INTERPRETATION OF

STATUTES
B.A.LL.B. (HONS.) SESSION: 2020-21
SEMESTER VI COURSE TEACHER: DR. RITU RAGHUVANSHI
CMP DEGREE COLLEGE,
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD
 UNIT I

BASIC
PRINCIPLES
 INTERPRETATION: INTRODUCTION

• “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
• The term ‘Interpretation’ is derived from Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means to explain or to understand or translate.
• It is the legislature which lays down the laws but it is judiciary which puts the law into operation or in use. For proper
administration of justice, the judiciary requires certain rules of interpretation of legislations to ensure delivery of just and
uniform decisions.
• SALMOND has defined it as: “interpretation or construction is 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.”
• The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the
language used.
• Interpretation of Statutes is required for two basic reasons:
• Legislative Language
• Legislative Intent
 INTERPRETATION & CONSTRUCTION

• Some thinkers have differentiated between ‘interpretation’ and ‘construction’.

• As explained by Cooley: “Interpretation differs from construction in the sense that the former is the
art of finding out the true sense of any form of words; i.e. the sense that their author intended to
convey. Construction, on the other hand, is the drawing of conclusions, respecting the subjects that lie
beyond the direct expression of the text.
• Sutherland has criticized this distinction.
• At the most the distinction may be limited to academic discussions but for all practical purposes, they
are used synonymously in this regard.
 INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE

• The intention of legislature or Legislative intent assimilates two aspects:

• the concept of ‘meaning’, i.e., what the word means; and
• the concept of ‘purpose’ and ‘object’ or the ‘reason’ or ‘spirit’ pervading through the statute.

• The duty of the judiciary is to act upon the true intention of the legislature.
• Necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of a 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.
• 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.”
…CONT.

• If the provision is open to more than one interpretations, the judiciary has to choose
than interpretation which signifies the true intention of the legislature.
• The overall scenario is to be assessed.
• Legislations in the modern day are primarily focused at the welfare of the people and it
should be considered while assessing the intention of the legislature.
• Thus, in order to assess the true intention of the legislature both literal and purposive
interpretations have to be attempted. The purpose is often determined in context of the
statute as a whole and not just the few words of a provision.
 STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS
CONTEXT (EX VISCERIBUS ACTUS)
• Ex Visceribus Actus: Every part of the statute must be construed within the context of the Act. No provision
should be interpreted in isolation.
• Courts seek to give effect to the purposive rule where they not only consider the words of the statute
according to their meaning but also according to the context. [TEXT+CONTEXT]
• ‘Context’ here doesn’t mean only ‘linguistic/ literal context’, it takes into consideration the subject-matter, scope,
purpose, and background of the act. The statute as a whole, the previous state of the law, other statutes in pari
materia (on same subject matter), the general scope of the statute, and the mischief it is to remedy, is the basic
context of any statute.
• Here judges do not only go by the strict letter of the law, but they look into the intention and the spirit of the
statute.
• To gather evidence of statutory meaning, a judge may turn to the rest of the provision, to the Act as a whole, or
to similar provisions elsewhere in the law.
IMPORTANCE

• According to Lord Davey, every clause of the statute must be construed with reference to
context and other clauses of the Act, so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole
statute or series of statutes relating to the subject matter.
• State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee (2002) the SC held that the statute have 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.
• The conclusion that the language is plain or ambiguous can only be truly arrived at by
studying the statute as a whole. [Appraisal of the Principle of Plain Meaning]
 EXAMPLE

• S.464, IPC: Making a false document

• Explanation 1.—A man’s signature of his own name may amount to forgery.

• S. 493. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.—Every man
who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully
married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
• S.8 Gender.—The pronoun “he” and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female.
• S.10 “Man”. “Woman”.—The word “man” denotes a male human being of any age; the word
“woman” denotes a female human being of any age.