Following are secondary rules of interpretation which are frequently used by courts –

Casus Omissus

• It means a case which is omitted by the legislature. It also means point not provided by the statute.
• Due to the negligence or inefficiency of the legislature, the legislature may omit certain words or phrases in statutes. The are called Casus Omissus.
• It is a rule of statutory construction that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the courts, as to do so will be legislation and not construction.
• Courts can only point the omission.
• While interpreting, court shall not presume that the legislature has committed anerror or has omitted something which was necessary.
• If there is any gap in the provisions of a statute, the remedy to fill the gap is by passing an Amending Act and not to be added by the courts.

Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamilnadu : A casus omissus can not be supplied by the courts except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself, but at the same time, a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of the statute and section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and the other clauses.

In Bangalore Water Supply case, while dealing with the definition of ‘industry’, in the Industrial Dispute Act,1947, while applying the rule of casus omissus the SC held that, a Judge must not alter the provision of statute.

Karnataka State v. Union of India : It is relevant to remember that although a court cannot supply a real casus omissus, it is equally clear that, it should not so interpret a statute as to create a casus omissus when there is really none.

Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd Sometimes courts can supply words which have been accidently omitted in a statute. This can be done only in exceptional cases where not doing so would deprive certain existing words in a statute all, all its meaning, or some part of the statute may become absurd.

“If any one shall draw or load any sword or gun.”

Reddendo Singula Singulis

• The meaning of this Latin term is “Giving each to each” Or, “By assigning each to each”
• Where there are several antecedents(previous) and several Consequents(following) in a sentence, this rule requires that each word or phrase is to be linked to where it belongs.
• The above sentence can be construed by applying R.S.S. Draw will be applied to sword and load will be applied to gun.
• In olden statutes, long sentences and phrases were used by the draftsman, hence RSS occurred often. If the sentences are short and dealing with only a single subject matter, the Rule of RSS does not apply.

Koteshwar Vithhal Kamath v. Rangappa Baliga & co. :- This rule was applied in construction of the proviso to Article 304 of the Constitution of India. Proviso of Article 304 states that, no bill or amendment for the purposes of clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President.The Supreme Court applied the rule reddendo singula singulis and held that, introduced applies to bill and moved applies to amendment.

Construction Noscitur a sociis (सहयोगी शब्दातून अर्थ जाणून घेण्याचा नियम) & Construction Ejusdem Generis (अन्वयार्थ लावण्याचा सजातीय नियम)

• Noscere means to know and Sociis means association. Therefore, Noscitur a sociis means to know from association.
• Maxwell says, When two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning (means capable of giving same meaning) are coupled together, they are understood to be used in their cognate(similar) sense. They take colours from each other.
• A word can be known from the company of the other words it keeps.
• It is legitimate to construe words with reference to the words which are found in immediate connection with them.
• Thus, Noscitur a soccis means, the meaning of words can be gathered from its accompanying or associating words.
• This rule helps to find the intention of legislature but, when words are clear, no need take the help of this rule.

Alamgir v. State of Bihar : The meaning of the word, ‘detains’ was to be interpreted with reference to the expressions, takes, entices, and conceals used in section 498 of IPC. The SC held that though the word detain generally means detention against will, this meaning cannot be attributed to the word here because the expression should be construed in the light of other words in its company.

It was held that, the words detains should mean detention without the consent of the husband. Section 498 protects the rights of husband who has been deprived of the company of his wife and in the light of this object also the expression detains must mean keeping a woman without the permission of her husband. The woman’s consent under this provision, is therefore meaningless.

Devendra M. Surti v. State of Gujrat : Interpretation of the word ‘profession’ was in question. Section 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 says that, commercial establishment means an establishment which carries on any business, trade or profession. The Supreme Court interpreted the word ‘profession’ in the light of the other associated words ‘business’ and ‘trade’ and held that, a private dispensary of a medical doctor could not be within the word ‘profession’.

In Pradeep Agarbatti v. State of Punjab, the word ‘perfumery’ had to be interpreted of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 which reads, ‘cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods, excluding tooth paste, toothe powder, kumkum and soap’. Applying noscitur a sociis rule the SC ruled that the word could mean only such articles as are used as cosmetics and toilet goods and, therefore, this cannot mean ‘dhoop’ and ‘agarbatti’.

In Ahmedabad Pvt Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer, interpretation of word ‘employee’ in section 2(e) of Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 was in question. The section says ‘employee means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages in any establishment,factory,mine,oilfield,plantation,railway company or shop to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual,supervisory,technical or clerical work, whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity. Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis the SC held that a teacher employed in a school does not fall under any of the categories mentioned above. The Court, however recommended that since the teachers are in a noble profession the legislature should extend benefits of gratuity to them by enacting a new legislation for them.

In case of Lokmat Newspapers (P) Ltd v. Shankarprasad, it has been held that for the applicability of this rule two words in the statute should have analogus meaning. Since in this case, the words ‘discharge’ and ‘dismissal’ used in a statutory provision did not have the same analogus meaning, this rule did not apply.

This rule has been interpreted as that the ‘Associated’ wods take their meaning from one another under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the philosophy of which is that, the meaning of the doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it, such doctrine is broader than the maxim, ejusdem generis.

In Commissioners v. Savoy Hotel, while interpreting a Purchase Tax Act, which used the expression ‘manufactured beverages including fruit-juices and bottled waters and syrups, etc, it was held that the description ‘fruit-juices’ as occurring therein should be construed in the context of the preceding words and that orange juice unsweetened and freshly pressed was not within the description.

State of Assam v. Ranga Mahammad : The SC in construing the word ‘posting’as it occurs in Article 233(1) of the Constitution of India in association with the words ‘appointment’ and ‘promotion’ held that the word ‘posting’ took its colour from the associated words and meant ‘the assignment of an appointee or promote to position in the cadre’ and not his transfer from one station to another.

Ejusdem Generis Rule ( Lord Tenterden’s Rule )

• Ejusdem Generis is a Latin expression which means, “of the same kind”.
• It means words of similar class. Eg : where a law lists specific classes of persons or things & then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things.
• Normally general words should be given their natural meaning like all other words unless the context requires otherwise. But when a general word follows specific words of a distinct category, the general word may be given a restricted meaning of the same category.
• Rule of E.G. is applicable only when a specific word belongs to a distinct category. If the specific words do not belong to a distinct category, then the Rule of EG will not apply.

Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Hrishankar : The Supreme Court in this case, has laid down the following five essential elements of this rule

1. The Statute contains an enumeration (numbering) of specific words.
2. The subject of enumeration constitute a class or category.
3. That class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration.
4. The general terms follow the enumeration
5. There is no indication of a different legislative intent.

State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan : It is essential for application of the ejusdem generis rule that enumerated things before the general words must constitute a category or genus or a family which admits of a number of species or members.

Evans v. Cross : the words ‘other devices’ had to be interpreted of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 which defined a ‘traffic sign’ to include ‘all signals, warnig sign posts, direction posts, signs, or other devices’. Applying the rule of ejusdem generis the Court held that a painted white line on a road could not be called a traffic sign because devices are things which a painted line on road is not.

Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Ramdev Tobacco Company

The question was the interpretation of section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 before its amendment was provided, that, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding could be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done ….

The SC held that the expression ‘other legal proceedings’ must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words suit and prosecution as they constitute a genus. Therefore ‘penalty’ and ‘adjudication’ proceedings do not fall within the expression ‘other legal proceeding’.

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal : The rule of ejusdem generis is merely a canon of construction like many other rules which gives way to the clear intention of the legislature. This rule is a facet(aspect) of noscitur a sociis. It applies only when there is contrary intention.Its application does not defeat purpose of legislation and also does not render any part of the statute redundant(unneeded).

Words of Rank

According to the rule of ‘words of rank’, the statutes which deals with persons or thing of inferior rank are not extended to those of superior degree by introducing of general words. And general words following particular words will not cover anything of a class superior to those to which the particular words relate.

For example duty imposed on copper, brass, pewter, and tin and all other metals not enumerated, did not cover gold, platinum as these are metals of superior kind to the particular metals enumerated. (Casher v. Holmes).

The Statute should be read as a whole ( Construction ex visceribus actus )

• Interpretation of statute depends upon the text & context thereof and the object with which it was made.
• Whenever question arises as to the meaning of certain provision in a statute, it is proper and legitimate to read that provision in its context. “ This means that, the statute must be read as a whole”, and the questions like what was the previous state of law, study of another statutes in pari materia i.e. on the same matter, if there are any, what is the general scope of the statute and what is the mischief which it wanted to remedy, all these questions are to be considered here.
• The rule of construction requires that, the effect must be given to the object, spirit and meaning of the statute. This object, meaning & spirit of the statute must be interpreted from the words of the statute as a whole.
• The intention of the legislature gatherable from any other part of an Act must be considered during construing a provision.
• Use of words like, “if not consistent with the context”, “unless the context otherwise requires” and “ unless a contrary intention appears” in Acts are indications of application of this principle.

In Popatlal Shah v. State of Madras, the SC held that, to find out the true intention of the legislature, all the parts of the statute must be taken together. Each word, phrase or sentence used by the legislature must be interpreted with respect to general purpose and object of the Act. The title and preamble is also the part of the statute. They also give the intent of the legislature and object of the Act. Therefore a statute must be read as a whole while construing any provision of an Act.

Jasbir Singh v. Vipin Kumar Jaggi : The conclusion that, the language used by the legislature is plain or ambigious can only be truly arrived at by studying the statute as a whole. Words take colours from the context in which they are used.

In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless Co., the Supreme Court observed : The interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrases by phrases.

In Newspapers Limited, v. State Industrial Tribunal, the appellant dismissed on of their typist employees. On an intervention by the Uttar Pradesh Working Journalists Union with which the dismissed employee had no connection, the matter was referred to the respondents. The Spreme Court held the reference bad on the ground that it was not an industrial dispute of which the dismissed employee was a workman of the employers. It was observed that, the Industrial Dispute Act as a whole should be read while interpreting the constituent parts of it.

S. Gopal Reddy v. State of AP : The Supreme Court while holding that the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prohibits not only actual receiving of dowry but also the very demand for dowry made even before the marriage, observed that, the text and context of the entire Act must be looked into while interpreting any of the expressions used in a statute.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Taj Traders. The Supreme Court observed that, a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself. The casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the legislature.

Vijaywada Municipal Council v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board The Andhra Area Electricity Supply Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1954 was passed under which the State Government took over the electricity undertaking of the appellant. On the date of the acquisition some consumer owed dues to the electicity undertaking of the appellant. After the acquisition these dues were claimed by the State Government. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the respondent over these dues and held that, section 5(3), 6(2), and 10(2)(b)(iii) of the Act read with the other provisions of the statute as a whole clearly pointed out to the fact that the respondents claim was justified.

Identical expression to have same meaning

• It is reasonable to assume that when the legislature has used a particular expression in a statute many times, the expression must bear the same meaning everywhere.
• To call the same thing by the same name is very safe proposition.
• But, the courts should be very careful while applying this principle because the same expression expressed in a different context than the earlier one may have been intended by the legislature to have a different meaning.
• The courts while interpreting the same expression differently, generally give the reason that their context is different.
• The commonest illustrations where this principle has not been followed are found in the interpretations of the expressions may and shall where frequently either of these words has been interpreted sometimes as mandatory and sometimes as non-obligatory depending upon the context in which it has been used.

In Commissioner of Income Tax, Banglore, v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd., The Supreme Court stated : Generally the same words in a statute have the same meaning whenever used in that statute but they may also have a different meaning in different provisions of the same statute.

The philosophy of this principle is that, the meaning of words with doubtful meaning could be ascertained from the meaning of the words associated with it. Associated words take their meaning from one another. Words found in immediate connection of a word to be interpreted are helpful guide to the true interpretation of that word. It is legitimate to look to the words used in association with the word to be construed.

In Raghubans Narain v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the question involved was the interpretation of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Observing the principle of same expression to have same meaning unless the context requires otherwise, the Supreme Court held that the first part of section 28 which uses the words may direct is non-obligatory, that is to say, the court may or may not direct the Collector to pay interest. But the latter part of the section using the word shall means mandatory, that is to say, that once the court has exercised its option that, interest should be paid, there is no option except to pay the interest at the rate of six per cent.

Construction ut res magis valeat quam pereat :

• Meaning of this maxim is that, where alternative constructions are possible for smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than the one which would put hindrances in its way.
• The narrower of the two interpretations which would fail to achieve the objective of the law must give way to a bolder construction paving way for an effective outcome.
• Interpreting any part of a provision without effect is not permissible.
• If the language used in a statute is ambiguous leading to more than one construction the principle is to adopt that construction which will give effect to the words used in the statute than that which will render the words ineffective.
• As far as possible all the words used in a statute must be given meaning as the legislature is not expected to use unnecessary or insignificant words.

In Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, the Supreme Court observed that, if a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation then the court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature.

In selecting the true meaning regard must be had to the consequences resulting from adopting the alternative constructions. A construction that results in hardship, serious inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly or which leads to inconsistency or uncertainty and friction in the system which statute purports to regulate has to be rejected and preference should be given to that construction which avoids such results.

In Shreenath v. Rajesh, the Supreme Court held that, where two views are possible while interpreting a procedural law, the one which curtails(reduce) the procedure without eluding(skip) justice should be adopted because procedural law is always subservient(helpful) to and is in aid to justice.

In M/s Ethiopian Airlines v. M/s Stic Travels (P) Ltd., the Supreme Court ruled that while interpreting any arbitrator statute if there be two possible interpretations, the one which leans to satisfy the desired agreement should be accepted.

In Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, the appellant who was convicted for theft of electricity under section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 argued that his conviction should not be maintained because the process against him had not started as per the directions of

Section 50 0f the Act as the proceedings against him were not initiated by anyone mentioned therein. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that, theft of electricity though not a theft within the meaning of Section 378 of IPC, was made so by section 39 of Electricity Act, 1910 and thus punishment under IPC must be imposed. The SC applied the principle of interpretation, “ut res magis valent quam pereat.” And held that, since the crime is against the Act and not against the code, the requirement of section 50 of the Act must have been completed. However the accused found guilty under section 39 of the Act has to be punished under section 379 of IPC because section 39 of the Act creates a fiction to the effect that an offence under this section will be deemed to be an offence under the code.

Tinsukia Electric Supply Company Limited v. State of Assam It was held that, the courts strongly lean against a construction which reduces the statute to a futility(uselessness). A statute or any enacting provision therein must be so construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maim, “ut res magis valent quam pereat.” If a statute is absolutely vague and its language is wholly intractable(difficult) and absolutely meaningless, the statute could be declared void for vagueness. Here in this case, the Tinsukia and Dibrugarh Electric Supply Undertakings ( Acquisition ) Act, 1973 were held to be not workable.

Expressio Unis Est Exclusio Alterius ( Expressum Facit Cessary Tacitum.)

• The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another is the meaning of this expression.
• This maxim helps in determining the intention of legislature, but it would not be safe to regard it as an obligatory rule of law.
• This maxim should not be allowed to get upper hand in the matter of interpretation (because the exclusion may may be the result of accident.)

Prabhadevi Transport Co-op Soc Ltd. v. The regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad & others. : It is held that, this maxim is for ascertaining the intention of the legislature where the statutory language is plain and the meaning is clear, there is no scope for applying this rule.

In Bennettt Coleman v. Union of India (& R.C. Cooper v. UOI) The SC interpreted the term ‘citizen’ and clearly laid down that the freedoms under Article 19 cannot be claimed by non-citizens nor by the legal persons as they are not citizens. However, Indian citizens may claim these freedoms through their legal persons because the relief ultimately goes to the citizens and not to the legal persons.

In Bonam Partem

• Bonam = Lawful and Partem = Taking the part
• According to the rule of In Bonam Partem, the words of a statute are to be construed in their ‘lawful’ and ‘rightful’ sense.(Lawful sense implies what is legitimate and recognised by law.)
• It is presumed that, the legislature never intended the words to be construed in illegal sense.
• If there are two interpretations, legal and illegal, then this rule requires that, the interpretation giving the words legal sense must be given effect.
• Any construction that takes away the legality of the words of statute, must be avoided.
• Example : If Act refers, a thing to be done means it refers to the thing to be done lawfully.

R. v. Hulme : Whenever the legislature under the Act requires a person to answer the question, it means that he shall answer those questions truly and to the best of his knowledge & belief.

Mehboob Basha v. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Words are prima facie to be taken in their lawful and rightful sense. Where an Act for instance, gave a certain efficacy to a fine levied on land, it referred only to a fine lawfully levied.