Presumption against Intending

Injustice
- The Intention of Legislature is not to cause
inconvenience or injustice.
- But if injustice flows from literal or
grammatical construction, it cannot be a
ground for disregarding the meaning.
- The plain intention of the legislature is to be
derived from the language employed which
should be accepted and given effect to
- If the language admits of no secondary
meaning, it is to be obeyed. Injustice, hardship
or Inconvenience is no consideration.
- However unjust, arbitary or inconvenient the
meaning conveyed may be, it must be receive
its full effect.
- If there is a possibility of unjust results by one
interpretation the court may adopt alternative
construction if it is reasonably possible.
- Whenever the language of a provision is
susceptible to 2 constructions, one leading to
obvious injustice, the courts acts upon the view
that such a result could not have been intended
and prefer that which ends in the furtherance of
the object.
- The object of the statute rather than the one
would frustrate it.
 Case Laws
1. In State of M.P v Narmada Bachao Andolan
The Apex Court held :-
- That the court has to interpret a provision giving it a
construction agreeable to reason and justice to all
parties concerned, avoiding injustice,
irrationationality and mischievous consequences.
- Interpretation must not produce unworkable,
impracticable results or cause unnecessary
hardship ,serious inconvenience or anomaly.
- The court must also keep in mind object of
legislation.