THEORIES OF

INTERPRETATION
 A. TEXTUALISM

focuses on the words and phrases of the statute and de- emphasizes the
role of the reader (usually, the judge) in creating meaning
Aligned with the plain meaning rule
Claimed to produce an “objective” and apolitical interpretation of
statutes by limiting their analysis to an investigation of plain meaning
Eg. Literal interpretation of market share in Jet-Etihad merger
 B. INTENTIONALISM

focuses on the meaning that the legislature intended to give the statute
Uses tools that are helpful for determining the will or intent of the
enacting legislature
imaginative reconstruction of legislative intent
Eg. Legislative intent in case of Selvi (expansion of scope of right under
art 21)
 C. PRAGMATISM

focuses on the role of the reader in giving meaning to the statute

by interpreting it
assumes that there is no single, objectively correct meaning of a
statute
reluctant to claim that a single plain meaning exists for a statute

Eg. – Mischief Rule in P.V. Narsimha Rao case

 D. CONTEXTUALISM

This theory is a middle way between textualism and

intentionalism.
It requires the Judge to apply and interpret the law while
considering the context and how is the decision likely to affect
future cases.
The SC considering the context in Puttuswamy case and
upholding right to privacy as a fundamental right