DEFINITION AND MEANING OF

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
 SALMOND DEFINES – Interpretation is a process by which courts seek to ascertain the
meaning of the legislations . Such interpretation is through the medium of authoritative
forms in which it is expressed .

 PROF. GRAY – Interpretation is a process by which a judge constructs the word from a
statute book . He constructs a meaning which he believes to be that of legislature or
which he proposes to Attribute to it .
DIFFERENT PARTS OF STATUTES
❖ Short title – Identification of the act
❖ Long title - object , consolidation
❖ Definitions clause – definition
❖ Preamble – objectives , main object
❖ Marginal notes – Explained in single word
❖ Headings – headings of group of sections
❖ Proviso – condition
❖ Illustrations – Examples
❖ Exception and saving clauses - exception
❖ Explanation – Explanation of the act / section
❖ Schedule – Eg: before it was schedule 8 and now it as 12
 COMENCEMENT , REPEAL AND REVIVAL
COMENCEMENT – SEC 3 (13)
* Shall mean the day on which the act or regulation comes into force
OPERATION – SEC 5 (1)
* Shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the assent from
the President or Governor
SEC 5 (2)
* Shall be constructed as coming into operation immediately on the
expiration of the day preceding its commencement
CASE LAW – HARIA V STATE OF RAJASTHAN
* Obsence of commencement < Assent (or) Official Gazette
 REPEAL SEC 6
* Express
* Implied
Express
(a) is or are herby Repealed
(b) shall cease to have effort
(c) shall be omitted
(d) all provisions inconsistent with this act are herby repealed
IMPLIED
(a) there is a conflict between two provisions
(b) indented to lay down an exhaustive code in the subject matter
(c) two laws occupy the same field
 OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION

 The object of Interpretation of statute is to determine the intention

conveyed expressly or impliedly by the language used . The court has to
be very careful in interpreting every provision of the act without destroying
the object and meaning of the act . It has no power to curtail or enlarge
the provision of the act .
 BASIC RULES OF INTERPRETATION

1. GRAMMATICAL RULE (OR) LITERA LEGIS (OR) LITERAL RULE

2. GOLDEN RULE

3. MISCHIEF RULE (OR) HEGDON’S RULE

GRAMMATICAL RULE (OR) LITERA LEGIS
(OR) LITERAL RULE
 Giving the words the ordinary and natural meaning is called the Literal interpretation
 When the words are clear and unambiguous , the courts should confine to the
meanings of the words contained in them and not more than that .

* Natural or grammatical or popular meaning

* Explanation

* Exact meaning

* Technical words in Technical sense

S A VENKAT RAMAN V UNION OF INDIA
“ Prosecution “
* Public service enquires act
* commissioner – domestic enquiry
* Art – 311(2) safeguard of civil servant
* IPC – 161,165 and sec -5(2) of prevention of corruption act 1947
* Art – 20(2) – Double Jeopardy
✓ MUNICIPAL BOARD V STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAJASTHAN -1965

* An Application against the change of location of a bus stand could

be made within 30 days of receipt of the order of the regional transport authority
according to sec – 64 A of the motor vehicles act 1939.
* The application towards the state transport authority was moved after
30 days on the contention that the statute read as 30 days form the knowledge of the
order of the regional transport authority
* The supreme court held that the interpretation or clear grammatical
interpretation should be made in this circumstance and when the language is clear and
unambiguous , literal meaning should be given to it irrespective of the consequences
RAM AVATAR V ASSISTANCE SALES TAX OFFICER
“ BETEL LEAVES “
* government imposed a tax ( vegetables – no tax )
* Ram avatar filed a petition that betel leaves comes under the various parts
of the plants
* court held that ,no unclear words , no ambiguity so Betel leaves to be
taxed

DAY V SIMPSON
“ STAGE PROGRAME “
* Before Independence of India , stage programme should be conducted
with the previous permission
*So the stage performance is done with the reflection of mirror in the stage
POWLEY V WHANDALL
“ OTHER PERSONS “
* Insurance act – says that other person , include everyone except driver
and conductor
* court held that , the intention of act must be seen and even people
outside the bus must be considered under other people
 GOLDEN RULE
 The golden rule of interpretation is an improvement of the principle of literal (
grammatical )interpretation .

 It says that the court in its ordinary course , must find out the intention of the legislature
form the words used in the statute by giving them their natural meaning

 If interpretation leads to absurdity , repugnance , inconvenience , hardship injustice

or evasion , then the court must modify the meaning to rectify them . Since this
approach of interpretation solves all problems , it is called the Golden rule of
interpretation .
 LEE V KNAPP

* In London , according to the road traffic act , 1960 section 77(1) of the
act provides that a driver causing accident shall stop after the accident , however the
interpretation of the word stop was in question

* In this case the driver of the motor vehicle stopped for a moment after
causing an accident and then went away

* Applying the golden rule , the court held that the driver had fulfilled the
requirement of the section as he had not stopped for a reasonable period.
ASSESSING AUTHORITY V PATIYALA BUSCUITS MANUFACTURES
“ Possession of the Registration certificate “
*Punjab general sales tax act 1948
* The court held that actual possession is not necessary ,even the registration No is
enough as the intention to check the registered or not

SOUTHERN PHARMACEUTICAL AND CHEMICALS V STAE OF KERELA

* Kerala rectified sprit rule 1992
* kerala Abkani act 1977
* entry – 84 list 1 ( union ) – medical and toilet preparation ( excise duty ) act 1955
* entry – 8 – Intoxigation liquors for human consumption
* entry – leveing excise duty
* court held that the act was valid as the spirts were used for drinking and stae
has authority over it . So its valid.
KARNAL SINGH V MOHINDRA SINGH
* 3 Sons and 3 daughters – Testator written a will for 3 sons
* Testator will – sec 109 of Indian succession act 1925
* one son dies before father and after that father lived for 2 years , 9 months after
his son’s death
* wife of deceased son filed a case , the court held that the intention of the father
( Testator ) was not to give the property to the widow , hence she cannot acquire that
property .

STATE OF PUNJAB V Q.J BEAGM

* section – 18 of land Acquisition 1894
* within 6 months – Award
* The petition who filed a case that , she get to know the knowledge of the land
acquisition after 6 months . Form that date of knowing she calculated the 6 months duration
* court held that here the 6 months durations is calculated from the date of
publishing .
STATE OF M.P V AZAD BHARAT FINANCE CO
“ CONTRACTUAL OPIUM “
* Sec - 11 opium act 1878
* opium ( M P Amendment ) act 1955
* Shall be confiscated
 MISCHIEF RULE
The Mischief rule of interpretation originated in Heydon’s case in 1584 . In this case a
public educational institution transferred under lease some portion of the immovable
properties to a particular individual and then to his sons for their lives and after their
death , to a third person and fourth person .The above transfer of lands under lease
came under Doubling of estates

INTENTION – To avoid doubling of estates in the same land

Justice coke :
* before that what is the common law
* weak – what are the remedy
* object of the remedy
*The court held that the lease was valid
SMITH V HUGHES
“ IN A STREET “
* Sec – 1 ( 1) street offender act
* The act held that no man should be offended while walking in the street of prostitute , no one
should stand in the street and call them to their house
* The court held that as per mischief rule , even calling men from their windows , balconies , terrace
will also be considered as offence as the intention is to avoid such act

T.N ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD V TN STATE INFORMATION COMISSION

” PUBLIC AUTHORITY ”
* 19 (1) (a) – Right to know
* RTI act 2005
* 19 (1) (a) – Right to freedom of speech and expression also includes ‘ Right to Know ‘
* Public Authority – Any person / official Financed or controlled by any government wholly or partly
in a direct or indirect method.
* Hence , the company would come under public authority and can be covered under RTI act
and
W.W.HENRY V MR JUSTICE
“ COURT “
* Sec 195 (3) – CRPC 1973
* court also includes Tribunal
* The court held that the definition for court given in the concerned act must be
followed . Applying this rule as mentioned in CRPC , even the Tribunal should come under
Judiciary and should give control to the executive .

UNION OF INDIA V NAMIT SHARMA

* RTI act 2005
* sec 12(6) and sec 15(6)
*CIS and SIC – Appointment of central and state information commission
* As the time of appointment , the person should not hold any office of profit
 SUBSIDIARY RULES

UT RES MAGIS VALET QUAM PAREAT

“ It’s a better for a thing to have effect than to be made void “
Saibaba v Bar council of India
* 48 A – of Advocates act 1961
* Limitation 60 days - Review
* Advocate can’t business , a person was std booth complaint field so state
bar council said that if booth is not surrendered then enrolment will be cancelled . After
the petition surrendered the std booth ,but bar council didn’t gave back the enrolment
licences . So court asked to give back the enrolment
EJUSDEM GENERIS
“ of the same kind “
LIC OF INDIA V RTD LIC OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
* scale of pay( Monthly salary) , gratutity (after service )
* court held that scale of pay and gratutity can not be considered as of the same
kind

KAIBETA ESTATE V RAJA MANIAKAM

* 1947 ID act ( Industrial dispute )
* sec 2(kkk) – Lay off
*Any other reason / lock out – comes under layoff ?
* The court held that lockout is not any other reason as in definition of lay off
NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
“ To know “
PENGELLY V BELL PUNCH CO LTD
* Floors , steps , stairs , passage and going ways – pathway
* court held that pathway also comes under floor and should be kept free from
obstruction

R V HARRIS
* The offence against the persons act 1837
* stab , cut or wound
* wound – weapons
* The court held that wound caused by hand would not be considered
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS
“ Mention one thing its excludes others “
BENNET COLEMAN V UNION OF INDIA
* Art – 19 – Non citizen ( legal persons )
* Right in article 14 is applicable to citizens

DE MINIMIS NON CARAT LEX

“ Law does not concern it self with care about trifles ”
R.D BAJAJ V K.P.S GRILL
* Wrongfull touch , its not a trifle matter

DELARRY HAIL V TADAMA

*Drunken and Drive – Blood same of drunken and drive is trifle matter
GENERALIA SPECIALBUS NON DEROGANT
“ Generalia bus specialia deragant “
CHAIRMAN TTC V CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL
* The c.p act 1986
* National commission
* Motor vehicles act 1988