Primary Rules of Interpretation – Interpretation of Statutes Notes

The Literal Rule ( Grammatical Interpretation )

(“Ordinary”, “Natural”, “Popular”, “Literal”, “First Rule” of Interpretation)

(शब्दशः किंवा व्याकरणिक दृष्ट्या अन्वयार्थ लावण्याचा नियम)

• According to this rule, words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning and, if such meaning is clear, & ambiguous, effect should be given to provision of Statute whatever may be consequences.
• Where wordings of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, rule of literal construction is to be applied & recourse to other principles of interpretation is not required.

( Swedish Match AB v. SEBI, India.) which means, where the meaning of a word or expression is not clear, this rule will not be applied.

• Only when literal construction results in some anomaly(असंबंध) or absurdity(विचित्र किंवा हास्यास्पद), other principles may be applied. ( Sanjay Kumar Munjal v. Chairman, UPSC)
• Literal rule is applicable to both private law or public law.
• This is the safest rule of interpretation as it gives the intention of the legislature from the words used by it in the statute.
• Ordinarily, court should not depart from literal rule as that would really be amending the law in the name of interpretation, which is not permissible. But Courts in appropriate cases, can depart from literal rule depending upon context, subject-matter and legislative intent.

This rule can be understood under the following headings.

1. Natural and grammatical meaning.
2. Explanation
3. Exact meaning preferred to loose meaning.
4. Technical words in technical sense.

Natural and grammatical meaning

If the words of the statute have a natural and ordinary meaning, we should not depart from that meaning. But if the reading the statute as awhole the context suggests contrary, the departure from the natural meaning is permissible.

Ramavtar v. Assistant Sales Tax officer : The SC rejected the dictionary meaning of ‘betel leaves’. Held : when the ordinary and natural meaning is clear and unambiguous, no dictionary or technical, or botanical meaning could be given.

Explanation of the rule ( Meaning to be ascertained by reference to context.)

When it is said words to be understood first in their natural, ordinary, or popular sense, it is mean that, meaning which they have in relation to the subject matter and the context in which they have been used in the statute. The context means the statute as a whole, previous state of law, other statutes in pari materia.

In Motipur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar The SC held that, sugarcane does not fall under the category of vegetables ( vegetable means kitchen garden/used for eating.

In different cases green ginger, chillies and lemons have been held as vegetables. Coconut neither fresh fruit nor vegetable ,Watery coconut neither green fruit or dried fruit.

State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese : The SC applied the literal interpretation. Since the expression ‘currency-note’ & ‘bank note’ not been prefixed by the word ‘Indian’, the intention is clear i.e. not only Indian but of any country.

Exact meaning preferred to loose meaning

It is presumed that, the words used by the legislators are exact and correct and not loosely used in statute.Besides exact meaning there is secondary meaning i.e. the less common meaning of the word. Secondary word should not be used with loose meaning. Example : Contiguos : exact-touching in preference to its loose meaning i.e. neighbouring or adjacent.

Prithipal Singh v. Union of India : It was held by SC that there is a presumption that the words are used in an Act of Parliament correctly and exactly and not loosely. Preference should be given to its exact meaning unless the context directs otherwise.

Technical words in Technical sense

A) Special meaning in trade, business etc. : which is normally understood by dealer and customer. The reason is that it is they who are concerned with it.

Atul Glass Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise : Glass mirror is different article from glass or table-ware.

Real Optical co. v. Appellate Collector of Customs & Anr. A general merchant dealing with glass or table-ware cannot be regarded as dealing in goods used for makin spects.

B) legal sense of words : means when words acquir a meaning because of their consistent use by the legislature in a particular sense, they are understood in that sense when used in a similar context in subsequent legislation.

Dewan Bros v. Central Bank of India. Court held that the word ‘decree’ has a well known legal significance.( as defined in CPC) And it can not be applied to order of tribunals.

Cases of Literal Rule :

Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra : The appellant was convicted under sec 292 of IPC by the HC for selling an obscene book titles ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ The appellant contended before the SC that the mens rea of the accused had always to be proved to maintain conviction under criminal law. Since the prosecution had failed to prove mens rea, that is to say, knowledge of obscene book was absent because so many books are sold in book stall and it is not possible to know about each and every book, the conviction was unjustified. The Supreme Court held that, knowledge of obscenity was not an essential element of the offence under section 292 of IPC. The section is plain and its meaning unambiguous. The court must give natural meaning to the words used in the section. The appellant is guilty on the basis of a plain reading of the enactment and, his appeal must not succeed.

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association. : The Supreme Court held that the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ in IT Act, 1961 must be construed according the language used there. It was held by majority that if the language of a statutory provision is ambiguous and capable of two constructions, that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to the other provisions of the enactment rather than which will give none.

Sonia Bhatia v. State of UP : The SC held that the words with well known meanings are generally used by the legislature in their normal and popular sense. Therefore the words ‘transfer’ and ‘consideration’ in UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1961 must be understood in their popular sense as under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 & the Contract Act, 1872 respectively.

The Golden Rule (सोनेरी नियम) (Modifying Method of Interpretation.)

• Golden rule of interpretation is a modification of the principle embodied in the literal or grammatical rule of interpretation.
• According to this rule the courts must find out the intention of the legislature by giving the words their ordinary and natural meaning. But if due to this any hardship, inconvenience absurdity or repugnancy is caused, the court should go further and only to such an extent, and no further as would prevent such a consequence and this absurdity is removed.
• Since this rule solves all the problems, it is known as “ Golden Rule.”
• This rule is also called as modifying rule of interpretation as it modifies the literal meaning of the words to some extent.
• Golden rule says while interpreting the words of the statute, consequence and effects of interpretation should be given importance.
• Whenever more than one construction are possible, that which seems reasonable will be given effect to. The court will avoid unreasonable, inconvenient and anomalous results.
• If the literal interpretation of the statute gives certain consequences, which are not intended by the legislature, then the courts should not so interpret even if there is some lawful justification in doing so.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Finance Company :

The respondents truck was being used for carrying contraband Opium (प्रतिबंधित अफू ) without the respondent knowing about it. An order of confiscation of the truck was passed under section 11, Opium At, 1878 as modified by Opium (Madhya Bharat Amendment) Act, 1955. Under the Act of 1955 the words used are shall be confiscated whereas the main Act of 1878 provided the words shall be liable to be confiscated. The SC held that, the confiscation unlawful and ordered release of the truck. It said that there are numerous instances where the word ‘shall’ has been interpreted as ‘may’, that is to say, as permissive and not obligatory on the ground that the context of an enactment so desires. In the present context also, a mandatory confiscation leads to absurdity, hardship and injustice because the respondent did not know that the truck was being used for such a purpose.

Lee v. Knapp :

Interpretation of word ‘stop’ was involved. Under section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 a driver causing an accident shall ‘stop’ after the accident. In this case a driver stopped for a moment after causing an accident and then move away. Applying the Golden Rule the court held that, requirement of the section had not been followed by the driver as he had not stopped for a reasonable period requiring interested persons to make necessary inquiries from him about the accident.

In Assessing Authority v. Patiala Biscuits Manufacturers, interpretation of the words ‘possession of the registration certificate’ in the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the rules made there under was involved. The SC held that, interpreting possession as factual possession will lead to unnecessary hardship. It is sufficient if the dealer, after having completed all essential formalities, has already submitted his application for registration. Thus the dealer could give his registration number to the appellant on a later Date but after having covered the earlier period along with a declaration.

Karnail Singh v. Mohinder Kaur : A testator had made a will in favour of his three sons and had deliberately disinherited his three daughters. During the lifetime of the testator one of these three sons died issueless leaving only his widow. The testator did not change his will and died about two years and nine months after his son’s death Interpreting the word ‘lineal descendant’ in section 109 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 the Punjab and Haryana High Court while applying the golden rule stated that if the testator had any intention of disinheriting the widow of his pre-deceased son, he could easily have made another will or could have executed a codicil to the existing will. This, his intention was clear to the effect that the widow should succeed to the legacy of his pre-deceased son.

So, in summary, we can divide the Golden rule in two parts :

1. When grammatical construction is clear, the grammatical and ordinary sense of words is to be adhered to.
2. When grammatical construction leads to absurdity or repugnancy or inconsistency with rest of the statutes then it can be modified so as to avoid absurdity.

The Mischief Rule (अपायकारी नियम) (The Rule of Purposive Construction, Heydon’s case Rule)

• The mischief rule of interpretation was laid down by Lord Coke in Heydon’s Case in 1584. This rule is also known as The rule of Purposive Construction.
• The mischief rule is one of three rules of statutory interpretation traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the “plain meaning rule” (also known as the “literal rule”) and the “golden rule”.
• The mischief rule is of narrower application than the golden rule or the plain meaning rule, in that it can only be used to interpret a statute and, strictly speaking, only when the statute was passed to remedy a defect in the common law.
• The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as it allows Parliament’s intent to be taken into consideration.
• If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, then the mischief rule has no application.

The facts of Heydon’s case were related to the land of the college given on lease in the time of King Henry VIII. This, all land was granted on lease to Heydon on lease for 80 years. Thereafter the college was surrendered to the King and subsequently, case was filed for damages for the wrong committed in the lands against Heydon as an intruder (घुसखोर) on the lands.

The Barons of the Exchequer (Judges of the English court) resolved that, “for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general, be they penal, or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law, following four things are to be considered :

1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act.

2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.

3rd. What is the remedy the Parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth (nation). (means what is the remedy that the Act has provided.)

4th. The true reason of providing such remedy

After considering all the above four points the court must construe in such a way that the mischief is suppressed and the remedy is given.

Object of the Mischief Rule : The reason behind the formulation of mischief rule is to find out what was the object behind formulating the statute. The construction that achieves the object must be given preference to give the remedy and supress the mischief.

In short, the construction that eliminates the mischief must be followed.

The way in which the mischief rule can produce more sensible outcomes than those that would result if the literal rule were applied is illustrated by the ruling in Smith v. Hughes.

In Smith v. Hughes, the question was whether prostitutes who attracted prospective customer from balconies or windows were soliciting ‘in a street’ as provided in the Street Offences Act,1959. Applying the mischief rule it was held that they were in fact soliciting ‘in a street’ and thus the place from where they were doing so was of no consequence because the Act was intended to clean up the streets to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by prostitutes.

Gorris v. Scott : The court was concerned with interpreting a statute providing that animals carried on board a ship should be kept in pens(enclosure for confining livestock). Some ships of the plaintiff washed overboard during a storm.

The object of the Act was to prevent the spread of infection among animals and not to protect them against the perils of the sea. Held- loss of that kind caused by shipowner neglect can not give cause of action.

RMD Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India : Mischief rule was applied for construction of the definition of prize competition under section2(d) of the Prize Competition Act, 1955. Question was whether Act applies to competitions which involved substantial skill and not in nature of gambling. The SC held that, definition was inclusive of only those competitions in which success does does not depend upon any substantial degree of skill. Prize competitions in which some skill was required were exempt from definition.

Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra : The SC held that there was no ambiguity in the language of the enactment and the meaning of the section 292 is clear and precise. Further the, mischief of sale of obscene literature was sought to be remedied by the provision and, therefore the interpretation given by the appellant was unacceptable.

Alamgir v. State of Bihar :

Sec 498 IPC Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman: Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

In the present case, the married woman was living with the appellant voluntarily. The question was whether he was detaining her. The SC observed that the section contemplates four classes of cases, viz, taking or enticement or concealment or detention. Since first three categories are inapplicable in the present instance, the liability of the accused depended on whether the married woman was being detained by him.

It was held that the provision sought to remedy the mischief of depriving the husband of the company of his wife and consequently, it was enacted with the object of protecting the rights of the husband. Therefore consent or willingness of the wife in depriving her husband of her company is irrelevant and the appellant was responsible for commission of the offence.

Glaxo Laboratories v. Presiding Officer : The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 was enacted for ameliorating (improving) the conditions of the workers and, therefore, conditions of service prescribed thereunder must receive such interpretation as to advance the intendment(intention of a law) underlying the Act and defeat the mischief. If two construction are possible, that construction which advances the intention of the legislation and, remedies the mischief should be accepted.

N.C. Singhal v. Union of India : The SC observed that the construction which makes the rule unworkable should be avoided where two construction are possible and the court should lean in favour of the construction which would make the rule workable and further the purpose for which the rule is intended.