UNIT 3- RULES OF INTERPRETATION

“The essence of law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, for the letter is significant only
as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it.”
- Salmond

FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION

1. Literal Rule/ Plain and ordinary meaning

a. Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v Asst. Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1325 (betel
leaves case).
b. Motipur Zamindari v State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 660.(Sugarcane Case)
c. Tej Kiran Jain v N Sanjeeva Reddy, [1971] 1 SCR 612.
d. P Narasimha Rao v. State, AIR 1998 SC 2120.

2. Golden Rule- always explain how it will only be applied when the literal meaning
results in absurdity/ambiguity.
a. Bedford v Bedford, [1935] Ch 89.
b. Lee v Knapp, (1967) 2 QB 442.
c. Ramji Missar v State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1088.

3. Harmonious Construction
a. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255.
b. Raj Krishna Bose v. Binod Kanungo & Ors, AIR 1954 SC 202.

4. Mischief Rule
a. Heydon’s Case, (1584) 76 ER 637- the 4 points laid down by Lord Coke in
this case became the principles of Mischief Rule.
b. Smith v Huge, 1960 WLR 830.
c. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v Sri Krishna Manufacturing Co.,AIR
1962 SC 1536.
d. Kanwar Singh v Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 SC 871.

Purposive Approach in India- same as Mischief Rule- RMD Chamarbaugwalla v Union of

India, AIR 1957 SC 628.

SUBSIDIARY RULES OF INTERPRETATION

1. Noscitur a Sociis- meaning of a word should be understood by its accompanying words.

a. Pradeep Aggarbatti, Ludhiana v State of Punjab,AIR 1998 SC 171.
b. Commissioners v. Savoy Hotel, (1966) 2 All ER 299.
c. Dr. Devendra M. Surti Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1969 SC 63.

2. Ejusdem Generis- words belonging to a particular class must be construed in the same way
following the general word.
 a. Emperor v Ratanshi Hirji, (1929) 31 BomLR 581.
b. Clark v. Gaskarth (1818).
c. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal,
(2010) 3 SCC 786.

3. Casus Omissus- when something has been omitted from the statute, the Court cannot fill in
the lacuna. However, under certain exceptions it can.
a. State of Jharkhand v Govind Singh, AIR 2005 SC 294.
b. Hiradevi v District Board,AIR 1952 SC 362.
c. Bangalore Water Supply v A Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548.
d. Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.- Last 2 are cases where
court filled in the lacuna (exception to general rule)

4. Reddendo Singula Singalis- referring to each other or corresponding to each other.

a. Kotesh Vittal Kamath v K Rangappa Baliga, AIR 1969 SC 504.

b. Rajendra K Bhutta VS Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
& Others, Civil Appeal No. 12248 of 2018, SC.

CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

Since the nature of the Constitution is different, the principles of interpretation of the
Constitution also slightly vary.

Article 246- Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of
States

(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses ( 2 ) and ( 3 ), Parliament has exclusive power

to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh
Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Union List)

(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause ( 3 ), Parliament, and, subject to clause ( 1 ), the

Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to
as the Concurrent List)

(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the
territory of India not included (in a State) notwithstanding that such matter is a matter
enumerated in the State List

Schedule 7- SEVENTH SCHEDULE

1. Doctrine of Pith and Substance -Art 246 and Sch 7- power to make laws about matters in
their respective entries. Pith is essence and substance is subject matter. Purpose is to identify
if the appropriate authority is making the law regarding that subject matter.
 a. State of Bombay v F N Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.
b. Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v Bank of Commerce, Khulna, 1947 Privy Court.

2. Doctrine of Colourable Legislation - what cannot be done legally shouldn't be done

illegally.
a. State of Bihar v Kameshwar Singh, 1952 1 SCR 889.
b. State of MP v Mahalakshmi Fabric Mills, AIR 1995 SC 2213.

3. Doctrine of Ancillary Powers

a. R v Waterfield, 1963- Waterfield doctrine extended to constitutional interpretation
b. Limitations are colourable legislation, express bar in law, matters specifically listed in
the same list
c. State of Rajasthan v G Chawla, AIR 1959 SC 544.

Article 254- Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the
Legislatures of States

(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any
provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to
any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by
Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such
State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the
Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters
enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of
an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then,
the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the
consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time
any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying
or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.

4. Doctrine of Occupied Field

a. State of Kerala v Mar Appraem Kuri, SC 2012.

5. Doctrine of Repugnancy
a. Vishwanath v. Harihar Gir, 1938 Privy Council.
b. State of Assam v Horizon Union, AIR 1967 SC 442.
c. Zaverbhai Amaidas v The State Of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 754.

Article- https://www.modern-journals.com/index.php/ijma/article/download/758/654
6. Doctrine of Residuary Powers - Art 248 read with Entry 97 of List I provides Parliament
with residuary powers. The Sarkaria Commission, 1988 tried to make the Centre State
relations more balanced, but in India, Parliament has primacy.
Article 248- Residuary powers of legislation
(1) Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not
enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List
(2) Such power shall include the power of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned
in either of those Lists

NOTE- Doctrines 1,2 and 3 apply to List 1 and 2; Doctrines 4 and 5 deal only with List 3.

MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY PROVISIONS

“May/shall” clauses are not always as per their literal reading. To identify if a
provision is mandatory or directory then one must look into the consequence of non-
compliance if that provision. If rights are being affected then it is mandatory. If the status
quo does not change, then it is directory.

a. MV Vali Pero v Fernando Lopez, AIR 1989 SC 2206.

b. Keshav Chandra Joshi v Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 284.
c. Sidhu Ram v Sec. Railway Board, AIR 1967 Punj 383.
d. State of Himachal Pradesh v MP Gupta,2004 SC.

GANGA CLAUSE

The Omnibus Curative clause/ Ganga clause was mentioned in B.K Srinivasan And Others v.
State Of Karnataka And Others, AIR 1978 SC 1059.