Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Interpretation of Statuets
Interpretation of Statuets
SUBMITTED TO:
Ms Koyel Roy
SUBMITTED BY:
SAHIL SINHA
ROLL NO.-
A90856120002
BATCH (2020-2023)
We, Sahil Sinha and Venkatesh Mishra, students of LLB 3Yrs, hereby declare that the project
work entitled “Use of Interpreting Principles In The Landmark Case of Ayodhya
Judgement & Abolishment of 377” submitted to the AMITY Law School, AMITY
University, KOLKATA is a record of an original work done by us under the guidance of Ms
Koyel Roy, teacher in Interpretation of Statutes, AMITY Law School, AMITY University,
KOLKATA.
This is to certify that the project report entitled Use of Interpreting Principles In The
Landmark Case of Ayodhya Judgement & Abolishment of 377 submitted by Sahil Sinha
and Venkatesh Mishra in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of degree of
LLB to AMITY Law School, AMITY University, KOLKATA is a record of the candidates
own work carried out by them under my supervision. The matter embodied in this project is
original and has not been submitted for the award of any other degree.
We would specially like to thank our guide, mentor, Ms Koyel Roy without whose constant
support and guidance this project would have been a distant reality.
It would never have been possible to complete this study without an untiring support from
our family, especially parents.
This study bears testimony to the active encouragement and guidance of a host of friends and
well-wishers.
Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true
meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and
therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous
exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’.
• Legislative Language - Legislative language may be complicated for a layman, and hence
may require interpretation; and
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
of interpretation would arise.
INTERPRETATION IN THE AYODHYA VERDICT
Mir Baqi built Babri Masjid in 1528 for Mughal Emperor Babur. The Hindus and Muslims
had always been wrangling over the ownership of that land. The Hindus claim that the
mosque was built after the demolition of the Ram temple and it is the birthplace of Lord Ram,
whereas, the Muslims, on the other hand, were denying such claims. As a result, various riots
broke out between then in 1856-57, followed by the desecration of mosques on the night of
December 22-23, 1949. After placing Lord Ram’s sculpture into the central dome of the
mosque, the Allahabad High Court even permitted the Hindus to worship there. The tensions
among various groups like Ram Lalla Virajmaan, Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Wakf Board, etc.
were increasing for claiming ownership. Various petitions were also filed in the Allahabad
High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
The mosque was demolished in 1992. Writ petitions were mounting up in the court. In 2002,
the high court directed the Archeological Survey of India to carry out a scientific
investigation over the disputed land. It submitted its final report in 2003. The report indicated
that the pillars of the mosque contained Devanagari script inscribed on it and the temple
might have belonged to Lord Vishnu, but no evidence was found whether the temple
belonged to Lord Ram or not.
The final judgment on the Ayodhya verdict was announced in October 2019. The court
granted the disputed land of about 2.77 acres for the construction of the temple and allocated
5 acres of land as compensation to the UP Sunni Wakf Board.
The dispute involved property rights. The Supreme Court heavily relied upon the findings of
the Archeological Survey of India, but it also tried to maintain the balance between the
religious groups. It gave the judgement keeping in mind its sociological and religious impact
on the people. In our view, the Supreme Court applied the rule of harmonious construction of
interpretation of statutes as it resolved the contradicting interpretations in such a way that the
effect is given to both interpretations so far as possible.
ABOLITION OF SECTION 377 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE
Section 377 of IPC earlier criminalized unlawful sexual acts against the order of nature,
including consensual penile non-vaginal intercourse among adults of same-sex, non-
consensual penile non-vaginal intercourse with children or animals, and even penile non-
vaginal intercourse between the adults of same-sex.
Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT, Delhi and Others –Naz Foundation is Delhi based
NGO that has been working on HIV/ AIDS and sexual health issues, filed a petition in the
Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 377 of IPC as it violated
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14(3), 15(4), 19(5) and 21(6) of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the discrimination faced by the LGBTQ
community was impeding its work on combating the spread of HIV/ AIDS. It also contended
that penile non-vaginal intercourse is likely to reduce the number of HIV/ AIDS infected
persons in India.
Delhi High Court applied the golden rule of interpretation of statutes and held that Section
377 of IPC is violative of the fundamental rights of privacy and dignity under Articles 14, 15,
and 21 of the Indian Constitution and decriminalized consensual relationship between adults
of same-sex.
Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India – A writ petition was filed in 2016 by Navtej Singh
Johar to declare section 377 of IPC to be unconstitutional and to declare the right to choose a
sexual partner and the right to sexual autonomy to be part of the right to life guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Arvind Datar, a learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that
the decision of the court in the Suresh Koushal case was totally driven by social morality that
the majority of people in India consider the sexual relationship between the partners of same
sex as a criminal act, while the court, in actuality, should have debated upon the
constitutional morality. He also cited the sayings of the J. Chandrachud in K.S. Puttaswamy
and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. that sexual orientation is an essential component of
rights granted by the Constitution of India which cannot be construed on majoritarian
acceptance by the society.
Mr. Datar argued that Section 377 of IPC cannot be used as interpretation as a reasonable
restriction wholly. It is an accepted principle of interpretation of statutes that a provision does
not become unconstitutional merely because there can be an abuse of the same. As a
result, “the court held that the application of section 377 of IPC on consensual relationship
between the adults of same sex as unconstitutional, though non-consensual relationship
between the same sex, whether adult or child, and with animals is still criminalized.”
Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General, appearing for UP Government, said that imposing
lockdown through a judicial order of the High Court may not be the right approach to deal
with the pandemic. It was contended that the judiciary is exceeding its domain by passing
such orders. It is the duty of the executive part of the UP Government to pass lockdown
orders and the regulations and guidelines of coronavirus.
It can be seen from the above judgement that the mischief rule of statute Interpretation was
applied here as it curbs the mischief of the High Court by passing a stay order and advances
the remedy by asking the UP Government to immediately inform the High Court of steps it
has taken and to be taken in the future.
Conclusion
Interpretation, thus, is a familiar process of considerable significance. In relation to statute
law, interpretation is of importance because of the inherent nature of legislation as a source of
law. The process of statute making and the process of interpretation of statutes take place
separately from each other, and two different agencies are concerned. An interpretation Act
serves as the bridge of understanding between the two.
Judicial determination of questions of law requires the use of materials of various types,
depending on the nature of the question. In the interpretation of statutory provisions the
material used will naturally have a sharply legal character, as distinct from the application of
a general common law doctrine where it may have a more diffused character. In statutes,
greater precision is, therefore, required. The process of interpretation is more legalistic and
makes more intensive use of the legal technique in statutory interpretation, as contrasted with
the application of common law rules.
So, interpretation plays a vital role in removing ambiguity, semantic barriers, and the various
hurdles which arise due to technical use of language, various jargon, etc. but it cannot be used
arbitrarily by the judges as such practice will be against the constitutional practice.