Rules of Interpretation of Statutes

By Aditya029 | Views 86747

27 3 8 Blogger8 pocket8 Digg5

Interpretation of statute is one important task assigned to the courts by which they interpret the statute or law
when there is question of law comes to it which is not precisely answered in the statute, and its lead to
ambiguity and superficiality in the application of the law. Courts uses their analytical reasoning and due
diligence to find intent of the legislation by which there can be proper interpretation of the law.

The intent of the legislature behind passing the statute helps the court in interpreting the statute. The intent of
the legislation is to be seen from very wide perspective and many points it needed to be considered such as
reason for legislation, object and purpose of legislation, priority area of legislation, class of people on which
legislation must be applied. The intention behind the legislature in passing the law can be the determining
factor in proper interpretation of the law.

In Pitches v. Kenny[1] , it was said that:

"The object of an Act and its intent, meaning and spirit can only be ascertained from the term of the Act itself."
In finding the intent of legislation the court must find natural meaning of the word used in the legislation and
what is overall context and scope of the word occur in the legislation and any other phrase in the legislation
which can throw light to the fact.

The Principal Rules Of Interpretation

There are three principles rules of Interpretation of Statutes. These are:

I. The Priimary Rule: Literal Construction

The rule of literal construction is considered to be the primary rule of interpretation. It is one of the
rules in which grammatical meaning of the word or phrase is used and this rule is also called the
grammatical rule of interpretation. Under this rule the court try to interpret Statute on the literal,
ordinary, popular, and common meaning of the word and phrases. This rule postulates that it is duty of
the court to expound the law as it stands and not to modify, alter or quantify its language.

In the case of Cartledge v. Japling (E.) & Sons [5] it was held by court that were by use of clear and
unequivocal language of only one meaning, anything is enacted by the legislature, it must be enforced
however harsh or absurd or contrary to common sense the result may be.

The literal rule of statutory interpretation regards that if meaning of the word is plain and simple court
should apply it regardless of the result. In Sutters v. Biggs[6] Lord Birkenhead said that "It is duty of the
court is to expound the law as it is stands to leave the remedy two others.

The rule of literal interpretation based on the legal maxim "verbis legis non est recelendum" which
means from the word of law there is no departure. Because the purpose of the statute is stated in the
 statute, the court's primary duty is to not change the language of the Act if it is clear and unambiguous,
and the effect of the statute should be given. The reason for such a maxim is that the Parliament, as
the supreme law-making body, should know what it intends in the statute.

The meaning of a statute can also be affected by the context, as in the legal maxim noscitur a sociis,
which means the meaning of an unclear and ambiguous word should be determined by the context
with which it is associated. Courts sometimes interpret a word or phrase in the context in which it is
used in the statute.

I. Mischief Rule

Mischief means "Voluntarily cause injury or loss to someone"

Mischief rule is a rule of interpretation to prevent misuse of provisions of the statute. Mischief rule is
framed to avoid any mischief added by the statute. This rule is so interpreted that any mischief in
statute must be avoided and object and purpose of passing the act by the legislature is attained.

In Kanailal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan[10] it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "this
rule is most helpful in the interpretation of statutes when the language of the statute is capable of
more than one meaning"

Lord Coke in Heydon case decided four criteria on which the mischief rule is constructed:

i. What was the common law prevailing before passing of the Act?
ii. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide,
iii. What remedy the Parliament was provided to remove the defect
iv. What is actual reason for the remedy?

The rule of mischief is also considered to be purposive interpretation of statute as consideration of

mischief may lead to wider or narrow interpretation of statute.

In the case of Pyarelal v. Ramchandra Mahadev[11] accused was charged with using artificial
sweetener in the supari for sweetening. Accused argued that supari does not come under the category
of food under Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the argument of Accused
and held that supari comes in the category of food in the Act. Supreme court interpreted the Act in
such a way to prevent mischief and advance the remedy.

The Golden Rule of Interpretation of Statutes

The golden rule, also known as the “British Rule,” provides flexibility in the interpretation
process by allowing deviation from the literal meaning of words to avoid absurd outcomes. In
other words, this rule permits a judge to depart from the ordinary meaning of a word when
interpreting it would lead to an unreasonable result.

The golden rule serves as a compromise between the literal rule and the mischief rule. It
generally gives words their plain and ordinary meaning but allows for deviations when
adhering strictly to the literal meaning would lead to an irrational outcome contrary to
legislative intent.

In cases of homographs, where a word has multiple meanings, the judge can apply the most
appropriate meaning. Similarly, if a word has only one meaning but using it would result in an
unfavourable decision, the judge can assign a completely different meaning altogether.

The golden rule can be applied in both a narrow and wide sense. Narrow use occurs when the
rule is applied to ambiguous words. This is the most common application of the rule. Wide
use occurs when the rule is employed to avoid outcomes that are contrary to public policy.

Rule of Harmonious Construction

The rule of harmonious construction is applied when there is a conflict between two or more
statutes or different parts of the same statute. This rule states that, in the case of a conflict,
the provisions should be interpreted in a way that harmonises them, giving effect to all
provisions to the greatest extent possible. The rule is based on the premise that each statute
has a purpose and should be read as a whole, with provisions interpreted consistently.
Interpretation should not render any provision useless or use one provision to defeat others
unless there is a way to reconcile the differences.

In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers AIR 2002 SC 3941 , the Supreme Court stated:

“Courts must avoid direct conflict between seemingly contradictory provisions and must
interpret them in a way that harmonises them.”

Conclusion
The rules of interpretation of statutes play a crucial role in ensuring the effective and
consistent application of the law. The Literal Rule emphasises the plain meaning of words,
while the Mischief Rule aims to discern the lawmakers’ intent by addressing the gaps in
previous laws. The Golden Rule provides flexibility by allowing departure from the literal
meaning to avoid absurd outcomes.

Finally, the Rule of Harmonious Construction harmonises conflicting provisions to give effect
to the overall purpose of the statute. By employing these rules, courts strive to uphold the
principles of fairness, justice and the proper functioning of the legal system.