A GUIDE TO

READING,
INTERPRETING AND
APPLYING STATUTES
RULES OF STATUTORY
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”

By Salmond
BACKGROUND
 A statute is a will of legislature conveyed in the form
of text
 Interpretation is the method by which the true sense
or the meaning of the word is understood.
 The meaning of an ordinary word of the English
language is not a question of law.
 The proper construction of a statute is a question of
law.
 The purpose of the interpretation of the statute is to
unlock the locks put by the legislature. For such
unlocking, keys are to be found out.
 These keys may be termed as aids for interpretation
and principles of interpretation.
MEANING & BACKGROUND
 SALMOND – “interpretation or construction is
meant, the process by which the courts seek to
ascertain the meaning of the legislature through
the medium of authoritative forms in which it is
expressed.”
 The importance of avoiding literal interpretation
was also stressed in various ancient text books –
“Merely following the texts of the law,
decisions are not to be rendered, for, if such
decisions are wanting in equity, a gross failure of
Dharma is caused.”
 Paramount object of interpretation is to
discuss what the legislature intends. The
intention is prominent to be ascertained
from the text by the enactment in
function.
-Steel Authority of India vs. National Union
Water Front 2001 SC 3527
NEED FOR STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION
 Broad terms
 Bad drafting
 Complexity of statutes in regards to the
nature of the subject,
 numerous draftsmen
 the blend of legal and technical language 
 Unforeseeable developments
 Changes in the use of language (use of the
word ‘reasonable’)
BEFORE WE BEGIN…

“READ THE STATUTE,

READ THE STATUTE,
READ THE STATUTE”

Felix Frankfurter,
Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes,
47 Colum. L. Rev. 527 (1947).
TOOLS TO DETERMINE THE
MEANING
 I. PLAIN MEANING RULE
 words of a statute mean what an “ordinary”
or “reasonable” person would understand
them to mean.

 One should begin with “primary sources”

(i.e., the statute itself, case law,
administrative regulations) before looking
beyond to “secondary sources” (i.e.,
dictionaries, legal encyclopedias).
II. WHOLE ACT RULE
 term or phrase should be interpreted in a consistent
manner if used multiple times in a statute
 statutes drafted in a way that is “internally
consistent in its use of language and in the way its
provisions work together”
 Means to apply the rule -
a. Preambles and Purpose Clauses
b. Rule to Avoid Surplusage - an interpretation that
would render a word or phrase redundant or
meaningless should be rejected
c. Presumption of Consistent Usage - same meaning
is implied by the use of the same expression in
every part of the Act
ILLUSTRATION
 For example, the Securities Act of 1933 defines the term
“prospectus” as “any prospectus, notice, circular, advertisement,
letter, or communication, written or by radio or television, which
offers any security for sale or confirms the sale of any security.”

 If the term “communication” was interpreted to include any type

of written communication, the words “notice, circular,
advertisement, letter” would serve no independent purpose in
the statute.

 However, if “communication” were interpreted to include oral

statements made through radio or television, then all the words
in this section of the statute would contribute something to it’s
meaning, and none would considered “surplusage.”
III. CONTEXT / RULE OF
LANGUAGE
 Using contextual clues to interpret the
meaning or scope of a particular word or
phrase.
 For example, one could argue that a statute
that prohibits “any horse, mule, cattle,
hog, sheep, or goat” from running upon
lands enclosed by a fence does not apply to
turkeys because the statute does not
explicitly proscribe turkeys.
 How to Apply Context Rule
A. Noscitur a Sociis (it is known from its associates) -
meaning of an ambiguous term by reference to the words
associated with it.
 A word is known by the company it keeps. The words
must be looked at in the context and interpreted
accordingly.
 This involves considering other words in the same section
or other sections of the Act.
 In the case of Muir v Keay (1875) LR 10 QB 594, the
purpose of licensing theatrical or musical entertainment
did not fall within the words of the Act covering houses
‘for public refreshment, resort and entertainment’,
because the word ‘entertainment’ in the Act referred to
refreshment houses, receptions and accommodation of
the public.
B. Ejusdem Generis (of the same kind,
class, or nature) – general words following
specific words to be construed as per the
latter.
 This rule states that where there is a list of
words which is followed by general words
then the general words are limited to the
same kind of items as the specific words.
 In the case of Powell v Kempton (1899)
AC 143, a ring at a racecourse was held
not to fall within the terms ‘house, office,
room or other place’ because the list of
words indicated that ‘other place’ should
be construed as an indoor place.
C. Expressio unius (Inclusion of one
thing implies the exclusion of the other)-
if a word excluded, statute may be
interpreted not to apply to terms that
have been excluded from the statute.
 Where there is a list of words which is
not followed by general words, then the
Act applies only to the items in the list.
 In the case of R v Inhabitants of
Sedgley (1831) the use of the words
‘lands, houses and coalmines’ excluded
application to other types of mine.
RULE
1. If the language of a statute is plain and
unambiguous it must be given effect
2. IF the terms of the statute have received
judicial construction before enactment the
terms should be understood according to
that construction
3. Every word and clause must be given
effect
4. Words are to be interpreted according to
the proper grammatical effect of their
arrangement within the statute
5. A statute cannot go beyond its text
COUNTER RULE
1. UNLESS a literal interpretation would lead to absurd
or mischievous consequences or thwart the manifest
purpose
2. UNLESS the statute clearly requires them to have a
different meaning
3. UNLESS inadvertently inserted into the statute or if
repugnant to the rest of the statute, certain words
may be rejected as “surplussage”
4. UNLESS strict adherent to the rules of grammar
would defeat the purpose of the statute
5. To effect the purpose of the statute, the statute
may be implemented beyond its text
Term Function
• Unless • These terms usually signify an
• Except exception to the statute
•
•
COMMONLY USED WORDS
Subject to…
Within the meaning of
• These terms may limit the scope of the
statute, or may indicate that a certain
• For the purposes of part of the statute is controlled or
limited by anther section or statute
• If…then… • Generally, these terms indicate that for
• Upon one part of a statute to take effect, a
• Before/After precondition or requirement must be
• Provided that… satisfied

• Notwithstanding • Literally, “In spite of,” this term usually

signifies that a certain term or
provision is not controlled or limited by
other parts of the statute, or by other
statutes
• Each/Only • These terms commonly limit the class
• Every/Any/All of objects that are either included in or
excluded from the statute
SOME HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS
a. Look for Cross-references in other
statutes
b. Be Mindful of Commonly Used
Terms
I. AND v. OR
II. MAY v. SHALL (discretion v.
mandate)
RULES OF
INTERPRETATION
1. Literal
2. Golden
3. Mischief

4. Purposive approach
1. LITERAL
INTERPRETATION
 Giving words their plain, ordinary, dictionary
meaning
 Concentrates on what the Parliament has said
 Role of the judge is to apply law – not to make it
 Use of external and internal aids to interpretation
 INTERNAL – present within the Statute
(statement of reason, title, explanation)
 EXTERNAL – not expressly a part of the Statute
(legislative history, legal dictionaries)
R v Harris (1836) 7 C &
P 446
 The defendant bit off his victim's nose.
 The statute made it an offence 'to stab, cut
or wound' the court held that under the
literal rule the act of biting did not come
within the meaning of stab cut or wound as
these words implied an instrument had to be
used.
 Therefore the defendant's conviction was
quashed.
 Whitely v Chappel (1868) LR 4
QB 147
A statute made it an offence 'to impersonate
any person entitled to vote.'
 The defendant used the vote of a dead man.
 The statute relating to voting rights required
a person to be living in order to be entitled to
vote. 
 Held: The literal rule was applied and the
defendant was thus acquitted since a dead
person is not (in the literal meaning) not
“entitled to vote”
 London and North Eastern
Railway v Berriman [1946] AC 278
 A railway worker was killed whilst oiling the track.
 No look out man had been provided.
 A statute provided compensation payable on death
for those 'relaying or repairing' the track.
 Under the literal rule oiling did not come into either
of these categories.
 This result although very harsh could not to be said
to be absurd so the golden rule was not applied.
 There was no ambiguity in the words therefore the
mischief rule was not applied.
 Unfortunately the widow was entitled to nothing.
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1
QB 394
 The defendant had a flick knife displayed
in his shop window with a price tag on it.
 Statute made it a criminal offence to
'offer' such flick knives for sale.
 His conviction was quashed as goods on
display in shops are not 'offers' in the
technical sense but an invitation to treat.
 The court applied the literal rule of
statutory interpretation.
 P.V. NARSIMHA RAO V. STATE AIR 1998 SC
2120
 Congress party secured the majority in 1991 elections and formed a
government under Narsimha Rao.
 Subsequently a no-confidence motion was brought against the said
government in Lok Sabha.
 It was short of 14 votes to qualify the No-Confidence motion by simple
majority, which was overcome later.
 It was later disclosed that the members of Jharkhand MuktiMorcha were
bribed into voting in favor of the Congress government in the Parliament.
 SC - . Immunity given under Article 105(2) squarely covered the facts in
question. Accordingly, bribe-takers who had voted against the no-confidence
motion were immune from prosecution but the bribe-givers had no such
immunity. The reasoning was that an MP who takes bribes and votes in
pursuance of the bribe “in respect" of his vote in Parliament cannot be
prosecuted.
 This interpretation led to an absurd conclusion that where a Member voted
in pursuant to a bribe taken by him, he couldn’t be prosecuted in a court of
law but where he had taken a bribe to vote in a particular manner, but did
not cast the vote, he could be prosecuted as no nexus between the vote and
the bribe taken by him could be established. 
Advantages of Literal Rule
 Recognises Parliament as the supreme law maker
and prevents unelected judges making law
 It also encourages precision in drafting and ensures
that anyone who can read English can determine the
law, which promotes certainty and reduces litigation.
 people know where they stand because the words
remain unchanged.
 Lead to quick decisions because the answer can be
found by referring the bare law.
 Restricts the role of the judge and provides no scope
for judges to use their own opinions or prejudices
 Upholds the separation of powers.
 Disadvantages of Literal rule
 Can lead to unfair / unjust decisions like London and North
Eastern Railway v Berriman.
 Can lead to contradictory interpretation with respect to Statute
 Creates awkward precedents which require Parliamentary time
to correct
 Fails to recognise the complexities and limitations of English
language ; same word having differing meanings across different
laws.
 Undermines public confidence in the law
 Not possible to word an Act so as to cover every situation thus
creating loopholes.
 Little discretion to the judges to adapt the law to changing times
 There can be disagreement as to what amounts to the ordinary
or natural meaning.
 2.GOLDEN RULE
 The term "golden rule" seems to have originated in an
1854 court ruling, and implies a degree of enthusiasm for
this particular rule of construction over alternative rules
that has not been shared by all subsequent judges.
 The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima
facie be given their ordinary meaning.
 Modification of literal rule
 The golden rule allows a judge to depart from a word's
normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.
 NARROW – if a word is ambiguous the judge may
choose between possible meanings of the word in order
to avoid an absurd outcome.
 WIDER – where there is only one meaning, but would
lead to an absurd / repugnant situation, which is
obnoxious to principles of public policy.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Stock v. Frank
Jones (Tipton) Ltd. [1978] 1 W.L.R. 231,
at p. 235 added a new caveat –
“Nowadays we should add to 'natural and
ordinary meaning' the words 'in their
context and according to the appropriate
linguistic register.”

 Prisoner’s escape example.

R v. Sigsworth (1935)

A son murdered his mother and then

committed suicide.
 The courts were required to rule on 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.
Ruling in Sigworth
 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.
 It was held that the literal rule should not apply
and that the golden rule should be used to prevent
the repugnant situation of a murderer benefitting
from his crime .
 court used golden rule to prevent a repugnant
situation of a criminal benefitting from his crime.
 There was never a question of the son profiting
from his crime, but as the outcome would have
been binding on lower courts in the future, the
court found in favour of the mother's family.
Adler v George (1964)
 Under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act
1920, it was an offence to obstruct HM
Forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place.
 Mr Frank Adler had in fact been arrested
whilst obstructing such forces within such a
prohibited place (Markham Royal Air Force
Station, Norfolk).
 He argued that he was not in the vicinity of
a prohibited place as he was actually in a
prohibited place.
Ruling in Adler
 The court applied the golden rule to
extend the literal wording of the statute
to cover the action committed by the
defendant.
 If the literal rule had been applied, it
would have produced absurdity, as
someone protesting near the base
would be committing an offence whilst
someone protesting in it would not.
R. v. Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367
 The defendant was charged with the
offence of bigamy under s.57 of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
 The statute states 'whosoever being
married shall marry any other person
during the lifetime of the former
husband or wife is guilty of an offence'.
Ruling in Allen
 The court applied the golden rule and held
that the word 'marry' should be interpreted as
'to go through a marriage ceremony'. The
defendant's conviction was upheld.

 Under a literal interpretation of this section the

offence would be impossible to commit since
civil law will not recognise a second marriage
any attempt to marry in such circumstances
would not be recognised as a valid marriage.
Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v.
Brij Kishore AIR 1981 SC 1656

 The Supreme Court held that the expression “landless person”

used in section 14 of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 which made
provision for grant of land to landless persons, was limited to
“landless laborers”.
 A landless labourer is he who is engaged in agriculture but having
no agricultural land.
 The Court further said that “any landless person” did not include a
landless businessman residing in a city.
 The object of the Act was to implement the Bhoodan movement,
which aimed at distribution of land to landless labourers who were
verged in agriculture.
 A businessman, though landless cannot claim the benefit of the
Act.
Advantages of golden Rule
 Courts can alter the wording and make
sense of absurd / repugnant wording
 Incorporates changes in law / technology
 Errors in drafting can be corrected
immediately eg: R v Allen (1872)
 Decisions are generally more in line with
Parliament's intention
  Closes loopholes
  Often gives a more just result
  Brings common sense to the law
 Disadvantages of Golden Rule
 No guidelines hence can be arbitrary
 Applicable in very limited circumstances
 Judges have no power to intervene for pure injustice
where there is no absurdity 
 The golden rule provides no clear means to test the
existence or extent of an absurdity. It seems to depend
on the result of each individual case. Whilst the golden
rule has the advantage of avoiding absurdities, It is
limited in scope and there is no definition or test /
measurement for an absurdity.
 Judges are able to add or change the meaning of
statutes and thereby become law makers infringing the
separation of powers.eg. - London and North Eastern
Railway v Berriman
 3. MISCHIEF RULE
Heydon’s case (1584)
 Ottery, a religious college, gave a tenancy in a manor also called “Ottery” to a
man (named in the case report simply as "Ware") and his son.
 The tenancy was established by copyhold, an ancient device for giving a
parcel of a manor to a tenant, usually in return for agricultural services, which
was something like a long-running lease with special privileges for each party.
 Ware and his son held their copyhold to have for their lives, subject to the will
of the lord and the custom particular to that manor.
 The Wares’ copyhold was in a parcel also occupied by some tenants at will.
Later, the college then leased the same parcel to another man, named
Heydon, for a period of eighty years in return for rents equal to the traditional
rent for the components of the parcel.
 Less than a year after the parcel had been leased to Heydon, Parliament
enacted the Act of Dissolution, that dissolved many religious colleges,
including Ottery College, which lost its lands and rents to Henry VIII.
 However, a provision the Act kept in force, for a term of life, any grants made
more than a year prior to the enactment of the statute.
 The Court of Exchequer found that the grant to the Wares was protected by the
relevant provision of the Act of Dissolution, but that the lease to Heydon was
void.
Significance of Heydon’s case
 The ruling was based on an important discussion
of the relationship of a statute to the pre-existing
common law.
 The court concluded that the purpose of the
statute was to cure a mischief resulting from a
defect in the common law.
 Therefore, the court concluded, the remedy of the
statute was limited to curing that defect.
 Judges are supposed to construe statutes by
seeking the true intent of the makers of the Act,
which is presumed to be pro bono publico, or
intent for the public good.
 The court in Heydon’s held that –
“For the sure and true interpretation of all
statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial,
restrictive or enlarging of the common law),
four things are to be discerned and considered:
i. What was the common law before the making
of the Act?
ii. What was the mischief and defect for which
the common law did not provide?
iii. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved
and appointed to cure the disease of the
commonwealth?
iv. The true reason of the remedy; & The core
principle of the last of is.
 Corkery v Carpenter
(1951)
 At about 2.45 p.m. on 18 January 1950, the defendant was
drunk and was pushing his pedal bicycle along Broad Street
in Ilfracombe.
 He was subsequently charged under section 12 of the
Licensing Act 1872 with being drunk in charge of a carriage.
 The 1872 Act made no actual reference to bicycles. The
court elected to use the mischief rule to decide the matter.
 The purpose of the Act was to prevent people from using
any form of transport on a public highway whilst in a state
of intoxication.
 Shane Corkery was sentenced to one month's imprisonment
for being drunk in charge of a bicycle in public.
 The bicycle was clearly a form of transport and therefore the
user was correctly charged.
 Smith v. Hughes (1960)
 Street offences Act, 1959 (section 1(1)) –

“it shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or

public place for the purpose of prostitution”

 The issue came up about the women on private balconies and behind private windows
touting for business?

 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."
 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.

 House of Lords – the mischief to be cleared by the Act was to clean up the streets, to
enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common
prostitutes.
 Viewed in that way, it can matter little whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street
or is standing in a doorway or on a balcony, or at a window, or whether the window is shut
or open or half open; in each case her solicitation is projected to and addressed to
somebody walking in the street.

 Viewed in this way, it mattered little if the prostitute was soliciting while in the street or
standing in a doorway / balcony / window.
 DPP v Bull [1995] QB 88
 A man was charged with an offence under s.1(1) of the Street
Offences Act 1959 which makes it an offence for a 'common
prostitute to loiter or solicit in a public street or public place for
the purposes of prostitution'.
 The magistrates found him not guilty on the grounds that
'common prostitute' only related to females and not males.
The prosecution appealed by way of case stated.
 The court held that the Act did only apply to females. The word
prostitute was ambiguous and they applied the mischief rule.
 The Street Offences Act was introduced as a result of the work
of the Wolfenden Report into homosexuality and prostitution.
 The Report only referred to female prostitution and did not
mention male prostitutes.
 The QBD therefore held the mischief the Act was aimed at was
controlling the behaviour of only female prostitutes.
 Ohison v. Hylton[1975]
 A carpenter was on his way home from work. He boarded a train which was crowded.
Another passenger objected and subsequently both finished up on the platform.
 The defendant, the carpenter, took one of his tools of his trade, a hammer, from his
briefcase and struck the other man with it.
 He was charged under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Lord Widgery, CJ, said, inter
alia: “This is a case in which the mischief at which the statute is aimed appears to
me to be very clear.
 Immediately prior to the passing of the 1953 Act the criminal law was adequate to
deal with the actual use of weapons in the course of a criminal assault.
 Where it was lacking, however, was that the mere carrying of offensive weapons was
not an offence. The long title of the Act reads as follows:
  ‘An Act to prohibit the carrying of offensive weapons in public places without lawful
authority or reasonable excuse’.
 Parliament is there recognizing the need for preventive justice where, by preventing
the carriage of offensive weapons in a public place, it reduced the opportunity for the
use of such weapons.
 If, however, the prosecutor is right, the scope goes far beyond the mischief aimed at,
and in every case where an assault is committed with a weapon and in a public place
an offence under the 1953 Act can be charged in addition to the charge of assault.
 Bengal immunity co. v State of Bihar
AIR 1955 SC 661
 The appellant company was an incorporated company carrying on the
business of manufacturing and selling various sera, vaccines, biological
products and medicines. Its registered head office was at Calcutta and its
laboratory and factory were in West Bengal.
 It was registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act.
 Its products had extensive sales throughout the Union of India and abroad.
The goods are dispatched from Calcutta by rail, steamer or air against
orders accepted by the appellant company in Calcutta.
 Issue was whether the tax threatened to be levied on the sales made by
the appellant company and implemented by delivery in the circumstances
and manner mentioned in its petition was leviable by the State of Bihar;
even though it was expressly barred under art. 286.
 This was even though the appellant company neither had any agent or
manager in Bihar nor any office, godown or laboratory in Bihar.
 SC - State of Bihar was ordered to abstain from imposing sales tax on out-
of-State dealers in respect of sales or purchases that have taken place in
the course of inter-State trade or commerce even though the goods have
been delivered as a direct result of such sales or purchases for
consumption in Bihar.
 Advantages of Mischief Rule
 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.
 In a common law jurisdiction, the existence of precedent and the
knock-on effects of construing a statute prevent misuse of the rule;
 The Law Commission sees it as a far more satisfactory way of
interpreting acts as opposed to the Golden or Literal rules;
 It usually avoids unjust or absurd results in sentencing;
 It is consistent with parliament sovereignty.
 This rule gives the court justification for going behind the actual
wording of the statute in order to consider the problem that the
particular statute was aimed at remedying.
 At one level it is clearly the most flexible rule of interpretation, but it
is limited to using previous common law to determine what mischief
the Act in question was designed to remedy.
 Closes loopholes.
 allows the law to develop and adapt to changing needs
Disadvantages of Mischief rule
 It can be argued that this undermines Parliament's supremacy and
is undemocratic as it takes law-making decisions away from the
legislature. It is seen to be out of date as it has been in use since
the 16th century, when common law was the primary source of law
and parliamentary supremacy was not established;
 It gives too much power to the unelected judiciary which is argued
to be undemocratic;
 In the 16th century, the judiciary would often draft acts on behalf
of the king and were therefore well qualified in what mischief the
act was meant to remedy. This is not often the case in modern
legal systems;
 The rule can make the law uncertain.
 Judges can bring their own views, sense of morality and prejudices
to a case eg Smith v Hughes.
 Creates a crime after the event.
 4. PURPOSIVE RULE
 Ascertain the purpose of the Act
 Purposive interpretation was introduced as a
form of replacement for the mischief rule,
the plain meaning rule and the golden rule to
determine cases. 
 The purposive approach is an approach
to statutory and constitutional inter-
pretation under which common law courts
interpret an enactment (that is, a statute, a
part of a statute, or a clause of a constitution)
in light of the purpose for which it was enacted.
 What was the Parliament hoping to achieve?
 Purposive interpretation is exercised when the courts
utilize extraneous materials from the pre-enactment
phase of legislation, including early drafts, committee
reports, etc. The purposive interpretation involves a
rejection of the exclusionary rule.
 It involves looking for the intention of Parliament and
allows for judicial law making.
 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’.
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
(AIR 1978 SC 597) 
 Petitioner was  asked to surrender her passport under section 10(3)(c ) of
the Act in public interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the
letter. 
 Issue was whether right to go abroad is a part of right to personal liberty
under Article 21.
 The Supreme Court widened the protection of life and liberty
contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution by applying purposive
interpretation.
 The expression “personal liberty” in Article 21 was interpreted broadly to
engulf a variety of rights within itself. The court further observed that the
fundamental rights should be interpreted in such a manner so as to
expand its reach and ambit rather than to concentrate its meaning and
content by judicial construction.
 Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law but that
does not mean that a mere semblance of procedure provided by law will
satisfy the Article , the procedure should be just , fair and reasonable. 
 Court also observed that law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a
person of “personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Article 14
Alembic Chemical Works vs.
Workmen AIR 1961
 An industrial tribunal awarded more number
of paid leaves to the workers than what
Section 79(1) of Factories Act recommended.
 This was challenged by the appellant.
 The Supreme Court held that the purpose of
the enactment being the welfare of the
workers, it had to be beneficially constructed
in the favour of worker and thus, if the words
are capable of two meanings, the one that
gives benefit to the workers must be used.
U.Unichoyi vs. State of Kerala, 1963
 the question was whether setting of a minimum
wage through Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is
violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
because the Act did not define what is minimum
wage and did not take into account the capacity
of the employer to pay.
 It was held that the Act is a beneficial legislation
and it must be construed in favour of the worker.
In an under developed country where
unemployment is rampant, it is possible that
workers may become ready to work for extremely
low wages, which is discouraged under the law.
R vs. Bentham (2003)
 D robbed A, whom he believed owed him money. A was
still in bed. The defendant pointed his finger, covered by
his jacket at A and demanded “every penny in the
house”.  A believed his fingers were a gun.
 Held: A purposive approach had to be adopted.  Section
17 of the Firearms Act 1968 was clearly designed to
protect the victim confronted with what he thought was
a firearm. It did not matter whether it was a plastic gun
or a biro or simply anorak material stiffened by a figure.
 If it had the appearance of a firearm the jury were
entitled to find the offence made out.
Mendoza v. Ghaidan (2004)
 Gay partners living together

 Rent Act allowed only one partner to

inherit the other’s tenancy if they were
“living together as man and wife”
 Gay partner to be kicked out as he was
gay Words “living together as man and
wife” were re-read as “living together as if
they were man and wife”
 This was done to make the Rent Act
compatible with Human Rights
Advantages of Purposive Rule
 It is a flexible approach which allows judges to
develop the law in line with Parliament's
intention
 It allows judges to cope with situations
unforeseen by Parliament
 It allows the law to develop to cover advances
in medical science
 It allows the courts to give effect to treaty
Directives and obligations.
 Broader in its appriach.
Disadvantages of Purposive Rule
 Judges are given too much power to develop the law
and usurping the power of Parliament
 Judges become law makers infringing
the Separation of Powers (Montesquieu)
 There is scope for judicial bias in deciding what
Parliament intended
 It assumes Parliament has one intention and ignores
the fact that Parliament is divided on party lines
 In order to determine the Parliament’s intent, it may
lead to prolonged examination of irrelevant material
by lawyers which adds to the cost and length of
litigation