Lecture on Interpretation of Statute

Interpretation or construction is very important to find out the true sense of the words used in the
legislation and enactment. Generally, laymen do not know the legislative intent and therefore they can't
make out the true sense of the words of laws and hence interpretation or construction is necessary.

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

In this lecture we will try to find out the answers of the following questions:

1. What are interpretation and construction?

2. Why interpretation or construction is necessary?
3. Who can interpret the laws?
4. What are the Maxims of interpretation?
5. What are the rules of interpretation?

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.

Construction:
Construction is the process of drawing conclusions of the subjects which are beyond the direct expression
of the text. The courts draw findings after analyzing the meaning of the words used in the text or the
statutes. This process is known as legal exposition.
Why interpretation or construction is necessary/ Purposes of interpretation:
Necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of a statutory provisions is ambiguous,
not clear or where two views are possible or where the provision gives a different meaning defeating the
object of the statute. If the language is clear an unambiguous, no need of interpretation would arise. In
this regard, a Constitutional Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court of India in R.S. Nayak vs A.R.
Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684 has held "If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the
plainest duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision".

Interpretation of statute is required for following two basic reasons:

1. To ascertain legislative language: Legislative language may be complicated for layman and
hence may require interpretation. 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."
2. To ascertain legislative intent: To ascertain true intent, meaning and spirit of every statute
interpretation is necessary. A statute is designed to be workable, and the interpretation thereof by
a court should be to secure that object, unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that
unattainable.

Who can interpret the laws?

It is the duty of the court to interpret the Act and give meaning to each word of the statute. The
interpretation of laws is confined to courts of law. In course of time, courts have evolved a large and
elaborate body of rules to guide them in constructing or interpreting laws.
 Maxims of Interpretation

1. Noscitur a Socis
Words must be construed in conjunction with the other words and phrases used in the text.
Legislative intent must be ascertained from consideration of the statute as a whole. The particular
words, clause and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the
whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in
order to produce a harmonious whole.

2. Ejusdem Generis
Where a statute describes things of particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic
character, the generic words will usually be limited to things of a kindred nature with those
particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the statute to repel such
influence.
3. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius
What is expressed puts an end to what is implied. where a statute is expressly limited to certain
matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.

4. Casus omissus
A person, object or thing omitted from an enumerated in an statute must be held to have been
omitted intentionally. And the court should not include those object or person so omitted.

5. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos:

Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish. And the court should not
distinguish those things by interpretation.
 Rules of interpretation

1. Literal or Grammatical Rule

It is the first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the words used in this text are to be
given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning.
The basic rule is that whatever the intention legislature had while making any provision it has
been expressed through words and thus, are to interpreted according to the rules of grammar. It is
the safest rule of interpretation of statutes because the intention of the legislature is deducted from
the words and the language used.
According to this rule, the only duty of the courts is to give effect if the language of the statute is
plain and has no business to look into the consequences which might arise.

In the case of Whitley vs Chappel (1868) LR 4 QB 147, a statute made it offence 'to
impersonate any person entitled to vote'. The defendant used the vote of a dead man. The Statute
relating to voting rights required a person to be living in order to be entitled to vote.
Held: The literal rule was applied and the defendant was thus acquitted.

2. The Mischief Rule:

Mischief rule was originated in Heydon's Case in 1584. It is the rule of purposive construction
because the purpose of the statute is most important while applying this rule. It is called as
mischief rule because the focus on curing mischief.

In the Heydon's Case, 1584 it was held that there are four things which have to be followed for
true and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as follows:-

(1) What was the common law before the making of an Act.
(2) What was the mischief for which the present statute was enacted.
(3) What remedy did the parliament shout to cure the disease of the commonwealth.
(4) The true reason of the remedy.
 In the case of Smith v. Huges, 1960 WLR 830 1960 WLR 830, around the 1960s, the
prostitutes were soliciting in the streets of London and it was creating a huge problem in London.
This was causing a great problem in maintaining law and order. To prevent this problem, Street
Offences Act, 1959 was enacted. After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started soliciting
from windows and balconies.
Further, the prostitutes who were carrying on to solicit from the streets and balconies were
charged under section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that they were not solicited
from the streets.
The court held that although they were not soliciting from the streets yet the mischief rule must
be applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall look into this issue. Thus, by applying
this rule, the court held that the windows and balconies were taken to be an extension of the word
street and charge sheet was held to be correct.

3. The Golden Rule:

Golden rule applies where the words are ambiguous. If the interpretation given through the literal
rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity, justice, inconvenience, hardship, inequality, then in
all such events the literal rule shall be discarded and interpretation shall be done in such a manner
that the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled.

In Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 61, Lord Wensleydale said: “… the grammatical and
ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some
repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and
ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but
no farther.”