advchingale@gmail.com Primary Rules of Interpretation • Object is to discover the true intention of the legislature. • It lays down the methods of interpretation is to prevent the judges from undertaking any arbitrary interpretation. • It lays down principles which the judiciary needs to follow to arrive at uniform interpretation. Literal Rule • Also called as Plain Meaning Rule. • The words of a statute are to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning • The statute means what it says • A judge must rely upon the exact wording of the statute in a plain and unambiguous manner. • He should not deviate from the literal meaning of the words used in the statute even if the outcome is unjust. In its absence, the will of the legislature will be defeated. • Fisher v. Bell (1960) • The sale of weapons was an offense under the Offensive Weapons Act 1959. • A shopkeeper who has displayed a flick knife in the show window was put under • prosecution in terms of the impugned law. • The court acquitted the shopkeeper on the ground of literal interpretation stating that the display of an item in the show window is not a ‘sale’ but an ‘invitation to treat’. • Consequently, there is no sale as prescribed in the law, • Advantage of the rule is that it does not leave any scope for the judge to use his own opinion or prejudice. • It also upholds the supremacy of the legislature in the true spirit of separation of powers. • It promotes certainty and thereby reduces litigation. The Golden Rule • It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. • State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Azad Bharat Finance Co. AIR 1967 SC 276, • Facts: A truck of the respondent was used to carry contraband opium without his knowledge. Under Section 11 of the Opium Act, 1878, as modified by the Opium (Madhya Bharat Amendment) Act, 1955, • The truck was ordered to be confiscated as per the words ‘shall be confiscated’ used in the section. The main Act contained the words ‘shall be liable to be confiscated’. • In appeal, the High Court held the provision conferred discretion on the Magistrate and that in the particular circumstances of the case the truck should not have been confiscated. • The Supreme Court upheld this judgment on the ground that the use of the word ‘shall’ does not always mean ‘mandatory’. It depends upon the context in which the words ‘shall’ occurs and other circumstances. • BEDFORD VS BEDFORD, 1935: • Facts: A son murdered his mother and committed suicide. • Question: Who then inherited the estate, the mother's family, or the son's descendants. • The mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. • There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. • Held: The literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting. The court held that if the son inherits the estate that would amount to profiting from a crime and that would be repugnant to the act • Golden rule implies that if a strict interpretation of a statute would lead to an absurd result then the meaning of the words should be so construed so as to lead to the avoidance of such absurdity. • This rule is also known as the Rule of Reasonable Construction Mischief Rule • It is used by judges in statutory interpretation in order to discover legislature's intention. • It essentially asks the question: By creating an Act of Parliament what was the "mischief" that the previous or existing law did not cover and this act covers. • This rule was developed by Lord Coke in Sir John Heydon's Case, 1584, where it was stated that there were four points to be taken into consideration when interpreting a statute: Mischief Rule Considers main four factors in construing an Act: a) What was the law before the making of the Act? b) What was the mischief or defect for which the law did not provide? c) What is the remedy that the Act has provided; and d) What is the reason of the remedy? In other words… Courts should suppress the mischief and advance the remedy • The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament's intent. • Legislative intent is determined by examining secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review articles and corresponding statutes. • Smith v Hughes, 1960: • Facts: Under the Street Offences Act 1959, it was a crime for prostitutes to "loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution". • The defendants were calling to men in the street from balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed they were not guilty as they were not in the "street." • Held: The judge applied the mischief rule to come to the conclusion that they were guilty as the intention of the Act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes. Rule of Harmonious Construction • When there are two provisions in a statute, which are in conflict with each other, they should be interpreted such that effect can be given to both and the construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless. Aids to Construction
Long Title & Short Headings &
Punctuation Title Marginal Notes
Historical Facts &
Dictionaries Foreign decisions circumstances
Legislative History Other Statutes
Long Title • Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 Long Title: “An Act to to provide for the levy of a general tax on the sale of goods in the Province of Madras”
Held: Long Title shows that the object is to
tax sales that take place in Madras Province (Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras AIR 1953 SC 274) Headings and Marginal Notes • Headings CHAPTER I OF THE COMMUNICATION, ACCEPTANCE AND REVOCATION OF PROPOSALS • Marginal Notes Section 3. Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals. Section 4. Communication when complete