“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

Introduction:

Black’s law dictionary defines interpretation as the act or process of discovering

and expounding the meaning of the language used in any written document, the
meaning, which the authors want to convey to others. Interpretation of any data
means to examine the given data and come out with a result that is clear and
certain.

Maxwell’s ‘Interpretation of statutes’ defines a statute as a will of the legislature.

The term statute refers to a written law passed by a legislature that creates a
rule or regulation. Thus, interpretation of statutes can be defined as the process
of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute. In a
democracy, there is a legislature which makes law, an executive which
implements the law, and the judiciary which interprets and determines the
purview of laws in the event of any dispute about such purview between the
citizen and another, or between the citizen and the government. The legislature
as the representative of the people of the nation or the people of a state
expresses its will and such expression of the will in the agreement of the
constitutional provisions is a “statute”. When these statutes are applied in by
courts, according to the well- recognised rules of interpretation of statues, such
explanation forms the body of the statute law. When a court applies a statute, it
first ascertains the meaning of a particular provision and then applies that
meaning to the particular set of facts. The Indian constitution nowhere defines
the meaning of statute However, it uses the term “Law” to identify the actions of
the legislature and its primary power.

Need and Object of interpretation:

The concept of interpretation of a Statute cannot be static one. Interpretation of

statutes becomes an ongoing exercise as newer facts and conditions continue to
arise. Interpretation of Statutes is required for two basic reasons viz. to
ascertain:

• Legislative Language - Legislative language may be complicated for a layman,

and hence may require interpretation; and

• Legislative Intent - The intention of legislature or Legislative intent assimilates

two aspects:

1) The concept of ‘meaning’, I.e., what word means; and

2) The concept of purpose and object or the reason or the spirit pervading
through the statute.

Necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of statutory

provision 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 of the statute is clear and ambiguous, no need of interpretation would
arise. In this regard, a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court in
R.S. Nayak v 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. The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity
or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self-defeating.”
(Para 18).

Principles of Interpretation of statutes:

When the intention of legislature is not clearly expressed, a court needs to

interpret the laws using the rules of interpretation. Bear in mind that these rules
are rules of Practice and not rules of law. The court is not expected to interpret
arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved
out of the continuous exercise of the Courts. The principles are sometimes called
‘Rules of Interpretation’. There are two types of Rules of Interpretation with sub-
categories:

 Primary Rules:
3) Literal Interpretation
4) Mischief Rule
5) Golden rule
6) Rule of Harmonious Construction
 Secondary Rules:
1) Ejusdem Generis
2) Noscitur a Sociis
3) Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege
4) Expressio Units Est Exclusio Alterius
5) Reddendo singul singuis

 Literal rule
The literal rule basically looks into what the law says, not what the law means. It considers the
original meaning of the word. Here judges cannot come up with the words and interpret according
to the case basis. When the language used is simple and the words have only one meaning to it at
that time judges will use this literal rule of interpretation.

When there are no two meanings to a word, This rule helps courts from taking sides in legislative or
political issues. If any word in the statute has a special meaning to it, usually it will be mentioned in
the interpretation clause, all technical words are given ordinary meaning if the statute has not
specified it. Usage of the appropriate words is very important and makes a lot of difference in the
meaning of the context.

Courts should never go beyond the intention of the legislators. When the words of the statute are in
themselves precise and unambiguous, then there is no need of explaining that in the natural or
ordinary sense.

Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, In this case, the appellant, a citizen of India after arriving at
the airport did not declare that he was carrying gold with him. During his search was carried on, gold
was found in his possession as it was against the notification of the government and was confiscated
under section 167(8) of Sea Customs Act.

Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947. The
appellant challenged this trial to be violative under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
According to this article, no person shall be punished or prosecuted more than once for the same
offence. This is considered as double jeopardy.

It was held by the court that the Seas Act neither a court nor any judicial tribunal. Thus, accordingly,
he was not prosecuted earlier. Hence, his trial was held to be valid.

the Mischief Rule:

Also known as Hedon’s rule. Its rule of statutory interpretation that attempts to determine the
legislator’s intention – to determine the mischief and the defect – to give ruling to implement the
effective remedy. In Heydon’s case –the following four points are taken into consideration while
interpreting a statute-

 What was the common law before the making of the Act?
 What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
 What remedy the parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the
commonwealth?
 What is the true reasoned the remedy?

The purpose of the rule of the is to supress the mischief and advance the remedy.

Smith v. Huges, 1960 WLR 830, in this case 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.

This rule is of narrower application than the golden rule or the plain meaning rule, in that it can only
be used to interpret a statute and only when the statute was passed to remedy a defect in the
common law. This rule has often been used to resolve ambiguities in cases in which the literal rule
cannot be applied. As seen In Smith v Hughes, the mischief approach gave a more sensible outcome
than that of the literal approach.

The Golden Rule:

The words used in a statute have to be construed in their ordinary meaning, but in many cases,
judicial approach finds that the simple device of adopting the ordinary meaning of words, does not
meet the ends as a fair and a reasonable construction. Often enough interpreting the provision, it
becomes necessary to have regard to the subject matter of the statute and the object which it is
intended to achieve.

According to this rule, the words of a statute must be construed Ut res Magis valeat Quam pareat,
so as to give a sensible meaning to them. This rule stresses upon the intention of the legislature to
bring up the statute and the sensible and not the prima facie meaning of the statute. This helps to
clear the error caused due to faulty draftsman ship.

Case law:

This rule may be used in two ways. It is applied most frequently in a narrow sense where there is
some ambiguity or absurdity in the words themselves. In the case of Lee vs Knapp 1967 QB where
the interpretation of the word "stop" was involved. Under Road Traffic Act, 1960, a person causing
an accident "shall stop" after the accident. In this case, the driver stopped after causing the accident
and then drove off. It was held that the literal interpretation of the word stop is absurd and that the
requirement under the act was not fulfilled because the driver did not stop for a reasonable time so
that interested parties can make inquiries from him about the accident.

The second use of the golden rule is in a wider sense, to avoid a result that is obnoxious to principles
of public policy, even when where the words have only one meaning.. Bedford vs Bedford, 1935, is
another interesting case that highlighted the use of this rule. It concerned a case where a son
murdered his mother and committed suicide. The courts were required to rule on who then
inherited the estate, the mother's family, or the son's descendants. The mother had not made a will
and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin,
i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let
the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should
not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son
inheriting. The court held that if the son inherits the estate that would amount to profiting from a
crime and that would be repugnant to the act.

Rule of Harmonious Construction:

When there is a conflict between two or more statutes or more parts of a

statutes then this rule is to be adopted. If it is possible to harmonize the two
statutes, then the court is to decide the same and it shall prevail.
The legislature clarifies its intention through the words used in the provision of the statute. So,
here the basic principle of harmonious construction is that the legislature could not have tried to
contradict itself. In the cases of interpretation of the Constitution, the rule of harmonious
construction is applied many times. It can be assumed that if the legislature has intended to give
something by one, it would not intend to take it away with the other hand as both the provisions
have been framed by the legislature and absorbed the equal force of law. One provision of the
same act cannot make the other provision useless. Thus, in no circumstances, the legislature
can be expected to contradict itself.

Important aspects of this rule:

 The court must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.

 The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provisions in another unless
the Court, despite all its effort is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences.
 When it is impossible to reconcile the difference in contradictory provisions completely,
the court must interpret them in such a way so as that effect is given to both the
provisions as much as possible.
  It is not a harmonious construction is the interpretation reduces one provisions to be
useless and not to destroy it or render it to lose.

Case law
M.S.M Sharma v. Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395.

Facts of the case are as follows- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for freedom of speech
and expression. Article 194(3) provides to the Parliament for punishing for its contempt and it is
known as the Parliamentary Privilege. In this case, an editor of a newspaper published the word -for-
word record of the proceedings of the Parliament including those portions which were expunged
from the record. He was called for the breach of parliamentary privilege.

He contended that he had a fundamental right to speech and expression. It was held by the court
that article 19(1)(a) itself talks about reasonable freedom and therefore freedom of speech and
expression shall pertain only to those portions which have not been expunged on the record but not
beyond that

Ejusdem Generis:
This rule provides that where words of specific words meaning are followed by general
words the general words will be construed as being limited to persons or things of the same
general kind or class as those enumerated by specific words.
This rule applies when-

 The statute contains an enumeration of specific words.

 The subject of enumeration constitutes a class of category
 That class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration
 The general items follow the enumeration
 There is no indication of different legislative intent.
Case law:
The Supreme Court in Maharashtra University of Health and others v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal
& Others has examined and explained the meaning of Ejusdem Generis as a rule of interpretation of
statutes in our legal system.

While examining the doctrine, the Supreme Court held that the expression Ejusdem Generis which
means “of the same kind or nature” is a principle of construction, meaning thereby when general
words in a statutory text are flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general words are
taken to be restricted by implication with the meaning of restricted words.

The Supreme Court has further held that the Ejusdem Generis principle is a facet of the principle of
‘Noscitur a sociis’(A latin term for ‘it is known by the company it keeps’, it is the concept that the
intended meaning of an ambiguous word depends on the context in which it is used). The Latin
maxim Noscitur a Sociis contemplates that a statutory term is recognized by its associated words.
The Latin word ‘sociis’ means ‘society’. Therefore, when general words are juxtaposed with specific
words, general words cannot be read in isolation. Their colour and their contents are to be derived
from their context. But like all other linguistic canons of construction, the Ejusdem Generis principle
applies only when a contrary intention does not appear.
Noscitur a sociis :
Noscere means to know and sociis means association. Thus , Noscitur a Sociis means
knowing from association. n. Thus, under the doctrine of "noscitur a sociis" the questionable
meaning of a word or doubtful words can be derived from its association with other words
within the context of the phrase. This doctrine is broader than the doctrine of ejusdem
generis because this rule puts the words in context of the whole phrase and not just in
relation to the nearby words. The language of the phrase can be used as a guide to arrive at
the true meaning of the word.
Case law:
Foster v Diphwys Casson (1887) 18 QBD 428, involving a statute which stated that explosives
taken into a mine must be in a "case or canister". Here the defendant used a cloth bag. The
courts had to consider whether a cloth bag was within the definition. Under Noscitur a
sociis, it was held that the bag could not have been within the statutory definition, because
parliament's intention was refering to a case or container of the same strength as a canister.

Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege

The maxim means that a contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest
in law. Where the words used in a statute have undergone alteration in meaning
in course of time, the words will be construed to bear the same meaning as they
had when the statute was passed on the principle expressed in the maxim. In
simple words, old statutes should be interpreted as they would have been at the
date when they were passed and prior usage and interpretation by those who
have an interest or duty in enforcing the Act, and the legal profession of the
time, are presumptive evidence of their meaning when the meaning is doubtful.

But if the statute appears to be capable of only interpretation, the fact that a
wrong meaning had been attached to it for many years, will be immaterial and
the correct meaning will be given by the Courts except when title to property
may be affected or when every day transactions have been entered into on such
wrong interpretation.

Case Law:

In Lennon vs Gibson and Howes Ltd. ,it was held that respondents were liable
under the Regulation of Sugarcane Prices Act 1915, for an assessment in respect
of sugarcane received at their mill although grown by them on lands belonging
to them. The act was preceded in Queensland by an Act to provide for
establishment and control of sugar experiment stations. By the definition in the
Act,” sugarcane received” was to have meaning of “sugarcane delivered at a
sugar works and accepted”.

In the absence of any context indicating a contrary intention, it was observed

that it may be presumed that the legislature intended to attach the same words
used in a subsequent statute in a similar connection; and the word ‘received’
does not mean sold and taken delivery of at a mill.

Expressio Units Est Exclusio Alterius:

It means that ‘the expression mention of one thing excludes all others. Also
known as the negative implication rule. This rule assumes that the legislature
specified on set of criteria as opposed to the other.

Case Law:

In B Shankar Rao v State of Mysore, the validity of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous Inams) Abolition Act, 1954, was challenged because it did not
provide compensation as a “just equivalent" and that such a provision was
necessary. The contention was that the power of a state to make a law under
Entry 42, List III (as it was relevant at that time) with respect to acquisition of
property, read with Entry 42, List III (as it stood at the time) could be exercised
subject to the conditions that the law should be for a public purpose and should
Provide for compensation.

Arrangement of the Articles and schedules in the constitution is that the entries
in the 3 Lists of Seventh Schedule are the topics on which the appropriate
Legislature; can legislate; and the limitation if any, on the power to legislate is in
the Articles. There is no implied power in the entries of any limitation on the
power to legislate.

Reddendo Singula Singulis:

The reddendo singula singulis principle concerns the use of words distributively. 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 distributively and applying each
object to its appropriate subject.

Case law:

This rule has been applied in the case of Koteshwar Vittal Kamat vs K Rangappa Baliga, AIR
1969, in the construction of the Proviso to Article 304 of the Constitution which reads, “Provided
that no bill or amendment for the purpose of clause (b), shall be introduced or moved in the
legislature of a state with.

Conclusion:
Every nation has its own judicial system, the purpose of which to grant justice to all. The court
aims to interpret the law in such a manner that every citizen is ensured justice to all. To ensure
justice to all the concept of canons of interpretation was expounded. These are the rules which
are evolved for determining the real intention of the legislature.

On the basis of the above description of the rules of interpretation, it can rightly be concluded
that the above rules of interpretation are like the tools of carpenter or sculptor. To a great extent
their value depends on the fact that with what care or skill they are used. Actually , it depends
upon the wisdom and care which the judges take in interpreting the statutes by applying the
above rules of interpretation.