UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LAWS,

P.U. REGIONAL CENTRE , LUDHIANA

____________________________________________

ASSIGNMENT ON THE TOPIC

CONTEMPORANEA EXPOSITIO EST OPTIMA ET
FORTISSINIA IN LEGE.

FOR THE SUBJECT OF

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
SUBMITTED BY - TANISHA BANSAL
BA.LLB (SEMESTER-6)
ROLL NO. - 61/20F
SUBMITTED TO – DR. NEELAM BATRA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
____________________________________________

I am dearly obliged to Dr. NEELAM BATRA for giving me an opportunity to

work on this project which has provided me valuable information about

CONTEMPORANEA EXPOSITIO EST OPTIMA ET FORTISSINIA IN

LEGE.

I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge and

reciprocate in full measure her able guidance and support in completing my
assignment. Her patience, motivation, enthusiasm and great knowledge have
helped me immensely during my research.

Also, I would like to mention the support system and consideration of my parents
and friends who have always been there in my life. And hereby I acknowledge
everyone who has helped me to complete this project.

Tanisha Bansal

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
____________________________________________

SR.NO. TOPICS INVOLVED PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 4-5

2. LITERAL MEANING 6

3. HISTORY 7

4. MEANING 8-9

5. APPLICATION OF THE MAXIM 10-14

6. LIMITATIONS OF THE MAXIM 15

7. CONCLUSION 16

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 17

2
 TABLE OF CASES
____________________________________________

CASES MENTIONED PAGE NO.

Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Asson. Ltd. 7

Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan 10

Raja Ram v. State of Bihar 11

National and Grindlays Bank v. Municipal Corporation 11

K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer 11

M/s Doypack Systems Private Limited v. Union of India 12

M/s J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited v. Union of India 12

Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India and others 12

Governors of Compbell College etc. v. Commr. of Valuation 12

Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. v. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board 13

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India 13

Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali 13

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat, Pimpri 13

waghere

R.S. Nayak v. A. R. Antuley 13

N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India 13

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India 14

3
“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
____________________________________________
Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by
giving the words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the
process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court
is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain
principles which have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Courts. These
principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’.

The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the

legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used. As stated by
SALMOND, "by interpretation or construction is meant, 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."

Interpretation is as old as language. Elaborating rules of interpretation were

evolved even at a very early stage of the Hindu civilization and culture. In relation
to statute law, interpretation is of importance because of the inherent nature of
legislation as a source of law. In the process of interpretation, several aids are
used.

The aids for interpretation may be divided into two categories, namely, Internal
and External.

The Internal Aids are those which are found within the statute. They may be as
follows:-
1. Long title of the statute.
2. Preamble of the statute.
3. Chapter Headings of the statute.
4. Marginal Notes to every section of statute.

4
 5. Punctuations.
6. Illustrations given below the sections.
7. Definitions.
8. Provisos.
9. Explanation.
10. Saving Clauses and non-obstante Clauses.

External Aids for interpretation are those which are not contained in the statute
but are found elsewhere. They may be as follows:-
1. Historical background.
2. Statement of objects and reasons.
3. The original Bill as drafted and introduced.
4. Debates in the Legislature.
5. State of things at the time a particular legislation was enacted.
6. Judicial construction.
7. Legal dictionaries.
8. Contemporanea exposito.
9. Commonsense.

5
 LITERAL MEANING
____________________________________________

The best way to construe a document is to read it as it would be read when it was
made.

This maxim means contemporaneous exposition. The word contemporaneous

denotes "of the same time or period" and exposition denotes "explanation". Thus,
according to this rule, the words must be given contemporaneous explanation i.e.,
to say, they should be understood in the sense which they bore at the time when
the statute was passed. In other words, the meaning attributed to the words of a
statute at the time of passing of that statute shall be retained by those words even
subsequently.
Law is perpetual in nature and remains in force for long until it is abrogated or
repealed by Legislature itself. With the passage of time, the meaning of the words
used therein might shrink or expand in their scope. But the words used must be
assigned the meaning which they bore at the time of enactment of law.
However the courts may enlarge the meaning of words so as to cover new
inventions of the same generic conception, which were not known at the time
when law was passed.

According to LORD ESHER, “The first point to be borne in mind is that the act
must be construed as if one were interpreting it the day after it was passed.”

According to MAXWELL, “It is said that the best exposition of a statute or any
other document is that which it received from contemporary authority.”

According to LORD COKE, “The ancient act must be construed and taken as
the law was golden at that time when they were made”.

6
 HISTORY
____________________________________________

COKE was the first person to propound this principle when speaking of the
Magna Carta he observed that this and the like were the forms of ancient Act and
graunts, and the ancient Acts and graunts must be construed and taken as the law
was held at that time when they were made. 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. 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.

According to MARTIN B, In construing old statues 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 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 maxim has been confirmed by the Apex Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta vs.
Delhi Stock Exchange Asson. Ltd. 1 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 executed between two parties, their 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.

1
AIR 1979 SC 1049, 1054

7
 MEANING
____________________________________________

This maxim means that contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in
the law. The best exposition of a statute or any other document is that which it
has received from contemporary authority.If the authority is in enactment or a
judicial decision, it has a binding force. Where an exposition has been done by a
long usage, that should be accepted even though it is different from the ordinary
or the popular sense. When a statute was passed the persons who were living then
or thereabout may be presumed to know the circumstances under which the
statute was passed and the prevailing circumstances at the time of its passage
better than persons of the later generations.

While interpreting old statutes, high regard must be paid to the meanings given
to them by judges of that time since they were in a better position than the present
day judges to judge the intention of the legislature at that time. The rule generally
is that the words of a statute should normally be understood in the sense they bore
when it was passed.

However, if it is clearly established that an enactment has been wrongly

interpreted time and again, the court should correct the past mistakes and construe
it correctly. In such a case the titles vested under the old interpretation are not
disturbed. The principle of contemporanea expositio has sometimes been
criticised on the ground that in a modern progressive society it is illogical to keep
the intention of the legislature confined to the meaning attributable to the
expression used at the time the legislation was passed because the law must be so
interpreted as to keep abreast with all round development the society is going
through.

A counter criticism of this has been that if an ancient statute has turned outmoded,
it should be replaced by another legislation brought out by the legislature on the
basis of its latest thinking. The principle that the language used by the lawmakers
must be interpreted in its natural and ordinary sense suggests that the sense must
be the same which the words used ordinarily had at the time the statute was
enacted.

8
Illustration

If some provision of a particular Act defines that only a particular section of the
society is eligible for the benefits of reservation or anything else and since it was
been particularly mentioned and the intention by applying the principle of
'Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in lege' is clear and definite,
it means that only that particular section of the society can prevail the benefits
offered by the provision and none else unless otherwise mentioned.

9
 APPLICATION OF THE MAXIM
– Applicable only to ancient statutes.
_______________________________________________________________

The maxim contemporanea exposito is applicable in construing ancient statues,

but not to interpreting acts which are comparatively modern. In a modern
progressive society, it would be unreasonable 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.
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.

In Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan 2, the Supreme Court disagreed

with the view of the High Court that the expression telegraph line used in Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 but not defined in the Act must have the Same meaning as
it had under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, wherein it was defined as a wire or
wires used for the purpose of a telegraph. The Supreme Court said that the High
Court was wrong in applying the contemporanea expositio rule in the present
case. There was no ancient statute to be construed here because the Act of 1910
is a comparatively modern statute. Further, since the expression "telegraph line"
was not defined in the Act, a definition much larger than what the High Court
gave should have been given to the expression. The expression must be presumed
to include electric lines used for the purpose of wireless telegraph because while
passing the Act of 1910, the legislature must have had knowledge of electric lines
coming into existence in a very near future for wireless telegraphic
communication. A modern legislature must be presumed to be farsighted in
keeping in mind the prospect revolutionary charges in all fields of human activity.

In Raja Ram v. State of Bihar3, the Supreme Court refused to apply the rule de
contemporanea expositio while interpreting Section 25 of the Indian Evidence

2
AIR 1962 SC 159

3
AIR 1964 SC 828

10
Act, 1872 on the ground that the Act was of comparatively recent origin by which
time new revolutionary ideas had already started coming into the mind of the man
and science had developed to an appreciable extent. It was, however, held that an
excise officer is a police officer within the meaning
of Section 25 of the Act.

In National and Grindlays Bank v. Municipal Corporation 4, Greater Bombay,

question of interpretation of Section 146(2) of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 was involved according to which property tax shall be
primarily leviable from the lessor if the premises are let. Relying on the long
standing practice followed by the Corporation that the land and building
constructed over it would be considered as one single unit and that the owner of
the land would be liable to pay the property tax the Supreme Court held that even
though the lessee had constructed the building and was its owner the owner of the
land was liable to pay the property tax because the land was let out for a period
of less than one year and as such the case was not covered by sub-section (3)
under which premises let out for more than one year would fall.

In K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer 5, The Supreme Court held that the rule
of construction by reference to contemporanea expositio is a well-established rule
for interpreting a statute by reference to the exposition it has received from
contemporary authority, though it must give way here the language of the statute
is plain and unambiguous. Therefore, where the Central Board of Direct Taxes
has issued circulars by way of explaining the amended provisions of Section 52(2)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961, apart from their binding nature in view of Section
119 Income Tax Act, they are clearly in the nature of contemporaned expositio
furnishing legitimate aid in the interpretation of suo-section (2) of Section 52 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In M/s Doypack Systems Private Limited v. Union of India 6, provisions of the

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertaking) Act, 1980 were to be interpreted. The Supreme Court reiterated that
the principle of contemporanea expositio in a well-settled principle which applies

4
AIR 1969 SC 1048
5
AIR 1981 SC 1922
6
AIR 1988 SC 782

11
only to the construction of ambiguous language in old statutes and it could have
no application in the interpretation of a modern Act such as in the present case.

In M/s J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited v. Union of India 7, the
Supreme Court held that the maxim contemporanea expositio is applicable in
construing ancient statutes but not in interpreting Acts which are comparatively
modern such as the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as in the instant case. In a
modern progressive society, it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of
a legislature to the meaning attributable to the word 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.

In Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India and others 8,

the Supreme Court ruled that the principle of contemporanea expositio est
fortissima in lege does not apply when administrative circular is contrary to
statute. Circulars cannot override statutory provision. A circular providing
interpretation running contrary to provision of law does not bind the Court. Under
para 3 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 issued under Section 3 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 fixing price of drugs is a legislative measure
done with the object of equitable distribution and availability of commodities at
fair price. The price fixation notification takes effect immediately once it is
gazetted. Fifteen days’ time is given for its enforcement.
This is for manufacturers and others to make necessary arrangements. The time
given is not for manufacturing drugs and clearing them at pre-notified price.

In Governors of Compbell College etc. v. Commr. of Valuation 9, it was held that

the doctrine is conferred to the construction of ambiguous language used in very
old statutes where indeed the language itself have had a rather different meaning
in those days.

In Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. v. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board 10,
the Apex Court observed that contemporanea expositio is applicable only to
interpretation given by courts and not to views taken by Government or its

7
AIR 1988 SC 191
8
AIR 2014 SC 410
9
1964 2 ALL ER 705 (HR)
10
(2010) 2 SCC 273

12
officials. Moreover, it is applicable only to construction of ambiguous language
used in very old statutes where the language itself had a rather different meaning
in those days.
In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India 11 The Apex Court held that an
interpretation received by contemporary authority is not binding upon the courts
and may have to be discarded if such interpretation is clearly wrong.

In Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali12, it was held that the matters which are understood
and implemented as legal practice for long and such practice is supported by basic
rule of law, then such practice should be accepted, as part of interpretative process
with aid of doctrine of contemporanea expositio.

In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat, Pimpri

waghere13, the word "houses” used in Section 89 of Bombay Village Panchayat
Act,1933 was construed by the Supreme Court by application of rule of
contemporanea expositio. The court relied upon the rules made in 1934 in which
the word "buildings' was employed in place of "houses". It was held that the word
"houses" used in the Act was not limited to dwelling houses but included all
buildings whether used for residence or for commercial purposes.

In R.S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay14, Section 21 of Indian Penal Code 1860 was

construed by referring to the principle of contemporaned expositio and it was held
that a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) is not a public servant as defined
in the section.

In N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India15, applying contemporanea expositio, the

Supreme Court construed a service rule which was relating to promotion of
Section Officers. This rule provides that Section Officers who possessed a
recognized Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent could claim their eligibility
for promotion if they had completed three years of service in the grade. Further,
those Section Officers who possessed a Diploma instead of a Degree, could claim
their eligibility for promotion after putting in six years of service in the grade.
However, it was not clear that where a person has obtained a Degree during the

11
(2014) 9 SCC 516
12
(2013) 5 SCC 762
13
AIR 1976 SC 2463
14
AIR 1984 SC 684
15
AIR 1992 SC 564

13
employment, from what date the aforesaid period of three years shall be reckoned.
The Supreme Court considered the practice over a long period according to which
the period of three years was counted from the date the officer obtained the
Degree. This practice was relied upon in construing the rule.

In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India16, while

interpreting Articles 74 and 124 of the Constitution, Supreme Court referred to
actual practice in matters of appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and
High Courts and observed that since the practice is in conformity with
constitutional scheme should be accorded legal sanction by permissible
constitutional interpretation.

16
AIR 1994 SC 268

14
 LIMITATIONS OF THE MAXIM
_______________________________________________________________

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 into 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 loses its value.

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

15
 CONCLUSION
____________________________________________

The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the

legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used. According to
Salmond, by interpretation or construction, it is meant that 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. To assist the task of interpretation
and construction, courts resort to certain internal and external aids. These internal
and external aids to interpretation is very essential at times to construe ambiguous
internal and external aids to interpretation is very essential at times to construe
ambiguous terms and provisions. Contemporanea expositio is an important
external aid in interpretation of statues. The usages and practices followed after
the enactment of statute speaks for itself, but this can be applied only to very old
statues and has little importance in modern statutes.
The contemporaned expositio thus marks effect of usage and practice. It is
perhaps the best and strongest rule of construction in law, but it is not applicable
to modern statutes. Therefore, the usage or practice developed under a statute is
indicative of the meaning given to its words by contemporary opinion and in case
of an ancient act, it is admissible external aid to its construction.

16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
____________________________________________

BOOKS REFERRED-

1. BHATTACHARYYA T, THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES,

CENTRAL LAW AGENCY, 11th EDITION (2020)

2. MATHUR D.N, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, CENTRAL

LAW PUBLICATIONS, 6th EDITION (2021)

3. SINGH G.P, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION,

LEXISNEXIS, 12th EDITION REPRINT (2013)

4. MAXWELL, THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE, LEXISNEXIS,

13th EDITION

WEBSITES REFERRED-

● Legalservicesindia.com
● Bnblegal.com
● Lexorbis.com

17