You are on page 1of 19







SESSION: 2016-17


Page | 1

I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me in finalizing this project. a number of people also motivate. which also helped me in doing a lot of research and I came to know about so many new facts and rules related to Interpretation of Statutes.VARANASI (INDIA) 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Every work accomplished is a pleasure-a sense of satisfaction. I can’t ignore the Law School Library staff which helped me in successfully completing this project work.Prabhat Saha. Hence. Lastly. I would like to thank my professor Dr. Page | 2 . However. who have directly or indirectly helped me to complete this project study. without whom this project completion would not be possible and I feel fortunate enough to get their constant support and encouragement. Firstly. for giving me this opportunity to do this wonderful project and for his helpful comments that helped me to improve my project on the topic: “Courts and Intent of Legislature enacting the Statute”. criticize and appreciate a work with their objective ideas and opinions. I would like to use this opportunity to thank all. The study related to this project has indeed helped me to explore more knowledgeable avenues related to my subject of Interpretation of Statutes and I am sure it will help me in future.


is Page | 4 . The Law maintains an order for just and stable existence of the mankind because it is evident from the human tendency that some kind of sanctions is necessary to regulate the behavior and it is done only by the presence of ‘Laws’. The Law derives its presence in society from various source like Customs. But. ‘How is this order maintained in the society?’ It is done because of the presence of ‘Law’. But. Law is that element which binds the members of the community together in their adherence to recognized values and standards. Precedents and Legislations. the most authentic and reliable source among all sources.INTRODUCTION We are living in a democratic world where people have rights and obligations toward the state as well as the society. This fact can also be proved if we go by the history of the mankind starting from Stone Age to the Cyber Age.

a statute is understood as the edict of the Legislature. These are used as the primary source by any judicial authority for dispensing justice in their day to day operation ranging from the smallest Magistrate Court to the Supreme Court of India. Each and every judicial and administrative body works as per the enacted laws. In India. Thus. We all know that. to address this problem of application of enacted laws certain rules of ‘Interpretation’ or construction has been formulated and one is ‘Intention of Legislature’. These are made by the parliament in consideration of the demand of the hour and the need of the society. Modern acts and rules’. it becomes Page | 5 . prescribed rules and regulations. we will do it later on. the reality is different as those persons who bear this task of application of law. But. But. in a time where judicial activism is hailed as the protective force behind the rights of the citizenry. are drafted by legal experts and it is expected that the language used in that particular statute will leave little room for interpretation or construction.‘Statutes’ or popularly known as ‘Enacted laws. finds difficulty in interpreting the meaning of the ambiguous words and expressions while resolving the inconsistencies. This is the main reason that judicial activism has been praised and the slight circumvention of the canons of interpretation has been ignored in the Indian Judicial system. what is the theoretical binding value of legislative intent? This gave rise to an issue that whether the role of legislative intent in statutory construction has over the years dwindled considerably or not. specially the Modern Acts and rules. The main reason for such problem is the indifference in the person who drafts the law and the person who applies the law in working. if we go by the Indian context. the society changes and this finally changes the mindset. But. These enacted laws. first of all we will look what is the concept behind this intention of legislature and interpretation of statutes. leading to a need for its interpretation by the courts. the extent to which the legislature’s intent shapes the understanding and implementation of a statute is indeterminate. This interpretation or construction of statute by the court is done when it cannot go through the ordinary rules of interpretation then the court do it by just looking at the intention of legislature and it is derived from the words of the statute which was used while enacting the statute. courts have often gone beyond the words of the statute and interpreted statutory provisions in a manner as to what they considered as be socially and morally sound. However. But. The binding value of legislative intent varies with time as well as across jurisprudences. such “activism” brings into question as to. there is a problem with this source of law and that is with the change of time. But.

a problem arises and the real intention is to be sorted out by the court. It is not their function to interpret the statutes. Page | 6 . INTERPREATATION OF STATUTE We all know that. So. If two persons communicating with each other are sitting together. ‘Words spoken or written are the means of communication’.necessary to evaluate the role of legislative intent in statutory interpretation. But where there is a possibility of two meanings. The Legislature. in this project study. But what will happen if a provision in any statute is found to convey more than one meaning? The Judges and the Lawyers whose duty it is to interpret and to aid in interpretation of statutes have no opportunity to converse with the Legislature which had enacted a particular statute. we will look toward the issue for understanding how court is using this intention of legislature for doing interpretation. they can by subsequent conversation clear the confusion and make things clear. Where they are possible of giving one and only one meaning there is no problem. Thus two functions are clearly demarcated. Legislature enacts and the Judges interpret. after enacting statutes becomes functus officio so far as those statutes are concerned.

They may be as follows: . 2. The purpose of the interpretation of the statute is to unlock the locks put by the Legislature. The original Bill as drafted and introduced. 10. contradictions or lacunas. Internal and External aids for interpretation. They may be as follows: . Statement of objects and reasons. 6. Marginal Notes to every section of statute. Judicial construction. Commonsense. namely. Illustrations given below the sections. 8. contradictions or lacunas. They cannot remand or refer back the matter to the Legislature for interpretation. Chapter Headings 4. Historical background. Bad enactments are gold mine for lawyers because for half of the litigation the legislative draftsmen are undoubtedly the cause. Explanation. Judges here try to ascertain what meaning the parliament had thought of for that particular ambiguous or uncertain word while in the process of drafting. This whole process is done between the situation. Saving Clauses and non-obstante Clauses. Provisos. The rules of interpretation come into play only where clarity or precision in the provisions of the statute are found missing. 9. Long title 2. External Aid for interpretation are those which are not contained in the statute but are found else-where. inconsistencies. Now. That situation led to the birth of principles of interpretation to find out the real intent of the Legislature.The difficulty with Judges is that they cannot say that they do not understand a particular provision of an enactment. keys are to be found out. They have to interpret in one way or another. State of things at the time a particular legislation was enacted. The aids for interpretation may be divided into two categories. Preamble 3. Legal dictionaries. 7. 3.1. the Superior Courts had to give us the rules of interpretation to ease ambiguities. The Internal Aids are those which are found within the statute. Punctuations. Definitions. Good enactments are those which have least ambiguities. 5. Debates in the Legislature. 8. These keys may be termed as aids for interpretation and principles of interpretation. 4. 7. For such unlocking. Consequently.1. 6. inconsistencies. This process itself makes the interpretation rigorous because there could be different Page | 7 . when the law is drafted and when it reach the court in the manner of a dispute. Then at this juncture of time the act is sent to the court for Interpretation of that particular ambiguous word or phrase. we can say that it is this process of Interpretation which court applies to find out the true meaning of the ambiguous word or any phrase in the Legislation. 5.

. what the Intention of Legislature island how court uses this for interpretation of statutes.interpretations by different judges as the strategy taken by one judge in interpreting the same word could be different by the second judge. Abhijit Tea Co. if we go by the legal definition of this term Interpretation then this is defined by SALMOND in his Jurisprudence as. COURTS&INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE The first and the foremost step to understand this topic is to understand. “Legislative intent as such is nothing more than the purpose the legislature had in mind as to the meaning and implication of the words of a statute while framing it”. If we define it in a general sense. ‘how judges look into the word with matter or the principle’. he said “Interpretations is the art of finding the true sense which their author is intended to convey. In general parlance 1United Bank of India. “the process by which the court seeks to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed”. A statute must be rendered in accordance with such meaning. “What is this Interpretation?” Literally speaking Interpretation is. Thus. But.1 With this in mind. But. which means that when court seeks to look into the word which is difficult to interpret this process is called as Interpretation. the legislature is presumed to garner certain meaning to the words of a statute. Page | 8 . When we interprets a statute we go by the Rules of Interpretation and these rules are used to gather the facts which are later processed to clear the vagueness of the statute and giving a meaning to the ambiguous word or phrase. this process is done by care and caution because you might not know in what dimensions you might venture while interpreting the vague and undefined word of the statute. This was all about the Interpretation and now we will study the ‘Intention’ of legislature and various principles of construction related to this rule. It is also one important fact that judges should not pursue his own ideologies to interpret a statute and he should interpret that only according to the objectives of statute. Pvt. COOLEY has defined this in much simple sense. In general the purpose behind framing any statute is to curb some public evil or effectuate some public benefit. There is an another word for this process of clearing ambiguity of statute called ‘Construction’ which WHITE J. Culcutta v. and of enabling others to derive from them the same idea which the author intended to convey”. AIR 2000 SC 2957. has defined synonymous to the word Interpretation and so in this study we are going to use these two expressions in a common sense. Now. Ltd.

. 2016). repeatedly. Principles of Statutory Interpretation. Then. Narasarn Naraindas.3  Unforeseen situations are inevitable. such as the need for compromise or catering to special interest groups. But.e. 3Legislative Intent in Interpretation of Statutes. does not appear to be directly or adequately addressing a particular issue and when there appears to have been a legislative drafting error. In this situation the Court has to choose the ‘Intention of Legislature’ used in enacting a statute and specifically that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature. Under these conditions the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation is considered.wikipedia. the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any discernible purpose or object which comprehends 2Venkataswami Naidu. available at: https://en.e. In other words the legislative intention. we can say that the intention of the legislature is to be construed only when there is a possibility that two different interpretations are arising otherwise not and this intention has to be essentially constructed of two aspects: the ‘concept of meaning’. Page | 9 . 12 (2010).this process of interpretation is done going just by the words of the statute but sometimes the statute itself is open to more than one interpretations. 4Guru Prasanna Singh.AIR 1966 SC 361. The judiciary does so in the following provided reasons:  When the ‘Words’ are imperfect symbols to communicate intent.  Uncertainties may be added to the statute in the course of enactment. i. the courts have said. combines both the literal and purposive approaches. that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. i. it conveys the ‘concept of purpose and object’ or the ‘reason and spirit’ pervading through the statute. when a statute is clear and unambiguous. The latter points to the spirit and reason pervading through the statute.. Thus. The former connotes an understanding derived from the literal meaning of the words of a statute. They are ambiguous and change in meaning over time. what is the resort to the court.2 so court will always look to the ‘legal meaning’ or ‘true meaning’ of the statutory (Visited on October 26. therefore. 12th Ed. what the words mean and in the another aspect.4The process of construction. R v.. and new technologies and cultures make application of existing laws difficult.

This is done by judges when they place themselves into the situation when that legislation was being drafted because we know that a statute is an edict of the Legislature6 and if they could ascertain the mind map of the legislature only then it becomes possible in what sense that word or phrase in the statute which is important to impart justice fairly. Case law prior to the statute or following it which demonstrates the problems or issues the legislature was attempting to tackle with the statute. So.the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed. 3. Other relevant statutes which indicate the limits of the statute in question. CRS Report for Congress. Other relevant statutes that can be used to understand the definitions in the statute on question. such as the governor or president. it can be said that this expression ‘Intention of legislature’ is a shorthand reference to the meaning of the words used by the Legislature objectively determined with the guidance furnished by the accepted principles of interpretation. whether accepted or rejected.Legislative intent. Legislative files of the executive branch. AIR 1968 SC 102. The text of the statute as proposed to the legislature. the courts have to keep these aspects in mind while reading a statute. By this he tried to convey that. it is the prime reason that this conventional way of interpretation of a statute is done according to the ‘intention’ of those persons who make it. Chief Inspector of Stamp. and/or reports 7. which is the reason for passing the law So. Proposed amendments to the statute. 4. 5. with reasons thereof. factual findings. 10. Speeches and parliamentary debates made prior to the vote on the bill. These popularly include: 5 1. 2. such as previous statutes on the same matter. 8. it is the ‘duty of the judicature to act upon the true intention of legislature. Thus. for example the General Clauses Act. 6. we can say that this expression ‘intention of legislature’ 5Yule Kim. Thus. Page | 10 . Constitutional determinations 12. 9. Legislative subcommittee (such as Standing Committee) minutes. Legislative records or journals. 1897. 6Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (Pvt) Ltd. The record of hearings on the topic. 11. “the object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature enacting it”. and are aided in this task by certain sources of legislative intent.the mens or sentential legis’. Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends (2008). v. Salmond has also said that. This is crucial because if one may gather the true intent behind something then it might become easy for doing interpretation of that particular word or phrase of the statute.

Nearly all of it is entirely judge made. In addition. what does the provision say? The Courts are bound by the mandate of the Legislature and once it has expressed its intention in words which have a clear significance and meaning. But the courts would 7R. such as criminal law or constitutional law. as stated above. Our law has gradually developed a vast body of authority pertaining to statutory interpretation. there is a scattering of rules that do not fit either of these major categories. “An Evaluation of the Rules of Statutory Interpretation”. The appellate courts of all the states have used substantially all of these rules at one time or another. and it is conventional for courts to make use of the rules in the course of interpretation. Page | 11 . 8Quintin Johnstone. Some of the rules in this law are very ancient.7 Now. Literal construction: In construing a statutory provision the first and the foremost rule of construction is that of literal construction.8 The words "rules of statutory interpretation" are used loosely in this article to include any of the legal principles and concepts devoted to the meaning of statutes. although a few rules of interpretation appear in the general statutes of most states. some of it only to one field. others rather recent. Some of these rules are frequently referred to by the courts as canons of construction. v. the other rules of construction of statutes need not be called into aid. and those concerned with the relation of the words in a statute to outside materials. [2001] 1 All ER 195. The ostensible purpose of every rule is to clarify statutory meaning. Most rules of statutory interpretation can be classified in one of two ways: those concerned with relations between the words of a statute. Thus. the importance of this subject is considerable because the primary function of modern appellate courts is the interpretation of statutes. the Court is precluded from speculating. 2 YLJ 1-2 (1954). All that the Court has to see at the very outset is. certain principles of interpretation as formulated by the Superior Courts to find out the ‘real intent of the Legislature’ may be enumerated as follows: a shorthand reference to the meaning of the words used by the legislature objectively determined with the guidance furnished by the accepted principles of interpretation. Most of this authority is applicable to statutes in any field. They are called into aid only when the legislative intention is not clear. If the provision is unambiguous and if from that provision the legislative intent is clear. Secretary of State for the Environment exparte Spath Holme.

however. what the Court is to do is to ascertain "the intent of them that make it. 2. it is always necessary to get an exact conception of the aim. 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. scope and object of the whole Act. but prima facie preference. does not apply Page | 12 . treatises. and advance the remedy. 3. precise and unambiguous. has. however. in general. That. clouded or susceptible of more than one meaning or shades of meaning that the external aid may be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the object which the Legislature had in view in using the words in question. uncertain." and that must of course be gathered from the words actually used in the statute. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law was intended to say. they must be applied. It is only where a statute is not exhaustive or where its language is ambiguous. 4. to consider: 1. The true reason of the remedy and then the judges have to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief. No external aid Where words plain and unambiguous: Where the words of a statute are plain. they are understood to be used in their cognate sense and they take their colour from each other. such as committee reports. and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief. If the words are clear.not be justified in so straining the language of the statutory provision as to ascribe the meaning which cannot be warranted by the words employed by the Legislature. even though the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. What was law before the Act was passed? 2. This rule. Legislative intent is determined by examining secondary sources. then. What remedy Parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the disease? And 4. The literal construction. law review articles and corresponding statutes. does not mean that the decision should rest on a literal interpretation of the words used in disregard of all other materials. What was the mischief and defect for which the law had not provided? 3. Words coupled together to take colour from each other: The rule is when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together. Mischief rule (Heydon's case): When a question arises as to the interpretation to be put on an enactment. To arrive at the real meaning. the intention of the Legislature is to be gathered from the language of the statute itself and no external aid is admissible to construe those words. It can be argued that this undermines Parliament's supremacy and is undemocratic as it takes law-making decisions away from the legislature. the meaning of the more general being restricted to a sense analogous to that of the less general.

and the setting in which the Page | 13 . each throwing light on and illumining the meaning of the other. of the Legislature. the Court has no power to give the language of the statute a wider or narrower meaning than the literal one. the set up' and context are also relevant for ascertaining what exactly was meant to be conveyed by the terminology employed. then the considerations of hardship ought to be ignored. If the language is plain the fact that the consequence of giving effect to it may lead to some absurd result is not a factor to be taken into account in interpreting a provision. unless there is compelling reason to give such other meaning. The same words may mean one thing in one context and another in a different context. A Court has the power to depart from the grammatical construction. if it finds that strict adherence to the grammatical construction will defeat the object the Legislature had In view. then a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence. it is open to the Court to give to the statute that meaning which promotes the benignant intent of the legislation. It must ascertain the intention of the Legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clause to be construed but to the entire statute. presumably not Intended. However. The exact colour and shape of the meaning of words in an enactment is not to be ascertained by reading them in isolation. The Court must have regard to the aim. 7. Again. as it is for the Legislature to step in and remove the absurdity. the Court must not only look at the words used by the Legislature but also have regard to the context and the setting in which they occur. grammar is a good guide to meaning but a bad master to dictate. Contextual interpretation: Although the meaning of the statutory provision has to be ascertained only from the words employed by the Legislature. If on either of two possible views hardship must result to one or the other party. however. The golden rule: No hypothetical considerationsArgument on hypothetical considerations should not have much weight in interpreting a statute. 5. No doubt. Absurdity or hardship: If a literal interpretation of a statute leads to absurdity. if the language so permits. 6. In ascertaining the true intention.where the Legislature has deliberately used wider words in order to widen the scope of the provision. The provisions of the statutes which bear upon the same subject-matter must be read as a whole and in their entirety. it must compare the clause with the other parts of the law. hardship or injustice. object and scope of the statute to be read in its entirety.

unless the mandate be precise and unqualified. that both of them cannot stand together. social and beneficial statutes are not to be construed strictly. But the requirements as to the time-Limit within which an administrative act is to be performed are to be liberally construed. An attempt must always be made to reconcile the relevant provision as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. the words of the statute are not reasonably capable of the construction canvassed. It is the duty of the Courts to avoid conflict between two provisions. however. Provisions ensuring the security of fundamental human rights must. be construed liberally so as to uphold the right. If the context clearly suggests that a particular rule of grammar is inapplicable then the requirement of context must prevail over the rule of grammar. This rule applies to the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions alike. 8. Doubts are resolved in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted. Harmonious construction: Every statute has to be construed as a whole and the construction given should be a harmonious one. It is a cardinal rule of construction that when there are in a statute two provisions which are in such conflict with each other. Whether the narrower or the wider sense of a term should be adopted depends not only on the provisions of the statute in which that term occurs but also on facts and circumstances of each case. then It would be unreasonable and illegitimate for the Court to limit the Page | 14 . This rule of harmonious construction applies not only to different provisions in one Act but also to different cognate Acts such as the Court Fees Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.clause to be Interpreted occurs. Where. and whenever it is possible to do so to construe provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise. But again if the words used in the statutory provision are reasonably capable of only one construction the doctrine of liberal construction can be of no assistance. Liberal construction: In construing a provision of a statute the Court should be slow to adopt construction which tends to make any part of the statute meaningless or ineffective. On the other hand penal and taxing statutes and statutes excluding Court's jurisdiction should be strictly construed. Welfare. Where the literal meaning of the words used in a statutory provision would manifestly defeat its object by making a part of it meaningless and ineffective. Procedural enactments should be construed liberally in such a manner as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective. 9. it is legitimate and even necessary to adopt the rule of liberal construction so as to give meaning to all parts of the statute and to make the whole of it effective and operative. they should possibly be so interpreted that effect can be given to both and that a construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort.

must be applied with caution. if they do constitute such a category. and the interpretation thereof by a Court should be to secure that object.Ejusdem generis: The ejusdem generis rule is explained in Halsbury's Laws of England thus'"As a rule. class or genus fall within the general words". class or genus. A statute is designed to be workable. the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified. 11. For the ejusdem rule to apply. The words of a statute must be construed so as to give sensible meaning to them.. 12. Reading down: While making such construction it is permissible for the Court even to "read down" a provision in order to so understand it as not to attempt something beyond the competence of the legislative body. an Act of Legislature must be so interpreted. where in a statute there are general words following particular and specific words. If more than one construction is possible. An interpretation which would defeat the purpose of the statutory provision and. An interpretation leading to the failure of the plain intention of the Legislature by reason of a slight in exactitude in the language of the provision should be avoided. a rule. 10. the specific words must constitute a category. as a rule of construction. Thus. so as to make it constitutional rather than unconstitutional.arbitrarily solely for the purpose of establishing harmony between the assumed object and the scheme of the Act. in effect obliterate it from the statute book should be eschewed. Page | 15 . a piece of delegated legislation. This is called the principle of "reading down". and subject to the primary rule that statutes are to be construed in accordance with the intention of Parliament. Likewise. unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable. The reason behind the maxim is that it is to be presumed that the Legislature or other legislative authority would not make an infructuous or unconstitutional provision.e. class or genus. then only things which belong to that category. wherever possible.scope of those words . Construction to avoid invalidity: It is the duty of the Court to endeavour as far as possible to construe a statute in such a manner that the construction results in validity rather than its invalidity and gives effect to the manifest Intention of the Legislature enacting that statute. although this. should be so interpreted as to make it not only constitutional but also within the authority conferred by the Legislature on the Government while conferring on it the power to make rules. i. the one which preserves its workability and efficacy should be preferred to the other which would render it otiose or sterile.

13. The use of words 'shall' and 'may' is not the determinant factor. “Judges have no doubt a genuine creative role but the Constitution’s separation of powers. As warned by LORD SCARMAN that. But the application of the rule of "same word. or more accurately functions. Mandatory and Directory Provisions: The study of numerous cases on this topic does not lead to formulation of any universal rule except this that language alone most often is not decisive. But. After discussing the principles of interpretation it would also be useful to discuss about mandatory and directory provisions. then the same interpretation should be given to that expression unless the context otherwise requires. 14. subject matter and object of the statutory provision in question. the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must be rejected even if same words used in the same section and even in the same sentence have to be construed differently. For if the people and Parliament come to think that the judicial power is to be confined by nothing other 9D. but they can adopt a purposive interpretation if they can find in the statute read as a whole or in the material to which they are permitted by law to refer as aids to interpretation an expression of Parliament’s purpose or policy. AIR 1977 SCC 842. same meaning" may be excluded by the context.Same words. Regard must be given to the context. 854.9 This only means that judges cannot interpret statutes in the light of their views as to policy. same meaning: Where a Legislature uses same expression in the same statute at two places or more. Dy. Later law abrogates earlier laws not consistent with It: This principle is expressed in the Latin maxim posteriores leges priores contrarias abrogant. If one construction will lead to an ambiguity while another will give effect to what common sense would show was obviously Intended. page 853. This principle has been applied by the Supreme Court in several cases. Transport Commissioner. Court has to always took into consideration that they didn’t start doing legislative function in the form of the interpretation or in the disguise of interpretation and they must avoid the danger of an a prioridetermination of the meaning of a provision based on their own preconceived notions of ideological structure or scheme into which the provision is to be interpreted is somewhat how fitted. Page | 16 . in determining whether the same is mandatory or directory.A. Venkatachalam v. must be observed if the judicial independence is not to be put at risk.

so better to learn from the past and make future better because Justice is all what humanity wants from the Judicial System.” Hence. we can conclude that the usage of intention of the legislature by the court should be justified by proper reasons and its usage should not be left open to each and every statute.than the judge’s sense of what is right. We all know that court is assigned this task of statutory interpretation but it should always be done with proper care and caution taking care of all the rules of construction. it should always be taken in care that the statute gets that interpretation which first derives from the word used under it and then a recourse can always be made toward the object and reason for finding out the intention of legislature in enacting the statute. So. confidence in the judicial system will be replace by the fear of it becoming uncertain and arbitrary in its application. CONCLUSION “Errors are committed by the humans and Errors are corrected by the humans. the judges have to be conscious in their task of interpreting and applying a statute. The interpretation of these statutes is different from the ordinary statutes because here Page | 17 . that in the end the statute is the master and not the servant of the judgement and that ‘no judge has choice between implementing the law and disobeying it’. There can be different statutes where intention can be looked upon but in the case of ‘Taxation’ and ‘Penal Code’ statutes the intention is never looked by the court. This is because the court can always go to interpret in its own way as to what considers to them right. Thus.

So. M. 2.we have clear provisions as to what impose tax or liability on certain subjects and if it is not so. So. This is the main reason that both of these statutes should be clear for interpretation because if it is ambiguous or unclear then there will be no interpretation. Dr. Interpretation of Statutes & Legislation (12th edn. then it is better to left it on the legislature because the matter of Taxation and Penal Statute is directly related to public policy and the people will be the ultimate sufferer in case the interpretation goes in the wrong way. it is to be taken care of by the court that they should move at that path where justice is provided taking care of the all the care of all the rules of construction. In these statutes the court does not give effect to each and every word and court will only interpret if that is Crystal clear and thus in case of ambiguity the court doesn’t looks toward the aim & objective of the statute but will always look into the enacting provisions of the statute. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books: 1. you cannot expect to interpret in that way that the interpretation itself becomes outside the scope and beyond the reach of the objectives and reasons for which the statute was enacted in the legislature.P. In Law every word has a meaning and we all know that law is a world of words.P. Principles of Statutory Interpretation (14th edn. this task of the court should be rest on the shoulders of the learned council and the judges because of whom suggestions and understanding this all construction is possible in case of any statute or constitutional provision. Thus. In these statutes the court only applies the Literal interpretation by restraining the words of the statute and by taking a popular or ordinary meaning of that word in the statute but in otherwise the court does not apply any canon of construction for interpretation of statute. Tandon. Singh. Website references: Page | 18 . Allahabad Law Agency 2016). Lexis Nexis Publications 2016). Justice G.

Judicial Interpretation.5 (Visited on October 30. available at: https(Visited on October 26. available at: 2016). 3.ijtr. 2016).1. Google Scholar-Legislative Intent. Legislative Intent in Interpretation of Statutes. Page | 19 . 2. 4.nic. Statutory (Visited on October 27.pdf (Visited on October 29. available at: https://scholar. 2016). 2016).in/articles/ start=10&q=courts+and+intention+of+the+legislature+in+enacting+the+statut e&hl=en&as_sdt=0. available at: http://www.