B.A.LL.B.

6th SEMESTER EXAMINATION 2020

INTERPRETATION OF STATUES

Name: Anadi Gupta

Roll number : 06
Email ID : ​anadi2412gupta@gmail.com
Mobile number : 8920426181
UNIT 1

Q.1. The rules of interpretation are like the tools of “carpenter and sculptor". Explain the above
mentioned statement while discussing the meaning and purposes of interpretation of statute.

A.1. ​The word ‘Interpretation’ is derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means to
explain or expound or to understand or translate. Interpretation is a process through which one
arrives at the true and correct intention of the law-making body which is laid in the form of
statutes. This helps in finding out the intention of the author.
Interpretation of any data generally means to analyze the available data and come out with an
opinion which is certain and clear. This increases the ability of an individual to understand and
explain it in his/her own way. This helps to find out the ways to understand and analyse the
statute, where it leads the interpreter to the whole new meaning which is completely different
from the general meaning.
It is necessary for all law students, lawyers, judges and anyone who belongs to the legal
fraternity to know how to interpret the statute whenever a legislative house comes up with the
new statute or an amendment because they will be dealing with these legislations on a day to day
basis. The main intention of analyzing is to know the new changes which are being brought due
to the legislation and the impacts of that legislation in society.
Usually, the interpretation of the statute is done by the judges, it is the primary function of the
judge as a judicial head. As we all know that our government is divided into three important
wings which are: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Here the legislature lays down the law
and intends people to act according to the legislature and the judiciary that is judges will come
up with the proper meaning of the law and put the law into operation. This helps in maintaining
checks and balances between the wings.
Need for interpretation:

1. The ambiguity of the words used in the statute: Sometimes there will be words that have
more than one meaning. And it may not be clear which meaning has to be used. There
could be multiple interpretations made out of it.
2. Change in the environment: We all know that society changes from time to time and
there may be new developments happening in a society that is not taken into
consideration, this lacks the predictability of the future event.
3. Complexities of the statutes: usually statutes are complex and huge, it contains
complicated words, jargon and some technical terms which are not easy to understand
and this complexity may lead to confusion.
4. When legislation doesn’t cover a specific area: Every time when legislations are out it
doesn’t cover all the area it leaves some grey areas and interpretation helps in bridging
the gaps between.
5. Drafting error: The draft may be made without sufficient knowledge of the subject. It
may also happen due to the lack of necessary words and correct grammar. This makes the
draft unclear and creates ambiguity in the legislature.
6. Incomplete rules: There are few implied rules and regulations and some implied powers
and privileges which are not mentioned in the statute and when these are not defined
properly in the statute this leads to ambiguity.

The necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of a statutory provision is
ambiguous, not clear or where two views are possible or where the provision gives a different
meaning defeating the object of the statute. If the language is clear and unambiguous, no need for
interpretation would arise. In this regard, a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme
Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay has held:

"... If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to
give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The question of
construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used in
the Statute would be self defeating."

Again Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay, has followed
the same principle and observed:

"Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention
of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to take upon itself the task of
amending or altering the statutory provisions."

The purpose of Interpretation of Statutes is to help the Judge to ascertain the intention of the
Legislature - not to control that intention or to confine it within the limits, which the Judge may
deem reasonable or expedient.

The correct is one that best harmonises the words with the object of the statute. As stated by lyer
J. "to be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul. The judicial key of construction is
the composite perception of the deha and the dehi of the provision."

UNIT 2

Q2. "The words of the statute have to be given grammatical and ordinary meaning irrespective of
possible consequences resulting from it.” Discuss it while bringing out the differences between
Literal and Golden rules of interpretation.

A.2. ​Literal Rule is where the judges interpret the legislation that the Parliament has used. “An
example of this rule is a Law to Prohibit the Sale of NunChucks, where anyone who sells the
items and gives that item to someone else commits an offence”. Such as A Police officer walks
past a shop and finds one on the window, they take down the details of the shop and
subsequently prosecuted for selling the illegal Nunchucks.
When it goes to court the Shopkeeper will point out that has not been sold or lent or even given,
but there has not been a crime committed under the act, that it has not been intended to prohibit
these nunchucks from being Freeling displayed for sale and the words in the statute has caught
this actual activity. Where then the court interprets literally that the statute has not caught this
particular transaction. This approach has been actually used in the case of Fisher v Bell (1961)
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, In this case, the appellant, a citizen of India after arriving
at the airport did not declare that he was carrying gold with him. During his search, gold was
found in his possession as it was against the notification of the government and was confiscated
under section 167(8) of Sea Customs Act.
Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947.
The appellant challenged this trial to be violative under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
According to this article, no person shall be punished or prosecuted more than once for the same
offence. This is considered as double jeopardy.
It was held by the court that the Seas Act was neither a court nor any judicial tribunal. Thus,
accordingly, he was not prosecuted earlier. Hence, his trial was held to be valid.
Golden rule Is where the courts adopt a meaning that reflects the purpose of the legislation. This
is not an Exclusive purpose of the law and it is not an easy one. The inconsistency often arises
because parliament amends the provisions from the act. An example of Golden Rule is in a case
called Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hinchy ( 1960) as where the tax act stated if the
taxpayer submitted inaccurate tax return the taxpayer would be penalised to the extent of” Treble
the tax ought to have been paid”, overall the taxpayer said that the policy of this law was to
prevent underpayment of tax.

Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 850

In this case, there was an issue with regard to issuing of the notice under section 99 of
Representation of People’s Act, 1951, with regard to corrupt practices involved in the election.
According to the rule, the notice shall be issued to all those persons who are a party to the
election petition and at the same time to those who are not a party to it. Tirath Singh contended
that no such notice was issued to him under the said provision. The notices were only issued to
those who were non-parties to the election petition. This was challenged to be invalid on this
particular ground.
The court held that what is contemplated is giving of the information and the information even if
it is given twice remains the same. The party to the petition is already having the notice
regarding the petition, therefore, section 99 shall be so interpreted by applying the golden rule
that notice is required against non-parties only.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company, AIR 1967 SC 276, Issues of the
case are as follows.
A transporting company carrying a parcel of apples was challenged and charge-sheeted. The
truck of the transporting company was impounded as the parcel contained opium along with the
apples. At the same time, the invoice shown for the transport consisted of apples only.
Section 11 of the opium act 1878, all the vehicles which transport the contraband articles shall be
impounded and articles shall be confiscated. It was confiscated by the transport company that
they were unaware of the fact that opium was loaded along with the apples in the truck.
The court held that although the words contained in section 11 of the said act provided that the
vehicle shall be confiscated but by applying the literal rule of interpretation for this provision it is
leading to injustice and inequity and therefore, this interpretation shall be avoided. The words
‘shall be confiscated’ should be interpreted as ‘may be confiscated’.
State of Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, a period of limitation was
prescribed for, under section 18 of land acquisition act, 1844, that an appeal shall be filed for the
announcement of the award within 6 months of the announcement of the compensation. Award
was passed in the name of Quiser Jehan. It was intimated to her after the period of six months
about this by her counsel. The appeal was filed beyond the period of six months. The appeal was
rejected by the lower courts.
It was held by the court that the period of six months shall be counted from the time when Quiser
Jehan had the knowledge because the interpretation was leading to absurdity. The court by
applying the golden rule allowed the appeal.
The difference between the above is that generally the courts are abound to take the literal rule
approach to the legislation, but it is possible to do so to depart from this approach, where there is
a significant reason why they should, where they can use the Golden Approach. Overall the
difference is that the literal approach is the interpretation of legislation applies the general rule
that a court is bound by the words within the statute, but as where the two others are concerned
they are the Golden Rule approach comes in when the Judge reluctant to use this approach by
using phrases of the interpretation.

UNIT 3

Q.3. ​Examine the role played by parliamentary history and dictionaries in the interpretation of
statutes.

A.3. ​If the wordings are ambiguous, the historical setting may be considered in order to arrive at
the proper construction, which covers parliamentary history, historical facts, statement of objects
and reasons, report of expert committees.

Parliamentary history ​means the conception of an idea, drafting of the bill, the debates made,
the amendments proposed, speech made by the mover of the bill, etc. Papers placed before the
cabinet which took the decision for the introduction of the bill are not relevant since these papers
are not placed before the parliament.

Cases

1. The Supreme Court in S.R. Chaudhuri v. The State of Punjab and others has stated that it is a
settled position that debates in the Constituent Assembly may be relied upon as an aid to
interpret a Constitutional provision because it is the function of the Court to find out the intention
of the framers of the Constitution.
But as far as speeches in Parliament are concerned, a distinction is made between speeches of the
mover of the Bill and speeches of other Members.

2. Regarding speeches made by the Members of the Parliament at the time of consideration of a
Bill, it has been held in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and others​] that they are not
admissible as extrinsic aids to the interpretation of the statutory provision. However, speeches
made by the mover of the Bill or Minister may be referred to for the purpose of finding out the
object intended to be achieved by the Bill.

Dictionaries ​When a word is not defined in the statute itself, it is permissible to refer to
dictionaries to find out the general sense in which that word is understood in common parlance.
For e.g. Black’s Law Dictionary.

UNIT 4

Q.4. "The rule which requires that penal statutes should be construed strictly, has lost much of its
force in recent times". Do you agree with the above statement? Substantiate your answer and
refer to decided cases.

A.4. As society changes its laws require amendment on a periodical basis, if it doesn't then the
society can't be able to function properly. However, the above statement is not an altogether
statement that the rule which requires that penal statutes should be construed strictly, has lost
much of its force in recent times.

Penal statutes provide penalties for disobedience of laws making those who disobey laws liable
to imprisonment, fine , forfeiture, or any other penalty as may be prescribed. Penal statutes
enforce obedience to the commands of law by punishing the law breaker.
In the case of Sham sunder V. State of Haryana(1989), a clear language is needed to create a
crime and a statute enacting an offence of imposing penalty is strictly construed.

Also, in the case of Chief inspector of mines V. Karam Chand Thapar(1962), a statute providing
for penal prosecution has to be construed strictly. However, this rule is not of universal
application which must necessarily be observed in every case.

According to Halsbury's Laws of England, it's a general rule that penal enactments are to be
construed strictly and no longer extended past their which means. Crawford states that crook and
penal statutes want to be strictly construed, that is they cannot be enlarged or prolonged through
intent, implication, or via any equitable consideration. In other words, the language cannot be
enlarged beyond the ordinary which means of its time period which will deliver into impact the
overall motive for which the statute modified into enacted. The rule of strict construction of
penal statutes is stated to be primarily based on the tenderness of the law for the rights of people
and on the plain precept that the energy to define against the law and ordain its punishment is
vested inside the legislature and no longer in the judicial department. It is an inexpensive
expectation that the legislature will appear to aim with inexpensive clarity in penal statutes. It
isn't in a position for a court docket to create an offence with the useful resource of interpretation
as this will perform to entrap the unwary and ignorant and threaten the rights of the humans
usually. "But we no longer want to go into all this. Here is an order which is to have an impact at
the employer of hundreds of people, lots of whom are small petty investors and traders, the form
of fellows who would possibly not have attorneys continuously at their elbows, and even in the
event that they did, the extra discovered their advisers have been inside the regulation the greater
puzzled they would be as to what recommendation to provide, for it isn't always till one is
located out inside the regulation that subtleties of idea and bewilderment upward thrust up at the
which means of plain English words which any ordinary guy of common intelligence, no longer
versed in the regulation, could don't have any problem in understanding.

In a penal statute of this type, it's the responsibility of the courts to interpret terms ambiguous
because of this in a broad and liberal experience just so they shall not end up traps for sincere,
unlearned and unwary men. There may be sincere and massive compliances with an array of
confusing guidelines that need to be enough notwithstanding the fact that on a few hypercritical
views of the regulation other resourceful meanings can be devised. The agent should inside the
situation be described, without any straining of language, because the character to whom the
goods have been in reality added."

In Chinu bhai v State of Bombay , numerous personnel in a manufacturing facility died through
breathing in poisonous gas after they entered proper right into a pit within the manufacturing unit
premises to forestall leakage of poisonous gas from a system there. The Inspector of Factories on
inspection did locate beating and revising equipment, belts and ropes inside the production
facility in violation of phase 4 of the Factories Act. The question becomes whether or not the
company violated phase 3 of the Act which says that no person in any manufacturing unit shall
be authorised to go into any restricted space in which volatile fumes are possibly to be present.

The Supreme Court, on the same time as protecting that the character of the enactment being
penal had to be strictly construed, held that phase 3 does now not impose an absolute
responsibility at the organisation to prevent entry of men and women in an area in which risk
fumes are likely to exist. The mere truth that some human beings went in the pit does now not
prove that they had been permitted with the aid of the agency to go into. The prosecution must
display that first before any protection became referred to as for. Since the prosecution failed in
its duty, the organization could not be convicted.

In Rattan Lal v State of Punjab, the accused, a sixteen year vintage boy become convicted for

outraging the modesty of a lady elderly seven years after having devoted house trespass. The
Magistrate presented him imprisonment for six months and exceptional. After this sentence
changed into passed, the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 came into life. The accused appealed
to the Additional Sessions Judge and then to the High Court in revision without claiming
advantage beneath the Probation of Offenders Act. After the High Court rejected his revision, he
pleaded earlier than the Supreme Court for gain of probation as he was beneath twenty-one years
of age.

In Ranjit v State of Maharashtra, the appellant turned into convicted beneath segment 292, Indian
Penal Code by means of manner of the High Court for promoting an obscene e-book titled Lady
Chatterley's Lover the sale of which has become banned with the aid of the Government of India.
The accused contended earlier than the Supreme Court that the mens rea of the accused has
normally to be proved to preserve conviction underneath crook regulation.

Conclusion: Thus, from the above view point we can come to the conclusion that penal statutes
have not altogether lost their force in recent times, it is just that the matter of time penal statutes
have to be construed differently according to the demands of society. As we have seen in the
case of Shyam sunder V state of Haryana(1989), a clear language is needed to create a crime and
a statute enacting an offence of imposing penalty is strictly construed. Thus, penal statutes have
played a key role in establishing punishment to the perpetrators who acted against the provisions
of law and thus, the penal statutes are very important in the successful functioning of a society.

UNIT 5

Q.5. ​What do you understand by the Presumption against retrospective interpretation of statutes.
Also discuss its scope and limitations.

A.5. ​The case confirms that a law does not offend the presumption against retrospective
operation if it has future consequences for events that occurred prior to the enactment, provided
that the law otherwise does not alter any rights or liabilities that the law had defined in relation to
past events.
The precept of presumption towards retrospective operation of statute states that no statute shall
be construed to have a retrospective operation until this sort of advent seems very actually inside
the phrases of the Act or arises through vital and wonderful software. This principle has been
defined by using the Supreme Court inside the case of Syndicate Bank v. Rallis (India) Ltd.
(1979). It mentioned that a statute which isn't declaratory of a pre-modern-day law nor a count
number referring to technique, however affects vested rights cannot take delivery of a more
retrospective effect that its language renders critical, and even in construing a segment which is
to a sure quantity retrospective, the road is reached at which the phrases of the segment end to be
plain.

In Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry. (1957) the SC determined that the golden rule of
construction is that, within the absence of whatever within the enactment to expose that it's far to
have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the impact of converting the
law relevant to a declare in litigation at the time even as the Act modified into surpassed.

In Katikara Chintamani Dora v. Guntreddi Annam Naidu (1974), it changed into stated that even
in construing an Act this is to a sure quantity retrospective, and in construing a segment, that is to
a high-quality quantity retrospective, we have to bear in mind that presumption against
retrospective operation of a statute is relevant whenever we reach the street at which the phrases
of segment forestall to be simple. That is an important and a logical corollary of the overall
proposition that you ought not to provide a bigger retrospective electricity to a phase even in an
act which is supposed to be retrospective in nature to a high quality quantity, then you can it
appears that certainly see what the legislature meant.

SCOPE - According to the Supreme Court, inside the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Rameshwar Rathod (1990), it's miles properly-settled that the regular rule of production is that a
provision in a statute is potential however no longer retrospective, however but, inside the case
of statutes which is probably sincerely declaratory or which pertains to best matters of approach,
or of evidence, it can have retrospective effect if there are warning signs to that effect or the
appear reason compels one to construe the Act as such

Thus, it can be stated that this doctrine is applicable in all instances besides for procedural
declaratory and evidentiary felony hints. Some of the examples for outlining the scope of this
doctrine are: Repeal Acts: Where a repeal of provisions of an enactment is observed by using
way of easy regulations by way of an amending act, such rules is capacity in operation and does
now not have an impact on full-size or vested rights of the events until made retrospective each
expressly or by the use of vital intendment.

Tax Statutes: Legislature can also through specific enactment, retrospectively impose a tax but
the presumption right here stays intact for the purpose that a particular provision is needed for
the identical. Rules made below statutes may also, in that case expressed, validly be made to
operate with retrospective effect. By retrospective rules is supposed a tax statute which
influences a time period prior to the date of enactment of the Act.

It may be noted that there may be no catch 22 situation upon the strength of the legislature to
provide retrospective effect to a tax statute, however retrospective effect can only receive even as
the language or the reason of the legislature is plain and unambiguous. In India a tax statute
might no longer be challengeable on the ground of denial of due approach nor at the ground that
it concerns the taking of personal property arbitrarily. Some other examples: Pending actions,
law which alter great rights, and so on.

LIMITATIONS - This doctrine of presumption toward retrospective operation of statutes isn't

always relevant in positive instances. Procedural Acts: The presumption in opposition to
retrospective operation isn't relevant to the statutes which absolutely have an effect on fine the
method and exercise of the courts. In the case of Gardner v. Lucas (1878), it modified into held
that changes inside the form of technique are continually retrospective, till there may be some
good motive or other why they must no longer be.

Evidentiary Acts: The evidentiary legal guidelines are also blanketed within the ambit of
procedural legal guidelines and thereby also are exempted from this doctrine of presumption
towards retrospective operation of statutes.

In the case of Ramji Virji v Kadarbhai (1973), it has become held that restoration statutes are
through their very nature supposed to function upon and feature an impact on beyond
transactions and are consequently, absolutely retrospective. Curative and validating statutes
characteristic on situations already modern and might have no prospective operation. In District
Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. (2001), the Court had to don't forget whether or not the
Cess and different Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992, and decide whether the Act has
proven the gathering of taxes on minerals already realised under the invalid regulation, or
whether or not it in addition granted a proper to levy tax and understand the identical.

The Court held that on a simple reading of the Act, it turned out to be clean that it imagined to
validate fantastic State prison guidelines and movements regarding cesses and exceptional taxes
on minerals fictionally want to be held to have been enacted through the Parliament. The Court
located that thru the Validation Act, Parliament did not re-enact the 11 Acts cited within the
Schedule, but in reality provided the legislative competence for those provisions in the ones acts
which related to cesses or taxes on minerals. Hence, the Court dominated that the scope of the
Act changed into confined to validating the gathering of taxes and did not now provide any rights
past that.

Conclusion : Thus from the above viewpoint we can conclude that there exists a presumption
against retrospective interpretation of statutes and its scope and limitations of above said point.
In our Indian constitution. Ordinarily, a legislature has power to make prospective laws, but
Art:20 of the Indian Constitution, 1950 provides certain safeguards to the persons accused of
crime and so Art. 20(1) of the Indian constitution imposes a limitation on the law making power
of the constitution. It prohibits the legislature to make retrospective criminal laws however it
does not prohibit a civil liability retrospectively i.e. with effect from a past date. Thus, we can
say that the presumption against retrospective plays a key role in the subject of interpretation of
statutes.