Vande
Matram! Interpretation of Statute is very important skill which every law
professional must possess. Hence it is incorporated in the degree course of
law. Let’s understand the basic principles or rules of interpretation of
Statute.
Basic
Principles of Interpretation of Statute:
Intention of the legislature:
We have discussed the Intention
of the legislature in previous blog. The intention of legislature or
Legislative intent assimilates two aspects, firstly, the concept of ‘meaning’,
i.e., what the word means; and secondly, the concept of ‘purpose’ and ‘object’
or the ‘reason’ or ‘spirit’ pervading through the statute. The expression ‘intention of the legislature’
is the shorthand reference to the meaning of words used by the legislature
objectively determined with the guidance furnished by the accepted principles
of interpretation. To understand the intention of the legislature or the
Legislative intent there are certain rules or principles to be followed.
Some Important points to be taken care of in the context of interpreting Statutes:
Statute must be read as a whole in its Context:
The fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is that the words of a statute be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of the legislature. The most important step throughout interpretation is to analyze the language and the exacting significance of the resolution.
As per Lord Brougham, it is necessary to take the exact meaning of the words which the legislature have given them, and to take the meaning which the words given naturally imply, unless where the construction of those words is either by the preamble or by the context of the words in question, controlled or altered.
Heydon’s Rule:
The Heydon’s Rule was given by Lord Poke in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is also called as rule of purposive construction as purpose of statute is very important is to be considered while applying this rule. It is called as mischief rule because the main target is on curing the mischief and advance the remedy. As per this rule four things have to be followed for true and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as follows-
a) the common law before the making of an Act
b) the mischief for which the present statute was enacted
c) the remedy sought or resolved and appointed by the Parliament to cure the mischief of the commonwealth
d) the true reason for the remedy.
The rule then detects the defects and enhances the law for providing the remedy. If there is any defect in any statute then the court must adopt the purposive construction which shall suppress the mischief or defect and advance the remedy.
Statute should be Construed so as to make it Effective
and Workable:
If statutory provision is ambiguous and capable of various constructions, then that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to the other provisions of the enactment rather than that which will give none. Ut Res Magis Valent Quam Parent is a Latin maxim that means a thing should affect than being made void. It is a rule of construction which means the construction of a rule should give effect to the rule rather than destroying it, i.e., when there are two constructions possible in a provision such that one gives effect to the provision and the other renders the provision inoperative, the former which gives effect to the provision is adopted and the latter is discarded.
Harmonious construction:
When two or more provisions of the same statute are repugnant to each other, then in such a situation the court, if possible, by maintaining harmony between the two will try to construe the provisions in such a manner as to give effect to both the provisions. The basis of the harmonious construction is that the legislature must have not intended to contradict itself. Moreover one provision is the exception to the general provision of the law. One provision of the act cannot make the other provision of the same act repugnant. It can be said when the legislature gives something by one hand then it cannot be take away by the other hand.
The
golden rule of Interpretation
It is known
as the golden rule because it solves all the problems of interpretation. The
rule says that to start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the
interpretation given through the literal rule leads to some or any kind of
ambiguity, injustice, inconvenience, hardship, inequity, then altogether such
events the literal meaning shall be discarded and interpretation shall be wiped
out such a fashion that the aim of the legislation is fulfilled.
Judgments:
1) In case
of State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others, 1987 AIR 33SCR (1)
317, a person was caught along with the counterfeit currency “dollars” and
he was charged under Section 120B, 498A, 498C, and 420 read with Sectionn 511
and 34 of Indian Penal Code for having fake cash. A charge under Section 498A
and 498B of the Indian Penal Code must be imposed on account of falsifying
Indian money notes and not in the situation of duplicating unfamiliar cash
notes. The court held that the word money notes or monetary order can’t be
prefixed. The individual was held obligated to be charge-sheeted.
2) In case
of Smith v. Huges, 1960 WLR 830, the prostitutes were soliciting in the
streets of London and it was creating a huge problem in maintaining law and
order so to prevent this problem, the Street Offences Act, 1959 was enacted.
After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started soliciting from
windows and balconies and the prostitutes who were carrying on soliciting from
the streets and balconies were charged under section 1(1) of the said Act. But
the prostitutes pleaded that they weren’t solicited from the streets. The court
held that although they were not soliciting from the streets yet the mischief
rule will be applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall look
into this issue. By applying this rule, the court held that the windows and
balconies were taken to be an extension of the word street, and the charge
sheet was held to be correct.
3) In case
of K.P. Varghese v. ITO[1981] it was held that, the court should as far
as possible avoid that construction that attributes irrationality to the
Legislature and prefers a construction that renders the statutory provision
constitutionally valid rather than the one which makes it void.
4) In case
of Ishwari Khaitan Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the State
Government proposed to acquire sugar industries under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar
Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. This was challenged on the ground that
these sugar industries were declared to be a controlled one by the union under
the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and the state did not
have the power of acquisition or requisition of property which was under the
control of the union. The SC held that the power of acquisition was not
occupied by the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and the
state had a separate power under Entry 42 List III.
5) In case
of Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1955 SC 850, there was an issue
about issuing of the notice under Section 99 of the Representation of People’s
Act, 1951, concerning corrupt practices involved within the election. According
to the rule, the notice shall be issued to all or any those persons who are a
party to the election petition and at a similar time to people who are not a
party to it. Petitioner contended that no such notice was issued to him under
the said provision. The notices were only issued to those that were non-parties
to the election petition.
6) In the
case of Saraswati Sugar Mills v/s Haryana State Board, the supreme court
held that the word vegetable in entry 15 of schedule I of Water (Prevention and
control of pollution) cess Act, 1977 is to be understood as in common parlance.
Botanical meaning cannot be given to the word. Therefore, sugarcane is not a
vegetable. As such industries manufacturing sugar from sugarcane do not fall
within the abovementioned entry and are, therefore, not liable to pay cess. The
industry manufacturing alcohol from molasses could not be considered an industry
within the above entry.
7) In the
case of Jagdish Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, it was held by the Supreme
Court that in case of conflict between various provisions of the rule,
harmonious construction should be made and statute or rule made there under
should be read as a whole. One provision should be construed with reference to
another so as to make the rule consistent. One rule cannot be used to defeat
another rule in the same rules.
Conclusion:
Thus it is clear that a) Statute
must be read in entire context, b) Heydon’s Rule or Mischief Rule, c) Statute
should be constructed to make it effective and workable, d) Rule of Harmonious
Construction, e) Golden rule of interpretation are the basic rules or
principles of the interpretation of statute. These rules must be followed to
impart the maximum justice by the Courts.
Thanks for
reading till the end. Please share this blog.
#InterpretationOfStatutes
#StudyHelp #Notes #LawNotes #GeneralClausesAct #Bharat #India
==================
No comments:
Post a Comment