 Legal rule gives the impression from far are definite.

Its a straight line between

right and wrong. But when you zoom in, you see that the straight line still has its
own curves and breaks.

 These curves and breaks will be the exceptions of making things that fall in the
definition of legal, illegal and vice versa.

 When applying the rule gives results that are not desirable.

 RCR Case; Court’s views on unequal wages. Example of a hard case. Judges use
discretion at the edges of the diagram ‘to smoothen the surface’.

 However detailed your laws are, you would still need to interpret to smoothen the
surface.

 What is the content of a good law? General or specific?

 Do you try to predict all possible circumstances and lay out in law so that judicial
law making is curtailed?

 If there is a legal vacuum, do you allow the judge to make law.

 Hierarchy of filling void, Rule>Principle>Concept>Doctrine>Standard

 Interpretation is necessary.

 Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukar, AIR 1957 SC 907

 Example of using literal interpretation.

 Case pertaining to theka tenancy. Plaintiff won the case but the execution suit
was filed before the City Court of Calcutta. Theka Tenancy Act says that the
defendant must be removed by the Controller specially appointed.

 Defendant says that the execution proceedings is faulty as it was put in the wrong
forum.

 Plaintiff’s lawyer goes for the Mischief Rule: The rule saying that a law is
brought to cure a mischief and the purpose of the Act was to protect theka tenants
like his client. So, a beneficial construction must be made.
 “Intention of the legislature must be understood from the words itself at first”

 If there are two possible constructions, then, the interpretation that goes along
with the policy of the Act should be followed and not the one that is antithetical.
Golden Rule.

 Here, there is no confusion made. There is a clear eviction order which has been
brought by a competent forum. The order has not been challenged.

 It is only a procedural anomaly and no need to throw it out for that reason.

Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Asst Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1325

 Who should tax vegetables? A makes betel leaves, which according to him are
vegetables. So as to put him under the purview of the State’s taxation which has
lesser rate.

 Vegetable being a word of everyday use, must be interpreted in the popular sense.
And betel leaves ain’t a vegetable.

Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India, AIR 2002 SC 1351, s 7(6) PCI Act

 PCI Act provides for rotation of Members of PCI.

 Statute says that a retiring member can only be nominated one more time.

 A was already a retired member. Retiring = Retired?

 Retiring, those in the process of retirement and is not the same as retired.

 Literal Rule: The Default rule saying words must be given its plain, normal
meaning. To be used at all times unless there is an ambiguity.

 Ambiguity: Capable of two different constructions. Then, use other sub-rules.

Even if the sub-rules are used and there still pertains an absurdity, go for the
Golden Rule.

 Absurdity: Where the result is not what the Act could have possibly imagined.
Not the same as undesired.
Golden Rule

 Modification of the literal rule. Literal Rule has to be followed unless:

 Goes against the intent of the statute (the intent has to be found from the
statute itself)

 Absurdity

 If it leads to absurdity, language of the statute can be modified only to the extent
of curing the absurdity and not any further.

Lee v. Kmapp, 1967 2 QB 442

 Pages 447 & 448 are the important pages.

Wright v. Ford Motor Company, 1967 1 QB 230

 Relevant pages at 236-238

Narayanaswami v. Panneerselvam, 1972 AIR 2284

 Case regarding Legislative Councils.

 Article 173 of Constitution

SR Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169

 A is the Father-in-law. They start to live in a shared home which is owned by the
mother-in-law

 Divorce proceedings ongoing. Wife wanted access to the shared home. A files
injunction against her coming in.

 Till divorce is final, a shared matrimonial home is to both parties

 But it was the mother-in-law that took the loan and built the house in her name.
 Section 2(s) of DV Act: shared household` means a household where the person
aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly
or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or
tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or
tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the
respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and
includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the
respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved
person has any right, title or interest in the shared household

 Clumsy drafting. This would mean every home they stay together will be shared
household, thereby badly affecting people who have spent their money in
building a house. Which is an absurd conclusion.

Mischief Rule

 Heydon’s Case [1540] Coke’s Rep:

 Crown passed a law taking all property from eccelestical bodies.

 For a parcel of land, there were overlapping claims by the A and other
people. There were lease, tenancy at will and copyhold tenancies.

 Heydon says his Lease was made one year ago, which was exempted by the
Statute.

 But overlapping claims are there for almost all properties. If that argument is
taken, Crown won’t be able to take much properties.

 Court introduces the Mischief Rule, which has 4 steps.

 What was the Common Law before?

 What mischief did you want addressed?

 What remedy is provided for the mischief?

 Purpose of remedy
  The purpose of the statute was to take property away from Church. If the
interpretation does not result in this, then the law becomes useless. So, an
interpretation that provides for the purpose has to be taken.

 When compared to Golden Rule, more emphasis is given to the context of the
Statute when it comes to Mischief Rule.

 Smith v. Hughes

 Sex-worker standing in the balcony, soliciting clients. Statute says no

soliciting on the streets.

 This was an Act made to clean up the streets, and avoid people being
harassed by prostitutes.

 R v. Males (1962) 2 QB 500. Section 12 CrPC 1857 states that if you are being
charged of a misdemeanour, but the evidence points to a felony, he/she won’t be
acquitted of the misdemeanour by that alone. Not a pretty good example as per
Agni

 Blake v. Henden Corp (1962) 1 QB 383. S 164 of public Health Act, 1875

 When State acquires Land for public purpose, and if the purpose is not
satisfied, it has to be given back as per the Statute

 RMD Chambar Baugwala v. Union of India:

 Res extra comercium: Whether Gambling is a game of skill/luck? Is it

protected under 19(1)(g)?

 On Prize Competitions Act by the UoI. Puts restrictions on Prize

Competitions.

 Prize Competitions is an umbrella definition of Gambling and Puzzle

competitions generally.

 Restrictions on max number of entries, on prize money and on entry fee.

 Argument that the provision makes it prohibitively unfeasible to run this

business.

 Argued that Legislation wholly restricts skill and luck based competitions.
  Objective of the Act was to restrict prize competitions including Gambling.

 Appellants changed office from Bombay to Mysore to save themselves from

the Bombay Act

 The mischief that wanted to be curbed was gambling. Got it from the
preamble and context of the Act. Here, many states came together and gave
the Union power to pass a Central Law on Gambling under Article 252.

 If the State’s problem extended to other type of competitions, they would

obviously enact a legislation covering other competitions. The Centre only
wanted to cover Gambling as the request by the State only covered gambling.

Presumptions

 Base on which legal system is built

 If not for presumptions such as legislative supremacy or ignorance of law, it will

be difficult to maintain the order of a society. And arguments will not end.

Words are used in a certain sense

 Words are used precisely and not loosely.

 Verbis legis non est recedendum : You must not vary the words of a statute

 Exposition of another word over the already used word, when the words of the
statute are already clear, is a grave injustice to the statute and those who wrote it.

 Mayor New Plymouth Case

 The word in question was ‘adjoining’, which means co-terminus. It could

loosely be interpreted as ‘nearby’. There was a contract saying the contractor
had to supply electricity to one town and the ‘adjoining town’.

 Adjoining town could mean the nearby town or only the town which shares
the boundary with the main one.
  The precise meaning of adjoining is ‘co-terminus’, which means sharing the
same boundary. In all probability, the Legislature might have meant nearby.
Even if it is, the court should believe that Legislature used the word
‘adjoining’ for a reason and has to give effect to that.

 Australian Alliance Assurance Company v. Attorney General, Queensland

 Law mandating every employer has to buy state insurance for all claims of
employees in course of employment

Mens rea, unless expressly mentioned otherwise, is a prerequisite for proving

every crime

 Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 135

 Appellant charged for selling an object under a price more than the cap put in
Defence of India Act, along with employee of appellant.

 Only the employee did the crime but HC convict both due to vicarious
liability, even though no knowledge of employer was found.

 Vicarious Liability offenses are usually of minor things. For major things,
you cannot imply vicarious liability or mens rea without the statute saying so.

 Statute should clearly, or by necessary implication, should rule out mens rea.

 R Hariprasad Rao v. State, AIR 1951 SC 204

 Motor Spirit Rationing Order

 Manager is not responsible for employee violating the provisions of the

above said order. Only he who contravenes it is being targeted by the statute.

 Sarju Prasad v. State of UP, AIR 1961 SC 631

 Adulterated food sold over the counter by employer (Sarju Prasad). Is the
employee liable?
  Where the master is certainly responsible, the agent who does the final act for
the master should also be liable.

 Dissent: The expiry date was not mentioned in most food packets back in
1961. It started around 1990. How can the employee realize how the food
was expired?

 Also, what if he is uneducated to read the expiry date, even if it was there.
Why put such a huge responsibility on the employee, although the employer
will still be liable.

Govt, if affected, by statute

 The Crown passes the law. Is the Crown bound by the Law? No, unless the
Crown is expressly mentioned in that statute. (Position in UK)

 Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of Bombay, AIR 1947 PC 34

 MC of Bombay Act has certain statutes. Would it bind the Crown? No.
Unless expressly mentioned or through necessary implication.

 Necessary Implication: Where not having the Crown bound by the law would
itself make the law useless.

 Crown should be bound for all legislation meant for public good (one
argument)

 Which legislation is not meant for public good? (opposite argument)

Winning argument.

 Crown prosecutes, Crown signs the law.

 Union of India v. Jubbi, AIR 1968 SC 360

 In HP, UoI had major landholdings. Jubbi was living on one such land for the
longest time.

 Jubbi filed a declaratory suit to declare them as tenants. ToP Act and
Himachal Pradesh Tenancy Act mention the possibility of the State as a
landlord. They only define landlord. So, UoI won’t be bound by such Acts.
  SC said statute applies to the State binds the State unless it is expressly
mentioned otherwise or by necessary implication.

 Exact opposite of UK Position. State subject to all laws unless expressly

mentioned.

 UK & India differs in its fundamental set up due to the existence of Article
14 in Indian Jurisprudence.

 Although the State prosecutes, it is the President who signs the Law. And
President is not bound by these laws due to this reason, but the State is.

Statutes need to be in consonance, as far as possible, with International Law

 In a dualist country like India, Municipal Law prevails over International Law

 Keshavananda Bharati:

 In cases of doubt, courts try to harmoniously interpret it with International

Law. This was first briefly suggested by Khanna J in this judgement.

 Even if an International Treaty confers right on you, it can be taken away by

a Legislation due to Sovereign’s supremacy.

 But if the Parliament passes a law giving effect to any treaty, then the conflict
will be between the two municipal laws.

 ADM Jabalpur

 Khanna’ dissent: If two constructions of Municipal Law are possible, go with

the one that goes along with IL.

 Harmonious construction is possible only if the words of the statute are not
plain and unambiguous.

 Jolly John Varghese v. Bank of Cochin

 Krishna Iyer: India has a transformative theory of laws. Where your

international obligations transform into municipal law.
  Just because you agree with an obligation, that does not mean you have made
it into a law

 Stark contrast with what Verma J said in Vishakha. The fact that you have signed
it shows that the Sovereign has taken this obligation encompassed in the treaty.

 This does not follow the Transformative theory of Krishna Iyer.

 Since we have Article 51, we need to try to incorporate it max (Sikri in

Keshavananda Bharti)

The Legislature knows the Law

 The Legislature knows the law and when it brings a new law which may conflict
with it, it is done with the knowledge and Legislature wants it to be read together
unless expressly declared otherwise.

 Or necessary implication.

 Jyotishka’s example of CAA 2003 and 2019.

 Abdur Rahim v. Abu Md Barkat Ali, AIR 1928 PC 16

 A party has been given certain land for charity and only in portion has been a
mosque been built.

 Mutawalli is the traditional caretaker of the mosque

Legislature makes no mistakes

 If they use a word in a certain sense, they meant that word only.

 Even if it is makes no sense, and any other word would have made sense, you are
not supposed to substitute the words like that.

 If there is an omission, that omission was done on purpose.

 Being unacceptable in terms of consequence is not the same as being

unacceptable in terms of meaning

 Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder, AIR 1953 SC 148

  West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act

 Guy got eviction order against him. Challenged this as a new law has passed.

 But the new Act provides for setting aside for decrees.

 The Plaintiff wanted the order to be set aside but the Act provides for setting
aside for decree.

 HC agreed with him as the marginal note uses the phrase ‘orders and
decrees’.

 Marginal Note = Heading

 HC - Marginal note gives away the intention of the legislature.

 SC - Single Bench, SR Das. Paras 15-18

 The section omits order and only talks of decree. If a word is omitted, it
means that it is omitted (casus omissus). So, it means only decree

 Marginal Note is used only as a checklist of sorts. The intention of the

legislature is found from the words of the statute.

 Legislature writes the section, the editors make the marginal note.

 No need to go deep into finding the meaning of the word ‘decree’ as it is

already clear.

 West Wing, 5x17 (The Supremes): Three Judges; Shelton, Lang and Mulready

 Shelton decides on the facts before him only. He does not take a Leftist or a
Rightist judgement because he is not opinionated.

 Land and Mulready are extreme leftists and rightists respectively.

 Should Judges have opinions? Judges with opinions are the ones who create
magnificent judgements as per the episode.

 The problem of inherent bias. What about lived-in experiences? It is obvious

that everyone has lived in experience. So, should a woman who had an
abortion be barred from being a CJ?
  Problem comes when despite all the great evidences to the contrary, you still
hold on to your position. Eg, AK Gopalan. During the first 10 years, there
was a greater need for agreeing with the State as India was still not as stable
as we know it. Also the fact that older Judges were great advocates of
separation of powers.

 Building Bridges: Cannot assume that a Judge will go the way you think
they will. Power of conversations.

Internal Aids to Construction

 Long title, Preamble, Headings.

 Anything found inside the statute.

 You don’t look at these aids, internal/external if the section makes sense.

 Long Title says the actual name. It gives out the objective of the statute.

 Preamble: Shows the values encapsulated in the Act.

 Do we always need to look at the Preamble? Followers of Purposive School

would say Yes.

 Some say go for it only when it is not unambiguous.

 To look at what mischief is being addressed.

 What about using preamble to restrict the ambit of a section of a statute?

 Sometimes, the section might be generally worded compared to the preamble.

This could be because of the fact that Legislature wanted to do more than solve
the immediate mischief before it.

 So, Preamble is to be applied selectively.

 Preamble should not be read to delimit/expand the scope of a clear section.

 Maharao Sahab Shri Bhimsinghji v. UoI, AIR 1981 SC 234

 Section 23(1), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

 Section allowed Govt to give lands to any person for any purpose relating to
industry or for residential purposes for the employees as the State Govt
approves.

 Preamble says that the statute is made to prevent concentration of land in

hands of few persons.

 So, a restrictive approach was given

 Preamble to Constitution: Different standing compared to Preamble of statutes.

 Why? It is part of Basic Structure.

 Preamble is the soul of the Constitution. For statutes, preamble is merely

indicator of scope.

 When you say that Preamble is part of basic structure, it means that the provisions
of Constitution which captures the soul of the ideas in Constitution, are also part
of Basic Structure.

 For eg, Article 14, 15, 17 etc are encompassing equality, just like Equal Pay
DPSP. So, the essence of these articles are protected by Basic structure since the
idea of equality is in Preamble and therefore, BS.

 Preamble is part of the Constitution. For a statute, it is like a guide.

 Preamble to Constitution can be referred to regardless of any ambiguity.

 Headings: Appended to entire parts, and unlike marginal notes, is not for a
particular section.

 Can be referred for interpretation. But what weight?

 One view says that it is a key to interpret and like a preamble.

 Other view says that only when ambiguous.

 Indian view goes with second (CIT v. Ahmedabhai Umerbhair, AIR 1950 SC
134)
 Could not be used for cutting down the wide application of the clear words in the
provision.

 When there is a conflict between plain simple words and heading/title, go with
the plain, unambiguous words.

 Marginal Notes: Effectively the same as headings.

 Cannot be used for construction of statutes.

 Cannot restrict the words of statute.

 Punctuation: There was a high margin of error in the earlier days due to
primitive printing.

 Punctuation ain’t that important.

 Back in the days, when the statute was sent to the Queen for assent, it used to be
devoid of punctuation so as to avoid any chance of error.

 Even Indian judiciary places low value.

 It is an error to rely on punctuation in construing acts of Legislature - Maharani

of Burdwan v. Krishna Kamini Dasi, ILR 14 Cal 365 (PC)

 Punctuation won’t control the meaning of the section.

 Illustrations: Can’t modify the words/language. Cannot curtail or expand the

ambit.

 But understanding the ambit.

 Point is, illustrations were given by the legislature.

 Provisos:

 Schedules:

 Primary purpose of schedule is to provide details on how to work out the policy
of the statute. And for aesthetics.

 Are mandatory and are binding.

 In times of conflict, provision prevails over schedule.

 Explanation

 Usually added through amendment as an afterthought when some litigation arise

on interpreting statutes.

 Clarification on the meaning of some phrases of the statute. Why then substitute
the phrase with the clarification?

 Then, such a substitution makes one think that the former phrase has been
replaced.

 Don’t go interpreting the explanation unless the explanation itself infers such an
interpretation.

 Bengal Immunity Co. Case

 The explanation said that it purports to first sub-clause and it won’t be interpreted
into the second therefore.

 Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabhiraman

 Fazal Ali gives 5 importance for explanations. (Page 171 of module)

 Steps to understand explanation. Look at the provision first and look at the
explanation in light of it. Try not to be fancy with the explanation unless it feels
like it is required.

 Transitional Provision

 Whenever a major amendment takes place, a provision is enacted for a temporary

period so as to deal with cases that are already pending.

Subsidiary Rules of Interpretation

 Same words have the same meaning

 If on the same context, same words are used by the statute in different places
of a statute, it means the same thing.

 Eg. All documents kept with warden. All documents have to be signed by
VC.
  But it has to be the same context.

 Public Policy, when used for enforcing an award and setting aside an award,
have different meanings due to change in context in Arbitration Act (ONGC
v. Saw Pipes)

 Different words have different meaning.

 Different words like - profit & gain.

 When used in same context.

 One rule of statute drafting is that if you want to mean the same thing, use
the same word wherever it means the same thing.

 Non obstante clause

 Used to override the effect of another provision on the current section or any
other law in force.

 But when you are trying to do it to the Constitution, then it has to pass
through the Basic Structure Test.

 Legal Fiction

 ‘deemed to be’ or ‘as if’

 Has to be interpreted in light of the purpose it was created for.

 Suppose IT Act says Agent will be considered to be the master who is an

NRI.

 So, will the crime of agent hold the master liable? No. Purpose of the fiction
created by IT Act was tax collection.

 If Mahima (TA) is deemed to be Agni, it only means she can teach the class.
Not give project topics or assess.

 However, if Agni quits and Mahesh is deemed to be Agni as a replacement,

he will have the above mentioned powers too. (my own thought)
  The legal fiction can work in a chain too, where A is deemed to be B and B
deemed to be C for the same purpose.

 Mandatory/Directory words

 Mandatory: When you don’t have an option as not doing it leads to some
consequence.

 Directory: Legislature wants you to do an action. But if you don’t do it, there
won’t be consequences. Substantial compliance will be enough.

 Discretion: Option is given to the authority to do it or not.

 Look at the object of act, the consequences, scheme of the provision and the
result (absurd or reasonable)

 Conjunctions

 ‘And’ & ‘or’

 And means both, or mean either

 Exception is if the context suggests that the or was meant to create a

conjunctive class. Conjunctive class = merged class

 If there is a negative connotation also, or becomes conjunctive.

 Eg. You cannot be stupid or idiot means you cannot be both.

 Third exception is if you have an absurd effect.

 Eg. A prohibition on arms and ammunition means if you have either the gun
or ammo, you will be arrested.

 Constitution envisages a Limited Govt. How does this affect statutory

interpretation?

 Implied Conditions

 It might be expressly said that a person exercising power HAS to record reasons
for his decision.

 But what if the statute use words like ‘in his opinion’, ‘has reason to believe’ etc?
 Suppose the authority is given discretionary power to do something. That does
not mean it can be used arbitrarily.

 Rule of Last Antecedent

 Noscituur a sociis

 The meaning of an unclear or ambiguous word (as in a statute or contract) should

be determined by considering the words with which it is associated in the context.

 For example, if a statute says ‘beverages including bottled water, syrup and fruit
juice’, fruit juice will be restricted to mean branded juices and not fresh juice.

 Ejusdem generis

 If there are specific words followed by general words, the general word will
include things that are of the same kind as the specific words

 Three conditions for this to apply.

 Specific words followed by a general term

 Specific words should form part of the same genus

 No contrary intention to the same

 Exceptions: If the context of the statute, purpose etc suggests otherwise.

 Absurd result also is an exception.

 If the specific words are random, and cannot form a pattern, there is an exception.

External Aids

Parliamentary History

 Record of debates, initial structure of the draft, statement made by ministers

outside and in the floor of Parliament

 In India, we did not check CA Debates in the first years. Then, it came in a
limited way and now, we are full on.
 Any speech by an individual member is not reflective of the mindset of the entire
majority which voted for a bill/statute. (First rule)

 In Chiranjit Case, Fazal Ali said speeches by ministers can be used to check
what were the circumstances in which the bill was introduced. In other words, to
find what the mischief is.

 Can History/Context be used in interpretation? Not parliamentary history, but

other history.

 Example, Section 377 judgement. The history behind the section, as a reflection
of Victorian Morality was discussed.

 It helps in understand the mischief.

 But cannot influence the unambiguous language of the statute.

 Anuj Garg Case

 Punjab Statute prohibited women working in certain establishments (serving

alcohol) after certain hours.

 Challenged and struck down on Article 15/14

 50 years ago, such a bar was obvious and would have been widely accepted.

 So, when time evolves, does the judge’s view change or does the social more
change?

 Could be both

 It is always safer to go along with the constant idea of constitutional

morality, rather than an individual’s.