INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Prof. Disha Sharma

AIDS OF INTERPRETATION

INTERNAL & EXTERNAL

INTERNAL:

1. SHORT TITLE
Name given to the statute. Purpose of reference. Starts with the name of the act and
ends with a year of passing. IPC, 1860. Contract Act, 1872.

Modern statues: This act may be cited as……../ This Act may be called ……..

2. LONG TITLE
Object of the Act. An Act to……. Eg: CRPC, Prevention of Corruption Act.
KEDAR NATH VS SO WB

3. PREAMBLE
Main object of the Act. Constitution- preamble
KEDAR NATH VS SO WB
RASHTRIYA MILL MAZGOOR SANGH VS NTC (South Maharashtra Ltd.)- Preamble is
only useful when there are ambiguities.
A.C. SHARMA vs DELHI ADMIN- Prevention of Corruption Act. S.5 was challenged. No
preamble can interfere with the clear language of the Statute.

4. MARGINAL NOTES
Inserted at the side of the section. Effect of the section. Side notes. Eg. Constitution
Bengal Immunity Company vs SO Bihar: Art. 286 marginal notes (Consti)
Chandler vs Director of Public Prosecutions: Official Secrets Act, 1911- sec 1
challenged. Penalties for spying. Language clear, marginal notes need not be taken into
consideration.
S.P. Gupta vs President of India: if provision of statute points towards betterment,
marginal note is in conflict, the marginal note will be taken into consideration.

5. HEADINGS
Prefixed to sections or a group of sections. Preamble to set of sections. Meaning clear,
no need to take help of headings.
Shelly vs London County Council: One heading of act cannot be an aid to another act.
Bullmer vs IRC: Chapter headings can be used.
 DATE: 28.07.2021

DEFINITION OR INTERPRETATION CLAUSE

Extend the meaning of some words in a specified manner.extend the natural meaning of
the word in a specified meaning. Eg. Sec. 2, means, means and includes.
M/s Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commissioner: include- exclusive,
means and includes- exhaustive
Avtar Singh vs State- alleged to steal electricity- electricity is energy, not movable
property. The thing will be assumed to be that in fact it is not.
SO Haryana vs Raghubir Dayal: “shall”- ordinarily mandatory, but it can waived off if the
Court feels that the intention of the Legislature was not so, consequences will not be
appropriate.
SO Bombay vs Hospital Mazdoor Sangh: industry meaning inclusive, so it has to be
applied in that manner only.
Mahalakshmi Oil Mills vs SO AP: tobacco-sec 4-means, and includes- exhaustive and
refused tobacco seeds to be included.

PROVISOS
Inserted to section. Section interpreted you have to take into consideration the whole
section+ proviso. Literal or strict not that into consideration- supplement with the section.
R vs Leeds Prison (Governor): main part of enactment cannot be interpreted to render its
proviso unnecessary
Vishesh Kumar vs Shanti Prasad: proviso cannot defeat the basic intent of provision.
Purpose: a. qualify or provide an exception from the main enactment
B. change the concept of enactment so that the act can be workable and be put into
application.

ILLUSTRATIONS:
Show the mind of the legislature by examples.
Shambhu Nath vs SO Ajmer; Sec.106 evidence act exception sec.101. If the section is
clear then illustration scope cannot be extended.
Mahesh Chandra Sharma vs Raj Kumari Sharma: illustration part of section & it helps to
understand the principle behind the section.
EXCEPTIONS AND SAVINGS CLAUSE
Added to an enactment with the purpose of exempting something. Eg. S.300 IPC
Savings added in case of repeal and re-enactment statute. Inserted in the repealing statute. In
case if there is a clase b/w main statute and savings clause, then main enactment will prevail.
Director of secondary education vs Pushpendra Kumar: exception cannot be interpreted; it will
subserve the main enactment and thereby nullify the main enactment.
Collector of Customs vs M/s Modi Rubber Ltd: principal clause, there exists an exception, it has
to be interpreted in context of the principal clause.

10. EXPLANATIONS
Explain the meaning of a particular provision and also to remove anticipated doubt. Eg. 108 of
IPC, Sec. 405.
Bihta Co-operative development cane marketing union vs SO Bihar: conflict b/w main provision
and explanation, Court is duty bound to harmonise the two.
M.K. Salpekar vs Sunil Kumar Shamsunder Chaudhari: accommodation- residential & non-
residential. Explanation referred residential.

11. SCHEDULE
How rights under the Act are to be asserted or powers are supposed to be exercised.Eg. Lists in
Consti.
M/s Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs SO Maharashtra: clash b/w schedule and main provision,
main body will prevail.

12. PUNCTUATION
The Court will read that provision with punctuation, if no error is found, then the Court will
interpret. If there is some error, the Court will read the provision without punctuation and
interpret it without giving any importance to the punctuations.
A.K. Gopalan vs SO Madras: Art. 22 (7) importance of a comma, “which” twice in the article
wanted that the provision had to be read as disjunctive.
Aswini Kumar vs Arabinda Bose: cannot be regarded as a controlling element.
Dadaji vs Sukhdeobabu: does not control the meaning of the Statute, where the meaning is
obvious, then punctuation can be ignored.

EXTERNAL AIDS OF INTERPRETATION

1. DICTIONARIES: Ordinary language words interpret.

Alamgir vs SO Bihar: Sec. 498 IPC- detention term confusion- court rejected the dictionary
meaning.
Ramavatar vs Assistant Sales Tax Officer: betel leaves are vegetable or not? Dictionary failed
to reflect the true meaning of word in the present context, ordinary meaning should be
considered. Sale tax impose.
Peyarelal vs Mahadeo Ramachandra: selling supari sweetened with a banned artificial
sweetener. No value of dictionary meaning for the term “food”. Act only defines word, no need
to go into dictionary meaning.

2. TEXTBOOKS:
Kesavananda Bharti vs SO Kerala: background of the case has to be taken into consideration.
Not all opinions are supposed to be relied upon.
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Legitimate topics of the legislature have to be understood to study the historical context of an
enactment.
Express newspapers Pvt Ltd vs UOI: history of legislation and other external sources may be
looked in case of confusion.
SO WB vs Nirpendra Nath: Court are free to consult earlier statute to find out true meaning of
word.

4. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Inadmissible as an aid to interpretation.
A.K. Gopalan vs SO Madras: disallowed speech as an aid to interpretation. Speech is a
personal opinion and it does not reflect majority opinion.
Kesavanda Bharti case affirmed the same.

5. PRACTICE- JUDICIAL, CONVEYANCING, ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMERCIAL

Pilkington vs IRC: accepted the views and practice of conveyance and commercial practices.
State vs Sajjan Singh: administrative practice was rejected as an aid.
Nature and scope must be taken into account while determining the true meaning.

CLASSIFICATION OF STATUTES

CLASSIFICATION WITH REFERENCE TO DURATION

1. Temporary statute: operation or validity fixed by the statute itself. Once expired, a new
enactment is supposed to be made. Finance Act
2. Permanent Statue: where there is no such period mentioned, not unchanged, replaced

CLASSIFICATION WITH REFERENCE TO METHOD

1. Mandatory statute- imperative/ obligatory- compels the performance.

2. Directory statute- permissive- directs without compelling the performance.
H.V. Kamath vs Ahmad Ishaque: mandatory provision strictly observed whereas
substantial compliance of directory is enough.

CLASSIFICATION WITH REFERENCE TO OBJECT

1. Codifying: on a specific subject there is an entire law made. Purpose is to codify in an
orderly manner the pre existing rules.
2. Consolidating: consolidates the law on a particular. The purpose is to present the whole
body of statutory law on a subject in a complete form.
3. Declaratory: removal of doubts. It is hereby declared that….. Contains preamble + word
+ enacted. Retrospective effect but already matters cannot be reopened. If the case is
pending, then declaratory statute will prevail.
4. Remedial: remedy is conferred. Purpose is to make improvements in enforcement of
one’s right/ remove defects in former. “For remedy whereof”. Liberal construction. Eg.
Maternity Benefits Act, 1961
5. Enabling: the legislature enables something to be done, which would otherwise be
unlawful.
6. Disabling: one which restricts or cuts down a right which is conferred.
7. Penal: punishes certain acts or wrongs. Comprehensive criminal code or else a large no.
of sections provides punishment for diff wrongs.
 8. Taxing: imposes taxes on income or other transactions. Purpose is to collect revenue of
the government.
9. Explanatory: explains the law.
10. Amending: makes addition to the original law.
11. Repealing: repeals an earlier statute. Revocation may be express or implied in language.
Crpc 1898 repealed by crpc 1973.
12. Curative: validating - cure defects in prior law or actions of admin authority. Purpose is to
remove the case of ineffectiveness and invalidity of actions. Notwithstanding any
judgement, decree or order of any court.

PRINCIPLES/ RULES OF INTERPRETATION

1. LITERAL RULE
Grammatical rule. Words of an enactment ordinary or natural meaning. If the meaning is
clear, effect should be given. According to the rules of grammar, supposed to be
interpreted. Technical meaning to technical words. Why is it supposed to be interpreted
literal? Beacuse the language is asopted by legis- duty of court to only effect to what is
written by legis
Ram Kishan vs SO Delhi: abetment of criminal misconduct by a public servant by
offering him illegal gratification. Sec 5(1)(d) language is clear, no need to stretch the
meaning.
Ramavatar vs Assistant Sales Tax Officer
Ranjit Udeshi vs SO Maharashtra: Lady Chatterley’s Lover book was banned by GOI.
The bookseller sold it was convicted under Sec. 292 of IPC. Absence of mens rea. Court
held that language of Sec. 292 is clear, so no weightage was given to the contentions of
the Appellant.

If language is ambiguous, there are possibly two constructions, the construction must be
adopted which will give meaning to the other provisions.

Madan Mohan vs Chandrashekara- statute has stringent provisions, they must strictly
interpreted to give effect to the Act.

2. MISCHIEF RULE
Heydon’s case. (1584)- judges shall interpret in such a way that it will suppress the
mischief and advance the remedy. Also known as the rule of purposive construction.
Alamgir vs SO Bihar: Sec. 498 of IPC. provision was sough to remedy the mischief of
depriving the husband from company of his wife. Consent is irrelevant.
Ranjit Udeshi case
Peyarelal vs Mahadeo Ramchandra

3. GOLDEN RULE
Modified form of Grammatical rule. Court while interpreting shall take into consideration
the intention of the legislature and then take the natural meaning into consideration. If
 the natural meaning creates confusion, then under such circumstances the Court modify
the meaning to such an extent that it will avoid the consequences. Modified method of
interpretation. More than two interpretations, then the one which is in consonance with
the true intention of the legislature will be taken into consideration.
SO Punjab vs Qaiser Jehan Begum: Land Acquisition Act u/s 18, Respondent made an
application. Clash whether the date of passing of awards has to be considered or the
date on which it came to knowledge of the Respondent has to be considered. Court held
that in the spirit of justice, you have taken the latter one into consideration.
Lee vs Knapp- STOP interpretation. Stopped for a reasonable period of time for inquiry
relating to the accident.

4. HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION
When there are two conflicting provisions of a same statute, then the court instead of
removing one of them, will try to construe it harmoniously. Why? Because it is presumed
that the legislature will not encat two conflicting provisions in the same Act.
M.S.M. Sharma vs Krishna Sinha: editor of a newspaper and he published some
derogatory remark which was made by a minister against the speaker of SLA. He was
called upon to show cause why he should not be punished under A. 194 (3) privilege of
Parliament. The editor argued that his A.19 (1) (A) will be infringed in case he is being
punished. A. 19(1) (A) and A. 194 (3) were in conflict. Applying the rule, the Court held
that A.19 (1) (a) was subject to privileges of the House under A. 194 (3).
Waverly Jute Mills vs Raymond and Co. : There are lists in the Consti. 7th schedule.
These lists are supposed to be interpreted in such a way that all of them are given effect.
In case, there is a conflict between the general and specific subject, then the general will
prevail over the latter.
Shankari Prasad vs UOI: A. 13 (2) created limitation on the Parliament to amend the
fundamental rights. In this case, the Court held that the Parliament cannot be controlled
by A. 13 (2) and A. 368 it can make amendments. Sajjan Singh correlation between FR
& DPSP. in case there is conflict, harmonious construction has to be applied. Golak Nath
vs SO Punjab: Parliament is controlled u/a 13(2). Rest by Keshvananda Bharti case-
evolved the concept of basic structure of the Constitution. Parliament can amend
anything, but not the basic structure.

5. CONSTRUCTION UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PAREAT

When alternate options are available, the Court will take into consideration the one
which can be applied for smooth functioning of the system, for the purpose the statute
has been enacted.
Avtar Singh vs SO Punjab: SC applied this principle. Electricity theft case
Shreenath VS Rajesh: where two views are possible for a procedural, the one which
curtails procedure without eluding justice, that should be considered.
M/s Ethiopian Airlines vs M/s Stic Travels(P) Ltd: in arbitration, if there are two possible
interpretations, then the one which makes the arbitration agreement desirable, that
interpretation shall be adopted.
B.S. Council of Ayurvedic and Unani medicine vs SO Bihar
 6. IDENTICAL EXPRESSIONS TO HAVE SAME MEANING
When the legislature has used a particular expression many times in a statute, the
expression must bear the same meaning everywhere. Exceptions which the court can
give is:
a. The expression used is used under different context
b. The expression used in a statute is consolidating statute.

May and shall

D.D. Rego vs Rajiv Gandhi University of health sciences: procedure relating to
examination conducted by the University was known to the students. The students
cannot turn back to say that the University regulations are contrary to regulations framed
by the Medical Council of India.

7. THE STATUTE SHOULD BE READ AS A WHOLE

Also known as ex viscerbus actus: within the four corners of the Act. The meaning of the word
can be determined by other words used in the same section. If a word is used in a section
repeatedly, then the same meaning will prevail to that word. Statutes are interpreted according
to the spirit and not according to letter.
Popatlal Shah vs SO Madras: to ascertain the legislative intention, all the parts of the statute are
to be taken. Each word will have importance. Title and preamble also fall within the ambit of
internal aid. Why? They aid in interpreting the intention of the legislature.
Newspaper Ltd vs State Industrial Tribunal: typist employee was dismissed. UP Working
Journalists union intervened. SC held that it was not an industry, the statute must be read a
whole to determine the constituent parts.
Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt Ltd: statute as a whole, chapter by chapter,
section by section, word by word.

8. CONSTRUCTION NOSCITUR A SOCIIS

Noscere: know and Sociis: Association. The meaning of the word is known from the company it
keeps. It helps in finding the true intention of the legislature. Associated words must be taken
into consideration. Know from the association.
I.R.C. vs Frere: “interest” IT Act. Interest, annuities or other annual payment. Interest means
annual interest only, it was determined from the collocation of the words.
K. Janardhan Pillai vs UOI: raw cashewnut is a foodstuff under Essential Commodities Act.

9. CONSTRUCTION EJUSDEM GENERIS

Of the same kind. Generally, general wods should be given natural meaning, but when general
words follow a distinct category, then the meaning should be given in that sense only. This
principle is not universal in nature.
UP Electricity Board vs Harishanker:
a. Statute contains some words
b. Words belong to some class or category
 c. Class or category is not exhaustive in nature
d. General words depend upon the particular word
e. No indication of a different legislative intent
NALGO VS Bolton Corporation: where the preceding words do not belong to a genus, the rule
does not apply. “Or otherwise”
Hamdard Dawakhana vs UOI: Fruit Products Order, 1955 & Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Fruit juice is a being manufactured, 25% fruit syrup. Order did not apply to rooh afza because
the order includes squashes, crushes, cordials, barley water or any other beverages. Any other
beverages will not have a distinct genus.

10. CONSTRUCTION EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERUIS

Means express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another.
Parbhani Transport vs Road Transport Authority If the language is clear then the principle will
not apply. Here,under motor vehicles act, it was stated that buses will ply to state of Bombay, it
means that the language is unambiguous and this principles will not be applicable.
Gilmore vs Baker Carr: agricultural land & agricultural building. Agricultural land includes land
exceeding one acre for the purpose of poultry farming. Broiler house is not a land.
Fundamental rights u/a 15, 16 & 19 applies to only citizens, non-citizens are expressly
excluded: R.C. Cooper vs UOI

11. CONSTRUCTION CONTEMPORNEA EXPOSITIO EST FORTISSIMA IN LEGE

Contemporaneous exposition of law is the best law. Exposition of statute is best when exposed
from contemporary authority. Binding force is the consequence.
Raja Ram vs SO Bihar: refuse to apply the principle to interpret sec. 25 of evidence act because
this act was considered as a recent act.
J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving mills ltd vs UOI: maxim was made applicable and it was said
that with time one cannot restrict the intention of legislature. Law can be amended.

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION

Natural meaning of any word, clearly mentions something or omits certain case, the
word should not be stretched to that extent where the natural meaning gets hampered.
If the natural meaning fails to achieve the object of the statute, extended meaning can
be given.
If any statute is enacted for the benefit of a particular section, if there are two possible
interpretations, the one which will assist in achieving the object of the act.
Clash between wide meaning and narrower meaning, the Court will interpret the former.
Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohammed Quasim: a subsequent law cannot be interpreted to
defeast of a beneficial construction.
Manohar Lal vs SO Punjab: Sec. 7 of Punjab Trade Employees Act directed for closure
of shops and establishments one day in a week. It was not held violative of A. 19 (1) (g)
as it was for the benefit of the health and efficiency of workers.
Surrey County Council vs Battersby: foster child. A child who visits on certain weekends
to his parents was also considered as a foster child.
U. Unichoy vs SO Kerala: minimum wages whether it was violative to A. 19 (1) (g) or
not? no , it is not violative, it is a beneficial construction.

INTERPRETATION OF PENAL STATUTES

1. While construing a penal statute, if there is confusion , then it must be interpreted

in favour of the person who would be liable to penalty.
2. If the statue avoids punishment, then it has to be construed in that manner.
3. Two possible constructions, lenient one should be taken into consideration.
4. Plain language of the statute clearly specifies that there shall be infliction of
punishment, only then punishment will be given.
5. Unless it is stated that the statue is criminal, it shall not be interpreted to be
criminal in nature.
6. If there is any confusion relating to any word, where the sentence is for
punishment, it shall be resolved in favour of the accused person.
7. Letter of law must be strictly complied with.
8. Jurisdiction and procedure law , it shall be strictly complied. No person can be
inflicted with punishment if the due procedure or requirements are not complied
with. If there is any doubt regarding the technicalities or procedure, then it shall
be interpreted in favour of the accused person.
9. Penal statutes shall be put into application prospectively.
10. The Court shall not narrow down the meaning of the letter of law.

Kedar Nath vs SO WB: imprisonment or fine or both. Act amended, and fine part was
enhanced to the level where the offender had caused pecuniary loss. SC held that the
enhanced punishment cannot be meted not, because it will be contradictory to A. 20 (1).

Sajjan Singh vs SO Punjab: interpretation of sec. 5 (3) of Corruption Act. because it was
a special provision, it must be strictly construed in favour of the person who is accused
and be strictly interpreted.

Rattan Lal vs SO Punjab: 16 years old boy convicted of outraging modesty and was
sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and fine. The Probation Act came into existence
after his conviction. The SC reversed the order and held that probation act benefit will
be given to the accused person.
Ranjit vs SO Maharashtra: Lady chatterley.
Moti Bhai vs R. Prasad: refuse to expand the meaning of a penal provision on the
ground that scope of the provision is already clear, so there no need to expand it further.
Sakshi vs UOI: 375 definition of rape- interpret- SC held that since there is no ambiguity in the
definition, it is not desireablt to create confusion by wrong judicial interpretation.

INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTE

1. Statutes which impose taxes or monetary burdens
2. Strictly interpreted
3. Language must be complied strictly
4. Person cannot be taxed unless the language of the statute clearly imposes an
obligation on the person to pay tax.
5. Intention of the legislature has to be interpreted by gathering the natural meaning
of the words.
6. Nothing has to be drawn out of presumption or implication.
7. Strictly interpreted in favour of those on whom burden of payment is desired to
be imposed.
8. Language cannot be narrowed and it cannot be widened to give benefit to the
taxpayer.
9. If there are two possibilities, the interpretation which favors the person sought to
be taxed has to be taken into consideration.

Commissioner of IT, Gujrat vs A. Raman and Co.- payment of tax can be lawfully
avoided by properly distributing the commercial affairs. Tax payer income is diverted
without violating the provisions of IT Act. but tax evasion is not permissible.

Atlas cycle industries vs SO Haryana: new areas were introduced in the municipalities.
Provisions were also extended. SC had to decide whether a notification regarding
imposition of tax can also be included in the area? Strict interpretation, such an
extension was not permissible automatically.

Lakshmi Ammal vs K.M. Madhav Krishnan: Court fees- strict construction- court fees
are a heavy restriction on person.

Grasim industries ltd vs SO MP: exemption notification has to read with the fiscal
statute- not be read in parts.

AMENDING, CONSOLIDATING & CODIFYING STATUTE

AMENDING STATUTE:
Amendment is a legislative act designed to change prior existing laws. Amendment
either adds something or it takes something off.
Where any word that bears a doubtful meaning, then the Statute can be amended to
bring the true meaning or intention of the legislature in consonance with the statute.
When a word is used in a statute previously interpreted by the Court and it is being used
by the legislature in subsequent statutes, it will be presumed that the meaning is the
same. Presumption not universal, not conclusive.

Vajravelu vs spl deputy collector: compensation- A.31 (2). J. Subba Rao stated that
compensation has already been interpreted in the case of SO WB vs Bela Banerjee.
After that the Parliament used the same meaning in A.31. it is apparent that the
Parliament had accepted the meaning of the word given by the earlier court.

If the legislature has remained inactive over years, then the same conclusions can be
drawn. Ramanandana Prasad vs Kapil Deo: Sec. 7 of Bihar Moneylenders Act where
some word were challenged on the ground of being confusing. The court on appeal held
that the Patna HC used the word in the same intention over many years, and the
legislature also did not take any action, which implies that the view expressed by the
Patna HC is in consonant with the intention of the legislature.

CONSOLIDATING STATUTE
One which collects all statutory provisions relating to a particular topic in one Legislative
act, with minor changes. Arbitration Act, Succession Act.
presumption that the legislature did not intend to change the existing law, it merely
collected the law and made it into a new statute. Object is to collect law upon a
particular subject in order to make it into a Code.
Presumed that if it is a consolidating statute, then the meaning of the terms shall remain
the same as it was before the acts were consolidated. Expressly or impliedly.
There are more than one reasonable interpretations, then the Court will take the one
which favors minimum interference with the existing law.
An act can be both consolidating and amending statute as well. Eg. Long title of CrPC.
In cases where no directions are formulated for interpretation, the Court shall follow the
rules of interpretation.
SO WB vs Nripendra: to find out the meaning, prior law in existence shall be taken and
the position of the word.

CODIFYING STATUTE
States exhaustively the whole of the law on a particular subject. Draftsman, pre existing
statutory provisions + makes additional changes to it as well.
L. Janakirama vs P.P.M. Nilkanto Iyer: question relating to res judicata cannot be
decided on the basis of general principles, why? Because it is exhaustively provided u/s
11 of CPC.
UOI vs Mohindra Supply Co. Arbitration Act, 1940 is both a consolidating and amending
statute. The question before the Court was whether law relating to appeal of arbitral
award shall be taken in accordance with S. 39 or pre existing laws? The Court held that
the language is clear and must be given full effect. The enactment is a codifying statute,
so law relating to appeals must be looked upon S. 39.

MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY ENACTMENTS

To determine whether the enactment is mandatory or directory, words like “shall, may,
must” shall be taken into account. Ordinarily, must and shall is mandatory and may is
permissive. Sometimes, the Court can interpret it vice versa as well,depending upon the
object behind the act.
Statute shall be considered permissive if it issues direction. If the same are coupled with
penalty for non- compl, it shall be mandatory. Non performance + penalty= mandatory.
Comply is a must, but in case of directory, mere performance is enough.
Repercussions: effect is irregularity- directory, effect is illegality- mandatory.
General public benefit- mandatory
Individual benefit- directory.
Where non compliance of public duty, not real injustice not caused, it shall be
interpreted as directory.
Mandatory- it creates duty
If there are both provisions present in the statute, then it shall be interpreted
accordingly.
Use of negative connotation at the beginning of the provision, shall be interpreted as
mandatory.
Action taken in violation of mandatory provisions- invalid
Action taken in violation of directory provision- valid +there could be some punishment.

Sangram Singh vs Election tribunal: interpretation of procedural legislation + principles

of natural justice. The prime purpose of law is to provide justice, in case if there are too
many technical constructions, then it would defeat the purpose of legislation. Natural
principle’s application is mandatory, unless an exception is created.

SO UP vs Manbodhanlal: A. 320- UPSC OR SPSC shall be consulted. The court held

that it is directory, because nowhere it is mentioned that non- consultation would render
the action invalid.

Ramji vs SO Bihar: Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Act main objective is to prevent
the youth from getting in association with the hardened criminals. Reformation rather
than infliction of punishment. Object relating to age is not for the purpose of determining
guilt, only for punishment which he would suffer for the offence for which he has been
found guilty.
Jyoti Prasad Mitter vs Chief Justice: A.217- consultation of CJI was a mandatory
requirement.

Bashira vs SOUP: court may engage a counsel to defend a person who has committed
an offense punishable with death. SC held that looking into the considerations and
provisions of law, the Court shall have no other option than to provide a counsel as the
provision is mandatory in nature.

CONJUNCTIVE AND DISJUNCTIVE ENACTMENTS

And- conjunctive / or- disjunctive
However, the court can interpret it vise versa to bring it parallel with the intention of the
legislature.
Sambhu Nath vs SO WB: A.22 (7)(a) and was taken into conjunctive sense and court
held that when A.22 (4) and A. 22(7) are in conflict with each other, the Court shall try to
harmonise the same.

Mazagaon Docks Ltd vs Commissioner of IT: whether the word or may mean and or not
in context of Sec. 42 of IT Act. after ascertaining the intention of the legislature, Court
concluded that it must be understood as conjunctive.

R vs Newbound: s. 4 Prevention of Corruption Act- local and public authorities-

authorities which are either local or public and not include authorities which are local
and public.

PRESUMPTIONS REGARDING JURISDICTION

1. Presumptions against ouster jurisdiction, create or enlargement existing

jurisdiction
a. Statute should not be given interpretation in such a manner that it takes
away the jurisdiction of the court, unless directly provided by the
legislature.
b. Court is open to all and anyone can seek justice. Legislature ordinarily did
not intend justice shall be beyond the reach of people, unless clearly
ousted by the legislature.
c. Where a statute confers a new right OR liability- the tribunal is added with
additional powers- which court shall have the jurisdiction to determine the
right of the individual? HC or tribunal- HC shall have the jurisdiction.
 d. Whether the HC will still hold the power to correct the error of jurisdiction?
Yes HC will have the power, unless HC being expressly deprived of this
jurisdiction.
e. Can court suo moto take action on this? Yes, court is considered as an
open court all and court is the protector of individuals rights. (fundamental
rights)
f. Clearly legislature has not enlarged the jurisdiction, then it cannot be
presumed that the jurisdiction has enlarged.
g. Because legislature has provided the jurisdiction, it is solely the legislature
that can take away the jurisdiction. Even after mutual consent of the
parties, the jurisdiction cannot be parted with.
h. Civil courts- jurisdiction cannot be taken away unless stated specifically.
Even if the jurisdiction is excluded, the civil courts can examine whether
the provision (procedural) are complied or not. Principle behind it is that
law presumes that remedy shall be available to all the citizens.
i. SC & HC jurisdiction constitution- curtailment of jurisdiction not possible
unless constitution is amended.
2. Presumption against of violation of international law
a. Statute will not be interpreted to be incon established rules international
law. Municipal law is interpreted, if the court feels that it is in conflict with
international law, court will try to not give opertation to that statute. If the
language of the statute is clear, then the court is left with no option.
b. If there are two possible interpretations, the one which is in consonance
with international law, shall be taken into consideration.
c. Reference- A. 51 (c)
3. Presumption against extra territorial operation of statute
a. Presumed that act of parliament applies within the territory of that state
unless specifically mentioned by the parliament that it shall have extra
territorial jurisdiction.
b. Private international law- land/ immovable related issue, then the law of
that state will be applicable.
c. Private international law- movable related issue, then the law of that state
where the movable property is there, that states law will be applicable.
d. A. 245 (2) of consti- no law will be invalid on the grounds that it would
have extra territorial jurisdiction.
e. S. 3 & 4 of IPC- relates to extra territorial operation of IPC.

COMMENCEMENT, REPEAL AND REVIVAL OF JURISDICTION

COMMENCEMENT OF LEGISLATION
Sec. 3(13) : commencement- means the day on which the Act/ regulation comes into
force. Since, this act does not state that publication in official gazette is a necessary
condition, it is presumed that on the date when the president gives assent, that day
shall the considered as date of commencement.
Section 5: where the date is not expressed, it shall be presumed that on the day when
assent was given will be the date of commencement (pre- constitution- governor
general) president for post- constitution acts.
General clauses act is both a union as well as a state act.
States: Assam, UP, MP, Bihar, Orissa, Punjab & WB- no specific date is there- the dte
when governor gives assent shall be considered as date of commencement.
Other states: when it is published in the official gazette, that date of publication shall be
date of commencement.
Acts: date of assent
Order or notification by admin body: date of publication in official gazette
Sec. 20- where any order, notification, scheme, rule or regulation is passed in
connection with a Central Act, the meaning of the words shall be the same as it is
conferred in the central act.
Sec. 22: any order, notification, scheme, rule or regulation will not come into operation
until the main act has come into force. Such order, notification, scheme, rule or
regulation shall come into force only after commencement of the main statute.
Sec 23(5): if order, notification, scheme, rule or regulation is published in an official
gazette, it shall be conclusive proof that the order, notification, scheme, rule or
regulation is authentic.
Sec.. 29: General Clauses Act has no retrospective effect.

REPEAL OF LEGISLATION

Sec. 6-A: Where any Central Act or Regulation after the commencement of this Act
repeals any enactment which was amended by the express omission, insertion or
substitution of any matter, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not
affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and
in operation at the time of such repeal.
In short, a repealed act is presumed to not exist and will not affect the continuation of
the amendment, unless a contrary intention is appearing on behalf of the legislature.

Sec. 8: Construction of references to repealed enactments

(1)Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of
this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, be construed as references
to the provision so re-enacted.
In short, if an act is repealed and a new act is re-enacted, it shall be interpreted that
other acts will refer to the re-enacted statute. Exception: contrary intention of the
legislature

(2) Prior to 15th August, 1947 scenario. It shall be interpreted that the act never existed,
and one will rely upon the re-enacted statute. Exception: contrary intention of the
legislature

Sec. 6: Effect of repeal

Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this
Act, repeals any enactment or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention
appears, the repeal shall not--
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or
(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or
suffered thereunder; or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under
any enactment so repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence
committed against any enactment so repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right,
privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and
any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or
enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the
repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.

An act which stands repealed- effect- it will not exist in toto, until the legislature permits
to do so. It acts as a prospective effect. Whatever had been done according to the
repealed act, remain untouched, but in future it will be presumed that the Act or
regulation had not been passed.

Tika Ramji vs SO UP: 254 (2) was challenged regarding the repealing power of the
Parliament. The court held that the power to repeal cannot to delegated to the executive
authority. UP Sugarcane Act, was considered valid as it was a substantive law not
originated by the Parliament and neither did it infringe the constitutional provisions.

Jindas oil mills vs Gondhra Electricity Company: rights vested to someone under any
act, such rights will continue to exist even if the statute is repealed and replaced by,
unless the new statute clearly provides by express language that such would not be the
case.

Delhi Municipality vs Shiv Shanker: respondent was selling vinegar. Food product order
- main act- food adulteration act & essential commodities act. He was tried under the
food adulteration act for selling adulterated vinegar. The SC reversed the Order of HC,
stating that unless the legislature has expressed its intention directly, one cannot
presume that the statute is repealed.

Bhagat Ram vs UOI: difference between repeal and amendment was discussed.
Amendment: existing provision deleted and new provision is substituted. Amendment
cannot be put into retrospective effect unless clear intention of the legislature is
provided. Repeal- completely not in existence.

REVIVAL OF LEGISLATION

Sec. 7
(1) In any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any
enactment wholly or partially repealed, expressly to state that purpose that revival has
to happen.
(2) This section applies also to all Central Acts Made after the third day of January,
1868, and to all Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887.

Ameer-un-nissa Begum vs Mahboob Begum: following sec. - once a repealing statute is

itself repealed, that does not mean the revival of the repealed statute unless the
language is expressly clear.

RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES

No rule of construction is more firmly established than this. Retrospective operation is

not to be given to a statute to impair the existing right or obligation, otherwise than in
regards matter of procedure.
If enactment is expressed in clear language which can interpret itself, ot ought to be
interpreted prospectively only.
Principle behind this?
a. Legislature does not intend what is unjust and that every new enactment should
affect future and not the past. Nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet
non praeteritis
 b. Statute is presumed to apply to circumstances that have come into existence
after the existence of the statute and the legislature intends to apply it
prospectively.

Not rigid or inflexible, but is one which is supposed to applied according to the language
of the statute + intention of the legislature.

Retrospective operation is not given to statutes which would lay new duties or attach
disabilities legality or past transactions involve.
Operation regarding substantive law: retrospective operation not given where new
rights, duties or disabilities are created. Where a case is pending, the court gives the
decision on the basis of the statute at the time commencement of the case. But, the
case may be decided on the basis of amended law- statute is clear & it intends to
change the earlier intention of the legislature.
Another situation is where- amending law it clearly intends to change the rights of the
parties during the pendency of the case, even though the amended law is silent about
the pending cases.

Operation regarding the procedural law: may or may not be applied with retrospective. It
does not affect the vested rights of an individual.

Operation regarding the declaratory law: retrospective operation, if vested rights are not
disturbed.

Ordinary rule: no retrospective operation + to rebut that- provide strong evidence & in
explicit language.

Clash b/w retrospective or prospective effect? Prospectively.

Ex post facto law must be applied retrospectively but every retrospective law is not an
ex post facto law.

SO Bombay vs Vishnu Ramchandra: Sec. 57 Bombay Police Act. Interpretation of “if a

person has been convicted…..” SC held that if a new offence is created, it has to be
apply prospectively. But, penal statutes which create no new punishment, the act can be
interpreted retrospectively after clear intention of the legislature. Sec. 57 language it
does not bar action based on past actions of the offender before the Act was passed.
Has been is intended to mean shall have been.
Jose De Costa vs Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim: applicability of Indian laws Goa,
Daman & Diu- SC substantive rights cannot be taken away by giving retrospective
effect. Matters relating to procedure can be given retrospective operation. Right to
appeal is substantive . if the statute clearly mentions that the court to which the appeal
lies no longer exist, right to appeal is extinguished.

Shriram Durgaprasad vs Director of Enforcement: 113-A Indian Evidence Act- added in

1983- presumption in case of abetment of suicide. It is procedural provision & it can be
applied retrospectively. (Gurbachan Singh vs Satpal Singh)

UOI vs C. Ramaswamy: substitution of the old rule with the new one, clearly intends
that under no circumstances that old rule will have application from the date it ceased to
exist.

INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION

1. Principle of implied powers

The Constitution of India reflects the objectives of the country. Not everything can
be provided in the constitution itself. This principle empowers the Court to define/
restrict the powers which are enumerated in the constitution. Laws which are
necessary for execution of constitutional provisions, they are termed as implied
powers. But these implied powers shall be exercised according to the
constitutional limits. Eg. The US constitution has only 17 entries, Article 1
provides power to the Congress to admin the state. It is presumed here that
whatever actions the Congress takes for implementation of the constitution
provisions shall be implied powers. In India, the principle has to be exercised
cautiously by the Courts. Why? So that they dont narrow or widen the powers of
the legislature/ interfere in the working of the legislature.

2. Principle of incidental or ancillary powers

Constitution gives the law making body incidental and ancillary powers. But even
under circumstances where it has not specifically mentioned, the law makers are
deemed to be in possession of such powers. Why? So that they can effectively
legislate their powers.
7th schedule- lists- they are supposed to be not tied in a water tight
compartment, rather, both the Union and the States have power (ancillary
powers) to extend the applicability of entry beyond what is mentioned in the
entry. For example, betting & gambling- Entry 34 (state list) it has been to be not
including the power to impose taxes on betting & gambling (entry 62)
3. Principle of implied prohibition
Express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another thing.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
Antithesis of implied powers
In consti, if one subject is provided to the Union list, then it shall be presumed
that all other government bodies are excluded/ prohibited from exercising their
power/ legislating law on that subject.

4. Principle of occupied field

When union makes a law on a particular subject, it occupies that field. State
legislature shall have no power to enact in that field. If the State legislature does
so, the enactment shall be unconstitutional. Which means that the union and the
state lists are provided in the constitution, and one cannot encroach on the other
list.
Exception: Concurrent list. General rule: if there is a clash between the state and
union, the union shall prevail. But, in case where the union legislation stands
dead/ repugnant, then the law made by the state on that concurrent subject shall
prevail in that particular state.

5. Principle of pith and substance

If any statute falls within the powers conferred to a legislature, it does not
become invaild just because it touches the subject within the domain of another
legislature.
SO Bombay vs F. N. Balsara: Bombay Prohibition Act- state list relating to
intoxicating liquor- production, manufacture, possession, transportation,
purchase & sale of intoxicating liquors. Challenged that import & export across
customs frontiers- Union list. Act was held valid even though it incidentally
touches the power of the Union.
Bullion and Grain Exchange ltd vs SO Punjab: Punjab forward contracts tax act,
1951- forward contract were not covered under state list. Court held the act to be
valid.
O. N. Mahindroo vs Bar Council: Advocates Act was challenged. SC observed
that the object of the act is to constitute a single bar council for the whole country.
Pith and substance was applied and it was stated that this act falls under the
Union list entry 77 & 78 and not under state list entry 26.

6. Principle of colorable legislation

The Supreme Court has explained the meaning and scope of doctrine of
colourable legislation in the case of K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State Of
Orissa[1] as follows:

“ If the constitution of a State distributes the legislative powers amongst different

bodies, which have to act within their respective spheres marked out by the
constitution in specific legislative entries, or if there are limitations on the
legislative authority in the shape of Fundamental rights, the question arises as to
whether the Legislature in a particular case has or has not, in respect to
subject-matter of the statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the
limits of its constitutional powers. Such transgressions may be patent, manifest
or direct, but it may also be disguised, covert or indirect, or and it is to this latter
class of cases that the expression colourable legislation has been applied in
judicial pronouncements.”

You cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly- KC Gajapati, B.S.

SHANKARANARAYANA VS SO Mysore

M.R. Balaji vs SO Mysore: state passed an order reserving 68 % seats of

admission to students belonging to back. SC held it to be unconstitutional as it
violated A. 15(4)- latent transgression of constitutional authority- fraud on
constitutional power.

7. Principle of territorial nexus- 245 (1)- Union makes law for the whole or part of
territory, state can make laws for whole or part of that particular state. 245(2)- no
law made by parliament is invalid on the ground that it would have extra-
territorial operation.
As per the principle of territorial nexus, state also empowered to make laws that
are extra territorial in nature, if there is sufficient connection between the subject
matter and the state making the law. (even if the subject matter is not located
within the territorial limits of the state)
SO BIhar vs Charusila Das- SC held that wherever charitable trust situates within
a state, the legislature of that state can make laws in respect of the trusts, even
on the properties which are situated beyond the territory of that state.

8. Principle of severability
When constitutionality of an act is in question,and it is found that part of an
enactment which is invalid can be severed/ separated from the rest of the
 enactment, the part so separated alone shall be declared unconstitutional while
the rest of the act remains constitutional.
A.K. Gopalan vs SO Madras: in case of repugnancy to the constitution, only the
repugnant provision will be void and not the whole act. S. 14 of preventive
detention act was severed from the rest as it was not hampering the object or
nature of the act was the other sections of the act were declared valid.

9. Principle of prospective overruling

Introduced in I.C. Golak Nath vs SO Punjab: 5/11 judges propounded this
principle.
a. Prospective effect- acts which were done in past remains untouched, only
future acts will be taken into consideration
b. Only SC will have the power to exercise this principle
c. Applies to only constitutional matters
d. SC gets discretion to mould the laws for the purpose of securing justice
e. 368 it is a procedure of amendment, not provides power to the parliament
to amend the law- parliament power to amend is provided in A. 248
(residuary power)

10. Principle of eclipse

Article 13(1) and 13(2)
Only deals with pre constitutional laws- Mahendra Lal Jaini vs SOUP
Pre constitutional laws- revive
Post constitutional laws- born after constitution had come into operation- not
revived
Keshava madhava menon vs SO Bombay: Indian Press Act- sec 18- no
retrospective operation is supposed to be given if not violative of Art. 13(1).
SO Bombay vs F.N. Balsara: 8 sections- bombay prohibition act, 1949- held
unconstitutional as it violated A. 19(1)(F)

GENERAL MAXIMS OF INTERPRETATION

1. Delegatus non-potest delegare.

Delegated power cannot be sub delegated to another person. Delegated
legislation. Delegating authority has to delegate it to someone else.
Hirabhai Ashabhai vs SO Bombay: without laying down the policy, if the
legislature delegates to some authority, it can be said that legislature has
abdicated it own function.
 Keshavananda Bharti vs SO Kerala: constitution is supreme and source of all
valid powers, then delegating the amending power is not possible. You can
delegate a delegating authority, but not the supreme authority.

2. Expressio Unius,Est Exclusio Alterius

Express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another thing.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
Antithesis of implied powers
In consti, if one subject is provided to the Union list, then it shall be presumed
that all other government bodies are excluded/ prohibited from exercising their
power/ legislating law on that subject.
Eg. Article 19 is available to only citizens, so non- citizens are excluded.

3. In pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis.

Where both the parties are at equal fault, the condition of possession is the best.

4. Ulters valet potrior quam pareat

It is better to give effect to a statute than completely declaring it as void. It is the
duty of the court to try and avoid construction which contributes irrationally to the
legislative practice. But under circumstances, where there is an imminent
requirement of that statute, instead of declaring that statute void, the court may
direct to give effect to the statute till the extent of convenience.

5. Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant .

General things do not derogate from special things. If there is any specific
principle or provision already existing in the prior law (unambiguous), then it shall be
presumed that the principle will remain in existence even in the latter act, unless the
ligslature express to the contrary. There is conflict b/w general act and specific act-
specific act.
Bishop of Glouchester vs Cunnington: pluralities act- sec. 59 as it was contrary to rent
restriction act, 1838. restriction act, 1838 general- pluralities act will prevail.
Venkateshwar Rao vs SO AP: AP PANCHAYAT SAMITI ACT WAS CHALLENGED-
CLASH B/W SEC. 72 & 62 (spl provision). 62 prevailed over 72 as it conferred special
power to the zila parishad.