When an act is passed through Parliament and got royal accent then Judiciary body interpret that

act and give sense to it. The main function of the judges is to interpret an act of Parliament in a way
that it fulfil the intent of Parliament. Interpreting statutes is very important role because judges
decides the scope , Applicability and meaning of the act. If judges miss interpret any act it can cause
disturbance while deciding a case. The main task carried out by the courts are interpretation of
statutes and giving effect to the parliament intentions. A statute should always be constructed in a
way that should fulfil the intent the parliament but it is not an easy job. Due to statutory
interpretation Judges also face criticism for wrong interpretation. This is because different judges
interpret and act differently. The main point in statutory interpretation is to understand the
approach of Parliament and then give effect to the intent of Parliament that is not an easy job to do

According to Av dicey Half of the meaning of the act comes from judicial decisions . In common life
we also interpret words to make a scene out of it. There are some difficulties faced by judges while
interpretation of intent of Parliament. First of it is Ellipsis when the person who writes an act refrain
from certain words and regarded as implied automatically. Next main issue is use of board term
giving example of it family should mean spouse or whole and some times problem faced by the
judges to interpret an act is that due tod social changes the meaning of words change at that spot it
is very difficult for a judge to interpret any act. Sometimes drafting errors can also lead towards
difficulty is interpretation of statues. These are most probably the reasons due to which
interpretation is a very difficult job. Every judge in a panel interpret act differently and give scene to
the act of Parliament. Interpreting statutes is so responsible job that a particular word can decide
that defendant’s should or shouldn’t be found guilty. The main point that all judges agree on is to
find the best possible intent of the Parliament and give effect to it . Mostly judge think that to give
effect to Parliament intent is through stay close to the words of Parliament and others thinks that
they should really have to understand the purpose behind the act then interpret it to achieve that
aim. There are different views on it how an act of Parliament should be interpret.

Historically Judges has adopted some approaches to deal with interpretation of act of Parliament.
These approaches are not mandatory to follow . There are no rules in general that a judge should
follow. There are three so called rules that that judges had adopted over a passage of time. There is
also a time where Parliament has done broad interpretation of act it was before sovereignty of
Parliament had been completely established. The first approach is literal rule. According to this rule
judge have to simply apply the ordinary English meaning of the word use in the act of Parliament.
This approach was followed by lord Esher and according to him words of act is clear you must follow
them in order to achieve the best possible result . There was a case of R V harris which involved the
interpretation of criminal offence the court simply interpret the words of act through ordinary
English to get to the result. R V Maginnis case is the best example that how judges can interpret a
single word differently. Then the second approach that judges follow while interpretation of act is
Golden rule. According to this approach. It was basically the modification of literal rule. According to
this approach if the results are so absurd then judges may modify the words to some extent . This
approach was defined by the Lord wensleydale In this case of Gret V pearson he said if it is so
obvious that result is absurd then grammatical and ordinary sense of words can be modified to avoid
the absurdity. Case of Alder V george is the best example of Golden rule I which judges modified the
words of act to achieve the best possible result. The next approach is mischief rule . This is the
oldest approach to interpret a statute. This approach involves judges to take several steps to
achieve then best possible result. Judges interpret the act in a way that achieve the intent purpose
after act has been passed through the parliament. Classic example of this approach is the example
of smith V hughes this case interpretation involves the interpretation of street offence . Judges
interpret the act to achieve the best possible through understanding the intent of Parliament’s act
There are also some presumption of interpretation of act of Parliament this helps the judge to come
to one conclusion rather then an other. This is basically use to save Parliament from thing that
Parliament has no intent to achieve. Example of it is that statued don’t work retrospectively this
don’t work on them who have committed crimes before. Secondly if Parliament want to change
some principle which it consider important that thing should be considered in intent to do so

There were many approaches that judges follow to achieve the best possible results but it is still not
the idle approaches. Because the interpretation of a words can be different to others. We have seen
that judges have interpreted a single word differently. These approaches help judges to achieve the
best possible intent of act but it is still problem for judges to interpret an act that fulfill the intent of
act of Parliament

Abdul Rahman khawaja.