PRESUMPTION IN INTERPRETATION

The final project submitted on complete fulfilment of the course, ISPL during the academic
session 2019-2020, Semester-VII.

Submitted by

Submitted to

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR,

PATNA- 800001.
 DECLARATION

I “Anuradha”, a 4th year B.A. LL.B student of Chanakya National Law University, Patna do
hereby declare that the information given above and in the enclosed documents is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. I am well aware of
the fact that if the information given by me is proved false / not true at any point of time, I
will have to face punishment as per any provision of Law for the time being in force as well
as the benefit availed of by me or the benefit accrued to me shall be summarily cancelled.

Date:‐

Signature of the Applicant

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...........................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................5
CH 1: PRESUMPTION IN INTERPRETATION...........................................................................................8
CH: 2 PRESUMPTION IN INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY LAW.........................................................12
CH 3: PRESUMPTION IN INTERPRETATION OF CONSITUTIONAL LAW.................................................15
CH 4: CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................17
BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................18

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty Prof……., whose assignment of such a relevant and current
topic made me work towards knowing the subject with a greater interest and enthusiasm and
moreover he guided me throughout the project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely

with sources of research materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have
completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped
me out at every stage of my project.

4
INTRODUCTION

“The essence of law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, for the letter is significant only as being
the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it” – Salmond

Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true
meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and
therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous
exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’.

The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature

conveyed expressly or impliedly1 in the language used. As stated by SALMOND, "by
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."

Statutory interpretation is the process by which the courts interpret and apply legislations to
the facts of the Case, placed before it by the parties to the Case. Some amount of
interpretation of the statutes is often necessary by the Courts, as also by the Counsel of the
parties.  Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning,
however, in many cases, there is ambiguity and vagueness in the words of the statutes that
gets resolved by the courts of the competent jurisdiction. To find the actual meanings of
statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional
canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose, etc.  

The purpose of the interpretation of the statute is to unlock the locks put by the Legislature.
The keys to such lock may be termed as aids for interpretation and principles of
interpretation. The aids for interpretation may be divided into two categories, namely,
Internal and External. The Internal Aids are those which are found within the statute. They
may be as follows:- 1. Long title of the statute. 2. Preamble of the statute. 3. Chapter
Headings of the statute. 4. Marginal Notes to every section of statute. 5. Punctuations. 6.
1
P. St. J. Langan,Maxwell on The Interpretaton of Statutes, 12th ed.(2015)

5
Illustrations given below the sections. 7. Definitions. 8. Provisos. 9. Explanation. 10. Saving
Clauses and non-obstante Clauses.

the Superior Courts have formulated certain principles of interpretation to find out the real
intent of the Legislature. These principles may be enumerated as follows:- 1. Literal
construction, 2. No external aid Where words plain and unambiguous, 3. Mischief rule
(Heydon's case), 4. Words coupled together to take colour from each other, 5. The golden
rule: No hypothetical considerations, 6. Absurdity or hardship, 7. Contextual interpretation, 8.
Liberal construction, 9. Harmonious construction, 10. Construction to avoid invalidity,  

The important aspects of this principle are - 1. The courts must avoid a head on clash of
seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions so as
to harmonize them. 2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision
contained in another unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile
their differences. 3. When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in
contradictory provisions, the courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given
to both the provisions as much as possible. 4. Courts must also keep in mind that
interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless number or a dead lumbar is not
harmonious construction. 5. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to
render it loose.

Review of Literature:

A comprehensive review of literature is an essential part of any scientific investigation. It is

necessary for the researcher to acquaint herself with the work done in the past which induces
insight into the problem for further work.

Research Methodology:

For this study Primary and Secondary sources was utilized. Various provisions, articles, e-
articles, reports and books from library were used extensively in framing all the data and
figures in appropriate form, essential for this study.

The method used in writing this research is doctrinaire.

Sources of data:

6
The researcher will rely upon both primary and secondary sources of data. The primary
sources include cases while the secondary sources include books.

i. Primary Sources

ii Secondary Sources- Books, articles and cases.

Method of Writing:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research project is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation:

The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this project.

Limitation of Research

The researcher has undergone time and monetary limitation.

Scope of Research

This piece of study would be very helpful for the lawmakers as it would explicitly state about
its utility in the present context. If found of not much relevance there is an urgent need to
either amend or repeal it. Law exists to sub serve social needs and therefore it is desirable that
it should change with the changing needs of society and life otherwise its results would be
contrary to the general belief ‘Law is Dynamic’.

7
CH 1: PRESUMPTION IN INTERPRETATION

Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true
meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and
therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous
exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’. The
object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed
expressly or impliedly in the language used. As stated by SALMOND, "by 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." Interpretation
is as old as language. Elaborate rules of interpretation were evolved even at a very early stage
of the Hindu civilization and culture. 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.”2

When determining the meaning of particular words the courts will make certain presumptions
about the law. If the statute clearly states the opposite, then a presumption will not apply and
it is said that the presumption is rebutted. The main presumptions are:

1. A presumption against change in the common law.

It is assumed that the common law will apply unless Parliament has made it plain in the
Act that the common law has been altered.

2. A presumption that mens rea (‘guilty mind’) is required in criminal cases.

Mens rea is one of the elements that has to be proved for a successful criminal
prosecution. There is a common law rule that no one can be convicted of a crime unless
it is shown they had the required intention to commit it.

3. A presumption that the Crown is not bound by any statute unless the statute expressly
says so.

4. A presumption that a statute does not apply retrospectively. No statute will apply to
past happenings. Each statute will normally only apply from the date it comes into
2
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/judges-and-the-law/content-section-6.5.1(last visited
12th sept,2019)

8
 effect. This is, however, only a presumption and Parliament can choose to pass a statute
with retrospective effect. This must, however, be expressly stated in the statutes, for
example, the War Damage Act 1965, the War Crimes Act 1991 and the Adoption Act
1976.

The language of act is the source to which parliament must have intended the citizen to refer.
Languages of act are the words which parliament has itself approved as accurately expressing
its intentions. In addition, if the meaning of these words is clear and does not lead to a result
that is manifestly unreasonable, it would be a confidence trick by parliament and destructive
of all legal certainty if he private citizen not rely upon that meaning but was required to
search through the course of the legislative process in order to see whether there was
anything to be found from which it could be inferred that parliaments real intention had not
been accurately expressed by the actual words that parliament had adopted to communicate it
those affected by the legislation.

Language is not a precise tool as words often take their meaning from context, their meaning
can even change over time and of course draftsmen cannot foresee and guess everything.

Here’s an uncomplicated example to show you the affects of the words changing meanings:
“Every person willfully, openly, lewdly and obscenely exposing his person with intent to
insult any female”. The word “person” is used twice but giving two different meanings.

There are three basic rules that the courts will employ to determine the intention of
parliament:

1-The literal rule: it is the first rule of the statutory interpretation. This type of rule
concentrate in what the parliament has said. It is a very simple rule. It means that words
should be given their ordinary meaning without trying to guess what parliament actually
meant when the act was pulled.3 (A court will always access and update the common and
general meaning of a provision. Therefore, the definition of a provision in the dictionary
would be the clearer). Even though following the exact meaning without considering the
changes of language sometimes might lead to an unforgiving outcome, you still must follow
the act if the words in that act are clear.

3
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/judges-and-the-law/content-section-6.5.1(last visited 12 th
sept,2019)

9
For example, in the Fisher v Bell (1960) act a shopkeeper displayed a knife in his window.
While the restriction of offences weapons act 1959 made it an offence to sell such a knife.
However, he succeeded in arguing that a display in a shop is not an offer for sale. Under the
contract law it is an invitation to treat with any offer made by customers.

The role of judges in this rule is to apply the law not to make it but the can have difficulty in
deciding parliament’s intention.4

The advantages of this rule are its simplicity and that you just give the normal meaning of the
words. On the other hand sometimes it might lead to bad out comings.

2-The golden rule: golden rule is the second rule that will seek to apply a reasonable and
rational result. Therefore, it is used when the words of the statute are ambiguous and it is very
hard to see which meaning is appropriate and also when words have only one meaning but to
give them that meaning would be wholly unacceptable. However, there have been few
occasions where statutory interpretation may have resulted in a bad outcome but for the
redeeming affect of the golden rule. Applying this golden rule gives effects to the clear words
used by parliament, but will stop short of arriving at a ridiculous decision. As a result it is
acceptable for a court to modify the language of the statute or even vary the language to the
purpose of avoiding such inconvenience. Furthermore here is a simple example, in this
particular case of illustration Re Sigsworth (1953). Here’s an example of R v Allen (1872),
Allen was accused of bigamy under s.57 of the offences against the person act (1861) which
made it an offence to ‘marry’ while the original spouse was still alive; and not divorce. The
word marry had two meanings so, if the word marry was given the first meaning nobody who
was already married could be guilty of offence of bigamy because at the time it was legal to
marry a second time, it would be impossible for them to do that. The court held that this was
silly and said that the word marry must mean go through a formal ceremony of marriage.

The main advantage of this rule that it has more safety out comes than the literal rulein
contrast one of its disadvantages is that judges don’t like telling the parliament they are being
absurd.

4
http://www.law-essays-uk.com/help/statutory-interpretation.php(last visited 12th sept,2019)

10
3-The mischief rule:
(There is time where the court will consider the law prior to the enactment of legislation
although legislation is reactive and proactive).

Finally, the mischief rule is the third rule of the statutory interpretation that it’s aspiring is to
look at the intention of the statute.

A more recent example of statutory interpretation under the mischief rule is Smith V Hughes
(1960).This case consider the fundamental purpose of the street offences act 1959, in
preventing the soliciting sex on the street by prostitute. It was argued that these strippers
weren’t actually present on the streets but they were attracting the attention of individuals by
tapping on the windows of their properties. 5 So if we conceder this issue by looking at the
literal rule of the statutory interpretation, they would fall outside of the scope of the act and
avoid liability. Some of the advantages of the mischief rule are finding the meaning that
seems to be what parliament intended and it can be extent to the reason of fitting new
situations. Other than that, it might sometimes lead to some recompense such as the waste of
time and cases might be more costly.

The literal and golden rules determine what parliament have said, unlike the mischief rule.

The three general approaches:

1- The literal approach: also known as “the constructionist approach”. This rule uses cannons
and rule of interpretation to establish the meaning of words or the intention of parliament.

2- The mischief approach: also known as “the purposive approach” .It is typical of the way
EU law it needs to be interpreted.

3- The integrated approach: also known as “the unified or contextual approach”.

CH: 2 PRESUMPTION IN INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY LAW

5
https://legaleasy.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/statutory-interpretation-the-rules-of-language-aids-and-
presumptions/

11
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some
amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the
words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is
some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge.
To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory
interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and
purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory
interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated legislation such
as administrative agency regulations.6

Unless the statute contains express words to the contrary it is assumed that the following
presumptions of statutory interpretation apply, each of which may be rebutted by contrary
evidence.

Presumptions represent the accepted judicial view of a range of circumstances that have been
predetermined to be the way in which every manifestation of those circumstances will be
viewed, until any evidence to the contrary is produced. These tend to arise from theoretical
and practical principles of the law.

• A statute does not alter the existing common law. If a statute is capable of two
interpretations, one involving alteration of the common law and the other one not, the latter
interpretation is to be preferred.

• If a statute deprives a person of his property, say by nationalization, he is to be compensated

for its value.

• A statute is not intended to deprive a person of his liberty. If it does so, clear words must be
used. This is relevant in legislation covering, for example, mental health and immigration.

• A statute does not have retrospective effect to a date earlier than its becoming law.

• A statute generally has effect only in the country enacted. However a statute does not run
counter to international law and should be interpreted so as to give effect to international
obligations.

6
https://legaleasy.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/statutory-interpretation-the-rules-of-language-aids-and-
presumptions/

12
• A statute cannot impose criminal liability without proof of guilty intention. Many modern
statutes rebut this presumption by imposing strict liability; for e.g.-dangerous driving.

• A statute does not repeal other statutes. Any point on which the statute leaves a gap or
omission is outside the scope of the statute.
In construing Statutes the cardinal rule is to construe its provisions Literally and
grammatically giving the words their ordinary and natural meaning. This rule is also known
as the Plain meaning rule. The first and foremost step in the course of interpretation is to
examine the language and the literal meaning of the statute. The words in an enactment have
their own natural effect and the construction of an act depends on its wording. There should
be no additions or substitution of words in the construction of statutes and in its
interpretation. The primary rule is to interpret words as they are. It should be taken into note
that the rule can be applied only when the meanings of the words are clear i.e. words should
be simple so that the language is plain and only one meaning can be derived out of the
statute.

In Municipal board v State transport authority, Rajasthan, the location of a bus stand was
changed by the Regional Transport Authority. An application could be moved within 30 days
of receipt of order of regional transport authority according to section 64 A of the Motor
vehicles Act, 1939. The application was moved after 30 days on the contention that statute
must be read as “30 days from the knowledge of the order”.7 The 1 3 Supreme Court held that
literal interpretation must be made and hence rejected the application as invalid. Lord
Atkinson stated, ‘In the construction of statutes their words must be interpreted in their
ordinary grammatical sense unless there be something in the context or in the object of the
statute in which they occur or in the circumstances in which they are used, to show that they
were used in a special sense different from their ordinary grammatical sense.’

To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include "definitions" sections within a statute, which
explicitly define the most important terms used in that statute. But some statutes omit a
definitions section entirely, or (more commonly) fail to define a particular term. The plain
meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a
term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself.

The Golden rule, or British rule, is a form of statutory interpretation that allows a judge to
depart from a word's normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result. It is a compromise

7
http://www.law-essays-uk.com/help/statutory-interpretation.php( last visited 12th sept,2019)

13
between the plain meaning (or literal) rule and the mischief rule. Like the plain meaning rule,
it gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to
an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature's intention, the judge can depart from
this meaning. In the case of homographs, where a word can have more than one meaning, the
judge can choose the preferred meaning; if the word only has one meaning, but applying this
would lead to a bad decision, the judge can apply a completely different meaning.8

The mischief rule is a rule of statutory interpretation that attempts to determine the
legislator's intention. Originating from a 16th century case (Heydon’s case) in the United
Kingdom, its main aim is to determine the "mischief and defect" that the statute in question
has set out to remedy, and what ruling would effectively implement this remedy. When the
material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions the most firmly established
rule or construction of such words “of all statutes in general be they penal or beneficial,
restrictive or enlarging of the common law is the rule of Heydon’s case. The rules laid down
in this case are also known as Purposive Construction or Mischief Rule.

CH 3: PRESUMPTION IN INTERPRETATION OF CONSITUTIONAL

LAW
Presumption of Constitutionality of a statute or provision is followed when two possible
interpretations of a statute occur –one in violation of the Constitution and one in favor of the
Constitution. In such a case, the interpretation that favors the Constitution is considered valid
until the petitioner proves otherwise, in a manner that convinces the Court beyond reasonable
doubt, laying the burden of proof on the petitioner.

8
http://www.law-essays-uk.com/help/statutory-interpretation.php( last visited 12th sept,2019)

14
The presumption of Constitutionality is made on grounds that a coordinate branch of the
Legislature determined that the law was constitutional before enacting it and that they do not
intend to make laws that are ultra vires to the Constitution. While the importance of the
theory of presumption of Constitutionality is emphasized upon, its usage could also be argued
upon. Hence, the researcher intends analyze the drawbacks of this doctrine with the help of
case laws.

If a provision of a statute leads to absurdity or ambiguity and is questioned on its

constitutional validity, it gives possibility to two meanings –one which gives effect to the
provision and one which renders the provision inoperative. In such a case, the meaning which
gives effect to the provision will be taken into interpretation. While applying the doctrine of
presumption of constitutionality, the Courts usually apply the concept of ‘reading down’
while interpreting provisions under question. The circumstances under which the need for the
applicability of the doctrine arises can be understood through the case of Kedar Nath Singh v.
The State of Bihar9- It is well settled that if certain provisions of law construed in one way
would make them consistent with the Constitution, and another interpretation would render
them unconstitutional, the Court would lean in favor of the former construction.”

When the presumption of constitutionality is taken up by the Court while interpreting the
provision under question, the burden of proof falls upon the petitioner to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the provision is unconstitutional. Once this has been established, the
burden falls upon the State to prove the Constitutionality of the provision. If the Court is
satisfied with the arguments put forth by the State, the provision would be upheld and if the
State does not put forth a convincing case, thereby making the petitioner’s case stronger, the
provision would be struck down as unconstitutional. In Charanjit Lal v. Union of India 10 , the
Supreme Court stated- the presumption is always in favor of the constitutionality of an
enactment, and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear
transgression of the constitutional principles.”

The doctrine of presumption of constitutionality is premised on the concept of judicial

deference to the legislature. The importance of judicial review can be understood through the
case of Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Union 0f India & Ors., 11 where C.J. Chandrachud stated-
“I am of the view that if there is one feature of our Constitution which, more than any other,

9
AIR 1962 SC 955
10
AIR 1951 SC 41
11
(1980) 3 SCC 625

15
is basic and fundamental to the maintenance of democracy and the rule of law, it is the power
of judicial review and it is unquestionably, to my mind, part of the basic structure of the
Constitution.”

The doctrine of presumption of constitutionality is based on the assumption that the

legislature intends to enact laws that do not contravene the provisions of the Constitution.
While this assumption may not be justifiable because it is an insufficient ground for
justification of the doctrine and tampers with the independence of the Judiciary, it is
understandable for the Judiciary to see the need to have a self-imposed restraint. However,
what is absurd is that the Judiciary has ruled that the presumption of constitutionality also be
applicable to pre-constitutional laws. This decision only weakens the already insufficient
justification for the presumption. The intention of the Legislature to act within constitutional
barriers could not possibly be assumed for a time period in which there existed no such
barriers to begin with.

As held in Namit Sharma v. Union of India 12, it has become a settled position that the
provisions of a pre-constitutional law can be read down by interpretation to prevent it from
being declared unconstitutional. The excerpt from the judgment reads- “Declaring the law
unconstitutional is one of the last resorts taken by the courts. The courts would preferably put
into service the principle of ‘reading down’ or ‘reading into’ the provision to make it
effective, workable and ensure the attainment of the object of the Act. These are the
principles which clearly emerge from the consistent view taken by this court in its various
pronouncements” 13

CH 4: CONCLUSION

Statutes are designed to operate over indefinite periods of time, so they should be viewed in a
continuum. An intention to produce an unreasonable result is not to be imputed to a statute if
some other construction available. If the statutory provision is unambiguous and if from that
provision, the legislative intent is clear, we need not to call into aid the other rules of
interpretation of statutes. The rules are called into aid when the legislative intent is not clear.

12
(2013) 1 SCC 745
13
Id. at para 47

16
It assumes that number of possible interpretations the one that appears most to our sense of
right and justice for the time being is most likely to give the meaning of the framer of the
rule. In truth this is a phenomenon we meet on every hand in the judicial process. The
decisive element is received ideals of the end of the law and of what legal precepts should be
in consequence; and it is this measuring by authoritative received ideals which gives a
reasonable stability and certainty to interpretation.

The major function of the judiciary lies in the interpretation of statutes and the application of
precedent. In this exercise, a judge is faced with the ‘perennial problems: how to balance the
need for stability and certainty, embodied in the principle of stare decisis, with the need for
the constructive adaptation of the law to changing social needs; how to balance the certainty
aimed at, if not always achieved, by a strict adherence to the letter of the law, with individual
justice. The conflict can never be finally resolved.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. St. J. Langan,Maxwell on The Interpretaton of Statutes, 12th ed.(2015)

Cowie, F. and Bradney, A. (2000), English Legal System in Context, London, Butterworths
Slapper, G. (2000) ‘Castles built on law’, New Law Journal, 23 June.

Websites

17
https://legaleasy.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/statutory-interpretation-the-rules-of-language-
aids-and-presumptions/
http://www.hellocounsel.com/interpretation-of-statutes/
http://www.caaa.in/Image/Interpretation%20of%20Statutes.pdf

18