How to find out the law

- Interpretation
 Why is interpretation important?
 Who has an authority to interpret the laws in India?
 Ambiguous words and expressions
 Resolving inconsistencies

Meaning of Interpretation:
 Salmond– “The process by which the court seeks to determine the meaning of
legislature through the medium of authoritative forms during which it’s expressed”.
 Maxwell – “Purpose of interpretation to determine what intention is conveyed either
expressly or impliedly by the language used”
 Cooley- “Interpretation differs from construction in that the former is the art of
finding out the true sense of any form of the word”.
Objective:
 Is to determine the intention of the legislature which is expressed impliedly or
expressly.
  ‘true meaning’ or a ‘legal meaning’
 fairest and rational method for interpreting the statute

Example:
 “We the people of India” – derives its authority from the people of India
 Purnima Banerji – Part of Constituent assembly- Suggestions to replace as “We on
behalf of the people of India”.
 Dr. Ambedkar – As it embodies the desire of the people, which has its roots,
authority and sovereignty from the people.
 After assembly deliberations/ debate

Basic Principles of Interpretation:

 Literal or grammatical interpretation
 Mischief rule
 Golden rule
 Harmonious construction
 Construction ejusdem generis

Literal or grammatical interpretation

 ‘Plain meaning rule’
 Words of the enactment are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning.
 Words of a statute are understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense
 Phrases and sentences are constructed according to their grammatical meaning.
 Interpreted according to the intension expressed in the Act themselves.
  Court must accept the litera legis – language in which the rule of law is garbed.
 Exceptions:

- Logical defect
- Ambiguity
- Inconsistency
- Incompleteness
- Lacking reasonableness

Case laws:
1. Maqbool Hussain vs State of Bombay – An Indian in the airport – did not declare the
gold with him- on search – gold was confiscated under Sea Customs Act,1878 – was
booked under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,1947 also.
- Challenged that it was violative of Art 20 (2) – double jeopardy
- Held, sea customs authority is not court or judicial tribunal. So, the trail under FERA
Act was valid.
 2. Venkataraman vs Union of India

- An inquiry under Public Service Enquires Act

- Later case was filed under IPC
- Held, not violative of Art 20(2)
- 3. Ramavatar vs Assistant Sales Tax officer
- Whether the sale of betel leaves was subjected to sales tax?
- Contention was that no such tax could be levied as betel leave were vegetables and
relied upon the dictionary meaning of vegetable.
- SC held that betel leaves cannot be given botanical meaning when the ordinary and
natural meaning is clear and unambiguous. So, its sale is therefore taxable.
- 4. Ranjit Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra
- - Convicted under Sec 292 of Indian Penal Code – selling of obscene book titles ’Lady
Chatterley’s Lover’
- Held, the knowledge of obscenity was not an essential element of the offence. The
court gave a natural meaning to the words and held the appellant liable.
Mischief Rule:
 Also known as Purposive Construction

 Originated in Heydon’s Case

 Four things to be considered while interpreting:

1. What was the common law before making of the Act?

2. What was the mischief or defect which the common law did not provide?
3. What remedy the Parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the
commonwealth?
4. True reason of the remedy
 Not widely accepted by English courts

 It is in support of literal interpretation

 R.M.D.C vs Union of India

- Sec 2(d) of the Prize competition Act was challenged as it violated Art 19 (1) (g) of
Constitution.
- Held, that sec 2 (d) should be construed keeping in mind the historical background of
the Act and the mischief that was intended to be suppressed.
- The competition which was sought to be controlled and regulated are not depending
upon skill but only on chance.

 Peyarelal vs Mahadeo Ramachandra

- charged under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling and keeping for
the sale ‘Supari’ which was sweetened with banned artificial sweetener.
- Appellant argued that supari was not a food.
- SC applied the mischief rule and emphasized that the word ‘food’ should be
interpreted in the context of the mischief which led to the creation of the said Act.

Golden Rule:
 Wider interpretation

 Intension of the legislature should be ensured

 Lee vs Knapp

- Interpretation of the word ‘stop’ under sec 77 of Road Traffic Act was considered.
- Applying the golden rule, the court held that requirement of the section had not
been followed by the driver and he had not stopped for a reasonable period.
 Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs State of Punjab

- Interpretation to the word ‘abuse of power or habitual failure to perform his duties’
in sec 22 of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was involved.
- Court applied the ‘subject and object rule’ if the words are not defined

 Karnail Singh vs Mohinder Kaur

- Will in favor of his three sons and had deliberately disinherited his three daughters.
- One son died and whether the widow of the pre-deceased son is entitled to the
property?
- Golden rule was applied to interpret the word ‘lineal descendant’ and held that she
is entitled to the property.

Harmonious construction:
 Two or more provisions are repugnant, court will give effect to both by harmonizing
them each other.
 State of Bombay vs F.N.Balsara

- Constitutionality of Bombay Prohibition Act,1949

- Bombay govt passed the Act under entry 31 of state list- Possession, use and sale of
intoxicated liquor.
- Central objected this under entry 19 of union list
- Court applied the harmonious construction and held that incidental encroachment is
permitted and both the actions are valid.
 Tika Ramji vs State of Uttar Pradesh

- Interpretation to the term industries and production, supply and distribution of

goods includes sugarcane industry?
- Applied the principle and harmoniously validated the State Act.
 M.S.M Sharma vs Krishna Sinha

- Art 19 (1) (a) – freedom of speech and Art 194(3) –privileges of the house was
challenged.
- Harmonious balanced both the provisions.
 Sambhu Nath vs State of West Bengal
- Conflict between Art 22 (4) (a), 22(4) (b) and 22 (7) (a)
- Harmoniously interpreted and held that Art 22(4) (b) is an exception to Art 22(4) (a).
- Art 22(4) (a) - Preventive detention laws extension beyond three months after
authorization from advisory board
- Art 22(4) (b) – New law to be enacted by the parliament
 Right to Property case

1. Shankari Prasad vs Union of India

2. Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan
3. Golaknath vs State of Pubjab
4. Kesavanandha Bharathi vs State of Kerala

Ejusdem generis:
 Meaning - ‘of the same kind’

 Not a universal principle

Example:
 “any other”

 “Like”

 An act dealing with the slaughter of animals for food for human consumption, the
expressions used are “cows, goats, sheep, and other animals”.
Siddeshwari Cotton Mills Private Limited vs Union of India
- Supreme Court interpreted the word “any other process” under sec 2(f) of Central
Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
- Expression “bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, printing, water- proofing, rubberizing,
shrink-proofing and any other process”
- Supreme Court held that the term “any other process” indicates the incidents of
same nature and applied the ejusdem generis principle.

Liberal Interpretation:
 Liberal or beneficial interpretation means the interpretation of the statute should be
made liberally in order to get a wider and enhanced meaning to it. 
 As it is an exhaustive rule of interpretation it gives a wider scope of expanding the
law and helps in creating a new law if required
Alembic chemical Works vs Workmen
- Industrial Tribunal awarded more leave with wages under Factories Act.
- This was challenged by the appellant.
- SC held that it is a welfare legislation. It is beneficially construed in favor of the
affected party.
 The Supreme Court laid down principles of rule of Harmonious Construction in the
landmark case of CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers:
 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. Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a
useless number or dead is not harmonious construction.

To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.

 Reference:

  Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore

 Sant Ram v Rajinderlal

 Sirsilk Ltd. v Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

 It is said by Maxwell, that Beneficial Construction is a tendency and not a rule.

 The reason is that this principle is based on human tendency to be fair,

accommodating, and just.
 Instead of restricting the people from getting the benefit of the statute, Court tends
to include as many classes as it can while remaining faithful to the wordings of the
statute.
 Is there any limitation on applying the beneficial interpretation?

 No ambiguity

 Clear provision

 Limitation of court’s power

 Conclusion:
 Harmonious construction is only applied where there is a conflict between the
meaning coming out of two different sections.
 Rule of Beneficial Construction is applied in the cases where any construction may do
any benefit to the society or any group of people and are basically applied in the
socio – economic legislations.