PLAIN STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN CHANGED SOCIAL CONTEXT

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
INTERPRETATION WHERE LANGUAGE IS PLAIN ---------------------------------------- 5
CRITICISM OF PLAIN MEANING RULE ------------------------------------------------------------ 6
CHANGED SOCIAL CONTEXT AND TRENDS IN INTERPRETATION ------------------ 7
ARTICLE 21 AND RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD -------------------------------------------------- 8
ARTICLE 21 AND RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE ---------------------------------------------- 9
ARTICLE 21 AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT ---------------------------------------------- 10
ARTICLE 21 AND CLEAN ENVIRONMENT: --------------------------------------------- 11
CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my heartfelt gratitude to my teacher, Prof. Prabhat Saha, for his
constant support and guidance. It would not have been possible for me to
complete this task without his encouragement.

I am also thankful to almighty God.

3
INTRODUCTION

Settled principles of interpretation suggest that where language is plain, courts

must give effect to it as it is with grammatical precision. These principles are
vulnerable to criticism because of their inability to reconcile with absurd and
unjust results, which sometimes arise. Thus, in many situations departure from
this rule is desirable so as to prevent unjust or absurd results.

The need to depart from this rule may happen by reason of change in social,
economic, or political circumstances, or because of the literal construction not
being in consonance with the intention or objectives of the legislature. The
projects deals with plain interpretation and its departure due to change in social
context.

4
INTERPRETATION WHERE LANGUAGE IS PLAIN
Where language is plain, the words of a statue must prima facie be given their
ordinary meaning.1 Where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest
and without doubt, that construction ought to prevail unless there be some
strong or obvious reason to the contrary.2 Where there is no ambiguity in the
language of the statute, there is need of construction.3 Where the language is
plain there is no need to look into the legislative intent. Pollock CB, observed
in Miller v Salmons If the meaning of the language be plain and clear, we
have nothing to do but to obey it- to administer it as we find it. Hence, if the
language is plain and clear the courts duty is only to give effect to the language
of the statute, because such language best declares the intention of the law-
makers and is decisive of it. Lord Waston, in Mc Cowan V Baine4 said:

It is to be remembered that the authors of the document could always have put
in the necessary words if they had thought fit. If they did not, it was because
they thought of the matter and did not, or because they did not think of the
matter. In neither case should the court do it. In the first case it would be to
make a provision opposed to the intention of the framers of the document, and
in the latter to make a provision not in contemplation of these framers.

In Nolon V Clifford5, Connor J observed:

The first and most important rule in the construction of statutes is to give effect
to words according to their grammatical meaning. If that meaning is clear, then,
whether an alteration is made in common or statute or not, and whether of a

1
Nokes V Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries [1940] AC 1014, p 1022
2
State of UP vs. Vijay Anand Mohanraj AIR 1963 SC 946
3
Yates V. United States 1 Ed 2nd 1365, p 1387
4
[1891] AC 401, p 409
5
4 Ch D 395, p 405

5
serious character or not, is of no moment, effect must be given to the words the
legislature has used.

It is probable, sometimes, that a statute is badly drafted and does not express the
real intention of the legislature, but that is a matter with which the court is not
concerned.

There have been a number of judgments ,with varying observations, regarding

the question whether there can be departure from the plain language if literal
construction is inconsonant with any of objectives of statues, causes hardship
etc. But, in certain cases it is settled that there can be departure from the literal
construction if it defeats the manifest purpose of the enactment, causes unjust
results, leads to absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency. The courts are not
bound to adhere to the same meaning in the same sense if it is necessary to
interpret differently in the surrounding conditions.

Criticism of Plain Meaning Rule

This is the oldest of the rules of construction and is still used today, primarily
because judges may not legislate. As there is always the danger that a particular
interpretation may be the equivalent of making law, some judges prefer to
adhere to the law's literal wording.

Opponents of the plain meaning rule claim that the rule rests on the erroneous
assumption that words have a fixed meaning. In fact, words are imprecise,
leading justices to impose their own prejudices to determine the meaning of a
statute. However, since little else is offered as an alternative discretion-
confining theory, plain meaning survives.

The absurdity doctrine is a legal theory especially in American courts. In law,

strictly literal interpretations of statutes can lead to seemingly absurd results.
The Doctrine of Absurdity holds that commonsense interpretations should be
preferred in such cases, rather than literal readings. Under the Absurdity

6
doctrine, courts have interpreted statutes contrary to their plain meaning in order
to avoid absurd legal conclusions.

CHANGED SOCIAL CONTEXT AND TRENDS IN

INTERPRETATION
To assure that grammatical construction does not cause unjust/absurd result etc.,
it is imperative to interpret the provisions in the light of changing societal,
political, economic and cultural dimensions, as the static vision of statutory
interpretation prescribed by traditional doctrine is strikingly outdated, it imposes
unrealistic burdens on judges, asking them to extract textual meaning that
makes sense in the present from historical materials whose sense is often
impossible to recreate faithfully.6 Statutory interpretation is the process of
understanding a text created in the past and applying it to a present problem.

I would continue the study of this theme in the light of monumental

developments done in the field of Indian Constitutional, specifically pertaining
to Articles 21 of the Indian Constitution. Over the period of the time the
Supreme Court has interpreted the right to life and personal liberty in a manner
in which it has given various dimensions to the meaning of life.

The Supreme Court has asserted that in order to treat a right as a fundamental
right, it is not necessary that it should be expressly stated in the Constitution as
a fundamental right. Political , social and economic changes in the country
entail recognition of new rights. The law in its eternal youth grows to meet the
demands of the society.7 The right to life has been liberally interpreted so as to
give a meaning to it which is more than mere existence. Even though the
provision is worded in a negative sense, it has been ascribed a positive meaning
by creative interpretation given by the apex court. The main areas have been, in

6
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3967&context=penn_law_review
7
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis, 7th Edition.

7
maintenance and improvement of public health, providing humane conditions in
prisons and protective homes, improvement of environment.

The Supreme Court has through its judgments given a wide meaning to Article
21, and has thus activated many Directive Principles which are as such not
enforceable. The Supreme Court in Francis Coralie v. Adminstrator, UT of
Delhi8 observed:

But the question which arises is whether the right to life is limited only to
protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something more.
We think that the right to life includes right to live with human dignity and all
that goes along with it, viz.the bare necessitites of lifesuch as adequate nutrition,
clothing and shelter over the head and facilities of reading, writing, and
expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving abiut and mixing and
mingling with fellow human beings.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha V Union of India, the SC held to live with human
dignity, free from exploitation. It includes protection of health and strength of
workers, men and women, and of tender age of the children against
abuse,..........there are minimum conditions which must exist in order to enable a
person to live with human dignity. No government can take any action to
deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic rights.

ARTICLE 21 and RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

The Supreme Court was originally of the view that right to life does not include
right to livelihood, in many cases including re Sant Ram9, Nachane V UOI10etc.
The court opined that the word life does not include livelihood, the question of
livelihood is not to be included in the domain of Article 21.

8
AIR 1981 SC 746 at 753
9
AIR 1960 SC 932
10
AIR 1982 SC 1126

8
But the view of the court underwent a change in the light of changing societal
needs. In Olga Tellis Vs. BMC11, pavement dweller approached the Court to
resist eviction from their habitat by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The
Supreme Court observed that right to life includes right to livelihood, the sweep
of Art. 21 is broad enough to include right to livelihood in its domain. Because
if right to livelihood is not considered a part of right to life, then the easiest way
of depriving a person of his life would be by depriving him of his livelihood.
That , observed the court, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside
what makes it liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of right to
life.

ARTICLE 21 and RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE

In Pamanand Katara vs UOI12, Supreme Court dealt with a very serious
problem pertaining to medico-legal arena, in which doctors refused to treat
patients until the legal formalities were completed. In many cases injured person
succumbed or sustained irreversible damage. The SC has made its intent very
clear by stating that once life is lost, it cannot be regained. It has thus cast an
obligation on state to preserve the life of patients. The court observed:

A doctor at government hospital positioned to meet this state obligation is

therefore, duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving life. Every
doctor whether at Government hospital or otherwise is under professional
obligation to extend his service for protecting life. No law or State action can
intervene to avoid the discharge of paramount obligation cast upon members of
medical profession.

In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal13, a mazdoor

fell from a running train and was badly injured. He was sent from one
government hospital to another, finally he had to be admitted in a private
11
AIR 1986 SC 180
12
AIR 1989 SC 2039
13
AIR 1996 SC 2426

9
hospital. There he incurred expenses of around Rs. 17000. Feeling aggrieved by
this he approached the Supreme Court under Art. 32. The Supreme Court held
that as State is duty bound to preserve the lives of patients, failure by the
government hospitals to provide timely medical treatment causes violation of
fundamental right to life. Such callous behaviour by the government hospitals
was held to be violative of Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. Hence, the court
ordered the payment of Rs. 25000 as compensation to the petitioner.

In another eminent pronouncement (Common Cause v. UOI)14, the Supreme

Court highlighted serious deficiencies and shortcomings in distribution of
blood in hospitals, especially with respect to HIV infected blood. The court in
order to give effect to the right to life under Art. 21 ordered the government to
establish a National Council of Blood Transfusion as a registered society, and
ordered that blood banks ought to be registered under Drugs Control Act.

ARTICLE 21 AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT

The Supreme Court has very innovatively expanded the ambit of Article 21 and
made it applicable also to sexual offence against women. In Vishaka v State of
Rajasthan15, the Supreme Court held sexual harassment of a woman at
workplace amounts to violation of rights of gender justice, right to ife and
liberty which is in clear terms violates Art. 14,15, and 21.

The court held, in this connection:

The meaning and content of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the

Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all the facets of
gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse

The directions issued by the court place certain obligations on the employers or
other responsible persons in work places and other institutions, the persons are

14
AIR 1996 SC 929
15
AIR 1997 SC 3011

10
required to take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment. Not only
government agencies, but also private parties have been made brought under
the Ambit of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 32 of Constitutions. Thus, it is evident
how interpretation of provisions has changed over time.

ARTICLE 21 AND CLEAN ENVIRONMENT:

The Supreme Court has done yeoman service by taking cognizance of various
environmental problems, the expansive interpretation of life in Article 21 has
led to development of environmental jurisprudence in India.

In Subhash Kumar V. Bihar16, the supreme court has held that enjoyment of
pollution free environment is included in the right to life under Art.21, the court
observed that right to live is a fundamental right and it includes right of
enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything
endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right
to have recourse to Art.32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of
water or air which may be detrimental to quality of life.

In M.C. Mehta V UOI17, the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and
directions for the protection for protection of Taj Mahal, an ancient monument
from environmental degradation.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V UOI18, the court took cognizance of

environmental problems being caused by tannaries which were polluting all
water resources, rivers, canals, underground water and agricultural land. The
Court issued several directions to deal with the problem. Not just this, the court
in Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action Vs. UOI evolved the principle of
polluter pays. Three very pertinent principles have been evolved by the Honble

16
AIR 1991 SC 420
17
AIR 1988 SC 1037
18
AIR 1996 SC 2721

11
Supreme Court viz. Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays and Sustainable
development within the domain of Article21 of the Constitution.

With time, and with the rapid increase in industrialisation there was need to
balance industrialisation with ecological balance, and it was manifested in this
manner.

There have been many such fields across which such developments have taken
place in the name of giving meaningful effect to Right to Life viz. custodial
deaths, speedy trials, telephone tapping, privacy etc.

12
Conclusion
The above analysis is just an endeavour to present why departure from plain
meaning rule or literal rule is necessary with changing social context. Had the
courts in India stuck to the literal meaning of right to life and personal liberty,
the development of human rights jurisprudence would have thwarted. In fact, it
would have resulted in the deprivation of rights of people and there would have
been a consequent failure to give meaningful effect to the right to life as
enshrined in the constitution.

In absence of dynamism as shown by the apex court in the above mentioned

cases, the right to life would remained but a dead letter. Thus, it is needful that
the interpretation of provisions with plain language should not be adhered to as
it is if it causes unjust or absurd results. As it very well understood that law is a
subsystem of society, it must be understood equally well that the laws should be
interpreted in a manner so as to fit in the societal needs of the present or future,
as the case may be, otherwise the law would become archaic and would be
rendered nugatory.

13
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Interpretation of Statutes by N.S. Bindra

Indian Constitutional Law by M.P. Jain

Britannica Encyclopaedia

14