Module IV – Presumptions in Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation refers to the process of interpreting and understanding the meaning of
statutes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies. When engaging in statutory interpretation,
courts and legal scholars often rely on a set of presumptions or principles that guide their
analysis. These presumptions help in solving any ambiguities or uncertainties present in the
language of a statute and also help in understanding the legislative intent behind the
enactment of statutes. These presumptions also help in maintaining the rule of law and ensure
justice.

Presumption Regarding Statutes

a) Constitutionality – the presumption of constitutionality is a legal principle that guides the

interpretation of statutes. It presumes that the legislature, when enacting a law, intended for it
to be constitutional. In other words, courts start with the presumption that the lawmakers did
not intend to violate the constitution when passing legislation. This presumption places the
burden on those challenging the constitutionality of a statute to demonstrate that it infringes
upon constitutional principles. Courts generally give deference to the legislative branch,
presuming that elected representatives acted within their constitutional authority. When faced
with an ambiguous or unclear statute, courts often interpret it in a way that avoids
constitutional issues, if possible. This approach reflects a judicial inclination to uphold the
constitutionality of laws and avoid striking them down unless there is a clear and unavoidable
conflict with constitutional provisions. However, it’s important to note that the presumption
of constitutionality is not absolute. If the unconstitutionality of a statute is clearly
demonstrated, courts will not hesitate to declare it invalid. Additionally, the presumption may
be rebutted by strong evidence or arguments challenging the constitutionality of the law in
question. Overall, the presumption of constitutionality is a foundational concept in statutory
interpretation that reflects a commitment to upholding the legality of legislative actions
whenever possible.

b) Territorial Operation – the presumption regarding territorial operation in the

interpretation of statutes refers to the general principle that laws are presumed to apply only
within the territorial boundaries of the enacting jurisdiction unless there is clear language or
intent in the statute to indicate otherwise. This presumption is grounded in the idea that
legislatures typically have authority over their own territories and their laws are designed to
govern conduct within those borders.

Article 245(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no act made by parliament shall be
deemed invalid on the ground of having extra-territorial operation. Courts are obligated to
enforce such legislation. In the case of K.K. Kochari v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court
held that laws enacted by state legislatures apply within the boundaries of the respective
states. These laws can be challenged if they have an extra-territorial operation. This is
because Article 245(2) of the Indian Constitution empowers only the Union Parliament to
make laws with extra territorial application.

c) Interpretation of International Instruments and Presumption Against Violation of

International Law – Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India states that the State shall
endeavor to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of
organized peoples with one another.” It may be said that the distinction in Article 51(c)
between ‘international law’ and ‘treaty obligations’ is that the term ‘international law’ refers
to international customary law. The acceptance of such an approach would mean that
customary international law is not incorporated into Indian municipal law ipso facto. In
league with this approach is the contention that article 51(c) reduces the position of
international law in India to a mere directive principle.

Article 372(1) of the constitution provides that subject to the other provisions of the
Constitution, all the law in force in the territory of India immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or
amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. Thus, if there is any
irreconcilable conflict between a pre-Constitution law and a provision of the Constitution, the
latter shall prevail to that extent. The expression ‘law in force’ includes not only the
enactments of the Indian legislature, but also the common law of the land which was being
administered by the courts in India, including the rules of English common law. This leads to
the conclusion that the common law doctrine is applicable in India. Therefore, international
law is enforceable by Indian courts insofar as it is not inconsistent with any Indian statutory
law.

International Treaties – Article 51 of the Constitution embodies the object of India in the
international arena (Read the article). But it does not lay down that international treaties or
agreements entered into by India shall have the force of municipal law without appropriate
legislation. In other words, India’s obligations under an international treaty cannot be
enforced, unless such obligations are made part of the law of this country by means of
appropriate legislation. The question whether a particular treaty calls for an implementing
legislation would depend upon its subject matter. Legislation would be required to give effect
to a treaty:

a) where it provides for payment of money to a foreign power (Union of India v. Manmull
Jain)
b) where justiciable rights of the citizens or others are restricted or infringed (Maganbhai
Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India – AIR 1969 SC 783);
c) where laws of the State are modified (Maganbhai)

International treaties vis-à-vis Statute law – It is well-established in India that in case of

conflict between international treaties and clear and unambiguous statute law, courts will give
effect to statute law. If statute law is ambiguous, the courts adopt the doctrine of harmonious
construction so as to avoid conflict between international treaties and statute law. In other
words, Indian courts construe ambiguous statute law in the context of international treaties.

d) Presumption against ouster of Jurisdiction of Courts – the ordinary right of recourse to

the courts for the trial of any claim is one of the rights which is not to be curtailed except by
clear words. So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court in respect of the
issue of writs under the Constitution is concerned, it cannot be taken away by any form of
words. The general presumption is that ordinary courts of law namely the civil courts,
criminal courts, high courts and Supreme Court have jurisdiction over people. Any statute
which takes away the jurisdiction of ordinary courts must be rarely resorted to, as people
have the right to have free access to all the courts.
Jurisdiction of civil courts – the basic presumption of law is that all civil courts are
empowered to decide all suits of civil nature. The basis of this presumption is that civil and
criminal court have general jurisdiction over people and the people have the right to have free
access to both civil and criminal court.

Jurisdiction of other courts – The general presumption is that a statute should not be
interpreted in a way that removes the court's jurisdiction unless the statute's language is clear
and unambiguous. The authority of the court is granted by legislation, and only the legislation
itself can diminish that jurisdiction. If a statute explicitly bars the jurisdiction of a civil or
other court, the Act must outline sufficient alternative remedies. If the constitutionality of a
provision is to be contested, the only recourse is through a writ of certiorari. There is no
leniency for legislative provisions that strip courts of jurisdiction, as this leaves individuals
without a remedy. When jurisdiction is vested in a tribunal, it is presumed that Parliament
intends to grant the tribunal the authority to rectify decisions made by inferior tribunals.

e) Presumption against Retrospective Operation of Law – Legislatures possess the

authority to enact laws either retrospectively or prospectively, but when it comes to penal
statutes, creating offenses retrospectively is prohibited by Article 20(1) of the Indian
Constitution. The guiding principle is to interpret statutes to uphold vested rights, avoiding
changes to transactions already completed. There is a strong presumption against
retrospective application of statutes unless a contrary intention is explicitly stated. Courts
generally assume that statutes pertain to the future, not the past. Substantive rights and
liabilities are typically prospective unless specified otherwise, while procedural laws, when
created or amended, are usually retrospective, impacting ongoing legal actions. It is crucial to
include clear provisions in transitory provisions specifying the prospective or retrospective
application of the Act or amendments.

f) Presumption of Validity – In legal interpretation, there is a presumption that statutes are

valid and do not violate the Constitution. Laws enacted by the Parliament, State legislatures
or their subordinate bodies should adhere to constitutional boundaries and not contradict the
provisions and spirit of the Constitution. When faced with two possible interpretations, one
that upholds the constitutionality of the statute and another that renders it void, the
interpretation that preserves the constitutionality of the law should be followed. There is a
presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enacted law. If someone claims that a law
is unconstitutional, they must demonstrate a violation of constitutional boundaries. When the
validity of a statute passed by a competent legislature is challenged, the court assumes its
validity.

However, if the law appears arbitrary and discriminatory, the presumption of constitutionality
weakens. In cases of doubt regarding the constitutional validity of a law, the benefit of the
doubt should lean towards its constitutionality. The court should assume that the legislature
acted intentionally and expressed its intention appropriately in the law. Every word used by
the legislature carries significance and unless it is proven that the legislation has crossed
constitutional limits, it is presumed to be constitutionally valid. When statutory language can
be interpreted in multiple ways, the statute should be construed in a manner that upholds its
constitutional validity and avoids any doubts about its constitutionality. This is the rule of
harmonious construction and applies even to bylaws and constitutional amendments.