Sunteți pe pagina 1din 17

Rules of Interpretation

Dr. Ravindra Chingale


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

S-ar putea să vă placă și