Interpretation of Statutes

Module I : Introduction to Interpretation of Statutes

Meaning of Interpretation
“the essence of law lies in the spirit, not its letter, for the letter is significant
only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it” -
Salmond
Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by
giving the words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the
process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute. The
Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been
certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the
Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’.

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.

Need for 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.

Nature and Scope Of Interpretation Of Statutes

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 for interpretation would

arise.

In this regard, a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court in

R.S. Nayak v A.R. Antulay, 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 only in the event of an ambiguity
or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self-defeating.”

Again Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs,

Bombay, has followed the same principle and observed:
“Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity
and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the
court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory
provisions.”

Thus the purpose of Interpretation of Statutes is to help the Judge to ascertain

the intention of the Legislature – not to control that intention or to confine it
within the limits, which the Judge may deem reasonable or expedient.

Classification of Statutes

Statutes or laws, come in different types, each with its unique purpose and
impact. This article explores the Classification of Statutes, which involves
organising laws into categories based on what they do. Some statutes are
designed to correct problems in existing laws, while others impose penalties for
wrongdoing.

Some expand what’s allowed, while others clarify unclear rules. There are also
statutes that change existing laws or repeal them. Understanding these
classification of statutes helps us grasp the diverse roles statutes play in our
legal system.

What are Statutes?

The term “Statutes” has a specific legal meaning. As per Black’s Law
Dictionary, a “Statute” refers to a formal written rule created by a legislative
authority, such as a country, state, city or county. Statutes often dictate what is
allowed or not allowed or they lay out official policies. This term is typically
used to distinguish laws created by legislative bodies from the judgments made
by common law courts and the rules established by government agencies.
In the Indian Constitution, the term “Statute” is not used; instead, the term
“law” is employed. According to Article 13(3)(a) of the Indian Constitution, the
definition of “law” includes ordinances, orders, by-laws, rules, regulations,
notifications, customs or practices that have the power of law within the
territory of India.

A Statute, essentially, represents the intent of the legislative body. It may

include various components, such as a short title, long title, preamble, marginal
notes, section headings, interpretation clauses, provisions, examples,
exceptions, saving clauses, explanations, schedules and punctuation. These
elements collectively make up the content and structure of a statute.

What is the Classification of Statutes?

Classification of Statutes can be done based on their duration, nature of

operation, purpose and scope.

Classification of Statutes by Duration

Temporary Statute: A temporary statute is one that specifies a fixed period of

operation and validity within the statute itself. It remains in effect until the
specified time elapses unless repealed earlier. If the legislature wishes to extend
its effect, a new enactment is required. For example, the Finance Act is a
temporary statute, requiring annual reauthorisation.

Permanent Statute: A permanent statute doesn’t have a predefined expiration

date. However, this doesn’t make the statute unchangeable. It can be amended
or repealed by another act.
Classification of Statutes by Method

Mandatory, Imperative or Obligatory Statute: A mandatory statute compels

the performance of certain actions or dictates that specific things must be
carried out in a particular manner or form. Non-compliance typically leads to
legal consequences.

Directory or Permissive Statute: A directory statute merely provides guidance

or permission for actions without compelling their performance. In some cases,
statutes prescribe conditions or forms that are considered essential for the
regulated action and their omission can render the action invalid. In other cases,
these prescriptions are seen as non-binding and failure to follow them might
result in penalties if any are stipulated by the statute.

In the case of H.V. Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, it was determined that

mandatory provisions must be strictly adhered to, while substantial compliance
with directory provisions is generally sufficient to meet legal requirements.

Classification of Statues with Reference to Object

Codifying Statute

A codifying statute is one that aims to comprehensively outline the entire body
of law on a specific subject. It seeks to provide a thorough and authoritative
statement of the key legal rules pertaining to that subject. This includes existing
provisions from various statutes on the subject and may also incorporate
common law principles.

An example is the Bill of Exchange Act of 1882 in England, which codified

laws regarding bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes. Similarly, the
Hindu Succession Act of 1956 in India is a codifying statute that addresses
intestate succession among Hindus.

Consolidating Statute

A consolidating statute consolidates all statutory enactments related to a

particular subject into a single law, making it easier to access and understand. It
brings together existing statutory provisions on the subject, often with minor
modifications.

For example, in England, the Law of Property Act of 1925 consolidated the acts
of 1922 and 1924. In India, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 is a
consolidating statute concerning criminal procedures. Such statutes not only
compile earlier laws but also repeal the earlier acts for the sake of clarity.

Declaratory Statute

A declaratory statute is one that clarifies and removes doubts or

misunderstandings about the meaning of terms or expressions within the
common law or statutory law. When courts have interpreted an expression
differently from what the legislature intended, a declaratory statute is passed to
set the correct meaning of that expression. In India, the Income Tax
(Amendment) Act of 1985, which added explanation 2 to section 40 of the
Income Tax Act of 1961 and the Finance Act of 1987, which amended the
definition of “Owner of house property” in section 27, are examples of
declaratory acts.

It’s important to note that the mere use of the phrase “it is hereby declared”
does not automatically make a statute a declaratory statute. A declaratory statute
typically contains a preamble and uses terms like “declared” and “enacted” to
signal its intent.

Remedial Statute
A remedial statute is a kind of law that offers new help or a new solution. Its
main purpose is to improve how rights are protected and address problems or
errors in the old law. Examples of remedial statutes include the Maternity
Benefits Act of 1961 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923. In these
laws, you’ll often find the phrase “for remedy whereof” right before the actual
law.

Blackstone, a legal scholar, thought that remedial statutes could either expand
or limit rights. They could expand rights when they made the law more
generous or they could limit rights when they restricted existing legal rights. In
a case called Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath, the court
decided that all laws in a welfare state aim to promote general well-being. Some
laws are more responsive to urgent social needs and have a more direct and
noticeable impact on fixing social problems.

Enabling Statute

An enabling statute is a law that allows something that was previously

forbidden, with or without specific rules on how to do it. It widens the scope of
what’s allowed under common law. An enabling statute makes an action lawful,
even if it wouldn’t be otherwise.

In a case called Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association v. State
of Bombay, the court explained that an enabling act not only permits something
to happen but also gives the necessary authority to do what’s needed to achieve
the law’s goal. Any conditions set by an enabling statute for the public good
must be followed because they are essential. An example is Section 49-A(1) and
49-A(2) of the Advocates Act of 1961, as amended by Act 21 of 1964.

Disabling Statute
A disabling statute is one that limits or reduces a right granted by common law.
It’s a law that restricts a common law right.

Penal Statute

A penal statute is a law that punishes certain actions or wrongdoings. This type
of law can be in the form of a detailed criminal code with many sections that
define punishments for different wrongs. For example, the Criminal Procedure
Code, the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954
and the Arms Act of 1959 are all examples of penal statutes.

Penalties for breaking these laws can include fines, the loss of property,
imprisonment or even the death penalty. When the law enforces obedience not
through individual lawsuits but by imposing punishments as commanded by the
law, it’s considered a penal statute. Penalties can only be imposed when the law
explicitly states so and any doubts should benefit the accused.

Taxing Statute

A taxing statute is a law that imposes taxes on income or certain types of

transactions. Examples include income tax, wealth tax, sales tax and gift tax.
These taxes help the government collect money to support public welfare.
However, it’s essential that a statute clearly states that taxes must be paid and
any doubts about this should benefit the person being taxed.

Explanatory Statute

An explanatory statute is a law that explains another law. It’s created to fill in
gaps or clarify confusing parts of a previous law. An explanatory statute aims to
make the meaning of an expression used in an earlier law clearer. For instance,
in Britain, the Royal Mines Act of 1688 was passed to encourage the mining of
certain base metals. The Royal Mines Act of 1963 was enacted to provide a
better explanation of the earlier law.

Amending Statute
An amending statute is a law that adds to or changes the original law to improve
it or better achieve its original purpose. It doesn’t cancel out the old law; it
becomes part of it. Examples include the Direct Taxes Amendments Act of
1974 and the Land Acquisition (Amendments) Act of 1984.

Repealing Statute

A repealing statute is a law that cancels out an earlier law. It can do this
explicitly by saying so in the statute or implicitly through its language. For
example, the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act of 1956 repealed the
Hyderabad Municipal and Town Committees Act of 1951.

Curative or Validating Statute

A curative or validating statute is one passed to fix problems in a previous law

or to make legal proceedings, documents or actions valid, even if they didn’t
meet the legal requirements. These statutes often include phrases like
“notwithstanding any judgment, decree or court order.” They’re meant to make
previously unlawful actions legal or to overturn court decisions.

In a case involving Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa

and others, the Supreme Court of India explained that while deciding legal
rights is a job for the courts, only the legislature can pass laws to validate illegal
actions or laws. However, when the validity of a validating law is in question,
the court must consider three things:

Whether the law fixes the problems that made the action or law invalid.

Whether the legislature had the authority to validate what was declared invalid
before.

Whether the validation respects the rights guaranteed by the constitution. A

validating law is effective only if the answers to these three questions are “yes.”

Difference between Interpretation and Construction

A statute is defined as the order or will of a legislature which is conveyed
through text. To understand the intention of a legislature, it can be interpreted or
construed. The intention of a legislature contains the actual meaning and
objective. This process of interpretation and construction helps the judicial
bodies to form the meaning and purpose of the legislation.

What is Interpretation?
The term interpretation has been derived from the Latin word ‘interpretari’
which means to understand, expound, explain and translate. Interpretation is the
procedure of explaining or translating a text.

In simple terms, interpretation of a statute means understanding the law. The

aim of a court is to not just read law but to apply it in a manner which suits case
to case. Therefore, it is a process used by courts to find out the actual
implication of an act or document and also its intention. Interpretation bridges
the gap between the enactment of a law and its translation.

The basis of interpretation is to clarify the meaning of the words used in in-laws
and statutes which might be ambiguous. There might be irregularities in in-laws
which need to be corrected and they can be done by applying various theories of
interpretations to see which might go against the literal meanings of those laws.

What is Construction?
Construction is the activity of translating the semantics of a legal text into legal
rules. In other words, it is the drawing of conclusions from a subject which
cannot be understood directly from the text.

In law, construction is the process of legal explanation which makes sense of

difficult and hard terms written in statutes and gives a conclusion based on logic
and reasoning. A court extracts findings after inspecting the meaning of the
words used in the text. The aim of construction is to establish the legal effect of
the legal text. The basic principle of construction is to read the text, laws or
statutes in a literal manner.

What is the difference between Interpretation and Construction?

The key differences between interpretation and construction have been
enumerated below:
1. Interpretation refers to the understanding of words and the true sense of a
legal text. Construction refers to the drawing of conclusions of the legal text that
lie beyond the direct expression of the legal text.

2. Interpretation takes place when we want to find the original meaning of a

legal text. All other forms of constitutional analysis come under construction.

3. Interpretation takes place when the meaning of the legal text is clear and
unambiguous so that it can be interpreted. Construction takes place when the
meaning of the text is unclear, ambiguous and is challenged.

4. A court can only interpret a legal text. Elected officials are free to construe
the meaning of a legal text.

5. The main function of interpretation is to find out the simple and real meaning
of the legal text. When the use of the literal meaning of the legal text creates
ambiguity, construction helps to find out if the case can be covered under it or
not.

6. Interpretation deals with identifying the semantic meaning of a particular use

of language in context. Construction is when the meaning is applied to
particular factual circumstances.
7. Interpretation finds out the ways through which any statute can be analysed.
Construction tries to conclude it.

8. Through interpretation, one can find out the linguistic meaning in the context
of a legal text. Through construction, one can discover the legal effect of the
legal text.

9. Interpretation rules out ambiguity. Construction creates additional rules to

resolve the vagueness.

10. Interpretation can be regarded as a broad form of construction as to how one

construes a legal text. Construction is a method of interpretation where the
words are interpreted vigorously and literally.

11. Interpretation of a legal text can be done partly but construction has to be
done as a whole.

Commencement, repeal and revival of a statute

The commencement, repeal, and revival of a statute are important aspects of

statutory interpretation and application. Here's a brief overview of each

Commencement:
 Types of Commencement: Statutes can have different commencement
dates for different provisions. Some provisions may come into force
immediately upon enactment, while others may have a delayed
commencement date specified within the statute itself. Commencement
 can also be triggered by a notification issued by the government or by a
specific event or condition.
 Interpretation of Commencement Provisions: When interpreting
commencement provisions, courts look at the language used in the statute
to determine the intended commencement date for each provision. If the
statute is silent or ambiguous about the commencement date, courts may
apply general principles of statutory interpretation to ascertain the
legislative intent.
 Effect of Commencement: Until a statute comes into force, it has no
legal effect. Once it commences, it becomes binding and enforceable.

Repeal:
 Express Repeal: An express repeal occurs when a statute explicitly states
that it is repealing a previous statute or provision.
 Implied Repeal: Implied repeal occurs when a later statute is
inconsistent with or incompatible with an earlier statute, thereby
rendering the earlier statute ineffective. Implied repeal can also occur
when a later statute covers the same subject matter as an earlier statute
and is intended to be a complete and exhaustive statement of the law on
that subject.
 Effects of Repeal: When a statute is repealed, it ceases to have legal
effect from the date specified in the repealing provision. However, the
repeal does not affect any rights or liabilities that have already accrued
under the repealed statute, unless the repealing statute expressly provides
otherwise.

Revival:
 Revival by Repeal of Repealing Statute: If a repealing statute is itself
repealed, the original statute that was repealed by the repealing statute
may be revived, unless the repealing statute expressly provides otherwise.
  Revival by Saving Provision: A saving provision in a repealing statute
may provide for the revival of the repealed statute in certain
circumstances. The saving provision may specify the conditions under
which the repealed statute is revived and the extent of its revival.
 Effect of Revival: When a statute is revived, it is as if the statute had
never been repealed. The revived statute becomes binding and
enforceable again, subject to any modifications or amendments made by
the repealing statute or by subsequent legislation.

Law Making: Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary

Legislature:
Lawmaking Authority: The legislature, often a bicameral or unicameral body,
is the primary lawmaking authority in most countries. It has the power to create,
amend, and repeal laws.
Types of Legislation: The legislature can enact different types of legislation,
such as statutes, acts, ordinances, and regulations. These laws can cover a wide
range of subjects, including criminal law, civil law, administrative law, and
constitutional law.
Legislative Process: The legislative process typically begins with the
introduction of a bill, which is a proposed law. The bill goes through several
stages, including committee review, debates, and amendments, before being
voted on for passage. Once passed, the bill becomes law and is sent to the
executive for approval or promulgation.
Checks and Balances: In many countries, the legislature operates within a
system of checks and balances, where its actions are subject to review and
approval by the executive and/or judiciary to prevent any branch from
becoming too powerful.

Executive:
Implementation and Enforcement: The executive branch, led by the head of
state or government, is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws
enacted by the legislature.
Regulations and Orders: The executive has the authority to issue regulations,
orders, and directives to implement and clarify the laws passed by the
legislature. These regulations have the force of law and are binding on
individuals and entities.
Veto Power: In some countries, the executive has the power to veto legislation
passed by the legislature. This power serves as a check on the legislature's
authority and ensures that laws are consistent with the executive's policies and
priorities.

Judiciary:
Interpretation and Application: The judiciary interprets and applies the laws
enacted by the legislature and implemented by the executive. It ensures that
laws are applied fairly and consistently in individual cases.
Judicial Review: The judiciary has the power of judicial review, which allows
it to review the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature and actions
taken by the executive. This power ensures that laws and actions are consistent
with the country's constitution and legal principles.
Role in Lawmaking: While the judiciary does not directly make laws, its
interpretations and decisions can have a significant impact on the development
of legal principles and the application of laws in practice.
Module II: Principles of Interpretation

The Literal Rule of Interpretation of Statutes

The fundamental principle of interpretation is to assign words their natural

original and precise meaning, provided that the words are clear and take into
account the purpose of the statute. This rule states that the provisions should be
examined in their literal sense and given their natural effect. It is also referred to
as the Plain Reading Rule, which means that the provisions should be read as
they are without any addition or substitution of words during interpretation.

The essence of the literal rule can be summarised as follows:

“The focus should be on what the law says rather than what the law means.”

However, even when giving such a literal interpretation, the overall purpose of
the statute must be taken into consideration. As quoted by Viscount Haldane, “If
the language used has a natural meaning, we cannot deviate from that meaning
unless, when reading the statute as a whole, the context directs us to do so.”

In the case of Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P. (2005) 1 SCC 308, it
was held that:
“A literal construction should not be denied simply because complying with it
may result in a penalty. The courts should not be overly eager to find
ambiguities or obscurities in plain words.”

To understand the literal rule, the following conditions must be considered:

The statute must have a section for interpreting terms, where special meanings
of the terms are provided (i.e., the definition sections).
If the statute does not provide specific definitions, technical words should be
given their ordinary technical meanings.
Words should not be inserted through implications.
Over time, words may undergo shifts in meaning.
It should be recognised that words derive significance from their context.
This rule somewhat restricts the interpretation process and makes it inflexible in
its purest form. Additionally, criticism of this rule stems from the assumption
that words have fixed meanings, which is erroneous, as a single word may have
multiple meanings depending on the different contexts in which it is used.

The Mischief Rule of Interpretation of Statutes

The mischief rule focuses on determining the intention of lawmakers during the
interpretation of statutes. It originated in the United Kingdom in the 16th
century and was established in Heydon’s case. It was held that the primary aim
of interpreting a statute should be to identify the “mischief and defect” that the
statute intended to address and provide an effective remedy. This rule seeks to
answer the question of what problem the previous law failed to cover, leading to
the enactment of the statute in question.
Heydon’s Case (1584) 3 CO REP outlined four points to be considered when
interpreting a statute:

 What was the common law before the enactment of the statute?
 What was the “mischief and defect” that the common law did not
address?
 What remedy did the parliament intend to provide to rectify the problem?
 What is the true reason behind the remedy?
The use of this rule allows judges more flexibility in determining the
lawmakers’ intent, rather than being strictly bound by the literal and golden
rules of interpretation.

However, this rule has been criticised on the grounds that it introduces
uncertainty into the law and grants excessive power to unelected judges, which
is seen as undemocratic. Moreover, it is considered outdated as the common law
is no longer the primary source of law.

The Golden Rule of Interpretation of Statutes

The golden rule, also known as the “British Rule,” provides flexibility in the
interpretation process by allowing deviation from the literal meaning of words
to avoid absurd outcomes. In other words, this rule permits a judge to depart
from the ordinary meaning of a word when interpreting it would lead to an
unreasonable result.
The golden rule serves as a compromise between the literal rule and the
mischief rule. It generally gives words their plain and ordinary meaning but
allows for deviations when adhering strictly to the literal meaning would lead to
an irrational outcome contrary to legislative intent.
In cases of homographs, where a word has multiple meanings, the judge can
apply the most appropriate meaning. Similarly, if a word has only one meaning
but using it would result in an unfavourable decision, the judge can assign a
completely different meaning altogether.

The golden rule can be applied in both a narrow and wide sense. Narrow use
occurs when the rule is applied to ambiguous words. This is the most common
application of the rule. Wide use occurs when the rule is employed to avoid
outcomes that are contrary to public policy.

Purposive Rule
This approach has emerged in more recent times. Here the court is not just
looking to see what the gap was in the old law, it is making a decision as to
what they felt Parliament meant to achieve. Lord Denning in the Court of
Appeal stated in Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v Newport
Corporation, 1950, “we sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and of
ministers and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and
making sense of the enactment by opening it up to destructive analysis”.

This attitude was criticized on appeal by the House of Lords. Lord Simmons
called this approach “a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the
thin disguise of interpretation”. He went on to say that if a gap is disclosed, the
remedy lies in an amending Act.

These comments highlight one issue with the purposive approach. How
Parliament’s intentions can be determined and whether judges should really be
refusing to follow the clear words of Parliament. The purposive approach is one
used by most continental European countries when interpreting their own
legislation. It is also the approach that is taken by the European Court of Justice
in interpreting EU law.
Since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic
Community in 1973, the influence of the European preference for the purposive
approach has affected the English courts in a number of ways. First, the courts
have been required to accept that, from 1973, the purposive approach has to be
used when deciding on EU matters. Second, as they use the purposive approach
for EU law they are becoming accustomed to using it and more likely to use it
to interpret domestic law. One example is Pickstone v Freemans plc (1998).
Here, women warehouse operatives were paid the same as male warehouse
operatives.
However, Miss Pickstone claimed that the work of the warehouse operatives
was of equal value to that done by male warehouse checkers who were paid
£1.22 per week more than they were. The employers argued that a woman
warehouse operative was employed on like work to the male warehouse
operatives, so she could not bring a claim under section 1(2) (c) of the 1970
statute for work of equal value. This was a literal interpretation of the 1970
statute. The House of Lords decided that the literal approach would have left the
United Kingdom in breach of its treaty obligations to give effect to an EU
directive. It, therefore, used the purposive approach and stated that Miss
Pickstone was entitled to claim on the basis of work of equal value even though
there was a male employee doing the same work as her.

Noscitur a Sociis

The “Noscitur a Sociis” i.e. “It is known by its associates”. In other words,
meaning of a word should be known from its accompanying or associating
words. It is not a sound principle in interpretation of statutes, to lay emphasis on
one word disjuncted from its preceding and succeeding words. A word in a
statutory provision is to be read in collocation with its companion words. The
pristine principle based on the maxim „noscitur a socitis‟ has much relevance in
understanding the import of words in a statutory provision (K. Bhagirathi G.
Shenoy v. K.P. Ballakuraya, AIR 1999 SC 2143). The rule states that where two
or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled
together, they are understood in their cognate sense. It is only where the
intention of the legislature in associating wider words with words of narrower
significance, is doubtful that the present rule of construction can be usefully
applied.

The same words bear the same meaning in the same statute. But this rule will
not apply:

1. When the context excluded that principle.

2. If sufficient reason can be assigned, it is proper to construe a word in one
part of an Act in a different sense from that which it bears in another part
of the Act.
3. Where it would cause injustice or absurdity.
4. Where different circumstances are being dealt with.
5. Where the words are used in a different context. Many do not distinguish
between this rule and the ejusdem generis doctrine. But there is a subtle
distinction as pointed out in the case of State of Bombay v. Hospital
Mazdoor Sabha.

Rule of Ejusdem Generis

Ejusdem Generis (pronounced as “eh-youse-dem generous”) is a Latin
term which means “of the same kind.” The term ‘Ejusdem Generis’ in other
words means words of a similar class. The rule is that where particular words
have a common characteristic (i.e. of a class) any general words that follow
should be construed as referring generally to that class; no wider
construction should be afforded.

It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally

consistent. A particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the
rest of the Act. The Ejusdem Generis rule applies to resolve the problem of
giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or
inherently unclear.

Normally, general words should be given their natural meaning like all other
words unless the context requires otherwise. But when a general word
follows specific words of a distinct category, the general word may be given a
restricted meaning of the same category. The general expression takes its
meaning from the preceding particular expressions because the legislature by
using the particular words of a distinct genus has shown its intention to that
effect.

The rule of Ejusdem Generis must be applied with great caution, because, it
implies a departure from the natural meaning of words, in order to give them
a meaning on a supposed intention of the legislature. The rule must be
controlled by the fundamental rule that statutes must be construed so as to
carry out the object sought to be accomplished. The rule requires that the
specific words are all of one genus, in which case, the general words may be
presumed to be restricted to that genus.

Case Law:

The Supreme Court in Maharashtra University of Health and others v.

Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal & Others has examined and explained the
meaning of Ejusdem Generis as a rule of interpretation of statutes in our
legal system.

While examining the doctrine, the Supreme Court held that the expression
Ejusdem Generis which means “of the same kind or nature” is a principle of
construction, meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are
flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general words are taken to
be restricted by implication with the meaning of restricted words.

The Supreme Court has further held that the Ejusdem Generis principle is a
facet of the principle of ‘Noscitur a sociis’(A latin term for ‘it is known by the
company it keeps’, it is the concept that the intended meaning of an
ambiguous word depends on the context in which it is used). The Latin
maxim Noscitur a Sociis contemplates that a statutory term is recognized by
its associated words. The Latin word ‘sociis’ means ‘society’. Therefore, when
general words are juxtaposed with specific words, general words cannot be
read in isolation. Their color and their contents are to be derived from their
context. But like all other linguistic canons of construction, the Ejusdem
Generis principle applies only when a contrary intention does not appear.

Reddendo Singula Singulis

The reddendo singula singulis principle concerns the use of words

distributively. Where a complex sentence has more than one subject, and more
than one object, it may be the right construction to render each to each, by
reading the provision distributively and applying each object to its appropriate
subject. A similar principle applies to verbs and their subjects, and to other parts
of speech. A typical application of this principle is where a testator says ‘I
devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to B’. The term devise is
appropriate only to real property. The term bequeath is appropriate only to
personal property. Accordingly, by the application of the principle reddendo
singula singulis, the testamentary disposition is read as if it were worded ‘I
devise all my real property, and bequeath all my personal property, to B’.

This rule has been applied in the case of Koteshwar Vittal Kamat vs K
Rangappa Baliga, AIR 1969, in the construction of the Proviso to Article 304
of the Constitution which reads, “Provided that no bill or amendment for the
purpose of clause (b), shall be introduced or moved in the legislature of a state
without the previous sanction of the President”. It was held that the word
introduced applies to bill and moved applies to amendment.

Analysis of General Clauses Act

The General Clauses Act, 1897 is an important piece of legislation that provides
interpretation rules for statutes in India. It applies to all central and state laws,
unless a specific law provides otherwise. Here is an analysis of some key
provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897:

Interpretation of Definitions (Section 3):

The Act defines various terms used in statutes, such as "person," "government,"
"notification," etc., unless the context otherwise requires.

It provides that words defined in statutes shall have the meanings assigned to
them unless a different intention appears from the context.
Enactments Deemed to be Substantive (Section 4):

It clarifies that unless a different intention appears, all enactments shall be

deemed to be substantive, meaning they create rights or obligations.

This provision ensures that statutes are interpreted to have a substantive effect
unless they are procedural or declaratory in nature.

Construction of Reference to Authorities (Section 6):

It provides rules for interpreting references to "government" or "authority" in

statutes, including references to successors, officers, and persons acting in their
official capacity.

This section ensures that references to government bodies or officials in statutes

are interpreted broadly to include successors and persons acting in their official
capacity.

Construction of Reference to Gender (Section 11):

It provides that words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include
the feminine gender unless the contrary intention appears.

This provision ensures that statutes are interpreted inclusively to avoid gender
bias.

Repeal of Enactments (Section 15):

It provides rules for the repeal of enactments, stating that unless a different
intention appears, a repeal does not affect the previous operation of the repealed
enactment or any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or
incurred under it.
This section ensures that the repeal of a statute does not affect rights and
obligations that have already arisen under the repealed statute.

Revival of Repealed Enactments (Section 24):

It provides that where a statute is repealed and re-enacted with or without

modification, any enactment repealed by the repealed statute shall revive and
have effect as if the repealing statute had not been passed.

This provision ensures that repealed statutes can be revived if they are re-
enacted, thereby preserving legal continuity.

Overall, the General Clauses Act, 1897 plays a crucial role in the interpretation
and application of statutes in India, providing important rules and principles for
understanding the meaning and effect of legislative provisions.

For more details:-

https://getlegalindia.com/general-clauses-act/#:~:text=The%20General
%20Clauses%20Act%20of,of%20concepts%20used%20in%20legislation.