Title

Interpretation of Statute a sweet will of Legislature

By -Prateek Dwivedi
BBA.LLB 3rd year
University Of Petroleum And Energy Studies
Pn.no - 7579151432
Email pratz9132@live.com
2nd Author
By Anura Singh
B.A L.L.B 3rd year
University Of Petroleum And Energy Studies
Ph.no- 9453036923
Email anurasingh92@gmail.com

Cover Letter
I confirm that the citations used in the articles are correct.
I confirm that the information provided in article is true to best of my knowledge.
I have read the submission policy and my work complies with it.
I confirm that the manuscript has been solely submitted to this journal.

Page 1

Abstract
This note basically talks about the importance of interpretation of statute, its growth and
significance. The interpretation is an art that involves a high degree of expertise and risk, a
slight change in meanings can set a man free or hang him till death. The statute is the will of
legislature and the legislature does not want anyone to interfere with it, there has been a
separation of powers between legislature and judiciary but not in strict sense therefore this
article seeks to examine and explain the role of judiciary and true purpose of Interpretation
of Statutes. The process of interpretation is very complex and tricky that even a slightest
change in comma or punctuation may lead to miscarriage of justice.There is no scope of
interpretation given in rule of plain and ordinary meaning which is considered to be a great
setback for the interpretation process as well as in complying with the principle of natural
justice.

Interpretation of Statute

Introduction
Law is something very difficult to define. To give a very accurate and clear definition of law
has never been a easy task, the law grows and develops with society. The definition law will
be different from the point of view of the traveller, architect, teacher and a customer. The law
may be defined as a set of rules for guidance of intelligent being laid down by an intelligent
being. Some very learned scholars have tried to define law, ARNOLD has said that law can
never be defined with equal obviousness, it should be said that adherents of legal institution
must never struggle to define law.
BLACKSTONE - Law in its most general and comprehensive sense signifies
Rule of action and applied indiscriminately

Page 2

GRAY The rule of the state or any organised body of men is composed of rule of courts.
The legislature is the highest competent authority making laws, to legislate is to make laws.
The legislature lays down laws for the proper guidance of people and the courts. In strict
sense the legislation means the laying down of rules by the sovereign authority or by
authority subordinate to it. The legislature lays down the rules for future reference and for the
development of everyone it includes will of legislature the doctrine to legitimate expectation
shall not be applied to legislature. The courts while interpreting makes many mistakes which
violate the rule which says to go with the true intention of legislature and to understand the
language completely.
The statute is a formal expression of will of legislature, which indicates the true intention
behind making a law. The courts are supposed to make laws according to mandate of
legislature and apply the letter of law. It is presumed that the legislature has used clear,
appropriate, short and non ambiguous words to express their true intention.
The interpretation can be defined as a process by which the true intention of the framer of
documents is ascertained and the true meaning of words is taken out. Salmond has clearly
pointed out that the process by which the courts seek to assertion the true meaning of
legislature through medium of authorities. The judicial art of interpretation is embedded in
creativity and realism.

The object and purpose of interpretation

The object and purpose of interpretation is to assertion the true meaning of legislature and to
bring out the intention of maker. It is presumed that while making a particular statute the
maker is very much conscious about the laws and has taken all the necessary steps to bring
out the true intent and therefore there is no need to amend or to misinterpret the meaning. It
should not be done until and unless there is ambiguity in words. If there are different
meanings of a particular word then the most preferred or suitable meaning shall be taken.
Various example of ambiguity are ;AWARD (i) Price (ii) Compensation as a decision of the court
PLANT (i) Manufacturing plant (ii) Fruit bearing

Page 3

STRIKE (i) Not to work (ii) To hit

Type of ambiguity
1. Latent Ambiguity means introduced by explicit evidence whose vagueness is hidden
and can be introduced at later stage.
2. Patent Ambiguity means an ambiguity that is not introduced by extrinsic evidence
and is apparent of face of record so requires no introduction.
The statute should survive
The law is made by legislature with a certain object in mind, the legislature should not be
favourable to a particular class or shall give rise to social evil, the statute should to try to
achieve its purpose and ensure its survival.
Principle of Ut Res Magis Valet Quam Pereat which means that the law may become
operative than null. The legislative intent is gathered from the language itself, therefore the
language should be clearly understood and should give out a clear and precise meaning, if
this is not done the purpose of law will be defeated and shall lead to arbitrary proceedings.
The courts have not been given a wide power of interpretation in this regard, the courts have
authority to interpret a word only if there is certain absurdity, unreasonableness or ambiguity.
While interpreting the particular provision the courts must discard the language which gives
rise to absurdity or unreasonable meaning or conclusion, the meaning which provides a better
understanding shall be implied. In voyage of interpretation the courts have been provided
with guided interpretations as to survive in the sea of interpretation of statutes.

Necessity of interpretation
The interpretation of statute is very necessary as to bring out the true intention of maker of a
particular statute. There should be a consistency in what the maker has thought while making
the particular provision and what the person thinks out of it while interpreting the particular
statute. The courts have also not been given much power as to the interpretation of statute.
Some aspects which are required while making interpretation are;Page 4

1. The words implied in statute are simple and bring out a single meaning shall be taken
as it is and shall not be interpreted at all this is known as the doctrine of literal
interpretation.
2. The rule of harmonious construction shall be applied to bring out a clear and precise
meaning.
3. The meaning given out by the word shall be simple and plain so that it can be applied
in strict sense but if it leads to absurdity or unreasonableness than the golden rule
shall be referred and the absurdity shall be removed.
4. If the words intended to give out clear and precise meaning fails to do so than the
historical background of the particular statute shall be referred to bring out the true
meaning.
5. If the particular word gives out two or more meaning the most suitable meaning shall
be preferred.

Supreme Court while holding the rule of strict interpretation laid down that the rule will come
into play if there is a doubt regarding the language used in the statute i. The court should not
be over zealous in searching the ambiguity in the words used in statute.ii
In Bhavnagar University v Palitana Sugar Millsiii it was held that the basic principle is that
the statute shall be read as a whole but not in sides or corners. There shall be a proper
development of the principle of the statute it should be read as it is and not in corners or in
parts because it may result in absurdity or vagueness. The true meaning of law is taken out by
the language used in statute and the intention of legislature.
In Keshvaji Ravi & co v C.I.Tiv the court observed that so long as there is no ambiguity in the
words or the language of the statute shall not resort to any interpretative process or any kind
of methods to bring out the meaning. When the meaning given is of general in nature and
does not involve any kind of interpretation till then no interpretation shall be allowed.
The art of interpretation depends upon the ability to see and to forecast the value of the
language used in particular statute.v There should be proper development of the process of
interpretation, the function of the court is to discover the true legislative intent and not to
form further conclusion.
Interpretation and Construction are the two very important elements of interpretation, these
are used in the process of determining the language used in statute. The interpretation is the

Page 5

art of finding the true legislative intent of the maker behind making a particular law but the
construction seeks to provide the conclusion or the end result which may also sometimes lead
to absurdity.

The process of interpretation

The process of interpretation is very important as it tells us about how to find out the true
intention of the maker and enables us to come to a suitable conclusion free form absurdity.
The process of interpretation ha two elements namely ;- Grammatical interpretation &
Logical interpretation.
Grammatical interpretation provides for the literal construction, the words should be used as
they are there shall be no change in the words, this provides a strict interpretation and has a
narrow scope. It is properly known as litra legis which means to so by the words itself and to
understand what has been expressed. The very purpose of interpretation is to provide a clear
legislative intent and to prevent unreasonableness, ambiguity and absurdity and when the
words used are themselves very clear then there is no need of further interpretation of it. vi The
words used in statute when give out two meaning of a particular word then the meaning
which is most suitable and precise shall be taken.vii
Discovery of the true legislative intent is the main goal but the process of interpretation
should be strictly followed and shall not be done away with. The grammatical interpretation
may provide for strict interpretation but may also sometimes provide hardships in
developmental process.
The Supreme Court said while interpretation the following questions shall always be asked
by the interpreter to himself as to (i) why this particular law has been made? (ii) What is the
purpose? (iii) Has the purpose been achieved?viii
Lord Wensleydale said that in constituting the statute the, all the grammatical and ordinary
senses of words shall be adhered to bring out the true meaning and to prevent future
complications. When there are certain words which are not clear and may result in
unreasonableness such words shall be very carefully interpreted.
Many times there are certain difficulties which are faced in the process of grammatical
interpretation such as Inconsistency & Ambiguity. The inconsistency may arise when a
Page 6

particular law or statute is inconsistent with one and other, as a result of which the statute is
either nullified or done away with. The ambiguity may arise as a result of a particular word
having two or more meaning therefore the most suitable word has to be chosen among the
two of them.
The art of interpretation depend on the text and the context. These both are the bases of
interpretation in Indian jurisdiction. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is
what gives the color. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best
which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted
when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a
whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a
statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute- maker,
provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take color
and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the
context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each
section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the
scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be interpreted in
isolation. Statutes have to be interpreted so that every word has a place and everything is in
its place.

Moreover, it has been stated that the court must ascertain the intention of the Legislature by
directing its attention not merely to the clause to be construed but to the entire statute; it must
compare the clause with the other parts of the law, and the setting in which the clause to be
interpreted occurs.

Logical interpretation means Sententia Legis to bring out the true meaning of law. The
Sententia legis gives liberty to the courts to go beyond the lateral meaning of the words.
Whenever there is a problem as to the meaning of a particular word expressed in the statute
then the courts can apply the logical interpretation as bring out the true meaning of the words
expressed in the statute. The logical interpretation is based on the belief that the words used
may have different meaning than the maker has thought to be, there may be a chance of
miscommunication then the courts are at the liberty to peep in to the true nature of words so
expressed.
Basic principles of interpretation

Page 7

Rule Of Plain And Ordinary Hearing this rule is based on the principle that when the words
used in the statute are clear and unambiguous then the principle of lateral interpretation shall
be followed or the rule of plain hearing shall be applied. The language shall not be twisted or
turned according to once own free will.
The court observed that when the words are clear and give out only one meaning than the
particular word shall be used as it is and no changes or alteration shall be allowed by court. ix
The supreme Court observed in Jagdish Chandar Patniak v State Of Orissax when the words
are clear and unambiguous than the words shall be used as it is and the rule of grammatical
interpretation shall be employed. Madhav Rao Schindia v Union Of India

xi

the court

observed that the more simpler the word or expression more are the chances of having
various shades or meaning of it. The most suitable meaning of the word shall be chosen and
the etymological approach shall be done away with.xii
In Harbhajan Singh v Press Council Of India xiii that grammatical and lateral interpretation
shall be preferred until and unless it leads to absurdity.
Rule Of Ut Res Magis Valeat Qauam Pereat implies that the language of the statute shall be
so constructed as to reduce the vagueness and not to let the law to be a dead letter.xiv The
spirit behind the principle is the statute shall be judged according to the constitutional validity
and not just according to the will of state. The interpretation shall not render the statute un
workable and if the interpretation renders the statute unworkable than the interpretation shall
be done away with.xv The Courts while pronouncing upon the constitutionality must prefer an
interpretation which keeps the statute within the competence of the Legislature. The
importance of the rule of ut res magis valeat quam pereaf has an effective application in this
regard. The importance of this rule lay in the fact that courts must lean against an
interpretation which reduces a statute to a nullity.
Rule Of Ex Visceribus Actus the statute shall be read as a whole xvi. Every part of the
statute shall be constructed in four corners, the statute shall be read as a whole because half
read is half done. This principle can be traced form the period of Mahabharata where
Pandavas killed an Elephant named Ashwathama has been killed but Dronacharya never
heard the word elephant and thought that his son has been killed and in grief and frustration
he lead down his arms and was killed. Therefore the words shall not be read only in one
corners all the corners shall be taken into consideration to arrive at a particular conclusion.xvii.

Page 8

Rule Of Caus Omissus provides that any omission in the statute cannot be done by way of
formal construction. If there is any omission by legislature it cannot be ratified by the courts,
it is the primary duty of legislature to make laws and if there is any kind of deadlock it shall
be removed by legislature itself.xviii

Presumption in Interpretation
The word presumption has a very wide interpretation the presumptions may lead to various
hardships or may lead to unreasonableness. The presumption basically means believing
something to be true.xix The word presumption and consideration may sound similar but
there is a vast difference between the two. The word presumption relates to the start process
by court and consideration is the result or the outcome of the process of presumption.xx
Colourable Legislation
The doctrine of colourable legislation has a very negative effect on the development of law
and order, the colourable legislation provides distribution of legislative powers between
parliament and state legislature and to avoid conflict between union list, state list and
concurrent list.

Presumption as to legislature does not commit mistakes

It is well presumed by the doctrine of litra legis and the grammatical principle that the
legislature does not commit mistakes. The principle assumes that the laws made by the
legislature are complete and are not in consistent with any other laws nor they require any
modifications. It is presumed that at the time of making the law the maker has taken all
necessary steps to remove the hardships involved and he is well aware about the principle so
drafted by him. He has taken all the necessary steps to make a perfect law so there is no need
of re drafting a particular statute until and unless there is a serious omission. Even the
greatest of men commit mistakes so there shall be no strict interpretation as to the
genuineness of the statute.xxi

Page 9

Precedents
The precedents are a very important source of law, the precedents which come out of judicial
interpretation are known as Judicial Precedents or case laws. The precedents serve as a
principle of guide lines for the future reference like Mori Bibi case which is the precedent for
all the cases related to the contractual status of minor, it laid down the basic of development
of the minors. The precedents are of two kinds Authoritative (which the courts are bound to
follow) and Persuasive (the courts have discretion either to go by the precedent of by the facts
of the case)
Retrospective
The legislature makes the law and law is brought into force by the president. The law
introduced by the legislature becomes a law only after it receives the assent of The President
and at many times the particular is postponed to a future date on which it becomes the law
therefore a person who has committed a crime prior the enactment shall not be liable under
such law. The bill does not have a retrospective effect, it is deemed to come into force on the
date when it receives the assent of the President and not from the date it was introduced. The
legislature is competent enough to introduce the law with the retrospective effect by unilateral
declaration and if there is absence of such declaration the law is deemed to be Prospective.
Considerations in interpretation
The principle of consideration means outcome or the conclusion. While making
interpretation the courts must look into the object of the particular statute and interpret
accordingly as to have a suitable outcome which fulfils the very purpose of the statute.
Consideration of inconvenience
The inconvenience has been used in a positive sense in the interpretation of statute which
means if the language is Explicit then even if the result is inconsistent it is admissible. The
language of the statute should be unambiguous and even if the outcome is not relevant it has
to be enforced by the courts, the courts are not at the liberty to amend or to interpret until and
unless there is any ambiguity in the words. Basically this rule is itself against the principle of
consideration which follows the rule to desired outcome but is in accordance to the rule of

Page 10

Lateral interpretation. Even if the consideration causes in convenience shall not be over ruled
until it is the true intention of legislaturexxii
Consideration of Anomaly
The courts are bound to follow the rule of plain meaning even if the outcome of the statute is
inconsistent and undesirable then also the courts cannot help it they are bound by the
provision of the plain meaning. If on the true construction it gives rise to anomalies then the
courts are bound to follow, when on interpretation two views are possible one of which leads
to anomalies it has to be followed and other has to be ignored. The courts have the power to
examine the anomalies and work according to statute. Union Of India v Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltdxxiii held that anomaly and absurdity should be avoided in order to bring out
the true intention of legislature.
Consideration of Reasonableness
The rule of interpretation is that the words used should give out a very reasonable meaning.
The consideration should be free from absurdity and unreasonableness it shall give out a
meaning that reflects the true intention of maker. Until and unless there is any kind of
absurdity the courts are not at a liberty to do any kind of interpretation. The court shall
always follow the meaning that is reasonable and should not only follow the rule of plain
hearing.

Consideration of Absurdity & Futility

The absurdity means foolish or unwanted the absurdity shall be avoided at every cost. The
purpose of legislation is to provide a better law with greater advantage to people. The
language should be such that it does not render the provision worthless there should be no
space of errors, the courts are not at the liberty to interpret according to their own sweet will
they are only allowed to do interpretation when the statute leads to absurdity or un
reasonableness. If more than two considerations are present the one which leads to absurdity
shall be ignored and the other shall be implied.xxiv
The principle of Futility means worthlessness , the legislature is deemed to make laws in
accordance to the definite purpose in mind of the maker of statute the interpretation made by
the court should be such that removes the absurdity but does not renders the whole act as

Page 11

vague or worthless. The court must avoid the interpretation that renders the statute
worthless.xxv

Rules of Interpretation
Context plays a very important role in determining the true meaning of a word. Whenever a
word has to be interpreted it is very important to know that in which context the particular
word has been used or what is the purpose behind it whenever the meaning of a word is
doubtful then the words associated with it should be used to ascertain the true meaning. When
we use the term vegetables it may not generally mean fresh vegetables this doctrine is known
as the doctrine of Noscitur A Sociis.

Golden Rule
The golden rule follows the rule of literal interpretation or grammatical interpretation but not
in strict sense. The golden rule accommodates the rule of plain hearing which provides for
literal interpretation of the words used in statute until and unless the words result in absurdity
of unreasonableness. The courts are not at the liberty to interpret words according to their
own sweet will the courts are only allowed to interpret when the words used in the statute are
vague and of improper consideration.xxvi
The golden role comes to play when there is a doubt as to the language of the statute; if any
kind of absurdity exists the courts are at the liberty to remove the unreasonableness and to
fulfil the purpose of the statute. It is the cardinal principle of interpretation that if the
language of statute is plain and ordinary then the courts are not allowed interferes until and
unless the language of statute leads to unreasonableness.xxvii
Rule Of Mischief
The rule of Mischief provides that when the true intention of the legislation cannot be drawn
from the language then the courts are at the liberty to determine the historical background to
come to a proper conclusion. The court may consider the circumstances in which the
particular law was made and what was the true purpose behind? The court may look into the
common law as to come to a suitable conclusion.

Page 12

Rule of Harmonious Construction

As the word suggests harmonious, which means therefore a construction by means of
harmony, the word harmony means pleasing combinations. Whenever there is any kind of
discrepancy or the words are not clear then the court may choose the best alternative possible
to take the place. The object of harmonious construction is to avoid confrontation among
various laws of statute one cannot interpret the particular statue in a way which leads to the
contradiction between any other enactments or any other prevailing law.

Conclusion
In the end we would like to conclude by saying that the rule of interpretation serves its
purpose, the rule of interpretation provides for all round development of every person
regardless of age, sex, colour, cast or creed. The interpretation is a process that is not open to
courts discretion there has been a clear separation of powers among the two organs of
government (legislature &judiciary). The law making power has been vested with the
legislature it makes the laws and amends it according the need of time and requirement. The
interpretation of statute is based upon the assumption that legislature commits no mistake
when a person makes a law his intention is very clear and is a result of years of analysis and
study, so there are no chances of errors. The interpretation process seems to be very easy but
in reality the process is very tricky, it is very difficult to ascertain the true meaning of
legislature sometimes and a person who knows how to play with words can make a simple
sentence so complex that a doubt may arise as to the validity of statute.
The interpretation is based on the doctrine of Lateral Interpretation, which says no matter
what shall be the result of words used in statute the courts do not have the power to interfere
with the language of statute until and unless some un reasonableness arises. However it is
also very important that the process of interpretation shall be done by keeping in mind the
purpose for which the particular bill was passed and what was the object. If a person follows
this process he will definitely reach the right Conclusion or consideration. The interpretation
of statute also deals with law and morals, morality is also a very important element of
interpretation it is well settled principle that the statute is a formal expression of will of state.
The legislature frames the law as the law making is the primary objective of the legislature
therefore it enjoys a upper hand in the process of interpretation. The judiciary is only there to
Page 13

amend the laws and that right cannot be termed as a vested right because the judiciary cannot
amend the particular law until it gives rise to any kind of absurdity or unreasonableness.
While writing this article we found out that the doctrine of litra legis is basically against the
principle of Natural justice because even if the outcome of the statute is against the interest of
the person he has to abide by the statute just because of the rule of plain and ordinary
meaning. The judiciary has always been the saviour of people void of justice or who have
suffered hardships because of certain legislation. In the end we would like to conclude by
saying that no matter how much will legislature imposes on the interpretation the judiciary
will always have its place to guide through the process of interpretation.

Bibliography

Page 14

The matter in support of this article has been taken from the following:
Interpretation of Statute by D.N MATHUR
Maxwell on Interpretation of Statute by - P.ST.J LANGAN
Principle of Statutory Interpretation by G.P SINGH
Web Site for case reference and citations -Indian Kanoon.com

Page 15

i Pandian Chemicals Ltd v C.I.T (2003) 5 SCC 590

ii Tata Consultancy Services v State Of A.P (2005) 1 SCC 308
iii (2003) III CLR 126
iv (1990) 2 SCC 231
v Omblica Dass v Hulisa shaw (2002) 4 SCC 539
vi Union Of Indai v Flip Tango De Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990) SCC 277
vii Manik Lal Majumdar v Gouranga Chandra Dey (2004) SCC 448
viii Karnataka State Financial Co operation v N . Narsimahaiah (2008) 5 SCC ; AIR 2008
ix

Nelson Motis v UOI AIR 1992 SC 1981

x 1998 (2) Scale 662 4 SCC 456

xi AIR 1971 SC 530
xii Swaran Singh V State (2008) 8 SCC 435
xiii 2005 4 SCC 350
xiv KP Mohammed v C.I.T (2008) 11 SCC 573
xv Sarabjit Singh v Union Of India (2008) 2 SCC 417
xvi Ram Narayan v State Of UP AIR 1957 SC 18
xvii East India Hotels v UOI (2001) ! SCC 284
xviii SP Gupta v President Of india AIR 1982 SC 149
xix Modern Dental Collage v Research Center (2009) 5 SCC 625
xx State Of Bihar v Bihar Distillery Ltd (1997) 2 SCC 453
xxi Lord Halsbury

xxii Bihar state Council Of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine v State Of Bihar (2007) 12 SCC 728; AIR 2008
SC 595
xxiii (2008) 7 SCC 502 ; AIR 2008 SC 2286
xxiv Sashikant Singh v Tarkeshwar Singh (2002) 5 SCC 738 AIR 2002
xxv R & B Falcon v C.I.T (2008) 12 SCC
xxvi State Of H.P v Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350
xxvii Union Of India v Hansoli Devi ( 2002) 7 SCC 273