External Aids to interpretation :

When help is sought from outside sources for interpetation of statute, it is called
external aids to construction.The need to take help of extrinsic aids is felt when
the language of the statute is not clear. Help from extrinsic aid is taken when the
language of the statute when fails to express the intention of the legislature
clearly.
• Words ambiguous
• Language unclear
• Internal aids is not enough to make it unambiguous or clear
• External aids called for help
• Aid of external factors or instruments is permissible up to a certain limit
• External aid cannot be called for, to later, changer or amend any of the
substantial provision of the statute.

The external aids of interpretation are as follows:

Dictionary:
In the absence of any judicial guidance or authority, dictionaries can be consulted
to find out the meaning of a particular word or a phrase. In the absence of there
being anything contrary to the context the language of a statute should be
interpreted according to the plain dictionary meaning of the terms used therein.
It is true that “dictionaries” are not to be taken as authoritative exponents of the
meaning of words used in Acts of Parliament, but it is a well-known rule of Courts
of Law that word should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, and we are
therefore sent for instruction to these books.
Though dictionaries are not to be taken as authoritative exponents of the
meaning of the statutory language, it is permissible to seek instruction from these
books to understand the ordinary sense of the words in an enactment.
Dictionaries cannot be considered as a safe guide to statutory interpretation.
They can help in a very limited manner. They cannot be a perfect aid because
dictionaries provide us with the literal meaning of a word and nothing more than
that.
Dictionaries can be of help when words are to be understood in their general and
ordinary sense. Dictionaries are not dictators of statutory interpretation. A statue
cannot always be construed with the dictionary in one hand and the statute in the
 other hand. If the dictionary meaning makes some of the existing words
redundant; it cannot be used. Dictionary meaning should not be relied upon if the
words are defined in the act itself.
i) Municipal Board, Saharanpur vs. Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd.
It was held that when a word is not defined in the act itself, it is permissible to
refer to dictionaries to find out the general sense in which that word is
generally understood in common-parlance.
ii) State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B.Desai (Dr.)
It was held by the Supreme Court that dictionary meaning is not to be
considered when a plain reading of the provision brings out what was
intended.
Textbook:
Textbooks having authoritative value can be used for making the meaning of an
enactment, section or provision clear. If any word, expression, phrase or term used
in a statue is unclear, unambiguous then a good textbook explaining the same can
be called for as an aid to interpretation.
A commentary in a text-book is not binding on the court, but when it is to be found
in a learned treatise on a relevant law, it can does and have persuasive value in so
much as it demonstrates that the view of the jurist and that of the Court coincide.

Parliamentary history:

In the process of making law, various stages are involved. Sometimes before
introducing a bill in the parliament, the government appoints a commission or an
enquiry committee. Such commission or committee submits its report. According to
the report, draft of proposed law is prepared it is called the bill. Bill also contains a
statement of object and reason for which the law is being legislated. Bill is introduced
in the parliament. According to the procedure of House, Bill passes through three
stages commonly known as First Reading, Second reading and Third Reading, where
parliament holds discussion and debates on that Bill, amendments to the Bill may also
be moved. A record is maintained of the discussions and debates. When the bill is
passed in one House, it is sent to the other House where similar process is repeated.
Unless both the Houses approve, a Bill cannot be deemed to have been passed. When
a Bill is passed it is sent to the President for his assent. All these documents, records
and material created during various stages through which a legislation passes before
attaining finality, constitute "Parliamentary History".

Whether PH should be considered as an aid to interpret ambiguous provision.

1. English Practice

a. Traditional View:

English traditional view rejects PH as a good aid to construction. According to

traditional view, intention of the framers cannot be gathered through PH of that law.
The language of the minister drying the speech, which came to be enacted as law, is
also not accepted as a valid aid. The reports of the debates held in the parliament
while discussing the bill are also not used for finding legislative intent.

According to English Practice, where a report has been submitted to the parliament by
the committee before making a law is valid as an evidence of surrounding
circumstances at the relevant time but same is invalid for inferring the intention of the
legislation.

b. Criticism:

It was argued that true spirit of law lies in the reason. If we know what was the
mischief sought to be remedied by the law and the purpose for which the law was
made, then true intention can be given to the statue and the ambiguity can be resolved.
The report of the committee reflects state of law at the time of passing of the act and
the mischief which was to be remedied. As such the report of the committee makes it
clear what is the reason for enacting a law.

c. Modern view:

According to this view, PH is considered good material which unfolds the position of
common law, the mischief for which common law did not provide and defects or
shortcomings in the common law due to which it failed to effectively control the
mischief. On this basis, new law has been enacted. Therefore, intention of legislature
can be deduced from such material and hence PH can be considered as a legitimate aid
to construction.

2. Indian Practice:
There have been fluctuating views of SC of India as to admissibility of PH as an
external aid to interpretation.

Debates in Parliament:
• It is not permissible to refer to the debates in Parliament for the construction
of a statute.
• The speeches made by the members of the constituent assembly in the
course of debates on the draft of Constitution cannot be admitted as an
extrinsic aid to the construction of the Constitution.
Parliamentary debates is used as reference, though not as a direct
interpretative aid, but as an addition to the Judicial notice of the contemporary
events. The statements made by an individual member during the debates
have often been referred to in order to discover the evil sought to be
remedied.
• Since the objective of the statutory interpretation is to find the intended
meaning of the statute’s words, it would seem that any legislature’s remarks
which would throw light on the meaning of those words should be referred
.
i) T.M.A Pai foundation v.s state of Karnataka. It was held that the
constituent assembly debates can be legitimately taken into
consideration for construction of provision of constitution.

ii) Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala

In this case the Supreme Court held that, the speeches made by the
members of the legislature in the course of debates relating to
enactment of a statute cannot be used as an aid for interpreting any of
the provisions of the statute.

Statement of objects and reasons:

• The statement of objects and reasons is not admissible in evidence for
construing a statute.
• The statement of objects and reasons might be admissible not for construing
 the Act but for ascertaining the conditions which prevailed when the legislation
was enacted.
• It has been said that although the statement of the objects and reasons
appended to a bill is not admissible as an aid to the construction of the act as
passed, yet it may be referred to only for the limited purpose of ascertaining
the conditions prevailing at the time which necessitated the making of the law.
It can also be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the precise
extent and urgency of the evil or the mischief which was sought to be
remedied by introducing the amendment, as it often called the ‘surrounding
circumstances’ of a statute.
• A reference to statement of objects and reasons may be permissible in the
case of ambiguity of a statutory provision. But it cannot be allowed to override
the plain provisions of law which are clear and free of ambiguity.
• In brief, a bill has a statement of objects and reasons; it seeks to propound
the objective for which it stands.
• The matter of the bill is discussed by the legislature. In the process of its
finalization, many amendments and modifications are suggested, which may
be accepted and incorporated in the bill. Thus, when the bill is finalized, the
original statement of objects and reasons may altogether be irrelevant or
relevant to a little extent. It is, therefore, not legitimate to refer to the
statement of objects and reasons of the act as an aid to construction.
• A statute, the whole, is the collective expression of the collective intention of
the legislature and, therefore, the statement of objects and reasons should not
be used as an aid to the construction.
• A reference to the statement of objects and reasons may, however, be useful
for a limited purpose, i.e. ascertaining the circumstances, which actuated the
sponsor of the bill to introduce it and the purpose for doing so.
• The statement of objects and reasons cannot be used to cut down the
generality of the words used in the statute to mean something else than what
the words imply.

Reports of Commission, Inquiry Comitte, Joint Parliamentary Committee or

Study
Group:
Sometimes, before introducing a bill in the Parliament for a proposed law, the
Government appoints a commission or an Inquiry Committee or a joint Parliamentary
Committee (JPC) or a Study Group (SG) for collecting the background information
lending to legislation with the purpose of finding out prevailing circumstances and the
evils which need to be cured. Such Commission or Committee or JPC or SG submits
its report to the Government. Sometimes, the Government itself issues a “White
Paper” in which the facts leading to enactment of a stature are contained in detail.
Such reports have been referred to by the Supreme Court in many cases for
understanding the surrounding circumstances and the mischief prevailing at the time
of passing of the act as they could enlighten the purpose for enactment is clear, it
becomes easier to arrive at the true legislative intent and to attribute meaning to a
word or expression or to resolve an ambiguity in the language. But in certain cases
Supreme Court has refused to admit such reports.
i) Mithilesh Kumari vs. Prem Bihari Khare
In this case it was held by the Supreme Court that where an
enactment or an amendment to an act is the result of the report of the law
commission, then such report can be admitted as an external aid to
interpretation. In this case, the report of the law commission before passing
the Benami transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was referred to.

Historical Facts and Surrounding Circumstances

State of things or affairs existing at the time when a law was enacted are called
as Historical facts and surrounding circumstances. Even the evils which
prevailed at the time of passing a statue also falls within the ambit of the term.
Because of that, the shortcomings or mischief in the society is clear and when
the law made to fill in the lacuna in the society, interpretation of that law
becomes easy as we can find out intention of the legislature using the Heydon's
rule or the mischief rule.
Therefore, while interpreting a statute, it is important to understand the subject
matter of the statue and the historical facts and circumstances which existed at
the time of passing the act.
Statues in pari materia:
Pari means ‘same’. Materia means ‘subject matter’. Statutes in pari material refers
to those statutes which relate to the same subject matter. Two statutes are said to
being pari material when they deal with the same subject matter, person or thing .
of a related provision in another act may be taken in construction of a provision if
the two statutes are on the same subject.
These are statues dealing with the same subject matter, relating to the same
person or thing or the same class of persons or things, or forming part of the same
system. Each word, phrase and sentence is to be construed in the light of general
purpose of the act itself. The text of the statute taken as a whole is, no doubt, the
most important material or ascertaining the intention of the legislature, but the
external aids by having recourse to statutes in pari materia are also admissible.
i) Sirsill Ltd vs. Textiles Committee
In this case it was held that, “The Industrious (Development and Regulation)
Act,1951” and “The Textiles Committee Act,1963” are in pari materia as they
deal with textiles.
ii) Board of Muslim Wakfs vs. Radha Kishan
In this case the Supreme Court held that, “The Mussalman Wakfs Act,1923”
and “The Wakfs Act,1954” were not in pari materia. As such, the judicial
decision given under the former act is not of any help to the later act.
iii) State of Assam vs. P.Barua
In this case the Supreme Court held that, Income Tax Act,1922 and the
Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act,1939 are in pari materi, i.e. dealing with
the same subject matter. Hence, help could be taken from Section 22 of the
Income Tax Act, 1922 to interpret Section 19 of the Assam Agricultural
Income Tax Act,1939.

Help from earlier statues

There is a presumption that legislature knows the judicial decision as to
interpretation of words. When a word has already been assigned a particular
meaning i course of interpretation of an act and legislature repeats the same
word in the same context in subsequent legislature, it is assumed that
 legislature has accepted the interpretation of that word by the court and the
word in subsequent statute will carry same meaning.

Help from Subsequent statute

A subsequent legislation on same subject matter may be looked to in order to
see what is proper construction to be put upon an earlier act where that earlier
act is ambiguous.

Incorporation of earlier act into later

Sometimes a legislature intends that a certain provision must remain
operative for the purpose of later enactment but at the same time it does not
want to reproduce those provisions word to word in the subsequent statute. In
such event legislature adopts a peculiar method which is known as
incorporation. By this method, reference of an earlier act is made into later
act.

Contemporanea Expositio :
This word “contemporaneous” means of the same time or period and “exposition”
means “explanation”. The words must be given contemporaneous explanation, i.e.
to say, they should be understood in the sense which they bore at the time when
the statute was passed.
The doctrine of “Contemporanea Expositio” is used for very ancient statutes for the
interpretation of the ambiguous language. It is presumed that when the statute was
passed in the olden days, persons who were living there, at the time of passing of
the statutes, knew the circumstances under which the statutes were passed, better
and more efficiently than the persons of the later generations, who were living after
the passing of the Act. When the act was passed, the Judges living at that time
gave the meaning to the words of the statute while interpreting it. They were in a
much better position to understand the intention of the legislation than the present
day judges, the reason being that, they knew the prevailing circumstances under
which the acts were passed. Therefore, while construing the old enactments, very
high regards must be given to the interpretation given to the interpretation given to
the words by those judges.
The basic rule is that the words must be given that meaning which it was having at
the time when the act was passed.
Contemporaneous events form an important extraneous aid to the construction of a
statute. A consideration of history of the period of enactment including the history
of law itself, the nature of the preceding law and the mischief that was sought to be
removed by the law is called for.
“Contemporanea Expositio” is criticized on the ground that the interpretation given
to the situation in olden times does not stand in modern society as there is lot
change in the circumstances and prevailing environment.
i) Rajaram vs. State of Bihar
While interpreting S.25 of “The Indian Evidence Act,1872”, the Court refused
to apply the doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio. The court contended that
the act is not of recent origin, and by this time there is development in science
and new revolutionary ideas have begun to creep in the minds of the people.
The Court, however, held that an ‘excise officer’ is a ‘police officer’ within the
meaning of S.25 of the act.

ii) R.S.Nayak vs. A.R.Antuley

The doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio was referred to while interpreting
S.21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court held that an M.L.A.
is not a public servant as defined u/s21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Foreign Decision
Foreign judgements can also be relied upon by Indian Courts but they
won’t be binding upon the courts but will have persuasive approach.