
CIVIL JUDGE
dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com
+91 81810 30300

posts and Section 36 thereof provides that in case a vacancy is

not filled up due to nonavailability of a suitable person with
disability, in any recruitment year such vacancy is to be carried
forward in the succeeding recruitment year. Section 33 uses the
word ‘vacancies’. Does this mean vacancies only against
identified post or does it include unidentified post?
National Federation of Blind extracted a passage from
Prakash NathKhanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax, where it
was stated that :
“The language employed in a statute is the
determinative factor of legislative intent. The first
and primary rule of construction is that the intention of
the legislation must be found in the words used by the
legislature itself. The question is not what may be
supposed and has been intended but what has been
said. “Statutes should be construed, not as theorems of
Euclid”, Judge Learned Hand said, “but words must
be construed with some imagination of the purposes which
lie behind them”.
If the words of provision are clear and intention could be
gathered from that there is no space for headings, marginal note
in statute or judicial thinking. They could be very helpful if the
provision is ambiguous.
The court resolved the conflict and held :
“51. Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are of the
view that the computation of reservation for persons with
disabilities has to be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D
posts in an identical manner viz., “computing 3% reservation
on total number of vacancies in the cadre strength” which is the
intention of the legislature.”
In Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco
De Gama4, referred to in Manik Lal Majumdar v. Gouranga
Chandra Dey5, the Supreme Court has held that the paramount
object in statutory interpretation is to discover what the
Legislature intended. Such intention is primarily to be

4 (1990) 1 SCC 277

5 (2004) 12 SCC 448
dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com 6|Dream
+91 81810 30300 Judiciary
 D ream
J udiciar y
CIVIL JUDGE
dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com
+91 81810 30300

ascertained from the text of the enactment in question and if the

strict grammatical interpretation leads to absurdity or
inconsistency, the court could discard such interpretation and
adopt an interpretation, which will give effect to purpose of
legislation.
Thus, the conventional way of interpreting a statute is to
seek the intention of its makers. If a statutory provision is open
to more than one interpretation then the court has to adopt that
interpretation which represents the true intention of the
Legislature. But a construction resulting into hardship,
inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly or which leads to
inconsistency or uncertainty and friction in the system has to be
rejected.

dreamjudiciary24x7@gmail.com 7|Dream
+91 81810 30300 Judiciary