DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYANATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE:

Relevance of Subsidiary Rules – Rule of Contemporaea Expositio est

fortissima in lege( Contemporaneous exposition is the best and

strongest in law) and construction ex visceribus actus (Statute must be read as a whole)

SUBJECT:

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

NAME OF THE FACULTY:

Prof. ARUNASRI

Name of the Candidate: ASHIRBAD SAHOO

Registration number: 2019LLB082

Semester: 6

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“Writing a project is one of the most significant academic challenges I have ever faced. Though this project has been presented by me, but there
are many people who remained in a veil, who gave their all support and helped me to complete this project.

First of all, I am very grateful to my Subject Teacher Professor Arunasri, without the kind support of whom and help the completion of the
project was a herculean task for me.”

Ashirbad Sahoo

2019LLB082

2|Page
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................................................5
OBJECTIVE.............................................................................................................................................................................................................5
INTERPRETING THE STATUTE..........................................................................................................................................................................5
Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissinia in lege...........................................................................................................................................6
Application of the maxim – Contemporanea Exposito............................................................................................................................................7
Limitation of the maxim, Contemporanea Exposito....................................................................................................................................................8
Statute must be Read as a Whole: Ex Visceribus Actus..............................................................................................................................................8

3|Page
INTRODUCTION

“Webster's New World Dictionary gives the meaning of the word 'interpretation as the act or result of interpreting: explanation, meaning,
translation, exposition etc' and that of 'construction as the act or process of constructing the way in which something is constructed: manner or
method of building.1 Lastly, Webster defines statutory' as fixed, authorized or established by statute. Therefore, by statutory interpretation we
mean explanation, meaning, translation or interpretation of statutes or enacted laws. Statute must be read as a whole in its context.”

“Whenever the question arises as to the meaning of a certain provision in a statute, it is proper and legitimate to read that provision in its context.
This means that the statute must be read as a whole. What was the previous state of the law study of other statutes in pari materia i e... on the
same matter if there are any, what is the general scope of the statute and what is the mischief which it wanted to remedy.”

OBJECTIVE

“In matters of interpretation, one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words as no words or
expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in
the context in which it is used and not in isolation. Every part of the provision has to be given meaning and effect in the context of the statute.”

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The scope of the study is to observe and analyse the recent judgements in great detail by going through the gradual development of the theory.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY:

The significance of the study is to analyze the Relevance of Subsidiary Rules – Rule of Contemporaea Expositio est fortissima in lege
(Contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in law) and construction ex visceribus actus (Statute must be read as a whole)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The researcher has applied a doctrinal method of research.

TYPES OF RESEARCH:

The researcher has used explanatory, analytical, and historical methods of research.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

The researcher has taken information from various books journals, newspaper articles and various online sources.

INTERPRETING THE STATUTE

1
https://lawtimesjournal.in/

4|Page
“The word statutory interpretation applies to the conduct of judiciary in attempting to recognize and justifying the meaning of a legislative piece.
On the basis of interpretation, several cases go to appeal. Firstly, legislation must be drafted in extensive and plain phraseology and essentially
deal with both current and subsequent circumstances. Sometimes, a legislation which was formulated to cure a specific problem would
ultimately be extended to varying circumstances.2 Laws are framed by draughtsmen, and the capacity of a draughtsman to foresee the subsequent
events is finite. He may not anticipate any potential for the future or omit a viable misinterpretation of the legislation's initial intents. ”
“Another challenge is a particular piece of legislation also attempts to deal with issues that include various and competing interests. There are
several words with more than one meaning in both legal and general English. With this being the case, many ambiguities can be found in even
the best written legislation. This is not the fault on the part of the draughtsman but a result of the fact that public would inevitably find different
meanings in the language used when they look at a text from different points of view.”

”Three fundamental principles of statutory interpretation are usually followed by judges in India, and analogous rules are also implemented in
various other jurisdictions under the common law. The rules are named as golden, literal, and mischief. While judiciary is not specifically
provided with the necessity to use rules of this sort while interpreting a statute, one of these three methods is normally followed, and the method
of interpretation taken by any specific judge is always a manifestation of the philosophy that such a judge follows.”

Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissinia in lege

“Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissinia in lege meaning Contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in law. It is said that
the best exposition of a statute or any other document is that which it has received from contemporary authority. This maxim has been confirmed
by the Apex Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Asson. Ltd. AIR 1979 SC 1049 3, 1054. Contemporanea exposito is a guide
to the interpretation of documents or statutes. It is one of the important external aids for interpretation. However great care must be taken in its
application. When a document was excecuted between two parties, there intention can be known by their conduct at the time and after the
execution of the instrument. Where the words of the deed are ambiguous, the court may call in the acts done under it as a clue to the intention of
the parties. Their acts are the result of usages and practices in the society. Therefore their acts are useful as an external aid to interpretation of the
deed. This principle may also be applied in case of statutes. Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissinia in lege means usage or practice
developed under a statute is indicative of the meaning ascribed to its words by contemporary opinion.”
“The maxim Contemporanea expositio as laid down by Lord Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes, but usually not applied to
interpreting Acts or statutes which are comparatively modern. The meaning publicly given by contemporary or long professional usage is
presumed to be true one, even where the language has etymologically or popularly a different meaning. It is obvious that the language of a
statute must be understood in the sense in which it was understood when it was passed, and those who lived at or near that time when it was
passed may reasonably be supposed to be better acquainted than their descendants with the circumstances to which it had relation, as well as
with the sense then attached to legislative expressions. Usages and practice developed under a statute is indicative of the meaning ascribed to its
words by contemporary opinion and in case of an ancient statute, such reference to usage and practice is admissible. He said a uniform notorious
practice continued under an old statute and inaction of the legislature to amend the same are important factors to show that the practice so
followed was based on correct understanding of the law. According to Lord Ellenborough, Communis opinion is evidence of what the law is.
When the practice receives judicial or legislative approval it gains additional weight and is to be more respected.”

“According to Martin B, In construing old statute it has been usual to pay great regard to the construction put up on them by the judges who lived
at or soon after the time when they were made, because they were best able to judge of the intention of the makers at the time. The doctrine of
stare decisis may also be applied when the law is settled in a state for over 100 years by considered view of the High Court of that state.”

“This principle of ‘contemporanea exposito’ was applied by the Supreme Court in National and Grindlays Bank v Municipal Corporation for
Greater Bombay, AIR 1969 SC 1048 while construing Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The apex court also referred to the actual
practice in the matter of appointment of judges of Supreme Court and High Court in the context of interpreting Articles 74 and 124 of the
Constitution and observed that the practice being in conformity with the constitutional scheme should be accorded legal sanction by permissible
constitutional interpretation. (Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268.4)”

“In Jones v Brown (2 Exch.329) Pollock observed, “it is by no means an inconvenient mode of construing statutes to presume that the legislature
was aware of the state of the law at the time they were passed”. While disposing Salkeld v Johnson (2Exch.256) the court of Exchequer
explained the concept of Contemporanea exposito as follows, “we propose to construe the act according to the legal rules for the interpretation of

2
https://indiankanoon.org/
3
Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Asson. Ltd. AIR 1979 SC 1049
4
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268

5|Page
statutes, principally by the words of the statute itself. Which we are to read in their ordinary sense and only modify or alter so far as it may be
necessaary to avoid some manifest absurdity, but no further. It is proper also to consider the state of the law which it proposes or purports to alter
the mischiefs which existed and which it was intented to remedy, and the nature of the remedy provided, and to look at the statutes in pari
materia, as a means of explaining the statute. These are the proper modes of ascertaining the intention of the legislature.”

“Lord Machnagten observed, “when you find legislation following a continuous practice repeating the very words on which that practice was
founded, it may perhaps fairly be inferred that the legistalure in re enacting the statute intented those words to be understood in their recieved
meaning, and perhaps it might be argued that the inference grows stronger with each successive reenactment.”

“In Clyde Navigation trustees v Larid (1883) 8 AC 658, Lord Watson observed, “In my opinion such usage as has been termed contemporanea
exposito is of no value in construing a British statute of the year 1858”. When there is an ambiguous statement in an act passed one or two
centuries ago it may be legitimate to refer to the construction put op on their expression throughout a long course of years by the unanimous
consent of all parties interested as exercising what must presumably have been the intention of the legislature at the remote period.”

Application of the maxim – Contemporanea Exposito

Applicable only to ancient statutes.

“The maxim contemporanea exposito is applicable in construing ancient statutes, but not to intepreting acts which are comparatively modern. In
a modern progressive society it would be un reasonable to confine the intention of a legislature to the meaning attributable to the words used at
the time the law was made and unless a contrary intention appears an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and
situations if the words are capable of comprehending them. Lord Watson stated that the maxim is of no value in construing a British statute of
the year 1858, when there is ambiguous statement in an act passed 2 centuries ago it may be legitimate to refer to the construction put up on their
expression throughout a long course of years by the unanimous consent of all parties interested as exercising what must presumably have been
the intention of the legislature at the remote period.”

“While disposing Salkeld v Johnson (2Exch.256) the court of Exchequer explained the concept of Contemporanea exposito as follows, “we
propose to construe the act according to the legal rules for the interpretation of statutes, principally by the words of the statute itself. Which we
are to read in their ordinary sense and only modify or alter so far as it may be necessary to avoid some manifest absurdity, but no further. It is
proper also to consider the state of the law which it proposes or purports to alter the mischiefs which existed and which it was intented to
remedy, and the nature of the remedy provided, and to look at the statutes in pari materia, as a means of explaining the statute. These are the
proper modes of ascertaining the intention of the legislature.”

“Lord Machnagten observed, “when you find legislation following a continuous practice repeating the very words on which that practice was
founded, it may perhaps fairly be inferred that the legistalure in re enacting the statute intented those words to be understood in their recieved
meaning, and perhaps it might be argued that the inference grows stronger with each successive reenactment. The Supreme Court has refused to
apply the principle of contemporanea exposito to the Telegraph Act 1885, and the Evidence Act 1872, but the principle was applied in
construing the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888.”

“JK Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd and another v Union of India and Others AIR 1988 SC 191-The appellant JK Cotton Spinning and
weaving Mills Ltd, has a composite mill where it manufactures fabrics of different types. In order to manufacture the said fabrics, yarn is
obtained at an intermediate stage. The yarn so obtained is further processed in an integrated process in the composite mill for weaving and the
same in to fabrics. The appellants have to pay the excise duty on the different kinds of fabrics, which are removed from the factory. The
Collector Central Excise issued a notice under rule 9(1) of the central excise rules to the appellants demanding to pay central excise on the yarn
accumulated at the factory at intermediate stages. The appellants contented that they would be held liable to pay central excise only when the
yarn would be removed from factory, but not at intermediate stages, the appellants pleaded contemporanea exposito. The Supreme Court
interpreted the central excise rules and gave judgment against the appellants and dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel relied on support
from the decision in KP Varghese v the Income tax officer, Ernakulam (AIR 1981 SC 1922) 5 for which the court observed that in the relied case
there was ambiguity and a word was capable of two construction hence the maxim contempranea expositio was applied, but in this case there is
no ambiguity and hence the maxim cannot be imported.”

“National Textile Corporation, New Delhi and another v Swadeshi Mining and manufacturing Co Ltd, Lucknow and others AIR 1988 SC 782. In
the instant case the question, whether 10,00,000 shares in Swadeshi polytex Ltd and 1,71,834 shares in swadeshi mining and manufacturing co

5
KP Varghese v the Income tax officer, Ernakulam AIR 1981 SC 1922

6|Page
Ltd held by Swadeshi cotton Mills vest in the central Govt under section 3 of the swadeshi cotton Mills co Ltd act 1986 came up for
consideration before Supreme Court. The Appellants contented that production of certain documents were necessary for the said vesting of the
shares with Central govt. But Supreme Court held that such production of documents were not necessary under the provisions of the act. The
question can be resolved by interpretation of the relevant provisions of the act itself and there is no ambiguity hence the well settled principle of
contemporanea expositio is not applicable here and is relevant only in construing old statutes.”

“N Suresh Nathan and another v Union of India 1992 1 SCC 584, the case relates to service maters. The question of law arose in this case was
about promotion to the post of Assistant engineers in PWD, junior engineers processing degree in civil engineering with 3 years’ service in the
grade are eligible for promotion as assistant engineers. Diploma holder junior engineers obtaining degree while in service were not entitled to
count their service prior to obtaining the degree for computing the period of three years for the purpose of promotion. The administrative tribunal
gave judgments against the diploma holders and later Supreme Court reversed the decision. Here the principle laid was, construction is in
consonance with long standing practice prevailing in the concerned department to be preferred.”

Limitation of the maxim, Contemporanea Exposito

a) “Useful only in case of ambiguity – the usage and practice can be used in interpretation when the language is ambiguous only. If the language
is unambiguous the usage and practice cannot be used in interpretation.”

b) “Custom is given more value and priority than the act of the parties, as elucidated in optima est legis interpres consuetudo (custom is the best
interpreter of the law). For example in a statute the language used in it gives doubtful meanings and after the statute came in to force, if the
courts gives various decisions clarifying the terms used in the statute and have reduced the uncertainty to a fixed rule, then in such cases custom
followed based on the principles laid down is to be followed for interpretation, contemporanea exposito based on the ambiguity cannot be
raised.”

c) “Useful only for ancient Acts, and cannot be used for modern Acts.”

d) “Cannot be applied in case of broken usages and practices – If any usages or practices are broken or interrupted, such broken usages or
practices cannot be considered as an aid to interpretation. Due to the breakage such usage and practices looses its value.”

e) “Cannot be used to substantiate an implied repeal or quasi repeal of an act.”

Statute must be Read as a Whole: Ex Visceribus Actus.

“The statute as a whole, the previous state of the law, other statutes in pari materia, the general scope of the statute, and the mischief it is to
remedy, is the basic context of any statute. The elementary rule states that the intention of the Legislature must be found by reading the statute as
a whole. Every clause needs to be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act. To make a consistent enactment of the
whole statute of series of statutes relating to the subject-matter. It is the most natural and genuine exposition of a statute. The conclusion that the
language is plain or ambiguous can only be truly arrived at by studying the statute as a whole How far and to what extent each component
influences the meaning of the other would be different in each given sense. Each word, must however, be allowed to play its role, however
significant or insignificant it may be in achieving the legislative intent. Each section must be construed as a whole, whether or not one of the
parts is a saving clause of a proviso. They may be interdependent each portion throwing light, if need be on the rest.”

“A question of construction only arises when one side submits that a particular provision of an Act covers the facts of the case and the other
submits that it does not or it may be agreed it applies, but the difference arises to its application. The meaning of the maxim Ex Visceribus Actus
is that every part of the statute must be construed within the four corners of the Act. 6 No provision should be interpreted in isolation. The statute
as a whole, the previous state of the law. Other statutes in pari material (on same subject matter), the general scope of the statute, and the
mischief it is to remedy, is the basic context of any statute.”

“According to Lord Greene, to ascertain the meaning of a clause in a statute, the court must look at the whole statute, at what precedes and at
what succeeds and not merely at the clause itself.”

6
Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. V. Suresh Chand

7|Page
“In Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. V. Suresh Chand7 (1978) the SC observed that to construe one part of a statute by another part of the same statute
is most genuine and natural exposition of statute.”

“In State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee8 (2002) the SC held that the statute has to be considered in its entirety and picking up of one word from
one particular provision and thereby analyzing it in a manner contrary to the statement of objects and reasons is neither permissible not
warranted.”

“Statute, which must be read as a whole. This is elucidated to mean that the Statute as a whole its historical background and other Statutes
referred to, the general ambit of the Statute including the objects and purposes and the manner in which it seeks to remedy the mischief and the
causes to be advanced by such Statute. That the Statute must be read as a whole is now a fundamental or basic principle which is described as
"elementary rule". Lord Somervell describes this rule as "compelling rule" and Justice Mukherjee as a "settled rule" in Poppatlal Shali's case".
Lord Coke referred to it a..ex visceribus actus". This expression conveys the meaning as the most natural and genuine exposition of a Statute".”

“It must mean that one part of a Statute being construed with another part of the Statute which is bound to express the intention of the legislature
in the best possible way. It may require that a clause of a Statute alone should not be taken into account but emphasis should be laid on what
precedes or that follows subsequently in the Statute in order to find out the true meaning of the word'. The terms which are plain in itself may be
"controlled by the texts" and one clause may be "qualified or neutralized by another. In the same Statute, as the meaning of one term may be one
thing in one context and differently in other context and which may be noticeable in the same clause itself The precise meaning can be
ascertained only when the Statute is studied in its entirety and not parts of the same in isolation. In the case of Associated Newspapers Ltd. Vs.
Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements isolated consideration of provision may lead to "otiose or devoid of meaning" of another related
provision. No part of the Statute should be omitted, when the Statute is construed as a whole, as an integral whole being interdependent and each
position throwing light, if need be, on the rest. This approach to interpretation may well resolve inconsistencies in the Statutes.”

“The Supreme Court in construing the word 'sale' in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 before its amendment in 1947, held that the
definition of 'sale as it then stood laid stress on the element of transfer of property and that the mere fact that the contract for sale was entered
into within the province of Madras did not make the transaction, which was completed in another province, a sale taxable within the meaning of
the Act.9In arriving at that conclusion, the Supreme Court referred to the title, Preamble, definition and other enacting provisions of the statute as
also to the subsequent amendments made in the statute, B.K. Mukherjee J said. 10 "It is a settled rule of construction that to ascertain the
legislative intent, all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of
the general purpose of the Act itself.”

“Context quite often provides the key to the meaning of the word and the sense it should carry. Its setting would give colour to it and provide a
cue to the intention of the legislature in using it. A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged. It is the skin of living thought and may vary
greatly in colour and content according to the circumstance and the time in which the same is used. When a word or expression is not defined in
an enactment, the courts apply the ‘subject-and- object' rule to ascertain carefully the subject of the enactment where the word or expression
occurs and have regard to the object, which the legislature has in view.”

7
https://lawtimesjournal.in/
8
State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee
9
https://indiankanoon.org/
10
https://lawtimesjournal.in/

8|Page