NP SINGH READING: UNIT 1

➢ A statute represents the directive of the Legislature, and the customary approach to understanding
it is to discern the "intention" behind it. This refers to comprehending the objective meaning of the
statute's words, guided by established principles of interpretation. When a statutory provision
allows for multiple interpretations, the court must select the one that aligns with the Legislature's
true intention, often termed as the "legal" or "true meaning" of the provision.
➢ Interpreting statutes poses challenges due to various factors. Language lacks precise definitions,
making it difficult for legislators to foresee all potential scenarios. Courts must interpret rather than
create law, and differing judicial interpretations may seem contradictory. The interpretation problem
primarily concerns understanding words and their effectiveness in conveying thoughts.
➢ In ordinary communication, parties can clarify misunderstandings about word references, but
statutory interpretation differs. Once enacted, statutes cannot be explained by legislators, and the
Legislature cannot interpret them after enactment. Judges must rely on the statute's language and
context, as the Legislature is no longer involved.
➢ Historically, judges could consult the Legislature on ambiguous statutes, but this practice is
obsolete. Courts must primarily rely on the statute's language and context, even though interpreting
words can be challenging due to their fringe meanings. Disputes may arise about whether certain
objects or situations fall within a word's connotation, leading to differing opinions.
➢ For instance, while everyone agrees that a solidly constructed building falls within the definition of
"building," there may be debate about whether an open platform constitutes a building, or whether
a brick kiln qualifies. Similarly, defining terms like "structure" or determining if "building" includes
land beneath the superstructure can vary based on context.
➢ When faced with such complexities, courts, aware of the impracticality of drawing precise lines,
decide cases by determining whether they fall within or outside the scope of relevant statutory
words. They establish general working principles rather than rigid tests, as relying too heavily on
tests might divert attention from the statute's language and unintentionally promote an approach not
intended by the Legislature.
➢ Legislation in a modern state is driven by a policy to address public issues or promote public
welfare. While laws primarily address current problems based on past and present experiences,
they're also designed to apply to future situations. However, due to the unpredictable nature of
future circumstances, the language used in laws may lack clarity, leading to disputes over
interpretation.
➢ In real disputes, if courts could consult the Legislature for its intention, legislators would likely
respond that such problems hadn't been considered, and courts should interpret the law based on
the words used and the statute's purpose. In such cases, the legislative intent becomes a fiction
representing judges' efforts to balance the literal text and the spirit of the law without
acknowledging that they're supplementing the statute.
➢ While judges are expected to interpret rather than create law, there's a gray area where courts
creatively interpret legislation, refining it as needed. This may involve broadening or narrowing the
scope of words used by the Legislature. Some judges openly acknowledge their creative role in
interpretation, but this approach should be cautious to avoid judicial decisions resembling
legislative acts.
➢ It's prudent to maintain the traditional notion that every construction process is a search for the
intention—explicit or implied—of the statute. This helps minimize judicial lawmaking to its
necessary extent. Legislative intent encompasses both the literal meaning of words and the purpose
or spirit underlying the statute, and the construction process combines both literal and purposive
approaches.
➢ In constitutional and statutory interpretation, courts must exercise discretion to balance subjective
and objective purposes of the law, ensuring it achieves its intended objectives. Generally, the
language used in the statute is the primary determinant of legislative intent. As Justice
Gajendragadkar stated, the Legislature's intention must be derived from the words they used, not
from assumptions about their intentions. As Justice Holmes put it, the focus should be on what the
words mean, not what might be assumed about the intentions behind them.
➢ According to Blackstone the most fair and rational method for interpreting a statute is by exploring
the intention of the Legislature through the most natural and probable signs which are "either the
words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the
law".
➢ A purely literal interpretation of laws, divorced from their underlying purpose, risks rendering much
beneficial legislation ineffective. Justice Iyer aptly noted that focusing solely on literal meaning
neglects the essence of the law. Courts must grasp both the literal meaning and the underlying
purpose of a provision.
➢ Even in cases like statutes setting time limits for legal actions, where a strict grammatical
interpretation might seem appropriate, courts may need to set aside literal interpretation if it
conflicts with fundamental principles of fairness and justice that the Legislature did not intend to
disregard.
➢ Similarly, in tax laws designed to prevent evasion, courts tend to interpret provisions liberally to
achieve the goal of curbing evasion. While tax imposition clauses are construed strictly, anti-
evasion provisions are given broader interpretations.
➢ In legislation concerning defense services, considerations of national security and discipline must
be factored in during interpretation.
➢ Courts are cautioned against overstepping their role and acting as legislators under the guise of
interpretation. They should avoid imposing their own ideological views onto statutes. Especially in
contentious matters, where public and parliamentary opinions differ, courts must defer to
Parliament's judgment.
➢ This doesn't mean judges can't interpret statutes purposively, as long as they derive the purpose or
policy from legitimate sources within the statute or related materials. The goal is to harmonize the
words of the law with its intended purpose. Lord Porter emphasized that understanding the entire
scope, object, and circumstances of the law is crucial for arriving at the correct interpretation.

STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS CONTEXT

➢ When interpreting a provision in a statute, it's not only acceptable but necessary to consider its
context. This context includes examining the statute as a whole, the previous state of the law, related
statutes, the overall purpose of the statute, and the problem it aims to solve. This approach to
interpretation has been firmly endorsed by the Supreme Court.

➢ It's a well-established rule that the Legislature's intention must be understood by considering the
entire statute. This principle has been described as elementary, compelling, and settled by various
legal authorities. Examining the entire statute allows for a more accurate understanding of the
Legislature's intent.

➢ To determine the meaning of a clause in a statute, the court must analyze the entire statute, not just
the specific clause in question. Reading the statute as a whole helps discern the true meaning of
individual words or provisions within their proper context. This method of interpretation ensures
that even the clearest terms may be understood in light of the overall legislative purpose.

➢ The same word may have different meanings depending on its context within the statute. Therefore,
it's crucial to consider how each component of the statute influences the interpretation of other parts.
 While the application of this rule may vary in each case, it remains a legitimate and essential aspect
of statutory interpretation.

➢ In one case before the House of Lords, the Attorney-General sought to use the Preamble of a statute
to support a particular interpretation of the enacting part, illustrating the importance of considering
all aspects of a statute when determining its meaning.

In conclusion , interpreting statutes involves discerning legislative intent from the statute's language
and context, despite the inherent challenges of language and fringe meanings of words. In conclusion,
the interpretation of statutes is a complex but essential aspect of the legal system. Courts must strive
to discern the true intention of the Legislature by examining the statute as a whole, considering its
context, and understanding its underlying purpose. While the language used in the statute is crucial,
it must be interpreted in light of the statute's overall objective and the problem it seeks to address.

The traditional approach of focusing solely on the literal meaning of words is insufficient, as it may
overlook the broader purpose of the law and render beneficial legislation ineffective. Therefore,
courts must adopt a balanced approach that considers both the literal text and the legislative intent
behind it.
Moreover, judges must exercise caution to avoid overstepping their role and acting as legislators.
While they may interpret statutes purposively to harmonize them with their intended purpose, they
must derive this purpose from legitimate sources within the statute or related materials, rather than
imposing their own ideological views.
Ultimately, the goal of statutory interpretation is to ensure that the law achieves its intended
objectives while upholding principles of fairness and justice. By carefully analyzing statutes in their
entirety and considering their context, courts can effectively fulfill this important function in the
legal system.

AIDS TO INTERPRETATION : UNIT 2

An Aid is a tool used to assist in the construction or interpretation of laws. In this regard, courts
utilize both internal and external aids. Internal aids refer to elements within the statute itself, such
as the long title, preamble, headings, marginal notes, illustrations, punctuation, provisos, schedules,
and transitory provisions. When internal aids are insufficient, external aids come into play. External
aids encompass parliamentary materials, historical context, committee or commission reports,
official statements, dictionary definitions, foreign precedents, etc.
In B. Prabhakar Rao and others v State of A.P. and others (AIR 1986 SC 120), Justice O.
Chennappa Reddy emphasized the use of external aids when internal aids are lacking, establishing
it as a well-settled principle in modern statutory interpretation.

The Supreme Court's observation in District Mining Officer and others v Tata Iron & Steel Co.
and another ((2001) 7 SCC 358) underscored the importance of external aids, expanding the
concept of context to include not only provisions within the same statute but also its preamble,
existing legal framework, related statutes, and the legislative intent behind it.

In K.P. Varghese v Income Tax Officer Ernakulam (AIR 1981 SC 1922), the Supreme Court
emphasized that in interpreting statutes, every logically relevant aspect should be considered,
indicating the broad scope of admissibility in this exercise of ascertaining meaning.

INTERNAL AIDS
Internal aids to interpretation refer to elements within the statute itself that assist in understanding
its meaning. Each part of an enactment plays a role in interpretation, but it's essential to assess
whether these parts are relevant for interpreting the statute.

Internal aids include:

a. Title:
- Long title: Describes the object of the Act, though it's not an enacting provision. Courts may use
it to interpret ambiguous provisions.
In Re Kerala Education bill, the Supreme Court held that the policy and purpose may be deduced
from the long title and the preamble. In Manohar Lal v State of Punjab, Long title of the Act is
relied as a guide to decide the scope of the Act. Although the title is a part of the Act, it is in itself
not an enacting provision and though useful in case of ambiguity of the enacting provisions, is
ineffective to control their clear meaning.

- Short title: Used for reference and identification, but it doesn't contribute to interpretation.
” For e.g Section 1 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, says – “This Act may be called, The Indian
Evidence Act, 1872”. Even though short title is the part of the statute, it does not have any role in
the interpretation of the provisions of an Act
b. Preamble: If any doubts arise from the terms employed by the Legislature, it has always been
held a safe means of collecting the intention to call in aid the ground and cause of making the
statute and to have recourse to the preamble. In Kashi Prasad v State, the court held that even
though the preamble cannot be used to defeat the enacting clauses of a statute, it can be treated as a
key for the interpretation of the statute, it summarizes the main objective and purpose of the Act,
providing insight into legislative intent. It's consulted when the language of the Act is unclear.

c. Headings and Title of a Chapter: Provide guidance for interpretation, especially in cases of
ambiguity. However, they don't override the clear language of provisions.
m. In Krishnaih V. State of (A.P. AIR 2005 AP 10) it was held that headings prefixed to sections
cannot control the plain words of the provisions. Only in the case of ambiguity or doubt, heading or
sub-heading may be referred to as an aid in construing provision.
In Durga Thathera v Narain Thathera, the court held that the headings are like a preamble which
helps as a key to the mind of the legislature but do not control the substantive section of the
enactment

d. Marginal Notes: Express the effect of sections but aren't considered part of the Act for
interpretation purposes. In Wilkes v Goodwin, the Court held that the side notes are not part of the
Act and hence marginal notes cannot be referred.

e. Definitional Sections/Clauses: Define terms within the Act to avoid repetition. Definitions from
other statutes aren't applicable.

f. Illustrations: Aid in understanding the scope of provisions, clarifying principles.

g. Proviso: Exceptions to the general language of the main enactment, construed harmoniously
with the main provision of the statute may be so clear that a proviso may be construed as a
substantive clause. But whether a proviso is construed as restricting the main provision or as a
substantive clause, it cannot be divorced from the provision to which it stands as a proviso. It must
be construed harmoniously with the main enactment.” [CIT vs. Ajax Products Ltd. (1964) 55 ITR
741 (SC)].

h. Explanations: Elaborate on the meaning of words in sections, integral to the main provision
they explain. The purpose of an Explanation is not to limit the scope of the main section. An
Explanation is quite different in nature from a proviso; the latter excludes, excepts and restricts
while the former explains, clarifies or subtracts or includes something by introducing a legal fiction

i. Schedules: Contain detailed information supporting the provisions but cannot override them.

j. Punctuation: Considered minor in interpretation, only significant when it clarifies meaning

without doubt.
These internal aids assist in interpreting statutes, providing context and clarity where needed.

EXTERNAL AIDS
When internal aids are insufficient, courts turn to external aids for interpreting statutes. These
external aids include parliamentary history, historical facts, and the circumstances surrounding
the enactment of the statute.

1. Historical context is relevant in interpreting statutes when the language is unclear or ambiguous.
This includes parliamentary history, such as the process of the bill's enactment, debates, and
proposed amendments. Historical facts surrounding the statute's creation provide insight into
whether it aimed to change existing law or maintain it. Statements of objectives and reasons for the
statute's introduction can be useful, although attaching them to the statute after extensive
amendments may be risky. Committee reports before presenting a bill guide legislative intent and
recommendations. The Supreme Court has referenced debates in the Constituent Assembly in
interpreting constitutional provisions in several cases.
Cases:
a. The Supreme Court in S.R. Chaudhuri v State of Punjab and others, (2001) 7 SCC 126 has
stated that it is a settled position that debates in the Constituent Assembly may be relied upon as
an aid to interpret a Constitutional provision because it is the function of the Court to find out
the intention of the framers of the Constitution. (Para 33)
b. In (K.S. Paripoornan v State of Kerala and others, AIR 1995 SC 1012) speeches in Parliament
are concerned, a distinction is made between speeches of the mover of the Bill and speeches of
other Members. Regarding speeches made by the Members of the Parliament at the time of
consideration of a Bill, it has been held that they are not admissible as extrinsic aids to the
interpretation of the statutory provision. However, speeches made by the mover of the Bill or
Minister may be referred to for the purpose of finding out the object intended to be achieved by
the Bill.
c. In (Devadoss (dead) by L. Rs, v. Veera Makali Amman Koil Athalur, AIR 1998 SC 750.) So
far as Statement of Objects and Reasons, accompanying a legislative bill is concerned, it is
permissible to refer to it for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the
surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute and the evil which the statute sought to
remedy. But, it cannot be used to ascertain the true meaning and effect of the substantive
provision of the statute.
d. The Supreme Court in Rosy and another v State of Kerala and others, (2000) 2 SCC 230
considered Law Commission of India, 41st Report for interpretation of section 200 (2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

2. Social, Political and Economic Developments and Scientific Inventions

Statutes must adapt to evolving circumstances and developments, including changes in social
conditions and technology, which may not have been anticipated at the time of their enactment.
Courts should consider these changes when interpreting statutory provisions. In the case of S.P.
Gupta v Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149), it was emphasized that statutory interpretation
should align with evolving societal values and needs. The law operates within a dynamic
context, and judges are tasked with creatively interpreting statutes to ensure they remain
relevant and effective in delivering justice.
In essence, the interpretation of statutes should not be rigid but should evolve alongside societal
progress. Judges must consider social, economic, political, and technological advancements that
occur after the enactment of a statute to ensure its provisions remain applicable and serve their
intended purpose.
3. Reference to Other Statutes
When two Acts need to be read together, each part of both Acts should be understood as if they
were part of a single combined Act. If there's a clear inconsistency between the two Acts, the
latter Act will prevail over the earlier one. If a provision from one Act is to be read into another,
it should be interpreted in the same way it was originally construed in the first Act. Even if only
a provision of the first Act is adopted, the entire first Act can be referred to or mentioned in the
second Act. Even after an old Act has been repealed, its provisions can still be considered when
interpreting unrepealed parts.
Courts can refer to other statutes for interpretation purposes, known as statutory aids. For
example, the General Clauses Act, 1897 serves as a statutory aid. This approach helps prevent
contradictions among statutes dealing with the same subject and allows earlier statutes to clarify
the meaning of phrases used in later statutes.
Dictionaries can be consulted when a word is not defined in the statute itself, to understand its
general meaning. However, the selected meaning should align with the scheme, context, and
legislative history of the statute.
Judicial decisions can also be referenced for interpretation, provided they are Indian decisions
or decisions from foreign jurisdictions with similar legal systems. Foreign decisions have
persuasive value but are not binding on Indian courts.
Courts may also use other materials such as internet information, textbooks, articles, and papers
from journals for interpretation. These external aids are valuable for understanding the object of
the statute, the problem it aims to solve, and the circumstances surrounding its enactment.
Without access to these external aids, courts may struggle to deliver justice effectively.