A GUIDE TO

READING,
INTERPRETING AND
APPLYING STATUTES
RULES OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION
 “the essence of law lies in the spirit, not
its letter, for the letter is significant only as
being the external manifestation of the
intention that underlies it”

By Salmond
BACKGROUND*
 A statute is a will of legislature conveyed in the form of text
 Interpretation is the method by which the true sense or the
meaning of the word is understood.
 The meaning of an ordinary word of the English language is
not a question of law.
 The proper construction of a statute is a question of law.
 The purpose of the interpretation of the statute is to unlock
the locks put by the legislature. For such unlocking, keys are
to be found out.
 These keys may be termed as aids for interpretation and
principles of interpretation.
MEANING & BACKGROUND*
 SALMOND – “interpretation or construction is meant, the
process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of
the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in
which it is expressed.”
 The importance of avoiding literal interpretation was also
stressed in various ancient text books –
“Merely following the texts of the law, decisions are not to
be rendered, for, if such decisions are wanting in equity, a
gross failure of Dharma is caused.”
NEED FOR STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION*
 Broad terms
 Bad drafting
 Complexity of statutes in regards to the nature of the
subject,
 numerous draftsmen
 the blend of legal and technical language 
 Unforeseeable developments
 Changes in the use of language (use of the word
‘reasonable’)
BEFORE WE BEGIN…

“READ THE STATUTE,

READ THE STATUTE,
READ THE STATUTE”

Felix Frankfurter,
Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes,
47 Colum. L. Rev. 527 (1947).
TOOLS TO DETERMINE THE
MEANING
 I. PLAIN MEANING RULE
 words of a statute mean what an “ordinary” or
“reasonable” person would understand them to
mean.

 One should begin with “primary sources” (i.e., the

statute itself, case law, administrative regulations)
before looking beyond to “secondary sources” (i.e.,
dictionaries, legal encyclopedias).
II. WHOLE ACT RULE
 term or phrase should be interpreted in a consistent manner if
used multiple times in a statute
 statutes drafted in a way that is “internally consistent in its use
of language and in the way its provisions work together”
 Means to apply the rule -
a. Preambles and Purpose Clauses
b. Rule to Avoid Surplusage - an interpretation that would
render a word or phrase redundant or meaningless should be
rejected
c. Presumption of Consistent Usage - same meaning is implied
by the use of the same expression in every part of the Act
ILLUSTRATION
 For example, the Securities Act of 1933 defines the term “prospectus” as
“any prospectus, notice, circular, advertisement, letter, or
communication, written or by radio or television, which offers any
security for sale or confirms the sale of any security.”

 If the term “communication” was interpreted to include any type of

written communication, the words “notice, circular, advertisement, letter”
would serve no independent purpose in the statute.

 However, if “communication” were interpreted to include oral statements

made through radio or television, then all the words in this section of the
statute would contribute something to it’s meaning, and none would
considered “surplusage.”
III. CONTEXT / RULE OF
LANGUAGE
 Using contextual clues to interpret the meaning or
scope of a particular word or phrase.
 For example, one could argue that a statute that
prohibits “any horse, mule, cattle, hog, sheep, or
goat” from running upon lands enclosed by a
fence does not apply to turkeys because the
statute does not explicitly proscribe turkeys.
 How to Apply Context Rule
A. Noscitur a Sociis (it is known from its associates) - meaning
of an ambiguous term by reference to the words associated
with it.
 A word is known by the company it keeps. The words must be
looked at in the context and interpreted accordingly.
 This involves considering other words in the same section or
other sections of the Act.
 In the case of Muir v Keay (1875) LR 10 QB 594, the purpose
of licensing theatrical or musical entertainment did not fall
within the words of the Act covering houses ‘for public
refreshment, resort and entertainment’, because the word
‘entertainment’ in the Act referred to refreshment houses,
receptions and accommodation of the public.
B. Ejusdem Generis (of the same kind, class, or
nature) – general words following specific words
to be construed as per the latter.
 This rule states that where there is a list of words
which is followed by general words then the
general words are limited to the same kind of
items as the specific words.
 In the case of Powell v Kempton (1899) AC
143, a ring at a racecourse was held not to fall
within the terms ‘house, office, room or other
place’ because the list of words indicated that
‘other place’ should be construed as an indoor
place.
C. Expressio unius (Inclusion of one thing implies
the exclusion of the other)- if a word excluded,
statute may be interpreted not to apply to terms
that have been excluded from the statute.
 Where there is a list of words which is not
followed by general words, then the Act applies
only to the items in the list.
 In the case of R v Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831)
the use of the words ‘lands, houses and coalmines’
excluded application to other types of mine.
RULE COUNTER RULE
1. If the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous 1. UNLESS a literal interpretation would lead to absurd or
it must be given effect mischievous consequences or thwart the manifest purpose

2. IF the terms of the statute have received judicial 2. UNLESS the statute clearly requires them to have a different
construction before enactment the terms should be meaning
understood according to that construction

3. Every word and clause must be given effect 3. UNLESS inadvertently inserted into the statute or if repugnant to
the rest of the statute, certain words may be rejected as
“surplussage”

4. Words are to be interpreted according to the proper 4. UNLESS strict adherent to the rules of grammar would defeat the
grammatical effect of their arrangement within the purpose of the statute
statute

5. A statute cannot go beyond its text 5. To effect the purpose of the statute, the statute may be
implemented beyond its text
Term Function
• Unless • These terms usually signify an exception to the
• Except statute
•
•
COMMONLY USED WORDS
Subject to…
Within the meaning of
• These terms may limit the scope of the statute, or
may indicate that a certain part of the statute is
• For the purposes of controlled or limited by anther section or statute

• If…then… • Generally, these terms indicate that for one part

• Upon of a statute to take effect, a precondition or
• Before/After requirement must be satisfied
• Provided that…

• Notwithstanding • Literally, “In spite of,” this term usually signifies

that a certain term or provision is not controlled
or limited by other parts of the statute, or by
other statutes

• Each/Only • These terms commonly limit the class of objects

• Every/Any/All that are either included in or excluded from the
statute
SOME HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS
a. Look for Cross-references in other statutes
b. Be Mindful of Commonly Used Terms
I. AND v. OR
II. MAY v. SHALL (discretion v. mandate)
RULES OF INTERPRETATION
1. Literal
2. Golden
3. Mischief

4. Purposive approach
1. LITERAL
INTERPRETATION*
 Giving words their plain, ordinary, dictionary
meaning
 Concentrates on what the Parliament has said
 Role of the judge is to apply law – not to make it
 Use of external and internal aids to interpretation
 INTERNAL – present within the Statute (statement of
reason, title, explanation)
 EXTERNAL – not expressly a part of the Statute
(legislative history, legal dictionaries)
R v Harris (1836) 7 C & P 446*
 The defendant bit off his victim's nose.
 The statute made it an offence 'to stab, cut or wound' the
court held that under the literal rule the act of biting did
not come within the meaning of stab cut or wound as
these words implied an instrument had to be used.
 Therefore the defendant's conviction was quashed.
 Whitely v Chappel (1868) LR 4 QB 147*
A statute made it an offence 'to impersonate any person
entitled to vote.'
 The defendant used the vote of a dead man.
 The statute relating to voting rights required a person to
be living in order to be entitled to vote. 
 Held: The literal rule was applied and the defendant was
thus acquitted since a dead person is not (in the literal
meaning) not “entitled to vote”
 London and North Eastern Railway v
Berriman [1946] AC 278*
 A railway worker was killed whilst oiling the track.
 No look out man had been provided.
 A statute provided compensation payable on death for those
'relaying or repairing' the track.
 Under the literal rule oiling did not come into either of these
categories.
 This result although very harsh could not to be said to be
absurd so the golden rule was not applied.
 There was no ambiguity in the words therefore the mischief
rule was not applied.
 Unfortunately the widow was entitled to nothing.
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
 The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his
shop window with a price tag on it.
 Statute made it a criminal offence to 'offer' such
flick knives for sale.
 His conviction was quashed as goods on display in
shops are not 'offers' in the technical sense but an
invitation to treat.
 The court applied the literal rule of statutory
interpretation.
 P.V. NARSIMHA RAO V. STATE AIR 1998 SC 2120*
 Congress party secured the majority in 1991 elections and formed a government under
Narsimha Rao.
 Subsequently a no-confidence motion was brought against the said government in Lok
Sabha.
 It was short of 14 votes to qualify the No-Confidence motion by simple majority, which
was overcome later.
 It was later disclosed that the members of Jharkhand MuktiMorcha were bribed into
voting in favor of the Congress government in the Parliament.
 SC - . Immunity given under Article 105(2) squarely covered the facts in question.
Accordingly, bribe-takers who had voted against the no-confidence motion were immune
from prosecution but the bribe-givers had no such immunity. The reasoning was that an
MP who takes bribes and votes in pursuance of the bribe “in respect" of his vote in
Parliament cannot be prosecuted.
 This interpretation led to an absurd conclusion that where a Member voted in pursuant to
a bribe taken by him, he couldn’t be prosecuted in a court of law but where he had taken
a bribe to vote in a particular manner, but did not cast the vote, he could be prosecuted as
no nexus between the vote and the bribe taken by him could be established. 
Advantages of Literal Rule*
 Recognises Parliament as the supreme law maker and
prevents unelected judges making law
 It also encourages precision in drafting and ensures that
anyone who can read English can determine the law, which
promotes certainty and reduces litigation.
 people know where they stand because the words remain
unchanged.
 Lead to quick decisions because the answer can be found by
referring the bare law.
 Restricts the role of the judge and provides no scope for
judges to use their own opinions or prejudices
 Upholds the separation of powers.
 Disadvantages of Literal rule*
 Can lead to unfair / unjust decisions like London and North Eastern
Railway v Berriman.
 Can lead to contradictory interpretation with respect to Statute
 Creates awkward precedents which require Parliamentary time to
correct
 Fails to recognise the complexities and limitations of English language
; same word having differing meanings across different laws.
 Undermines public confidence in the law
 Not possible to word an Act so as to cover every situation thus creating
loopholes.
 Little discretion to the judges to adapt the law to changing times
 There can be disagreement as to what amounts to the ordinary or
natural meaning.
 2.GOLDEN RULE*
 The term "golden rule" seems to have originated in an 1854 court
ruling, and implies a degree of enthusiasm for this particular rule of
construction over alternative rules that has not been shared by all
subsequent judges.
 The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be
given their ordinary meaning.
 Modification of literal rule
 The golden rule allows a judge to depart from a word's normal
meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.
 NARROW – if a word is ambiguous the judge may choose between
possible meanings of the word in order to avoid an absurd outcome.
 WIDER – where there is only one meaning, but would lead to an
absurd / repugnant situation, which is obnoxious to principles of
public policy.
 Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Stock v. Frank Jones
(Tipton) Ltd. [1978] 1 W.L.R. 231, at p. 235 added
a new caveat –
“Nowadays we should add to 'natural and ordinary
meaning' the words 'in their context and according
to the appropriate linguistic register.”

 Prisoner’s escape example.

R v. Sigsworth (1935)*

A son murdered his mother and then committed

suicide.
 The courts were required to rule on who then inherited
the estate: the mother's family, or the son's descendants.
 The mother had not made a will and under the
Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be
inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son.
Ruling in Sigworth*
 There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the
court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered
his mother benefit from his crime.
 It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that
the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant
situation of a murderer benefitting from his crime .
 court used golden rule to prevent a repugnant situation of
a criminal benefitting from his crime.
 There was never a question of the son profiting from his
crime, but as the outcome would have been binding on
lower courts in the future, the court found in favour of the
mother's family.
Adler v George (1964*)
 Under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, it
was an offence to obstruct HM Forces in the vicinity
of a prohibited place.
 Mr Frank Adler had in fact been arrested whilst
obstructing such forces within such a prohibited place
(Markham Royal Air Force Station, Norfolk).
 He argued that he was not in the vicinity of a
prohibited place as he was actually in a prohibited
place.
Ruling in Adler*
 The court applied the golden rule to extend the
literal wording of the statute to cover the action
committed by the defendant.
 If the literal rule had been applied, it would have
produced absurdity, as someone protesting near the
base would be committing an offence whilst
someone protesting in it would not.
R. v. Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367*
 The defendant was charged with the offence of
bigamy under s.57 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861.
 The statute states 'whosoever being married shall
marry any other person during the lifetime of the
former husband or wife is guilty of an offence'.
Ruling in Allen*
 The court applied the golden rule and held that the word
'marry' should be interpreted as 'to go through a marriage
ceremony'. The defendant's conviction was upheld.

 Under a literal interpretation of this section the offence

would be impossible to commit since civil law will not
recognise a second marriage any attempt to marry in
such circumstances would not be recognised as a valid
marriage.
Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Brij
Kishore AIR 1981 SC 1656*

 The Supreme Court held that the expression “landless person” used in
section 14 of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 which made provision for
grant of land to landless persons, was limited to “landless laborers”.
 A landless labourer is he who is engaged in agriculture but having no
agricultural land.
 The Court further said that “any landless person” did not include a
landless businessman residing in a city.
 The object of the Act was to implement the Bhoodan movement, which
aimed at distribution of land to landless labourers who were verged in
agriculture.
 A businessman, though landless cannot claim the benefit of the Act.
Advantages of golden Rule*
 Courts can alter the wording and make sense of
absurd / repugnant wording
 Incorporates changes in law / technology
 Errors in drafting can be corrected immediately
eg: R v Allen (1872)
 Decisions are generally more in line with
Parliament's intention
  Closes loopholes
  Often gives a more just result
  Brings common sense to the law
 Disadvantages of Golden Rule*
 No guidelines hence can be arbitrary
 Applicable in very limited circumstances
 Judges have no power to intervene for pure injustice where
there is no absurdity 
 The golden rule provides no clear means to test the existence
or extent of an absurdity. It seems to depend on the result of
each individual case. Whilst the golden rule has the
advantage of avoiding absurdities, It is limited in scope and
there is no definition or test / measurement for an absurdity.
 Judges are able to add or change the meaning of statutes and
thereby become law makers infringing the separation of
powers.eg. - London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman
 3. MISCHIEF RULE*
Heydon’s case (1584)
 Ottery, a religious college, gave a tenancy in a manor also called “Ottery” to a man
(named in the case report simply as "Ware") and his son.
 The tenancy was established by copyhold, an ancient device for giving a parcel of a
manor to a tenant, usually in return for agricultural services, which was something like a
long-running lease with special privileges for each party.
 Ware and his son held their copyhold to have for their lives, subject to the will of the lord
and the custom particular to that manor.
 The Wares’ copyhold was in a parcel also occupied by some tenants at will. Later, the
college then leased the same parcel to another man, named Heydon, for a period of eighty
years in return for rents equal to the traditional rent for the components of the parcel.
 Less than a year after the parcel had been leased to Heydon, Parliament enacted the Act of
Dissolution, that dissolved many religious colleges, including Ottery College, which lost
its lands and rents to Henry VIII.
 However, a provision the Act kept in force, for a term of life, any grants made more than a
year prior to the enactment of the statute.
 The Court of Exchequer found that the grant to the Wares was protected by the relevant
provision of the Act of Dissolution, but that the lease to Heydon was void.
 Significance of Heydon’s case
 The ruling was based on an important discussion of the
relationship of a statute to the pre-existing common law.
 The court concluded that the purpose of the statute was
to cure a mischief resulting from a defect in the
common law.
 Therefore, the court concluded, the remedy of the
statute was limited to curing that defect.
 Judges are supposed to construe statutes by seeking the
true intent of the makers of the Act, which is presumed
to be pro bono publico, or intent for the public good.
 The court in Heydon’s held that –
“For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in
general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or
enlarging of the common law), four things are to be
discerned and considered:
i. What was the common law before the making of the
Act?
ii. What was the mischief and defect for which the
common law did not provide?
iii. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and
appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth?
iv. The true reason of the remedy; & The core principle
of the last of is.
 Corkery v Carpenter (1951)
 At about 2.45 p.m. on 18 January 1950, the defendant was drunk and
was pushing his pedal bicycle along Broad Street in Ilfracombe.
 He was subsequently charged under section 12 of the Licensing Act
1872 with being drunk in charge of a carriage.
 The 1872 Act made no actual reference to bicycles. The court elected to
use the mischief rule to decide the matter.
 The purpose of the Act was to prevent people from using any form of
transport on a public highway whilst in a state of intoxication.
 Shane Corkery was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for being
drunk in charge of a bicycle in public.
 The bicycle was clearly a form of transport and therefore the user was
correctly charged.
 Smith v. Hughes (1960)*
 Street offences Act, 1959 (section 1(1)) –

“it shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the
purpose of prostitution”

 The issue came up about the women on private balconies and behind private windows touting for
business?

 The defendants were calling to men in the street from balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed
they were not guilty as they were not in the "street."
 The judge applied the mischief rule to come to the conclusion that they were guilty as the intention of
the Act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes.

 House of Lords – the mischief to be cleared by the Act was to clean up the streets, to enable people to
walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes.
 Viewed in that way, it can matter little whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street or is
standing in a doorway or on a balcony, or at a window, or whether the window is shut or open or half
open; in each case her solicitation is projected to and addressed to somebody walking in the street.

 Viewed in this way, it mattered little if the prostitute was soliciting while in the street or standing in a
doorway / balcony / window.
 DPP v Bull [1995] QB 88*
 A man was charged with an offence under s.1(1) of the Street Offences
Act 1959 which makes it an offence for a 'common prostitute to loiter or
solicit in a public street or public place for the purposes of prostitution'.
 The magistrates found him not guilty on the grounds that 'common
prostitute' only related to females and not males. The prosecution
appealed by way of case stated.
 The court held that the Act did only apply to females. The word
prostitute was ambiguous and they applied the mischief rule.
 The Street Offences Act was introduced as a result of the work of the
Wolfenden Report into homosexuality and prostitution.
 The Report only referred to female prostitution and did not mention male
prostitutes.
 The QBD therefore held the mischief the Act was aimed at was
controlling the behaviour of only female prostitutes.
 Ohison v. Hylton[1975]
 A carpenter was on his way home from work. He boarded a train which was crowded. Another
passenger objected and subsequently both finished up on the platform.
 The defendant, the carpenter, took one of his tools of his trade, a hammer, from his briefcase and
struck the other man with it.
 He was charged under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Lord Widgery, CJ, said, inter alia: “This
is a case in which the mischief at which the statute is aimed appears to me to be very clear.
 Immediately prior to the passing of the 1953 Act the criminal law was adequate to deal with the
actual use of weapons in the course of a criminal assault.
 Where it was lacking, however, was that the mere carrying of offensive weapons was not an
offence. The long title of the Act reads as follows:
  ‘An Act to prohibit the carrying of offensive weapons in public places without lawful authority or
reasonable excuse’.
 Parliament is there recognizing the need for preventive justice where, by preventing the carriage of
offensive weapons in a public place, it reduced the opportunity for the use of such weapons.
 If, however, the prosecutor is right, the scope goes far beyond the mischief aimed at, and in every
case where an assault is committed with a weapon and in a public place an offence under the 1953
Act can be charged in addition to the charge of assault.
 Bengal immunity co. v State of Bihar
AIR 1955 SC 661
 The appellant company was an incorporated company carrying on the business of
manufacturing and selling various sera, vaccines, biological products and medicines. Its
registered head office was at Calcutta and its laboratory and factory were in West Bengal.
 It was registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act.
 Its products had extensive sales throughout the Union of India and abroad. The goods are
dispatched from Calcutta by rail, steamer or air against orders accepted by the appellant
company in Calcutta.
 Issue was whether the tax threatened to be levied on the sales made by the appellant
company and implemented by delivery in the circumstances and manner mentioned in its
petition was leviable by the State of Bihar; even though it was expressly barred under art.
286.
 This was even though the appellant company neither had any agent or manager in Bihar
nor any office, godown or laboratory in Bihar.
 SC - State of Bihar was ordered to abstain from imposing sales tax on out-of-State
dealers in respect of sales or purchases that have taken place in the course of inter-State
trade or commerce even though the goods have been delivered as a direct result of such
sales or purchases for consumption in Bihar.
 Advantages of Mischief Rule*
 The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and
the golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament's intent.
 In a common law jurisdiction, the existence of precedent and the knock-on
effects of construing a statute prevent misuse of the rule;
 The Law Commission sees it as a far more satisfactory way of interpreting acts
as opposed to the Golden or Literal rules;
 It usually avoids unjust or absurd results in sentencing;
 It is consistent with parliament sovereignty.
 This rule gives the court justification for going behind the actual wording of the
statute in order to consider the problem that the particular statute was aimed at
remedying.
 At one level it is clearly the most flexible rule of interpretation, but it is limited
to using previous common law to determine what mischief the Act in question
was designed to remedy.
 Closes loopholes.
 allows the law to develop and adapt to changing needs
Disadvantages of Mischief rule*
 It can be argued that this undermines Parliament's supremacy and is
undemocratic as it takes law-making decisions away from the legislature. It is
seen to be out of date as it has been in use since the 16th century, when
common law was the primary source of law and parliamentary supremacy was
not established;
 It gives too much power to the unelected judiciary which is argued to be
undemocratic;
 In the 16th century, the judiciary would often draft acts on behalf of the king
and were therefore well qualified in what mischief the act was meant to
remedy. This is not often the case in modern legal systems;
 The rule can make the law uncertain.
 Judges can bring their own views, sense of morality and prejudices to a case
eg Smith v Hughes.
 Creates a crime after the event.
 4. PURPOSIVE RULE*
 Ascertain the purpose of the Act
 Purposive interpretation was introduced as a form of
replacement for the mischief rule, the plain meaning
rule and the golden rule to determine cases. 
 The purposive approach is an approach
to statutory and constitutional inter-pretation under which
common law courts interpret an enactment (that is, a
statute, a part of a statute, or a clause of a constitution) in
light of the purpose for which it was enacted.
 What was the Parliament hoping to achieve?
 Purposive interpretation is exercised when the courts utilize
extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation,
including early drafts, committee reports, etc. The purposive
interpretation involves a rejection of the exclusionary rule.
 It involves looking for the intention of Parliament and allows for
judicial law making.
 Here the court is not just looking to see what the gap was in the
old law, it is making a decision as to what they felt Parliament
meant to achieve.
 Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal stated in Magor and St.
Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation (1950),
‘we sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and of
ministers and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the
gaps and making sense of the enactment by opening it up to
destructive analysis’.
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR
1978 SC 597)* 
 Petitioner was  asked to surrender her passport under section 10(3)(c ) of the Act in public
interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter. 
 Issue was whether right to go abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.
 The Supreme Court widened the protection of life and liberty contemplated by Article 21 of
the Constitution by applying purposive interpretation.
 The expression “personal liberty” in Article 21 was interpreted broadly to engulf a variety of
rights within itself. The court further observed that the fundamental rights should be
interpreted in such a manner so as to expand its reach and ambit rather than to concentrate its
meaning and content by judicial construction.
 Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in
accordance with procedure established by law but that does not mean that a mere semblance
of procedure provided by law will satisfy the Article , the procedure should be just , fair and
reasonable. 
 Court also observed that law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of
“personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Article 14 and 19 .
Alembic Chemical Works vs. Workmen AIR
1961*
 An industrial tribunal awarded more number of
paid leaves to the workers than what Section 79(1)
of Factories Act recommended.
 This was challenged by the appellant.
 The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the
enactment being the welfare of the workers, it had
to be beneficially constructed in the favour of
worker and thus, if the words are capable of two
meanings, the one that gives benefit to the workers
must be used.
U.Unichoyi vs. State of Kerala, 1963*
 the question was whether setting of a minimum wage
through Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is violative of
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution because the Act did
not define what is minimum wage and did not take into
account the capacity of the employer to pay.
 It was held that the Act is a beneficial legislation and it
must be construed in favour of the worker. In an under
developed country where unemployment is rampant, it
is possible that workers may become ready to work for
extremely low wages, which is discouraged under the
law.
R vs. Bentham (2003)
D robbed A, whom he believed owed him money. A was still
in bed. The defendant pointed his finger, covered by his jacket
at A and demanded “every penny in the house”.  A believed his
fingers were a gun.
 Held: A purposive approach had to be adopted.  Section 17 of
the Firearms Act 1968 was clearly designed to protect the
victim confronted with what he thought was a firearm. It did
not matter whether it was a plastic gun or a biro or simply
anorak material stiffened by a figure.
 If it had the appearance of a firearm the jury were entitled to
find the offence made out.
Mendoza v. Ghaidan (2004)*
 Gay partners living together

 Rent Act allowed only one partner to inherit the

other’s tenancy if they were “living together as
man and wife”
 Gay partner to be kicked out as he was gay Words
“living together as man and wife” were re-read as
“living together as if they were man and wife”
 This was done to make the Rent Act compatible
with Human Rights
Advantages of Purposive Rule*
 It is a flexible approach which allows judges to
develop the law in line with Parliament's intention
 It allows judges to cope with situations unforeseen
by Parliament
 It allows the law to develop to cover advances in
medical science
 It allows the courts to give effect to treaty Directives
and obligations.
 Broader in its appriach.
Disadvantages of Purposive Rule*
 Judges are given too much power to develop the law and
usurping the power of Parliament
 Judges become law makers infringing the Separation of
Powers (Montesquieu)
 There is scope for judicial bias in deciding what
Parliament intended
 It assumes Parliament has one intention and ignores the
fact that Parliament is divided on party lines
 In order to determine the Parliament’s intent, it may lead
to prolonged examination of irrelevant material by
lawyers which adds to the cost and length of litigation