SLIDE 1- INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - BASIC PRINCIPLES OF

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF LAW.

SLIDE 2-
THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES ARE: -

INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE
[ "EX VISCERIBUS ACTUS"] STATUTES MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE IN IT'S
CONTEXT
[ ''UT RET MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PAREAT'']
STATUTES MUST BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AND WORKABLE:
HOWEVER PLAIN THE MEANING BE
SLIDE 3-
WHAT IS LEGISLATURE?
The word legislature comes from the Latin word for "law" — legis. A legislature is a governing
body that makes laws and can also amend or repeal them.
SLIDE 4-
“WHAT IS INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE”

-It is assumed that the written law passed by a legislative body is an order.

-The most widely recognized method of interpreting or construing a legislation is to do is in

accordance with "the intent of those who make it."
SLIDE-5
- It is the duty of Judicature is to act upon the true intention of the legislature. This is guided by
the Maxim. “Sententia Legis” i.e., true intention of legislature.

- Intention of the legislature always serves as reference to the meaning of words used by
legislature which are objectively determined. It is nowhere seen or expressly provided; it has to
be assessed by the guiding rules of interpretation.

• According to Salmond the duty of the judicature is to discover and to act upon the true
intention of the legislature under the Maxim, ‘sententia legis’ or mens.

• As essence of the law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, but letter is the only way in which
intentions are expressed. The words are external manifestation of intention that it
involves. When there is possibility of one or more interpretation of statute, courts have to
adopt that interpretation which reflects the ‘true intention of legislature’ which can also
be considered legal meaning statutory provisions.

- The intention of legislature shall have two aspects: -

- “Meaning’’: That which tell what the words mean.
- “Purpose and Object”: That which includes purpose and object of enacting the statute.

As already understood intention of legislature is not found, it is assessed from the statute with a
combination of ‘meaning of the words and light of purpose or objects.
SLIDE-6

Guiding lines to frame intention of legislature are: –

The context (pari materiae{when two provisions of two different statutes deal with the same
subject matter and form part of the same subject matter.} external aid to interpretation).
The subject matter.
The effects and consequences.
The spirit or reason of the law.
Intention of legislature is assessed either in express words or by necessary implication in keeping
mind the purpose or object of the statute.
According to J, A mechanical interpretation of the words and application of legislature intent
devoid of concept will make most of the remedial and beneficent legislation futile (ineffective).
Judiciary would mold or creatively interpret legislation as they are finishers, refiners and polishers
of legislation.
SLIDE 7-
THEN WHAT IS THE SUPPOSED INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE?

It is very well accepted that through the text and then with the context the intention is understood,
but in any case, courts cannot, think of anything which the legislation has not provided. If the court
understands anything beyond what the legislation provided then it is understood as supposed
intention which the court has arrived at on his own by overviewing the legislative parameters or
subjects involved in legislation by the legislature.
It is a universally accepted truth that ‘no facts of the case are same’ but definitely there would be
similarity in the facts of the case. While applying the same law in different cases on similarity
courts cannot or need not proceed with a supposed intention.

1. Supreme courts Settled principles of interpretation: -

2. The court must start with the presumption that legislature did not make a mistake.
3. The court must adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the
legislature.
4. If there is a defect or an omission of the words used by the legislature, the court must as
much as possible, by literal reading produce on intelligible result. When the provision
becomes unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with
other parts of statute then only words may be added, altered or modified, thereby to connect
or make up the deficiency.
SLIDE -8

What jurists say about this rule?

A statute is to become construed according to the intent of those who make it and the duty of the
judiciary is to act upon the true intention of the legislature- I.e., the Mens or sententia legis in
RMD Chambarbaugwala vs UOI

The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in
the words used by the legislature itself. Hon’ble justice Gajendrakar in Kannailal Sur Vs Parmnidhi
sadhukhan, 1957
• SLIDE 09-
Ex Vescribus Actus-
words in a statute often take their meaning from the context of this statute as a whole.
they are therefore, not to be construed in isolation. For instance, the use of the world
may would normally indicate that the provision was not mandatory. But in the context
of start you this word make a not a legislative imperative, particularly when its
construction is in a permissive sense would relegate it to the uneviable position, as it
were, off all an ineffectual Angel beating its wings in a luminous void in vain. If the
choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the
manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce
the legislation to futility and should rather accept the boulder construction based on the
view that parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective
result.

•
STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AND WORKABLE
• THIS RULE STATES THAT LAW SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN SUCH WAY THAT IT WILL
MAKE LAW EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE. SOMETIMES PROVISIONS IN LAW MAY BE VAGUE
AND INCONSISTENT. NO NEED TO MARK SUCH LAW AS VOID, BUT DEDUCE THE MEANING
SUCH THAT SUCH LAW CAN BE MADE WORKABLE.
SLIDE 10-
• TWO IMPORTANT THINGS. PROVISIONS/WORDS/CLAUSES SHOULD NOT BE READ IN
ISOLATION. AND THEY MUST BE READ IN ITS CONTEXT.
• FEW THINGS ABOUT THIS RULE:
SLIDE 11-

UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PAREAT-

meaning- it is better for a thing to have effect than to be make void
Explanation- in case of making a contract between two parties, it may happen that the contract
made between themselves contain many mistakes or flaw. This maxim says even though contract
contains many inadequacies of fact it will be valid. And it is better to be declared as void.
The code shall try to interpret each and every word therein in order to recognize the internal
meaning of such contract.
the doctrine of UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PAREAT is also applicable in the
interpretation of an instrument, document or deed.
primary rule- reasonable construction and also known as the maxim UT RES MAGIS VALEAT
QUAM PAREAT

Intention of legislature is more important than words.

While interpreting any provision or law if there are two interpretations possible, one which is
intra vires (Within the powers"} while another which is ultra-vires, then former interpretation
shall always prevail or Applicable if literally legis [literal rule] fails
Courts may add, or substitute certain words or omit certain words modify the meaning of words
to carry out the intention of the law.
Example, his, and him- [mostly law, act] it is understood it is applicable to male and also female
a transgender
Not applicable- literal interpretation is clear. reasonable interpretation is absurd or incomplete
This is also known as reasonable construction
SLIDE 12
REMARKS IN ONE OF THE CASE
SLIDE 13

Tan Bug Taim vs Collector Of Bombay on 9 August, 1945

In this case court held, I convinced that a broad and liberal spirit should inspire those who's duty
it is to interpret it, but I do not imply by the enactment in the interest of any legal or
constitutional theory

K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax

That statute or provision must be constituted in such a way to operate the meaning and make it
workable

Sarabjit Singh vs Union Of India And Ors.

Interpretation courts must make every possible effort to make that provision or statue workable
Slide 14
In Padma Sunder Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 (3) SCC 533,
a Constitution Bench of this Court held: ".... a casus omissus{ a situation omitted from or
not provided for by statute or regulation and therefore governed by the common
law. cannot be supplied by the court by judicial interpretative process, except in the case of clear
necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself, but at the same
time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a Statute
or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with
reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular
provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole Statute."
Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another, [(2014) 1 SCC 188]- Second
wife is entitled to claim maintenance from husband u/s. 125 if the subsistence of first
marriage is concealed by the husband.

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that, ‘The Second wife is entitled to
maintenance under section 125 CrPC if the husband had concealed from her the
subsistence of his first marriage.

Where the husband had duped the second wife by not revealing to her the fact of his
earlier marriage, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the husband cannot deny
maintenance to his second wife u/s 125 CrPC in such a case and he cannot be
permitted to take advantage of his own wrong by raising the contention that such
second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, being void under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the second wife was not entitled to maintenance as she was
not his legally wedded wife. The earlier judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (i)
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 S.C.C. 530 and (ii)
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 S.C.C. 636 supporting the
said contention of the husband would apply only in those circumstances where a
woman marries a man with full knowledge of subsistence of his first marriage. Second
wife thus having no knowledge of first subsisting marriage is to be treated as legally
wedded wife for purposes of claiming maintenance.