BASIC NORMS OF INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

The interpretation of statutes is a crucial function discharged by courts in India and other
common law countries. It involves the judicial attribution of meaning to legislation enacted
by the legislature. Statutory interpretation acquires significance because the language used in
drafting laws often contains ambiguity, vagueness, gaps or inconsistencies. The literal rule
does not always suffice to bring out the true intent behind the statute.

There are certain basic principles of interpretation which have been applied by courts from
time to time, they are as follows:

• Statute must be read as a whole in its context

• Statute to be construed to make it effective and workable

• Every word of the statute must be given meaning.

• Plane meaning respective of the consequences.

STATUTE MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS CONTEXT

When interpreting statutes, courts must consider the statute as a whole and read it in its
proper context. This is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation in India and many
other common law countries. The rationale behind this rule is that the meaning of a particular
provision cannot be determined in isolation - it must be understood in light of the entire
statute. No single provision of a statute can be considered in isolation. The statute must be
looked at in its entirety in order to understand the true meaning and intent of the legislature.
Each part should be construed with reference to every other part so as to produce a
harmonious whole.

In the Indian Evidence Act, S. 133 lays down that an accomplice shall be a competent witness
against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Illustration (b) to S. 114 says that the Court may
presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material
particulars. Here, a contradiction can be seen between these two sections. In such situations
the principle of Harmonious Construction is applied.
Another example is, Section 202 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 exempts
“buildings and lands vesting in the Corporation” from property tax and section 204 provides
that property tax shall be leviable primarily from the occupier if he holds the premises
directly from the Corporation. The question before the Court was whether Corporation
property in possession of allottees under hire purchase agreements was exempt from tax. The
Court held reading both the sections together that such property was not exempt and the
exemption was limited to those cases where property vested in the Corporation both in title
and possession as otherwise section 204 would become inoperative.

Hence, we can understand that Statutory interpretation ensures that the balance of power
between the legislature and judiciary is maintained. While courts cannot rewrite or amend
legislation, interpretation allows them to elucidate the purpose and effect of statutes.

STATUTE TO BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE OR WORKABLE

Another key principle in statutory interpretation in India is that statutes should be construed
in a manner that makes them effective and workable. Courts attempt to interpret laws in a
way that ensures the legislative intent is fulfilled and the provisions are practical and
operable. The court must not adopt any interpretation that reduces the scope of the statute to
its nullity, it must always uphold the scope of the statute to its fullest and give effect to the
intention of the legislature. The judge should start with a presumption that the statute is
constitutionally valid and try to make it workable to maximum. When a statute is subjected to
more than one interpretation, then the court should avoid any interpretation which makes the
statute constitutionally invalid or ineffective.

The Supreme Court's construction of section 18-A (9) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,
provides an example of how the rule works. The argument was that when action to impose a
penalty was sought under section 28 for failure to comply with section 18-A (3), the
conditions for notice under section 22(1) or 22(2) had to be met. The Supreme Court rejected
this argument and supported its conclusion by pointing out that the proposed construction
renders section 18-A(9)(b) entirely nugatory.

Thus, Indian courts consistently follow the principle that effectiveness of a statute should
guide its interpretation. Provisions are construed to avoid unjust, absurd or contradictory
outcomes and ensure that the true purpose and intent behind the legislation is fulfilled. This
aids in the proper implementation of laws.
IF THE MEANING IS PLAIN, EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO IT IRRESPECTIVE
OF CONSEQUENCES

A cardinal rule of statutory interpretation in India is that if the language and meaning of a
statutory provision is unambiguous and plain, the courts must give effect to it regardless of
the consequences. Where the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in a statute are
intelligible and explicit, courts cannot interpret them differently simply because of unjust
results. Absurdity or anomaly alone are not grounds to disregard plain meaning. If the words
of a statute are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give
effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences.

In the case of Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh, the court observed that “The spirit of the
law may well be an elusive and unsafe guide and the supposed spirit can certainly not be
given effect to in opposition to the plain language of the sections of the Act”.

Therefore, when the words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous, the Indian courts
must give effect to the plain meaning and not look for creative interpretations even if it
causes hardship or seems at odds with the context. The judiciary cannot override or amend
laws enacted by the legislature.

APPRAISAL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PLAIN MEANING

The principle of plain meaning is a prominent rule applied by courts in India while
interpreting statutory provisions. It states that if the language used in a statute is unambiguous
and clear, the courts must give effect to the plain meaning of the words. But this principle has
drawbacks that must be considered. The rule that plain words do not require construction
begins with the premise that the words are plain, which is reached after construing the words.
It is impossible to determine whether certain words are clear or ambiguous unless they are
studied and construed in their context.

An example for this is regarding Article 105(2) of the Constitution which provides that ‘no
member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceeding in respect of anything said or any
vote given by him in Parliament’, the Supreme Court in Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjeeva Reddy
said that “The Article means what it says in language which could not be plainer”.

Thus, exclusive reliance on plain meaning can produce outcomes that contradict the purpose
behind laws. A balanced approach is required. Where absurdity or injustice results, purposive
interpretation should supersede plain meaning to align with the spirit of legislation.
CONCLUSION

To conclude, the interpretation of statutes is intrinsic to the modern practice of law and
jurisprudence. It enables the judiciary to maintain legislative supremacy while also
harmoniously construing ambiguous legislations. The cardinal principles of statutory
interpretation empower courts to uphold the objectives behind the law without transgressing
into law-making. These principles promote contextual, purposive and efficacious
interpretation rather than mere literalism.

While fidelity to the text is important, the judiciary must retain flexibility to further the spirit
of the law. The principles followed are aimed at achieving a balance between the plain
meaning of statutory language and the contextual legislative intent. Mastering these
interpretative principles is an indispensable skill for any jurist or lawyer in the field of
legislation and law-making.