EXTERNAL AIDS TO INTERPRETATION

Prepared by: Mayank Kapila

Assistant Professor (Law), M.S. College, Motihari,
B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur Contact:-
kapilalegal.brabu@gmail.com
Introduction
 When internal aids are not adequate, court has to take
recourse to External aids.
 External Aids may include
 Parliamentary material
 Historical background
 Reports of a Committee or a Commission
 Socio-Political-Economic and Scientific
Developments
 Other Statutes
 Dictionaries
 Foreign decisions.
 In Prabhakar Rao and others v. State of A.P. and others (AIR
1986 SC 120), the Hon’ble court observed that “where internal
aids are not forthcoming, we can always have recourse to external
aids to discover the object of the legislation. External aids are not
ruled out. This is now a well settled principle of modern statutory
construction.”
 In District Mining Officer and others v. Tata Iron & Steel
Co. and anr. (2001) 7 SCC 358, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that “it is also a cardinal principle of construction that
external aids are brought in by widening the concept of context as
including not only other enacting provisions of the same statute,
but its preamble, the existing state of law, other statutes in pari -
materia and the mischief which the statute was intended to
remedy.”
Parliamentary History,
 The ingredients of Parliamentary History are the bill in its
original form or the amendments considered during its
progress in the Legislature, Speech of the minister who
introduced the bill in the Parliament which is also referred to
as Statements of Objects and Reasons, Reports of
Parliamentary debates and resolutions passed by either House
of the Parliament and the Reports submitted different
Parliamentary Committees.
 According to the traditional English view the Parliamentary
History of a statute was not considered as an aid to
construction. Initially, The Supreme Court of India also
excluded parliamentary history but later it starting using it as
an aid to interpretation.
 In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, while interpreting
Article 16(4) of the Constitution the Supreme Court
referred to Dr. Ambedkar’s speech in the Constituent
Assembly as the expression ‘backward class of citizens’ is not
defined. The court held that reference to Parliamentary debate is
permissible to ascertain the context, background and objective of the
legislatures but at the same time such references could not be
taken as conclusive or binding on the courts. Thus in the
Mandal Reservation Case, the Supreme Court resorted to
Parliamentary History as an aid to interpretation.
 In Harsharan Verma v. Tribhuvan Narain Singh the
appointment of Tribhuvan Narayan Singh as the chief minister
of Uttar Pradesh was challenged as at the time of his
appointment he was neither a member of Vidhan Sabha nor a
member of Vidhan Parishad. While interpreting Article
164(4) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that it
did not require that a Minister should be a Member of the
Legislature at the time of his being chosen as such, the
Supreme Court referred to an amendment which was rejected by
the Constituent Assembly requiring that a Minister at the time of his
being chosen should be a member of the Legislature.
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Chaudhuri v State of
Punjab and others (2001) 7 SCC 126, has opined that “it
is a settled position that debates in the Constituent Assembly
may be relied upon as an aid to interpret a Constitutional
provision because it is the function of the Court to find out
the intention of the framers of the Constitution”.
Historical Facts and Surrounding
Circumstances
 Historical setting cannot be used as an aid if the words are plain
and clear. If the wordings are ambiguous, the historical setting may
be considered in order to arrive at the proper construction.
Historical setting covers parliamentary history, historical facts,
statement of objects and reasons, report of expert committees.
 The rule of admissibility of this external aid is especially useful in
mischief rule. The rule that was laid down in the Heydon’s Case
by stating that:-
 What was the law before the making of the Act?
 What was the mischief for which the law did not provide?
 What was the remedy provided by the Act?
 What was the reason of the remedy?
 In Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar in the
construction of Article 286 of the Constitution, the court
observed that “since the function of the court is to find the
meaning of the ambiguous words in a statute, a reference to
the historical facts and surrounding circumstances that led to the
enactment assist the courts in efficient administration of speedy
justice. The rule permits recourse to historical works,
engravings, pictures and documents where it is important to
ascertain ancient facts of a public nature. Historical evolution of
a provision in the statute is also sometimes a useful guide to its
construction.”
Reports of Committees or
Commissions
 Whenever there is any ambiguity in the text of the Statute,
the Court may refer to the various reports of Committee or
Commissions for understanding the exact meaning or
intention behind the provision.
 Eg. Justice J.S. Verma (Retd.) Committee suggested the
Criminal Law Amendment (2013),
 Law Commission Reports, Mandal Commission Report,
These reports may be referred for understanding the
background and intent behind any particular provision.
Social, Political and Economic
Developments and Scientific Inventions
 A Statute must be interpreted to include circumstances or
situations which were unknown or did not exist at the time of
enactment of the statute. Any relevant changes in the social
conditions and technology should be given due weightage. Courts
should take into account all these developments while construing
statutory provisions.
 The laws made in the past are applied in the present contemporary
society in the light of changed social, political, legal and economic
circumstances taking into consideration the advancement in
science and technology. Statutes must be interpreted in
accordance with the spirit of the Constitution of India even though
the statutes were passed before independence of India or before
the commencement of our Constitution.
 The case State v. J.S. Chawdhary (AIR 1996 SC 1491) relates to Section 45
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which only mentions about handwriting
experts and not typewriting experts for the reason that typewriters were
invented much later than 1872.In the instant case the state wanted to use the
opinion of a typewriting expert as evidence in a murder case. The Supreme
Court then overruled its decision in the case Hanumant v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343) which held that the opinion of the typewriting
expert was inadmissible as evidence in the court of law.
 On the question of meaning of the word ‘handwriting’ in Section 45 to include
typewriting, the word ‘science’, occurring independently and in addition to the
word ‘handwriting’ in Section 45, is sufficient to indicate that the opinion of a
person specially skilled in the use of typewriters and having the scientific
knowledge of typewriters would be an expert in this science; and his opinion
about the identity of typewriting for the purpose of identifying the particular
typewriter on which the writing is typed is a relevant fact under Section 45 of
the Evidence Act.
 In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, observed that “the interpretation
of every statutory provision must keep pace with changing
concepts and values and it must, to the extent to which its
language permits or rather does not prohibit, suffer adjustments
through judicial interpretation so as to accord with the
requirement of the fast changing society which is undergoing rapid
social and economic transformation … It is elementary that law
does not operate in a vacuum. It is, therefore, intended to serve a
social purpose and it cannot be interpreted without taking into
account the social, economic and political setting in which it is
intended to operate. It is here that the Judge is called upon to
perform a creative function. He has to inject flesh and blood in the
dry skeleton provided by the legislature and by a process of
dynamic interpretation, invest it with a meaning which will
harmonise the law with the prevailing concepts and values and
make it an effective instrument for delivery of justice.”
Reference to Other Statutes
 Statutes must be read as a whole in order to understand the words
in their context. Problem arises when a statute is not complete in
itself i.e. the words used in the statute are not explained clearly.
Extension of this rule of context permits reference to other
statutes in pari-materia i.e. statutes dealing with the same subject
matter or forming part of the same system.
 The meaning of the phrase pari-materia was explained in an
American Case, United Society v. Eagle Bank (1829) in the
following words: “Statutes are in pari-materia which relate to the
same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things.
The word par must not be confounded with the word similer. It is
used in opposition to it- intimating not likeness merely but
identity. It is a phrase applicable to public statutes or general laws
made at different times and in reference to the same subject”.
 In State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers syndicate Ltd.,
Okara , the Supreme Court held that when two pieces of
legislation are of differing scopes, it cannot be said that they are in
pari-materia. However it is not necessary that the entire subject
matter in the statutes should be identical before any provision in
one may be held to be in pari-materia with some provision in the
other.
 In the case State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanath Aiyer , the
respondent, an income tax officer was accused of accepting bribe.
The Trial Court convicted him and awarded a rigorous
imprisonment of six months. When an appeal was made in the
High Court, the High Court set him free on the ground of a
possibility that he might have borrowed the money and not
accepted it as bribe. The Supreme Court held the accused guilty
and made an observation that the judgement of the High Court
was extremely perverse.
 In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that Section 4 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947, which directs that
on proof that the accused has accepted any gratification other
than legal remuneration, it shall be presumed unless the
contrary is established by the accused that the gratification
was accepted as bribe, has been held to be in pari materia
with subject-matter dealt with by the Indian Evidence
Act,1872; and the definition „shall presume‟ in the Indian
Evidence Act has been utilized to construe the words „it shall
be presumed‟ in section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act,1947.
Dictionaries
 When a word is not defined in the statute itself, it is
permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the general
sense in which that word is understood in common parlance.
However, in the selection of one out of the various meanings
of a word, regard must always be had to the scheme, context
and legislative history.
Judicial Decisions
 When judicial pronouncements are been taken as reference it
should be taken into note that the decisions referred are Indian, if
they are foreign it should be ensured that such a foreign country
follows the same system of jurisprudence as ours and that these
decisions have been taken in the ground of the same law as ours.
These foreign decisions have persuasive value only and are not
binding on Indian courts and where guidance is available from
binding Indian decisions; reference to foreign decisions is of no
use.
 Reference to decisions of the English Courts was a common
practice in the administration of justice in pre independent India.
The reason behind this was that the Modern Indian Legal System
owes its origin to the English Common Law System.
 But after the commencement of the Constitution of India as a
result of the incorporation of the Fundamental Rights, the
Supreme Court of India gave more access to American
precedents.
 In General Electric Company v. Renusagar Power
Company , the Supreme Court of India held that when
guidance is available from Indian decisions, reference to
foreign decisions may become unnecessary.
Other Materials
 Courts also refer to various international/regional
instruments like Agreements/Treaties/Conventions etc.
These external aids are very useful tools not only for the
proper and correct interpretation or construction of
statutory provision, but also for understanding the object of
the statute, the mischief sought to be remedied by it,
circumstances in which it was enacted and many other
relevant matters. In the absence of the admissibility of these
external aids, sometimes court may not be in a position to do
justice in a case.