VOL.

2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES: ADAPTING

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL AGE

Hema Girdhar*

ABSTRACT

In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, the advent of new technologies has brought about
significant challenges for legal systems worldwide. With the rise of novel technologies such as
artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things, established legal frameworks are
confronted with the difficult job of adapting the unique phenomena. This article examines the
crucial issue of statutory interpretation and its adaptation to the digital age. This research
begins by delving into the underlying concepts of statutory interpretation and their use in legal
decision-making. It goes into the function of statutory interpretation in addressing legislative
ambiguities and gaps, providing fair and just outcomes. However, as new technologies
continue to shape our society, the traditional methods of statutory interpretation may prove
inadequate to address the complexities of the digital realm. This article also examines the
unique challenges posed by new technologies and their implications for statutory
interpretation. It studies the implication of modern technologies on traditional legal concepts
such as privacy, intellectual property, liability, and jurisdiction. It discusses the importance of
interdisciplinary collaboration between legal experts and technologies to enhance the
understanding of new technologies and their legal implications. By addressing the intersection
of statutory interpretation and new technologies to enhance the understanding of the dynamic
relationship between the law and technology. It seeks to provide valuable insights for legal
practitioners, policymakers, and scholars who are grappling with the impact of technological
advancements on statutory interpretation.

Keywords: Statutory Interpretation, Emerging Technologies, Literal Interpretation, e-

commerce.

INTRODUCTION

Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation to decide cases.
Since the will of the legislature is expressed generally in the form of a statute, the prime concern
of the court is to find out the intention of the legislature in the language used by the legislature
in the statute. Statutory interpretation plays a vital role in defining the legal landscape,

*
BA LLB, FOURTH YEAR, GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY.

www.jlrjs.com 1748
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

particularly in the digital age. As technology continues advancements, various aspects of

society transform, including commerce, communication, and personal interactions, and the
need for interpretation of statutes in light of these developments becomes increasingly
important. The intersection of law and technology presents unique challenges, as prevailing
statutes fail to address emerging technology effectively. The revolutionary impact of
technological development cannot be exaggerated.

Challenges are posed by the advancements in technology to existing statutes, as they often
struggle to keep pace with the rapid rate of technological change. Some of the key challenges
that are posed by advancements in technology to existing statutes include ambiguity, legislative
gaps, and lack of technological neutrality, adapting to changing business models, addressing
privacy and data protection concerns, and grappling with intellectual property issues. Courts
must interpret and adapt existing statutes to effectively address these challenges and ensure fair
and effective regulation in the digital age.

The objectives of this article are twofold. To begin with, it looks to examine the approaches
adopted by courts when interpreting statutes in light of advancements in technology. This
exploration will incorporate various interpretive methodologies, including textual, purposive,
and contextual approaches, to shed light on how courts handle the complexities of new
technologies.

Furthermore, this article aims to explore the challenges encountered by courts when adapting
existing statutes to address emerging technologies. It will study case law and legislative
developments to provide insight into how courts cope with the outdated statutory language and
struggle to ensure that the law remains relevant and effective in digital time.

By addressing these objectives, this article aims to contribute to the understanding of the active
relationship between the law and technology. It looks for providing valuable insights for legal
practitioners, policymakers, and scholars who are struggling with the impact of technological
advancements on statutory interpretation.

OVERVIEW OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Interpretation is the primary function of the court. The words interpretation and construction
are generally used synonymously even though they are perhaps different. Interpretation means
the art of finding out the true sense of enactment by giving the words their natural and ordinary
meaning whereas construction means concluding based on the true spirit of the enactment even

www.jlrjs.com 1749
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

though the same does not appear if the words used in the enactment are given their natural
meaning.

The meaning of statutory language is not always evident. Certain general principles of
interpretation have been applied by courts from time to time.

The Literal Rule: The literal or grammatical interpretation means that the words of an
enactment are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning and if such meaning is
unambiguous, the effect should be given to a provision of a statute whatever may be the
consequences. This rule is also known as the Plain Meaning Rule. In Maradana Mosque (Board
of Trustees) v. Mahmud1, interpretation of the words ‘is being administered’ was involved.
Under the provision of an Act, a minister could pass a certain order if he was satisfied that a
school ‘is being administered’ in violation of the provisions of the Act.

The Golden Rule: The golden rule is a modification of the principle of grammatical
interpretation. Ordinarily, the court must find out the intention of the legislature from the words
used in the statute by giving them their natural meaning but if it leads to absurd or unreasonable
result, the court must modify the meaning to such extent and no further as would prevent such
a consequence. Further, since the literal meaning is modified to some extent, this approach is
called the modifying method of interpretation

In Lee v. Knapp2, the interpretation of the word ‘stop’ was involved. Under Section 77(1) of
the road traffic act, 1960 a driver causing an accident shall ‘stop’ after the accident. In this case,
a driver stopped for a moment after causing the accident and then moved away. Applying the
golden rule the court held that requirement of the section had not been followed by the driver
as he had not stopped for a reasonable period requiring interested persons to make necessary
inquiries from him about the accident.

The Mischief Rule: Mischief means “Voluntarily cause injury or loss to someone”. The
mischief rule is a rule of interpretation to prevent misuse of provisions of the statute. The
mischief rule is framed to avoid any mischief added by the statute. This rule is so interpreted
that any mischief in a statute must be avoided and the object and purpose of passing the act by
the legislature are attained.

1
(1967) 1 AC 13
2
(1967) 2 QB 442

www.jlrjs.com 1750
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

The mischief rule of interpretation originated in Heydon's case3, in 1584. In this case, Lord
Coke decided four criteria on which the mischief rule is constructed:

i. What was the common law prevailing before passing the Act?
ii. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide,
iii. What remedy the Parliament was provided to remove the defect
iv. What is the actual reason for the remedy?

The rule of mischief is also considered to be the purposive interpretation of a statute as

consideration of mischief may lead to a wider or narrow interpretation of a statute.

In the case of Pyarelal v. Ramchandra Mahadev4, the accused was charged with using artificial
sweetener in the supari for sweetening. The accused argued that supari does not come under
the category of food under the Food Adulteration Act, of 1954. Hon’ble Supreme Court set
aside the argument of the accused and held that supari comes in the category of food in the act,
Supreme Court interpreted the Act in such a way as to prevent mischief and advance the
remedy.

Ejusdem Generis Rule: The expression ejusdem generis means of the same kind. The
principle of ejusdem generis is a legal principle that states that when a list of specific items is
followed by general words, the general words are interpreted to include only items of the same
type as those specifically listed. In other words, the principle states that when a statute uses
specific words, followed by general words, the general words will be given a restricted
meaning, limited to the same class or genus as the specific words. This principle is often applied
in statutory construction and legal interpretation.

In Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd.5, the interpretation of the words ‘or
other proceedings’ in the phrase ‘ a claim of set-off or other proceedings to enforce a right
arising from contract’ appearing in section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 was involved. The
Supreme Court did not apply the principle of ejusdem generis because the preceding words ‘a
claim of set off’ did not constitute a genus.

THE ROLE OF COURTS IN INTERPRETING STATUTES

Courts play a vital role in interpreting statutes when disputes arise over their meaning or
application. When a judge pronounces a verdict, it is not just because of the statute, but also

3
3 Co. Rep. 7a; 76 ER 637
4
AIR 1974 SC 223
5
AIR 1964 SC 1882

www.jlrjs.com 1751
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

because of the judge’s desire to determine what the legislature’s purpose was. The judge
interprets the statute with a view of what he sees as the legislature’s purpose. They are
responsible for ensuring that the law is applied correctly and consistently. Judges analyze the
language and structure of the statute, consider its legislative history, and examine any relevant
precedents or case law to determine the intention of the lawmakers.

The issue arises if more time has elapsed for such laws to become outdated and no longer
relevant this is where judicial imagination comes into play. The spirit that applies to the
moment and, more importantly, is relevant to the facts of the case is given interpretation by
judges using their knowledge. The court’s interpretation must be objective and impartial,
focusing on the text and purpose of the law, rather than personal preferences or policy
considerations. The court serves as the sole interpreter, protector, and caretaker of the
Constitution’s supremacy.

PRESUMPTIONS AND CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION

The term “presumptions” and “canons of construction” refer to principles and guidelines that
help courts and legal professionals interpret statutes, contracts, and other legal documents.
Presumptions are general assumptions or inferences that courts make about the meaning or
intent behind certain words, phrases, or provisions in a legal document. These presumptions
are based on common sense, legal principles, and societal norms. They are used as starting
points in the interpretation process and can be rebutted by presenting evidence to the contrary.

To help clarify the uncertainty, judges have developed various interpretive tools in the form of
canons of constructions. Canons of construction, also known as rules of interpretation, are
principles or guidelines that courts use to interpret and understand the meaning of legal texts.
These canons help in resolving any ambiguity or uncertainty that may arise from the language
of a statute or contract. Specific canons may vary by jurisdiction.

These principles, the role of courts, and the presumptions and canons of construction help guide
judges in interpreting statutes and applying the law fairly and consistently. The specific
approach used may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the legal dispute at
hand.

THE IMPACT OF ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY ON STATUTORY

INTERPRETATION

Advancements in technology have had a significant impact on various aspects of society,

including the field of statutory interpretation. As emerging technologies continue to evolve,

www.jlrjs.com 1752
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

their legal implication becomes increasingly complex, and the interpretation of existing statutes
can present challenges. This can be attributed to several factors, including outdated statutory
language, ambiguity, and legislative gaps in the context of new technologies.

Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, the Internet of Things
(IoT), autonomous vehicles, and virtual reality (VR) have transformed various industries.
However, these technologies often outpace the development of corresponding legal
frameworks. As a result, the interpretation of existing statutes becomes crucial in addressing
legal issues associated with these technologies. For instance, AI and machine learning raise
concerns regarding liability, privacy, and accountability. Autonomous vehicles present
questions related to liability in accidents. Blockchain technology challenges traditional
concepts of ownership and accountability. Virtual Reality raises issues concerning intellectual
property rights and user privacy. Each of these technologies requires legal interpretation to
navigate these complex issues.

Statutory languages often struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies. The
language used in the legislature may be outdated and fail to account for the tones and
complexities of emerging technologies. As a result, legal interpretation becomes challenging,
as courts must determine how existing statutes apply to different situations. For instance, if a
statute was enacted before the widespread adoption of the Internet, its language may not
adequately address issues related to online transactions, data privacy, or cybercrime. In such
cases, the court must interpret the existing language in a way that aligns with the intended
purpose of the legislation while considering the implications of the new technology.

New technologies often introduce ambiguity and expose legislative gaps in the law. Ambiguity
arises when existing statutory language is open to multiple interpretations or fails to address
specific scenarios involving emerging technologies. This ambiguity can lead to inconsistent
application and unpredictable outcomes.

APPROACHES TO STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN LIGHT OF NEW

TECHNOLOGIES

The literal interpretation of statutes involves giving the words of the law their ordinary and
plain meaning, without considering extrinsic factors or intent. However, in the context of new
technologies, literal interpretation may have limitations. This is because the language used in
statutes may not always be equipped to address emerging technologies. Or digital
advancements adequately. As a result, applying a strictly literal interpretation may lead to

www.jlrjs.com 1753
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

outdated or impractical outcomes. For example, a statute uses the term “telegraph” to refer to
communication such as email or social media.

Purposive interpretation focuses on determining the legislative intent behind a statute. It

involves examining the purpose and objectives of the law to understand its underlying policy
goals. In the context of new technologies, purposive interpretation becomes essential to bridge
the gap between the language of the statute and the technological advancements. It allows the
court to consider the broader societal objectives of the law and apply them to new technological
scenarios. For instance, if a statute aims to protect an individual’s privacy, the purposive
interpretation would guide the courts to interpret the law in a manner that safeguards privacy
rights in the digital age.

The contextual analysis involves examining the surrounding circumstances, historical

background, and relevant social and technological factors to interpret a statute. In the case of
new technologies, contextual analysis is crucial as it helps understand the specific technological
context in which the statute operates. This includes considering the characteristics, capabilities,
and implications of how the law should be applied. For example, when interpreting laws related
to data protection, courts may consider the unique challenges and risks associated with
emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, biometrics, or the Internet of Things.

Overall, statutory interpretation in light of new technologies requires a flexible approach that
combines elements of literal interpretation, purposive interpretation, and contextual analysis.
This enables the courts to ensure that the law remains relevant and effective in the face of
technological advancements, while still respecting legislative intent and the broader goals of
the legal framework.

CASE STUDIES: ADAPTING STATUTES TO ADDRESS EMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES

Intellectual Property And Digital Content: MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)6, the
Supreme Court addressed the liability of file-sharing services for copyright infringement. The
court held that companies that intentionally induce or encourage users to infringe copyrights
can be held liable for resulting acts of infringement. This decision recognized the challenges
posed by technological advancements to traditional copyright laws and sought to strike a
balance between protecting intellectual property right and promoting innovation.

6
(2005) 545 U.S. 913

www.jlrjs.com 1754
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

Privacy and Data Protection: Carpenter V. United States (2018)7 In this case, the Supreme
Court held that the government’s acquisition of historical cell phone location records without
a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures. The court recognized that technological advancements, such as cell phone tracking,
require a revaluation of Fourth Amendment principles to safeguard individual privacy rights in
the digital age.

E-commerce and consumer protection: Amazon.com, LLC. Bolger8 in this case, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of product liability in the
context of e-commerce platforms. The court held that Amazon could be held liable as a seller
of a defective product if it stored, packaged, and shipped the product, even if the product was
sold by a third-party seller on the platform. This decision emphasized the responsibility of e-
commerce platforms in ensuring consumer safety.

Autonomous vehicles and artificial intelligence: Several accidents involving Tesla’s

Autopilot system have led to legal actions. In the case of Huang v. Tesla (2019) 9, the family of
a Tesla driver who died in a crash while using autopilot files a wrongful death lawsuit against
the company. These cases raise questions regarding the liability of autonomous vehicle
manufacturers and the degree of human oversight and responsibility required when using such
technologies.

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE ON TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS

Technological advancements have significantly impacted the legal landscape, presenting

unique challenges and opportunities for the judiciary. Judicial perspectives on technological
advancements are crucial in ensuring the fair and effective application of the law in the rapidly
evolving digital age. There are three aspects of the judicial perspective on technological
advancements.

1. Balancing Innovation and regulatory objectives

2. The role of legislative amendments in addressing technological challenges
3. Precedent-setting decisions and their impact on future cases

Judges must cope with the challenge of striking a balance between promoting technological
innovation and safeguarding regulatory objectives. On one hand, they need to encourage

7
(2018) USSC 19, 138 S Ct 2206
8
Bolger v Amazon.com, LLC, (2020) 53 Cal App 5th 431
9
2019 EWHC 566 QB

www.jlrjs.com 1755
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

advancements that drive economic growth and enhance social welfare. On the other hand, they
must ensure that the advancements do not compromise public safety, private rights, or other
legal and ethical considerations.

Technological advancements often outpace existing laws and regulations, creating gaps and
uncertainties. In such cases, judges may rely on legislative amendments to address the
challenges posed by emerging technologies. These amendments can help update legal
structures, close regulatory loopholes, and provide clear guidelines for judges to adjudicate
cases involving new technologies.

Judicial decisions have a significant impact on the legal landscape surrounding technological
advancements. Precedent-setting decisions serve as guiding principles for future cases,
providing clarity and consistency in the application of the law. These decisions play a crucial
role in shaping legal interpretations, defining the boundaries of permissible, technological
activities, and establishing legal rules and standards.

The decisions made by judges in cases involving technological advancements can have
influential consequences. They can influence the development and adoption of new
technologies, impact industry practices, and standards, and form public perceptions. Judicial
decisions can also act as a warning or encouragement for certain behaviors, influencing the
direction of future technological advancements and the regulatory environment surrounding
them.

As technology becomes increasingly complex, judges may require specialized knowledge or

access to expert advice to understand the workings of specific technological advancements.
Some jurisdictions have established courts or panels of technical advisors to assist judges in
handling cases involving complex technologies. This helps ensure that judicial perspectives are
well-informed and capable of addressing the unique challenges posed by rapidly evolving
technologies.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In today’s fast-paced technological landscape, it is crucial to adopt collaboration between

courts, legislators, and technology experts. This alliance can help ensure that legislation keeps
pace with emerging technologies and their influence on society. Technology experts can
provide valuable insights into the latest advancements, while courts and legislators can bring
their legal expertise and understanding of the societal implications. By working together, these

www.jlrjs.com 1756
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

stakeholders can exchange information, identify potential challenges, and develop informed
policies that strike a balance between innovation and regulation.

Given the speedy pace of technological advancements, it is essential to incorporate flexibility

and adaptability into the drafting of statutory laws. Legislators should avoid overly perspective
language that could become outdated quickly. Instead, they should focus on establishing broad
principles and objectives that can withstand the test of time. By providing a framework that
accommodates technological evolution, legislation can remain relevant and adaptable in the
face of emerging challenges. This approach enables the law to keep up with the rapid pace of
technological change without requiring constant revisions.

To ensure that the legislation remains effective and up to date, periodic reviews and revisions
are necessary. This process should be carried out at regular intervals, considering the pace of
technological advancements and societal changes. By conducting comprehensive reviews,
policymakers can identify areas where existing laws may be inadequate, inconsistent, or no
longer associated with current needs. This review should involve input from various
stakeholders, including experts, industry representatives, and affected parties, to gather
different perspectives and insights.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study has highlighted several key findings regarding interpretation in the
era of new technologies. Firstly, it has been observed that the rapid advancement of technology
has posed significant challenges for courts and lawmakers in interpreting and applying existing
statutes to novel situations. The traditional methods of statutory interpretation may not always
be well-suited to address the complexities and nuances arising from new technologies.

One of the key implications of this study is the need for a flexible and adaptive approach to
statutory interpretation. Courts and lawmakers should recognize the dynamic nature of
technology and its impact on society. They should be open to interpreting statutes in a manner
that reflects the underlying policy goals and principles, rather than being bound by rigid textual
interpretations that may not adequately address the intricacies of new technologies.

Another important implication is the need for enhanced collaboration and engagement between
the legal and technological communities. Lawmakers and judges must have a deeper
understanding of emerging technologies and their potential implications. Likewise,
technologists operate. By fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and cooperation, it will be

www.jlrjs.com 1757
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

possible to develop more informed and effective approaches to statutory interpretation in the
era of new technologies.

Looking ahead, there are several future directions and potential reforms that could be
considered. Firstly, there is a need for legislative updates to ensure their relevance and
effectiveness in addressing emerging challenges. Additionally, specialized courts or expert
panels with a strong understanding of technology could be established to handle cases
involving complex technological issues.

Furthermore, the development of clear guidelines and principles for statutory interpretation in
the context of new technologies would provide much-needed clarity and consistency. These
guidelines should take into account the unique characteristics of technology and provide a
framework for courts to analyze and interpret statutes in a manner that aligns with societal
needs and values.

In conclusion, statutory interpretation in the era of new technologies requires a balanced and
adaptable approach. By embracing technological advancements, fostering interdisciplinary
collaboration, and implementing necessary reforms, it is possible to navigate the challenges
and harness the opportunities presented by new technologies while ensuring the continued
effectiveness of our legal systems.

www.jlrjs.com 1758