SVKM’S

NMIMS SCHOOL OF LAW

SAFIYA SULTANA Vs. STATE OF U.P., 2021(2) ALJ 363

PROJECT SUBMITTED ON:

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF AGENT AND PRINCIAPL IN CONTRACT OF AGENCY
COMPLIANCE TO PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE MARKING SCHEME, FOR
SEMESTER III OF 2020-2021, IN THE SUBJECT OF CONTRACT-II SUBMITTED TO

FACULTY
Prof. Anu Mishra

SUBMITTED BY:
Prakshal Bhargatiya
(A018)

RECEIVED BY: ____________________________

ON DATE: __________ TIME: __________

Page 1 of 8
Table of Contents
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................2

Facts of the case...................................................................................................................................2

Tools Of Interpretation.......................................................................................................................3

Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat.................................................................................................3

External aids of interpretation.......................................................................................................3

Harmonious construction................................................................................................................4

Golden Rule......................................................................................................................................5

Analysis................................................................................................................................................6

Conclusion............................................................................................................................................7

Page 2 of 8
Introduction
The term has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’, which means to explain,
expound, understand, or to translate. Interpretation is the process of explaining, expounding
and translating any text or anything in written form. This basically involves an act of
discovering the true meaning of the language which has been used in the statute. Various
sources used are only limited to explore the written text and clarify what exactly has been
indicated by the words used in the written text or the statutes 1. The reason why I took this
case for interpretation is because it is a recent judgment in which the court has applied
various tools of interpretation. The court has declared section that section 5, 6 and 7 are
constitutionally invalid. “Whether the social conditions and the law, as has progressed since
passing of the Special Marriage Act, 1872 and thereafter the Special Marriage Act, 1954 till
now, would in any manner impact the interpretation of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the 1954 Act
and whether with the change the said sections no more remain mandatory in nature.”

Facts of the case

The Allahabad High court in the case of Safiya Sultana v. State of Uttar Pradesh has talked
about the issue of right to life and personal liberty and therefore the high court has accepted
due to large no of people being affected by the particular issue being raised. The facts of the
were that petitioner -1 husband got married to petitioner – 2 wife Safiya Sultana got married
as per the Hindu rituals. The father of Safiya sultana is against the marriage and has detained
Safiya sultana or Smt. Simran after converting herself to Hindu religion. But what happened
they raised an issue saying that both of them would have got married under the special
marriage act. but due to the fact that they have to raise a notice of objection for 30 days and
any person can object to that notice. Such provisions or notice is violation of their right to
privacy and right to freedom of choice. The Allahabad high court gave the judgement in the
favour of Safiya sultana and said publishing of notice of objection is not mandatory.

1
Pooja Kapur, Interpretation of Statutes and its Rules, IPLEADERS (September 12, 2021 5:20 PM)
https://blog.ipleaders.in/rules-interpretation-statutes/

Page 3 of 8
Tools Of Interpretation
Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat
Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat Maximum is used in India. The literal meaning of this
legal maxim is that it is better for a thing to have an effect than to be made void, which means
that it is better to validate instead of invalidating it. A statute is considered to be an authentic
source of legislative will and hence it is the role of the court to interpret it according to the
intent of them that made it. that function of the court has to abide by the maxim Ut Res Magis
Valeat Quam Pereat as far is the intention of the legislature may go to vain or may even be
left to evaporate in thin air. It is the responsibility of the court to try and evade that
construction which attributes unreasonably to the statute. Therefore, the court was of the
opinion that publication of notice and inviting objection will not be mandatory rather it will
be directory in nature. Every law In India has to comply with the constitution and every act
which is passed is considered to be constitutionally valid. Thus, the present statute upholds
the fundamental rights.

External aids of interpretation

While performing the act of interpretation, the court often seeks help from outside the bounds
of the statute it aims to interpret, such help/aid is known as External aid of interpretation.

In the case Satyawtai sharma v Union of India, the supreme court were of the view that those
legislation or laws which were appropriate and just at the time of their enactment but has
become invalid or unreasonable or violates the provisions of equity in that case the supreme
court can quash that particular legislation. And it will be the duty of the state to look into the
changes in the societal circumstances before applying an explanation to a judgement.

Even various law commission report has mentioned about check on societal conditions in the
present laws. In the year 1974 law commission published a report on proposing amendments
to the Hindu marriage act and the special marriage act. The report exclusively talked about
the refurbishment of provisions of the law on the basis of the thinking of the society. It also
said that country like India which has so much societal values imbedded in it.

It is the duty of the legislator and the judiciary to make changes and amendments to the law
as per the changed customs and beliefs of the society, conception of equality and fairness
assume novel and broader dimensions. It is a never-ending cycle for the society, the
conception of fairness and justice won’t be similar after next ten years or in the coming years.
The revision of personal laws or of any law for fact revision of them is necessary for adapting

Page 4 of 8
to the thinking of the modern society. The concept of societal conditions was duly added in
the act through the amendment in the year 1976.

In the year 2008 law commission again published a report on the topic “Laws of Civil
Marriages in India-A Proposal to Resolve Certain Conflicts”. The foremost point or
recommendation raised was why the word special is added in front of the special marriage
act,1954. The word special should be removed and the act should be renamed as marriage act
or marriage and divorce act, 1954 so that it will provide a general feeling to the society and
the society will consider this act to be special. Another major recommendation raised was
that inter-caste marriages between the Hindu, Jain and Sikh community will not be covered
under the provisions of special marriage act.

Law commission report no. 292 was the report which talked about the issue of freedom of
choice. The committee requested to dissolve the time limit of 3o days to get married, the
concept of objection should be removed or disbarred. The process of getting married should
accelerated. The domicile constraints should be abolished. The provisions of the special
marriage total violate the right to freedom of choice to choose a partner.

In Broom's Legal; Maxim (1939 Edition, page 97) can be found a useful principle "Cessante
Ration Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex", that is to say, "Reason is the soul of the law, and when the
reason of any particular. College of Law law ceases, so does the law itself."

Harmonious construction
According to this rule of interpretation, when two or more provisions of the same statute are
repugnant to each other, then in such a situation the court, if possible, will try to construe the
provisions in such a manner as to give effect to both the provisions by maintaining harmony
between the two. The question that the two provisions of the same statute are overlapping or
mutually exclusive may be difficult to determine.

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.

Section 6 talks about that to marry under special marriage act, a couple has to publish a notice
and under section 7 invites objection related to notice published under section 6. In view of
“

aforesaid, more specifically in view of the punitive consequences under Section 46, the

Page 5 of 8
publication of notice under Section 6 and inviting objections and decision thereupon under
Section 7 was treated as mandatory Thus court dictates that giving notice under section 5 of
”

the special marriage act is not mandatory and after giving not giving notice under section 5
the marriage officer will not publish a notice under section 6 of the act.

Golden Rule
Golden rule is a slight Modification of the literal rule of interpretation, in order to provide an
absurd interpretation of the meaning. For the application of golden rule. Judges tend to stay
within the ambits the statute by approaching the preamble and the objective clause of the said
statute to interpret its meaning. While simply reading the section 5 and section 6 of the
special marriage containing the process of publication of notice and the alluring protestations
to the marriage would invade in the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, including
within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-
state actors, of the persons concerned. The conventional way of interpreting a statute is to
seek the intention of its makers, and apply the facts of the case at hand. An interpretation of
the statutory provisions which defeats the intent and purpose for which the statute was
enacted should be avoided. The intent of every act passed is that it should uphold the
fundamental rights rather than violate it.

Page 6 of 8
Analysis
The first issue before the court was basically whether the section 5 and 6 of the special
marriage act, 1954 was in violation of Article 19, 21 of the constitution or not. The court held
that the said act is very much valid and does not violate the said provisions of the act.

The court did not used Literal rule of interpretation as that would have construed section 5
and 6 of the act as constitutionally invalid. In a simpler reading section 5 and section 6 of the
special marriage containing the process of publication of notice and the alluring protestations
to the marriage would invade in the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, including
within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-
state actors, of the persons concerned. So, by applying golden rule of interpretation court
removed the ambiguity. The legislature is the most important part of law making in India.

“ It is well settled that if on one construction a given statute will become unconstitutional,
whereas on another construction which may be open, the statute remains within the
constitutional limits, the court will prefer the latter on the ground that the legislature is
presumed to have acted in accordance with the Constitution and courts generally lean in
favour of the constitutionality of the statutory provisions ”

The next issue was that under section 6 and 7 which talked about publishing a notice and
inviting objection and those who didn’t comply with the rules were subsequently punished
under section 46 which kind of makes it necessary or mandatory for an individual to follow.
Therefore, the court appropriately used the harmonious construction to strike a balance
between both the provisions and said that the section does not violate the article 19 and 21
and publishing of notice and inviting objection is not mandatory.

The court relied on various cases as external aids for interpretation of the sections. The court
was of the view that those legislation or laws which were appropriate and just at the time of
their enactment but has become invalid or unreasonable or violates the provisions of equity in
that case the supreme court can quash that particular legislation. And it will be the duty of the
state to look into the changes in the societal circumstances before applying an explanation to
a judgement.

Page 7 of 8
Conclusion
Interpretation is subjective and not only depends on the facts and circumstances of the case
but also on the mindset of the Judges . Interpretation of a statute is an important practice
especially when it comes to the provisions that have contentious language and there is a lot of
scope of interpretation therein. Safiya Sultana v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a very recent
judgment. Therefore, there aren’t much discussions or critical review on the case but the
decision has made a relief to those people who needs to get married under special marriage
act and given the point that it is not mandatory to publish the notice it has given a relief to the
public at large.

Page 8 of 8