Principles of interpretation

The principles of interpretation are basically the rules that are being used for interpreting the
meaning of the provisions in the statute. The statutes are construed for the application in case
of their use and also their interpretation by the court whenever needed. However, not every
time the court can interpret the rules according to the rules because the normal words or
grammar is to be used for the interpretation. The main use is for understanding the
unambiguous and non-clear provisions that can create a fuss while passing any judgement.
For example- When a person is held liable for murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal
code, there exists no requirement for the court to interpret the provision as per any of the
rules because the words of provision clearly specify its use and meaning, that the person who
has murdered any one is to be punished with the specified punishment. However, if there
would have existed any of the provisos or exceptions that would have made the provision
unclear, the court would have used any of the rule for interpretation.

The Principles of interpretation are as follows-

1. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius

The maxim means that express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.
Where two expressions have been used in a statute one of which generally includes the
other, the more general expression excludes the less general. The rule expressio unius est
exclusio alterius is often a valuable servant but a dangerous master to follow in the
construction of statutes or documents. The exclusion is the result of inadvertence or
accident, and the maxim shall not to be applied when its application, having regard to the
subject matter to which it is to be applied, leads to inconsistency or injustice. This
principle is a general rule with regard to the effect of an enabling statute and means
express enactment shuts the door to further implication.
Example: -
The fundamental rights under Article 15,16 and 19 are available to the citizens of India
only and Non-Citizens are expressly excluded. The Supreme Court interpreted the term
'citizen' and clearly laid down that the freedoms under Article 19 cannot be claimed by
non-citizens nor by the legal persons as they are not citizens. However, Indian citizens
may claim these freedoms through their legal persons because the relief ultimately goes to
the citizens and not to the legal persons.
2. Contemporanea exposition est fortissima in lege:
According to this maxim the best exposition of statute is that which has received from the
contemporary authority. This maxim means that contemporaneous exposition is the best
and strongest in the law. If the authority is an enactment or a judicial decision, it has a
binding force. However, this principle cannot be used when any administrative circular is
made contrary to law because the administrative circulars cannot override the law.
Example: -
A circular providing interpretation running contrary to provision of law does not bind the
Court. Under para 3 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 issued under Section 3 of
the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 fixing price of drugs is a legislative measure done
with the object of equitable distribution and availability of commodities at fair price. The
price fixation notification takes effect immediately once it is gazetted. Fifteen days' time
is given for its enforcement. This is for manufacturers and others to make necessary
arrangement. The time given is not for manufacturing drugs and clearing them. at pre-
notified price. The Supreme Court ruled that the principle of contemporanea expositio est
fortissima in lege does not apply when administrative circular is contrary to statute.
Circulars cannot override statutory provision.
3. Ejusdem generis:
Construction ejusdem generis
The expression ejusdem generis means of the same kind. Here the general words should
be given their natural meaning like all other words unless the context requires otherwise.
Here the general expression takes its meaning from the preceding particular expressions
because the legislature by using the particular words of a distinct genus has clearly shown
its intention to that effect. If any particular words exhaust the whole genus, the general
word following these particular words is construed as embracing a larger genus. The
principle of ejusdem generis is not a universal application. If the context of a legislation
rules out the applicability of this rule, it has no part to play in the interpretation of general
words. The sole basis of the principle of ejusdem generis is that if the legislature intended
general words to be used in unrestricted sense, it would not have bothered to use
particular words at all.
Example: - An order was passed the Central Government that made mandatory that at
least 25% of Fruit Juice shall be present in a fruit syrup. One manufacturer of medicinal
beverage held that this rule does not applies to his product even though he uses fruits in
its product because Order includes squashes, crushes, juice syrups, barley water, barrelled
 juice and ready-to-serve beverages or any other beverages containing fruit juices or fruit
pulp and that the expression any other beverages containing fruit juices or fruit pulp
should be construed ejusdem generis. The Supreme Court denied the contention and held
that the rule had no application here because the things mentioned before the general
expression any other beverages containing fruit pulp or fruit juice did not fall under a
determinable genus. Further, the context makes it more clear that all beverages containing
fruit juice are intended to be included in this order.
4. Noscitur a Sociis
Noscere means to ‘know’ and Sociss means ‘in association with’. So it means to know
from association. This principle is used when two or more get affected by putting them
together, then they are understood in their logical manner. Here the next or associated
word explains the phrase and limits them. This principle helps in finding the true
legislative intent. Therefore, it cannot prevail where it is clear that the wider words have
been deliberately used.
Example:
Interpretation of the word 'employee' in Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
was in question. The section says 'employee' means any person (other than an apprentice)
employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway
company or shop to do any skilled, or unskilled, manual, technical or clerical work
whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity.
Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis the Supreme Court held that a teacher
employed in a school does not fall under any of the categories mentioned above. The
Court, further recommended that since the teachers are in a noble profession the
legislature should extend benefits of gratuity to them by enacting a new legislation for
them.
5. Construction ut res magus valeat quam pereat.
This rule literally means that construction of rule should give effect to the rule rather than
destroying it. According to this Rule if there are alternative constructions are possible
then the court must interpret in that manner which will be responsible for smooth working
of the system for which any legislation has been enacted instead of interpreting which
may cause hurdles. Here while interpreting any part of legislation without giving any
effect is not permissible.
Example: -
 The petitioner who was a physically challenged (handicapped) advocate was also running
a STD booth in his name. He failed to surrender the booth within the time given by the
Bar Council of India which directed the State Bar Council to delete his name from the roll
of advocates. The petitioner surrendered the booth subsequently. His review petition
against the order of the Bar Council of India was dismissed on the ground of limitation as
'sixty days from the date of that order' as provided under Section 48AA of the Advocates
Act, 1961 had elapsed. The Supreme Court set aside the order and restored the enrolment
of the petitioner. The Court ruled that this expression must mean and be construed as date
of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive, of the order sought to be
reviewed.

6. Reddendo Singula Singulis:

Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin phrase which means by referring each to each;
referring each phrase or expression to its corresponding object. In simple words
“reddendo singular singulis” means that when a list of words has a modifying phrase at
the end, the phrase refers only to the last. It is the rule of construction used usually in
distributing property. Where there are general words of description, following a record of
particular things, such general words are to be construed distributive, and if the general
words will apply to some things and not to those to which they will not apply; that is to
say, each phrase, word or expression is to be referred to its suitable objects.
The reddendo singula singulis principle concerns the use of words distributive. Where a
complex sentence has more than one subject, and more than one object, it may be the
right construction to render each to each, by reading the provision distributive and
applying each object to its appropriate subject.