CONTEMPORANEA EXPOSITIO EST OPTIMA ET FORTISSIMA IN

LEGE

I. MEANING
 Meaning - 'Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege' is a maxim of
interpretation. It means that contemporaneous exposition or explanation is the best and strongest
in law. The language of a statute must be understood in the sense in which it is understood when
it was passed.
Case Law :- ITC Ltd. v. Union of India
Held :- Those who live at or near the time when it was passed may reasonably be supposed to be
better acquainted than their descendants with the circumstances to which it has relation, as well as
with the sense then attached to legislative expressions.

II. BACKGROUND AND ORIGIN OF THE MAXIM

 Origin - This rule had been propounded by Lord Coke while referring to the Magna Carta in the
following terms :-
"This and the like were the forms of ancient Act and grants, and the ancient Acts and grants
must be construed and taken as the law was holden at that time when they were made"
 The first important decision was the Montrose Peerage case., where Lord Cransworth.,
acknowledged the importance of historical understanding.
 The groundwork for this principle was further established in the Cransbay case., which
said that it, it has been usual to pay great regard to the construction of the judges who
lived at the time when the statute was passed as they were possibly the best to judge the
intention of the makers of that time.
 Background - One of the most fundamental principle of interpretation of statutes is that the
words in the legislation shall be given their 'natural and ordinary' meaning.
 This principle is easy when it is to be applied to modern statutes. But the problem arises
when it comes to the ancient statutes, is the 'natural and ordinary' meaning the present
one, or the meaning of the statute at the time when it was passed.
 To resolve the said mystery, the principle of contemporanea expositio had been
developed as a useful aid.
 The rule is that the words of a statute will be generally understood in the sense which
they bore when the statute was passed. They are to be understood, as used, with reference
to the subject matter in the minds of the legislature at the time of passing the legislation
and should be limited to this alone.
 This principle though not decisive, is entitled to considerable weight as highly persuasive.

III. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THIS RULE

 In the case of ancient statutes, they are to be interpreted as they would have been when they were
passed.
1
 Consistent usage and practice growing out of these prior interpretations are presumptive
evidence of their meaning and should be considered.
 If the prior interpretations are contradictory, the court will have to consider the reasons given and
come to its own conclusion.
 It is to be noted that if the words are capable of only one meaning, the fact that a wrong meaning
has been attached to them for many years will not affect or prohibit the true meaning.
 However, the 'wrong meaning' will be disturbed in certain exceptional circumstances i.e., if titles
to property are affected.
 Finally, although courts in construing a statute are entitled to give weight to the interpretation put
upon it by those whose duty it has been to construe, execute and apply in the past, such
interpretation does not have a controlling effect on them.

IV. PARAMETERS TO ENSURE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

 The requirement of reasonableness - Even a long standing practice recognized by judicial
decisions and textbooks may be over ruled if in the changed circumstances it leads to
inconvenience.
 This was stated in a decision of House of Lords in 1969.
 Thus, an element of reasonableness was introduced.
 Previous judicial interpretation as a parameter - The principle has further evolved by
including the test of :
"Whether such interpretation has stood the test of judicial scrutiny"
 This is evident from an Indian decision in the case of R.P. Kapoor v. Partap Singh
Kairon.
 The doctrine of 'executive construction' - A uniform and consistent practice adopted by the
executive department is an admissible aid to proper construction.
 It will not be disregarded except for cogent reasons.
 The controlling effect of this aid, which is known as executive construction would
depend upon on various factors such as :-
i. The length of time for which it is followed,
ii. The nature of rights affected by it,
iii. The injustice resulting from the departure,
iv. Approval it has received in judicial decisions or legislation etc.

V. LIMITATIONS OF THE MAXIM

 Primarily, there are four limitations to the application of this rule :-
 Useful only in case of ambiguity - It can be called in aid only where the statues is
obscure or ambiguous and its true meaning cannot be ascertained by resort to intrinsic
aids to interpretation.
 Priority to custom - Custom is given more value and priority than the act of the parties,
as elucidated in optima est legis interpres consuetudo (custom is the best interpreter of
law).

2
  For example - If in a statute the language used gives doubtful meanings and after
the statute came into force, if the courts gives various decisions clarifying the
terms used in the statute and have reduced the uncertainty to a fixed rule, then in
such cases custom followed based on the principles laid down is to be followed
for interpretation, contemporaneous exposito based on ambiguity cannot be
raised.
 It does not apply to construction of modern statutes.
 If the contemporary interpretation is erroneous, the court will refuse to follow such
construction without hesitation.
Case Law :- M/s J.K. CSW Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
Held :- The apex court held as follows :-
 This maxim is not to be applied while interpreting modern statutes.
 In modern progressive society, it will be unreasonable to contain the intention of the legislature
as to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made and
 Unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation shall be given to the words used to take in
new facts and situations.

VI. CONCLUSION
 Reasonable limitations have been placed on the application of this principle to mitigate the
harshness and out of context application.
 Nevertheless, this maxim is an important external aid to interpretation.
 The principle endeavour to apply these doctrines is to arrive at the intention of the legislature. By
using the above stated guidelines, it is possible to draw on the rich wealth of the pas experience
without running the risk of being bound by anachronistic chains of outdated legal positions and
principles.