CONCEPT AND MEANING OF

INTERPRETATION
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

SUBMITTED BY

MOHAMMAD HASNIAN
6TH Sem., B.A.,LL.B(HONS)

SUBMITTED TO

MR. ENAM FIRDOUS

FACULTY OF LAW
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mr. Enam

Firdous, sir, who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project
on the topic- Human Rights in India: Problems and Focus Areas. Which also
help me in doing a lot of research and I came to know about so may new things
I am really thankful to them.

Thanking You,
Mohammad Hasnain
 INDEX

1. Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................................02

2. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................03

3. Meaning of Interpretation and Construction ....................................................................... 04

4. Need for Interpretation ........................................................................................................ 05

5. Purposive Approach ............................................................................................................ 06

6. Function of Judges ............................................................................................................... 07

7. Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 11

8. Reference ............................................................................................................................. 12
INTRODUCTION

Enacted laws, especially the modern acts and rules, are drafted by legal experts and it could be
expected that the language used will leave little room for interpretation or construction. But the
experience of all those who have to bear and share the task of application of the law has been
different. 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‟.
The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed
expressly or impliedly in the language used. As stated by Salmond, “by interpretation or
construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the
legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.”
Elaborate rules of interpretation were evolved even at a very early stage of Hindu civilization
and culture. The rules given by „Jaimini‟, the author of Mimamsat Sutras, originally meant for
Srutis were employed for the interpretation of Smritis also.
In the process of interpretation, several aids are used. They may be statutory or non-statutory.
Statutory aids may be illustrated by the General Clauses Act, 1897 and by specific definitions
contained in individuals Acts whereas non-statutory aids are illustrated by common law rules of
interpretation (including certain presumptions relating to interpretation) and also by case-laws
relating to the interpretation of statutes.

4
 Meaning of Interpretation and Construction

According to Salmond interpretation or construction is the process by which the courts seek to
ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is
expressed.” It has been said that there is a distinction between the two expressions. As explained
by Cooley: “Interpretation differs from construction in the sense that the former is the art of
finding out the true sense of any form of words;
i.e. the sense that their author intended to convey. Construction on the other hand, is the drawing
of conclusions, respecting the subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text. This
distinction has been widely criticized.
Interpretation of statute is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a
statute. When the language of the statute is clear, there is no need for the rules of interpretation.
But, in certain cases, more than one meaning may be derived from the same word or sentence.
It is, therefore, necessary to interpret the statute to find out the real intention of the statute.

Interpretation of Statutes is required for two basic reasons:-

 Legislative Language – Legislative language may be complicated for a layman, and hence may
require interpretation; and
 Legislative Intent – The intention of the legislature or Legislative intent assimilates two aspects:

1. a. the concept of „meaning‟, i.e., what the word means; and

2. b. the concept of „purpose‟ and „object‟ or the „reason‟ or „spirit‟ pervading

through the statute.

5
Need for Interpretation

Legislators in recent years have made every effort to write in plain English, trying to convey
their message to citizens, officials and judges. But what is written invariably outlives the
generation it was created to serve and even the clearest piece of writing can give rise to ambiguity
or differing feasible interpretations. This is not necessarily because the drafters have done a poor
job, but simply because many of our words attract a number of different meanings. This opens
the way for lawyers to construct ambiguity in order to advance their clients claims. Acting within
an adversarial system, lawyers will argue that the word or phrase is or is not ambiguous
depending on whether or not the result will advance their clients‟ goals. It is also the case that
statutes are written generally as a way of covering a broad spectrum of situations. This approach
reduces the statements to standards as opposed to absolute objectives. A statement that says that
factory workers should not be required to lift more than 40kg may appear in legislation as factory
workers should only be required to lift what is considered reasonable, and of course, the word
reasonable needs to be interpreted An English judge commenting on this eventuality said that
the courts are finishers, refiners and polishers of legislation which comes to them in a state
requiring varying degrees of further processing. In this respect McHugh J is of the opinion that
parliament in some cases does this deliberately so the responsibility for choosing policies falls
to the courts. There are a number of reasons why someone might want to persuade
the court to their way of understanding the words contained in statutes, particularly when a
person in authority has a different view. For instance, issues that question whether a person is in
breach of an act, has committed an offence, or is eligible to claim a benefit.
Courts are also charged with the task of determining whether legislation created
by either the Commonwealth or state parliaments is unconstitutional.
 Complexity of statutes in regards to the nature of the subject, numerous draftsmen and
the blend of legal and technical language can result in incoherence, vague and
ambiguous language.

 Anticipation of future events leads to the use of indeterminate terms. The impossible
task of anticipating every possible scenario also leads to the use of indeterminate
language. Judges therefore have to interpret statutes because of the gaps in law.
Examples of indeterminate language include words such as “reasonable”. In this case

6
 the courts are responsible for determining what constitutes the word “reasonable”.

 The multifaceted nature of language. Language, words and phrases are an imprecise
form of communication. Words can have multiple definitions and meanings. Each party
in court will utilize the definition and meaning of the language most advantageous to
their particular need. It is up to the courts to decide the most correct use of the language
employed.

7
Purposive Approach

The purposive approach (sometimes referred to as purposivism, purposive construction,

purposive interpretation, or the modern principle in construction) is an approach to statutory and
constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment (a statute,
part of a statute, or a clause of a constitution) within the context of the law's purpose.
Purposive interpretation is a derivation of mischief rule set in Heydon's Case, and intended to
replace the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule and the golden rule. Purposive interpretation
is used when the courts use extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation,
including early drafts, Hansards, committee reports, and white papers. The purposive
interpretation involves a rejection of the exclusionary rule.
Israeli jurist Aharon Barak views purposive interpretation as a legal construction that combines
elements of the subjective and objective. Barak states that the subjective elements include the
intention of the author of the text, whereas the objective elements include the intent of the
reasonable author and the legal system‟s fundamental values.
Critics of purposivism argue it fails to separate the powers between the legislator and the
judiciary, as it allows more freedom in interpretation by way of extraneous materials in
interpreting the law.

8
Function of Judges

One of the major functions of the judiciary is to interpret and apply laws to specific cases. In the
course of deciding the disputes that come before it, the judges interpret and apply laws. Every law
needs a proper interpretation for getting applied to every specific case. This function is performed
by the judges. The law means what the judges interpret it to mean.

The role of the Judge in interpreting law has been graphically described thus: “Judges must be
sometimes cautious and sometimes bold. Judges must respect both the traditions of the past and
the convenience of the present. Judges must reconcile liberty and authority; the whole and its
parts.” No legislature can with reasonable certainty foresee the future contingencies and
necessarily every enacted law, on a closer scrutiny, will reveal several gaps which the judiciary
is expected to fill. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, while admitting this self-evident truth
observed: “… I recognize without hesitation that judges do and must legislate, but they can do
so only interstitially; they are confined from molar to molecular motions.”

A common criticism we hear about judicial legislations is that in the name of interpreting the
provisions of the Constitution and legislative enactments, the judiciary often rewrites them
without explicitly stating so and in this process some of the personal opinions of the judges
metamorphose into legal principles and constitutional values. One other criticism is that the
theory of separation of powers is overthrown and the judiciary is undermining the authority of
the legislature and the executive by encroaching upon the spheres reserved for them. However
we should note that the Constitution provides for checks and balances in order to pre-empt
concentration of power by any branch not confided in it by the Constitution. Every Judge must
play an active role in the discharge of his duties as “adjudicator of disputes”.

His role as an interpreter of law and dispenser of justice according to law should not be allowed
to be diminished either because of the perceived notions of the other two wings of the State –
the legislature and the executive or any section of the public. But this cannot be termed as
Judge‟s paradise in interpreting legislations. Laws enacted by the legislature must be
implemented by the executive and their interpretation is within the province of the judiciary.
That is the reason why judiciary has always been treated as the least dangerous branch and

9
sometimes it is also described as the weakest of the three branches with no control either on
the purse or on the sword. Decisions rendered by courts generally receive public acceptance in
every democracy adhering to the concept of rule of law.
We should understand that it is the judge that infuses life and blood into the dry skeleton provided
by the legislature and creates a living organism appropriate and adequate to meet the needs of the
society.
The judges have taken their pro status quo approach and taken upon themselves the duty to
enforce the basic rights of the poor and vulnerable sections of the society, by progressive
interpretation and positive action.
The concept of interpretation of legislation being a judge’s paradise is a good thing when it is
used to enforce the rights of the disadvantaged. But it should not be used to interfere with the
powers of the other organs of the government to take decisions on a range of matters.

10
Judicial Review, the Indian Constitution and the Judiciary.

In the Indian context, there has been a raging debate on the proper scope and limits of the judicial
role. The terms of that debate have been broadly framed with respect to the considerations of
ensuring an effective
„separation of powers‟ between the executive, legislature and the judiciary as well as concerns
about the efficacy and legitimacy of judicial interventions in the long-run.

The judicial power under our Constitution is vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts
which are empowered to exercise the power of judicial review both in regard to legislative and
executive actions. Judges cannot shirk their responsibilities as adjudicators of legal and
constitutional matters. How onerous the exercise of judicial power was, was very aptly stated by
Chief Justice Marshall: “The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because
it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With
whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be
brought before us.

We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that
which is not given. The one or the other is treason to the Constitution.”
The constitution thus gives such bounden duty and capacitive powers which makes judiciary‟s
role very critical and significant especially in India. The scenario today clearly shows us that
every arrangement or a system of rules is dishonoured.
With such a predicament why does the judiciary not intervene when the constitution itself has
given it powers to do so? The Constitution has trusted the judiciary to safeguard itself.

With such lofty duty and commitment, the judiciary has to play every role to make sure it upholds
what it was made for. Thus when judges make law through judicial decisions it should be viewed
as yet another battle for the constitution and not as against it.

11
Articles 13, 32, 226, 141, 142 are of considerable importance when it comes to role of judges and
the judiciary.
 Article 32 and 226 makes the Supreme Court as the protector and guarantor of the
fundamental rights through writs.
 Article 13 confers wide power of judicial review to the courts. In the exercise of the
judicial review it can examine the constitutionality of an executive or legislative act.
 Article 141 indicates that the power of the Supreme Court is to declare the law and not
enact it, but in the course of its function to interpret the law, it alters the law.

Statutory interpretation is a function which sometimes leads to accusations that individual

judges, under the guise of construing a statute, are in truth amending it. In practice, judges have
three major sources of protection against such an accusation. First, the principles according to
which disputes about the meaning of statutes are resolved by courts are reasonably well
established, and generally accepted. In many respects they are reinforced by acts of parliament
governing the subject of statutory interpretation. Secondly, the appeal process results in a fairly
large measure of conformity amongst judges in their approach to statutory interpretation.
Thirdly, if parliament does not like the way a statute has been construed by the courts, it has it
within its power to amend the statute.

12
Conclusion

With the growth of legislation comes an increasing role for the courts to interpret what
parliament is trying to say to the public and those in authority. However, this is not a
mechanical process, the judge as interpreter has a certain amount of discretion or choice in
determining the meaning of words and the outcome that follows. The choice is not simply one
that aligns to the judge‟s own wishes. There are broader contextual considerations and a set
of particular rules contained in the statutory interpretation legislation that shape the judge‟s
thinking. This process, along with the belief in the independence of the judiciary, legitimises
what might at first appear to be an arbitrary system of determining how we as a public are
ordered.

13
Reference

1. http://ijlljs.in/the-judge-intention-statutory-interpretation-judicial-reviewcynduja-
crishnan-viii- semester-b-a-ll-bhons-school-of-law-sastra-university/

2. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/judges-interpretation-
of-legislation- constitutional-law-essay.php

3. https://en.mynorama.org/wiki/Purposive_approach

14