Page 6 of 9

1.3 STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS CONTEXT

with retail price as was indicated by the association of that expression in the said clause with words “trade
discount”.

While holding that an appeal from an order of the court granting or refusing bail to the High Court under section
21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, has to be heard by a bench of two judges of the High Court,
as provided in section 21(2) of the Act, the Supreme Court observed that a section has to be read in its entirety, and
its sub-sections are to be read in relation to each other, and not disjunctively, and that a few sub-sections of a
section cannot be separated from other sub-sections and read to convey something altogether different from the
theme underlying the entire section.1.

As already stated, the rule that the statute has to be read as a whole and that words should be studied in their
context is of general application but since “you must have a context even more plain”2. to control plain words, the
practical utility of the rule is more visible in construction of general words and in resolving inconsistencies by
recourse to harmonious construction.3.

40. See text and Notes 60 to 66, pp 39, 40. See further R S Raghunath v State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 81 [LNIND
1991 SC 516], p 89 : 1992 (1) SCC 335 [LNIND 1991 SC 516]; Powdrill v Watson, (1995) 2 All ER 65, p 79 (HL); R v
Secretary of State for the Home Dept, exparte Daly, (2001) 3 All ER 433, p 447 (HL) (“In law context is everything” Lord
Steyn).
41. UOI v Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co Ltd, 2001 (1) JT SC 536, p 563 : AIR 2001 SC 724 [LNIND 2001 SC 104],
p 740 : (2001) 4 SCC 139 [LNIND 2001 SC 2915] (Constitution Bench). See further Central Bank of India v State of
Kerala, (2009) 4 SCC 94 [LNIND 2009 SC 472] para 98 : (2009) 3 JT 216.
42. Philips India Ltd v Labour Court, (1985) 3 SCC 103 [LNIND 1985 SC 102], p 112 : AIR 1985 SC 1034 [LNIND 1985 SC
102]: (1985) 3 SCC 103 [LNIND 1985 SC 102]; Osmania University Teachers Association v State of AP, AIR 1987 SC
2034 [LNIND 1987 SC 584], p 2042 : (1987) 4 SCC 671 [LNIND 1987 SC 584]; Captain Subhash Kumar v The
Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Deptt., AIR 1991 SC 1632 [LNIND 1991 SC 1010], p 1638 : 1991 (2) SCC 449
[LNIND 1991 SC 1010] : 1991 Cr LJ 2000. See further Mohan Kumar Singhania v UOI, AIR 1992 SC 1 [LNIND 1991
SC 1017], p 29 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594 [4th Edn of this book (p 18) is quoted]; Lalit Mohan Pandy v Pooran Singh,
(2004) 6 SCC 626 [LNIND 2004 SC 569], p 642; Karnataka State Financial Corp v N Narsimahaiah, (2008) 5 SCC 176
[LNIND 2008 SC 676] para 29 : AIR 2008 SC 1797 [LNIND 2008 SC 676]; Subramanian Swamy v Election
Commission of India, AIR 2009 SC 110 [LNIND 2008 SC 1904]para 19 : (2008) 14 SCC 318 [LNIND 2008 SC 1904].
43. AG v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, (1957) 1 All ER 49, p 55 (HL).
44. Ibid, p 61.
45. Poppatlal Shah v State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274 [LNIND 1953 SC 38], p 276 : 1953 SCR 677 [LNIND 1953 SC 38]
: 1953 Cr LJ 1105.
46. Charles Robert Leader v Georage F Diffey, (1888) 13 AC 294, p 301.
47. Canada Sugar Refining Co v R, (1898) AC 735, p 742; referred to in M Pentiah v Veeramallappa Muddala, AIR 1961
SC 1 107 [LNIND 1960 SC 260], p 1111 : (1961) 2 SCR 295 [LNIND 1960 SC 260]; Gamman India Ltd v UOI, AIR
1974 SC 960 [LNIND 1974 SC 109], p 964 : (1974) 1 SCC 596 [LNIND 1974 SC 109]; Mysore State Road Transport
Corp v Mirza Khasim Ali Beg, AIR 1977 SC 747 [LNIND 1976 SC 461], p 752 : (1977) SCC (L&S) 282 : (1977) 2 SCC
457 [LNIND 1976 SC 461]; Vaddeboyina Tulsamma v Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi, AIR 1977 SC 1944 [LNIND 1977 SC
136], p 1948 : (1977) 3 SCC 99 [LNIND 1977 SC 136]; Punjab Beverages Pvt Ltd v Suresh Chand, AIR 1978 SC 995
[LNIND 1978 SC 65], p 998 : 1978 (2) SCC 667 [LNIND 1978 SC 85]; CIT v National Taj Traders, AIR 1980 SC 485
[LNIND 1979 SC 471], p 489 : (1980) 1 SCC 370 [LNIND 1979 SC 471]; Sultana Begum v Prem Chand Jain, AIR 1997
SC 1006 [LNIND 1996 SC 2089], pp 1009, 1010 : 1997 (1) SCC 373 [LNIND 1996 SC 2089]; Kailash Chandra v
Mukundi Lal, AIR 2002 SC 829 [LNIND 2002 SC 72], p 833 : (2002) 2 SCC 678 [LNIND 2002 SC 72], Padmasundara
Rao v State of TN, AIR 2000 SC 1334, p 1340 : (2002) 3 SCC 533 [LNIND 2002 SC 201]; Godawat Pan Masala
Products IP Ltd v UOI, (2004) 7 SCC 68 [LNIND 2004 SC 737], p 88.
48. Newspapers Ltd v Industrial Tribunal, UP, AIR 1957 SC 532 [LNIND 1957 SC 28], p 536 : 1957 SCR 754 [LNIND 1957
SC 28]; Superintendent and Remembrancer, WB v Abani Maity, AIR 1979 SC 1029 [LNIND 1979 SC 179], p 1032 :
(1979) 4 SCC 85 [LNIND 1979 SC 179]; Mohan Kumar Singhania v UOI, AIR 1992 SC 1 [LNIND 1991 SC 1017], p 20 :
1992 Supp (1) SCC 594; Sultana Begum v Prem Chand Jain, supra; Balaram Kumawat v UOI, (2003) 7 SCC 628
[LNIND 2003 SC 714], p 634 : AIR 2003 SC 3268 [LNIND 2003 SC 714].
49. 1 Inst 381 (b); Punjab Beverages Pvt Ltd v Suresh Chand, AIR 1978 SC 995 [LNIND 1978 SC 65], p 1000 : 1978 (2)
SCC 144 [LNIND 1978 SC 65] : (1978) 2 LLJ 1 [LNIND 1978 SC 65]; Philips India Ltd v Labour Court, (1985) 3 SCC
103 [LNIND 1985 SC 102], p 112 : AIR 1985 SC 1034 [LNIND 1985 SC 102].
 Page 7 of 9
1.3 STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS CONTEXT

50. Queen v Eduljee Byramjee, (1846) 3 Moo Ind App 468, p 483 (PC) (Dr Lushington); National Insurance Co Ltd v
Anjana Shyam, (2007) 7 SCC 445 [LNIND 2007 SC 974], para 17 : AIR 2007 SC 2870 [LNIND 2007 SC 974].
51. Re, Bidie (deceased), (1948) 2 All ER 995, p 998 (CA); See further Jagir Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 997
[LNIND 1975 SC 469], p 1001 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 204 : (1976) 2 SCC 942 [LNIND 1975 SC 469]; Keshavananda Bharati
v State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 [LNIND 1973 SC 154], pp 1497, 1577 : (1973) 4 SCC 225 [LNIND 1973 SC 154];
State of WB v Pranab Ranjan Roy, 1998 (2) Scale 251 [LNIND 1998 SC 308], p 255: AIR 1998 SC 1887 [LNIND 1998
SC 308], p 1890 : (1998) 2 SCC 209.
52. State of WB v UOI, AIR 1963 SC 1241 [LNIND 1962 SC 438], p 1265 : 1964 (1) SCR 371 [LNIND 1962 SC 438];
referred to in State of Punjab v Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd, AIR 1964 SC 669 [LNIND 1963 SC 256], p 679 :
1964 (5) SCR 387 [LNIND 1963 SC 256]; RS Raghunath v State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 81 [LNIND 1991 SC 516],
p 89 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 [LNIND 1991 SC 516]; More Modern Co-op Transport Society Ltd v Financial Commissioner,
AIR 2002 SC 2513 [LNIND 2002 SC 421], p 2518 : (2002) 6 SCC 269 [LNIND 2002 SC 421]; Maniklal Majumdar v
Gauranga Chandra Dey, (2005) 2 SCC 400 [LNIND 2005 SC 39], p 407 : AIR 2005 SC 1090 [LNIND 2005 SC 39];
Prakash Kumar v State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409 [LNIND 2005 SC 40] para 30 : AIR 2005 SC 1075 [LNIND 2005
SC 40]; Steel Authority of India Ltd v SUTNI Sangam, (2009) 16 SCC 1 [LNIND 2009 SC 1552] para 67 : AIR 2010 SC
112 [LNIND 2009 SC 1552]; Pallawi Resources Ltd v Protos Engineering Co Pvt Ltd, (2010) 5 SCC 196 [LNIND 2010
SC 283] para 17 : AIR 2010 SC 1969 [LNIND 2010 SC 283].
53. Bentley v Rotherham, (1876) 4 Ch D 588, p 592 (Jessel, MR); More Modern Co-op Transport Society Ltd v Financial
Commissioner, supra.
54. Administrator-General of Bengal v Premlal Mullick, (1895) ILR 22 Cal 788, p 797 (PC) : 22 IA 107, pp 115, 116 relied
upon in Harbhajan Singh v State of HP, CA No 5767 of 2002 decided by Supreme Court on 23 November 2010 para
13. Lord Watson’s view is to be preferred against the observations of the House of Lords in Warburtan v Loveland,
(1832) 2 D & clause 480, p 500 that “no rule of construction can require that when the words of one part of a statute
convey a clear meaning it shall be necessary to introduce another part of a statute for the purpose of controlling or
diminishing the efficacy of the first part.” Moreover, these observations have no application in the interpretation of
related provisions: KS Paripoornan v State of Kerala, JT 1994 (6) SC 182, p 217 : AIR 1995 SC 1012 [LNIND 1994 SC
1239], p 1037 : (1994) 5 SCC 593 [LNIND 1994 SC 1239] : (1994) 2 KLT 763.
55. DN Banerji v PR Mukherjee, AIR 1953 SC 58 [LNIND 1952 SC 85], p 61 : 1953 SCR 302 [LNIND 1952 SC 85]; N
Subramania Iyer v Official Receiver, AIR 1958 SC 1 [LNIND 1957 SC 72], p 10 : 1958 SCR 257 [LNIND 1957 SC 72];
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 [LNIND 1978 SC 127], p 564 : (1978) 2
SCC 213 [LNIND 1978 SC 70]; Gramophone Co of India Ltd v Birendra Bahadur Pandey, (1984) 2 SCC 534 [LNIND
1984 SC 51], p 553 : AIR 1984 SC 667 [LNIND 1984 SC 51]; Banaras Hindu University v Indra Pratap Singh (Dr), AIR
1992 SC 780 [LNIND 1992 SC 87], p 784 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 2.
56. Forbes v Attorney-General of Manitoba, (1937) 1 All ER 249, pp 255, 256 (PC) (use of word “employer” in different
sections); Anand Nivas Pvt Ltd v Anandji Kalyanji, AIR 1965 SC 414 [LNIND 1963 SC 213], p 424 : (1964) 4 SCR 892
[LNIND 1963 SC 213] (use of word “tenant” in different sections and clauses); Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh v LVA
Dikshitulu, AIR 1979 SC 193 [LNIND 1978 SC 408], p 208 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 99 : (1979) 2 SCC 34. (The expression
“civil services of a State” was construed not to include High Court staff and subordinate judiciary in Article 371-D,
though the same expression includes them in Article 311).
57. Ramnarayan Mor v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 949 [LNIND 1963 SC 300], p 953 : 1964 (5) SCR 1064 [LNIND
1963 SC 300] : (1964) 2 Cr LJ 44 (use of word “evidence” at three places in clause (6) of section 207-A, Code of
Criminal Procedure,1898); Indian Iron and Steel Co Ltd v Biswanath Sonar, AIR 1967 SC 77 [LNIND 1966 SC 91]; pp
79, 80 : 1966 Supp SCR 15 (use of word “term” at two places in section 7(3) of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy
Act, 1949); K Ramanathan v State of TN, (1985) 2 SCC 116 [LNIND 1985 SC 69], p 129 : AIR 1985 SC 660 [LNIND
1985 SC 69](use of word “regulating” in section 3(1) and (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955).
58. See text and Note 58, p 61.
59. AG v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, (1957) 1 All ER 49 (HL).
60. AG v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, (1957) 1 All ER 49, p 53 (HL); Director of Public Prosecutions v Schildkamp, (1969)
3 All ER 1640, p 1652 (HL); UOI v Sankalchand, AIR 1977 SC 2328 [LNIND 1977 SC 268], pp 2358, 2372: 1977 SCC
(L&S) 435 : (1977) 4 SCC 193 [LNIND 1977 SC 268].
61. AG v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, (1957) 1 All ER 49, p 61 (HL).
62. AG v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, (1957) 1 All ER 49, p 61 (HL) (quotation from Brett v Brett, (1826) 3 Add 210, p
216 : 162 ER 456, p 458, Sir John Nicholl, MR). In CET v Darshan Surendra Parekh, AIR 1968 SC 1125 [LNIND 1967
SC 367], p 1229 : 1968 (2) SCR 589 [LNIND 1967 SC 367] : (1968) 69 ITR 683, Shah J stated the rule in similar words.
See further Re Presidential Election, 1974, AIR 1974 SC 1682 [LNIND 1974 SC 688], p 1686 : (1974) 2 SCC 33
[LNIND 2002 SC 665]; UOI v Sankalchand, AIR 1977 SC 2328 [LNIND 1977 SC 268], p 2372: 1977 SCC (L&S) 435:
(1977) 4 SCC 193 [LNIND 1977 SC 268]; K Balkrishna Rao v Haji Abdulla Sait, AIR 1980 SC 214 [LNIND 1979 SC
394], p 221 : (1980) 1 SCC 321 [LNIND 1979 SC 394].
63. AG v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, (1957) 1 All ER 49, p 57 (HL).