Q. 2) Discuss the general principles of interpretation.

Write a
note on Literal Rule of Interpretation.

Ans.2

Meaning of Interpretation or Construction

While interpretation of a legal provision is always dependent of the fact of any
given case, the application of a statutory provision would always depend on
the exact facts of a given case. As per 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.
Interpretation differs from Construction, however. The former is the art of
finding out the true sense of any form of words, which also means the sense
that the author intends to convey. It may also be understood as the process
by which the courts determine the meaning of a statutory provision for the
purpose of applying it to the situation before them. Construction on the other
hand, is the drawing of conclusions, respects subjects that lie beyond the
direct expression of the text from elements known from and given in the text.
Intention of the Legislature
A statute is an edict of the Legislature and the conventional way of interpreting
or construing a statute is to seek the ‘intention’ of its maker. It is to be
understood according to the intent of its maker, with the guidance furnished by
the accepted principles of interpretation. “The object of interpreting a statute is
to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it”, South Asia Industries
(Pvt.) Ltd. S. Sarup Singh, AIR 1966 SC 346.
Words in any language are not scientific symbols having any precise or
definite meaning, and language is but an imperfect medium to convey one’s
thought, to an audience consisting of persons of various shades of opinion.
The function of courts too, is only to expound, and not to legislate.
The problem of interpretation, is a problem of meaning of words and their
effectiveness as a medium of expression to communicate a particular thought.
Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate references to referents. But
words of any language are capable of referring to different referents in
different contexts or times.However, there always lies the difficulty of
borderline cases , within or outside the connotation of a word. Language,
therefore, has high chances of misunderstanding.
The law is a pragmatic instrument of social order and an interpretative effort
must be imbued with the statutory purpose. A construction that would promote
the purpose or object of an Act, even if not expressed, is to be preferred.
“There is no possibility of mistaking midnight for noon; but at what precise
moment twilight becomes darkness is hard to determine.” (Jane Straford
Boyse v. John T. Rassborough, (1857) 6 HLC p. 45:10 ER 1192 (HL). Thus,
the courts, although conscious of such a dividing line,, do not attempt to draw
it for reasons of practical impossibility; however, sometimes, attempts it after
laying down a working line; howsoever pragmatic, it may or may not be. There
is a marginal area in which the courts mould or creatively interpret legislation
and thus finish or refine legislation which comes to them in a state requiring
varying degrees of refinement. Since, interpretation always implies a degree
of discretion and choice, creativity, a degree which is especially high in certain
areas such as constitutional adjudication.
Some judges proclaim that they perform creative functions even in
interpretation, however, this may sometimes lead to conclusions which have a
strong legislative flavor. Interpretation should not be regarded as a search for
the purpose of the Legislature or even for the purpose of the statute, but as
one of ‘attribution of purpose’, in venturing to do justice.
The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature
must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. The question is not
what may be supposed to have been intended but what has been said. The
key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of the law. Each word,
phrase or sentence, is to be construed in the light of the general purpose of
the Act itself. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context, as they
are the bases of interpretation. If the text is the texture, context gives the
colour. Neither can be ignored. A particular clause or expression is construed
by construing the whole instrument and any dominant purposes that it may
express. The Legislative function cannot be usurped under the disguise of
interpretation, and the danger of an priori determination of the meaning of a
provision based on the preconceived notions of ideological structure or
scheme should be avoided. Caution is all the more necessary.
The correct interpretation is one that best harmonizes the words with the
object of the statute. A right construction of the Act can only be attained if its
whole scope and object together with an analysis of its wording and the
circumstances in which it is enacted are taken into consideration. It s all about
interpretation and not about interpolation.
The rules of interpretation are not rules of law; they are guides and such of
them which serve no useful purpose, can be rejected and new rules can be
evolved in their place. They are aids to construction, presumptions or pointers.
The shift towards use of plain language has attached with it, a lot of
controversy. The language of our legislation cannot be reduced to baby talk
for consumption of the masses, and the attainment of precision, and accuracy.
A good draft contains a clear expression of intent, uses a consistent
terminology throughout, avoids passive voice and aspirational statements The
terms defined are either authoritatively defined in the draft or by judicial
interpretation.Sentences are short. Simple words commonly used in ordinary
speech are preferred. Convoluted sub-division is avoided and so is repetition.
Difference between purposive and literal construction: The difference is in
truth of one degree only. The real distinction lies in the balance to be struck in
the particular case between literal meaning of the words on the one hand and
the context and purpose of the measure in which they appear on the other.
Statute must be read as a whole in its context
The statute as a whole, the previous state of the law, other statutes in pari
materia, the general scope of the statute, and the mischief it is to remedy, is
the basic context of any statute. The elementary rule states that the intention
of the Legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. Every
clause needs to be construed with reference to the context and other clauses
of the Act, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of
statutes relating to the subject-matter. It is the most natural and genuine
exposition of a statute.
The conclusion that the language is plain or ambiguous can only be truly
arrived at by studying the statute as a whole. How far and to what extent each
component influences the meaning of the other , would be different in each
given case. Each word, must however, be allowed to play its role, however
significant or insignificant it may be. in achieving the legislative intent. Each
section must be construed as a whole, whether or not one of the parts is a
saving clause or a proviso. They may be interdependent, each portion
throwing light, if need be on the rest.
A question of construction only arises when one side submits that a particular
provision of an Act covers the facts of the case and the other submits that it
does not or it may be agreed it applies, but the difference arises to its
application.
Statute to be construed to make it effective and workable: However plain
the meaning be
The interpretation should be construed to make the statute workable, which
secures the object, unless crucial omissions or clear direction makes that end
unattainable. The doctrine of purposive reconstruction may be taken recourse
to for the purpose of giving it full effect to the statutory provisions. The
meaning of the statute must be considered rather then the rendering the
statute a nullity.
Appraisal of the principle of plain meaning
Plain words require no construction. This starts with the premise that the
words are plain and that the conclusion can be arrived at after construing the
words. This also means that once the conclusion has been arrived at, that the
words/ sentence can bear only one meaning, the effect to that meaning is to
be given.
Language which on its construction results in absurdity, inconsistency,
hardship or strange consequence is not readily accepted as unambiguous.
Here unambiguous means ‘unambiguous in its context. So ambiguity need not
necessarily be a grammatical ambiguity, but one of appropriateness of the
meaning in a particular context. Also, difference of judicial opinion as to the
true meaning of certain words need not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
those words are ambiguous.
“Statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to its plain
meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly
necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd,
unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the test of the
statute.” [Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P.) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC
111 : AIR 2003]

Literal Rule of Interpretation:

According to Maxwell—-“The best rule of interpretation of Statute is—the

words used in statutes should be interpreted as it is and their simple and
natural meaning should be adhered to. This is called the literal or
grammatical interpretation of statutes. Its meaning and importance have
been expressed in detail in previous questions.The case related literal rule
of Interpretation
Here, we shall study the rules of literal (grammatical) Interpretation. A
literal interpretation has the following major rules—
The simple meaning of words
The first and most important rule of literal interpretation is that—
 (a) Words should be given their ordinary meaning, and
(b) Such meaning should be simple and natural.
Illustration—if definitions of words have been mentioned at the start of any
statute then such words should be given the same meaning in respect to
the complete statute by which they have been defined.
 Universal Meaning—
During interpretation, words should be given their popular and common
meaning. It should avoid technical meaning.
Jogeshwar Manjhi v/s Ramiya Kishan (A.I.R. 1997 Orissa 54)—Orissa
High Court decided that the natural rule of interpretation is that the simple
words should be understood in simple meaning.
 Illustration—the word ‘residence’ in Divorce Act, 1869 has been used in a
very literal sense, hence it should be interpreted also in accordance to the
act (Paster JS. Singh v/s Smt. Jyotsna Singh, A.l R. 1982 Madhya
Pradesh 122)
 Meaning of Undefined Words—         
As we have seen above, if any word has been defined at the start of the
Act then it’s meaning in respect to Complete Act should be taken in
accordance with such definition.
But if any word is undefined then its interpretation can be done with the aid
of the dictionary S. Samuel v/s Union of India (A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 218)—it
was said that while doing so, it should be considered that—
 Ordinary words do have ordinary meaning, and
 Words with more than one meaning should have such meaning which
is proper in accordance with it.
 Grammatical meaning— along with the literal meaning of words, their
grammatical meaning should also be kept in mind. Grammatical
interpretation should be strictly followed till—
 It does not mean otherwise, and
 it is not opposed to the intention of the legislature
 Object
While interpreting the language and words of the statute, the object and
subject matter of statutes should be kept in mind. The intention legislature
cannot be ignored while interpreting.
Words should be interpreted in such a way so that the object of legislature
and statute is fulfilled.
 Sramjivi Stores, Calcutta v/s Union of India (A.l R 198 Delhi 76)-—Delhi
High Court said that the object of the statute cannot be ignored
interpretation words should be so interpreted that the object of stature is
fulfilled, literal interpretation should not be such the object of the statute
fails.
Similarly, Devdas v/s Makali Amma (AIR 1998 S.C. 750) Supreme Court
decided that the objects of Statute could be considered to know the
background of the Statute.”
 Context
Context also plays an important role in the interpretation of statutes.
Context reflects the intention of the legislature. It is known from the context
that a particular Act has been passed.
Ram Manohar v/s State of Bihar (1996 S.C R. 709)—It decided that “The
words used in the statute obtain their meaning and expression from its
context.
Gender
Sec. 13 of General Clauses Act. 1897 provides that until there is no specific
provision regarding any Gender, till then the word Gender shall include
both male and female. Similarly, the ‘person’ shall include both male and
female,
Similar Meaning of Similar Words     
Where similar has been used more than once a statute’ There they should
be given one meaning at all places. It shall not correct to give one a certain
meaning in one place and different meaning at another place. If different
circumstances arise at different places in a Statute, then the subject matter
and context should be used.
Different Meaning of Different Words
When differences are used in Statutes, then it should be presumed that the
legislature intended to give them different meanings.
Mr. D.L.F. Qutub Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust v/s
State of Haryana (A,I R. 2003 S.C. 1648)——Supreme Court decided that
giving a different meaning to different words seems to be in accordance
with the intention of the legislature.
Equivalent Words
Words used in Statutes should be given equivalent meanings at all places.
It is an important rule of literal interpretation.
Casher v/s Holmes (I L.J. I.S.K.B. 280)—it was said that any words should
not be given an inferior meaning at one place and a superior meaning at
another place.
Addition or Removal of Words
 It is an important rule of literal interpretation that no word should be added
nor removed from the statute while interpreting. All those words used in a
statute or prevailing in it should be interpreted only.
Federation Bank of India v/s Hanumatlar (A.I.R 195 1 Calcutta 382)—
Calcutta High Court said that it is the duty of Courts to neither add a word
from their side nor ignore any words while interpreting a statute. All those
words which have been used in the statute should be made the subject-
matter of their Interpretation.

‘And’ and ‘Or’ Words

 The words ‘and’ and Or’ are used in various places in a statute. Both of
these words are not similar and give different meanings. Hence, it should
be kept in mind while interpreting.
Dr. B. N. Gupta Charitable Trust v/s Delhi Development
Authority (A.I.R. 1997 Delhi 50)—Delhi High Court said that the words
and’ and Or’ should be used at their place only.
Words having more than one meaning
 Sometimes, such words are used in statutes that have more than one
meaning. If anyone of those meanings is accepted, it creates problems and
the possibility of problems. Hence, in such situation, such meaning shall be
accepted from more than are meaning which-
 Fulfills the intention of the legislature. and
 is in accordance with the provisions of a statute
            It is also the view of the Supreme Court that where any words have
more than one meaning or two opinions can be formed, there that one
meaning should be accepted which protects the constitutionality of
Provision. (Taj Kumar Balakrishna v/s A.K. Menon, A.l R SC 442)
Almost a Similar view has been expressed by Patna High Court
in Priyavrath Mehta vs Amerendu Banerjee (A.l R 1997 Patna and
Calcutta High Court in ‘Shanti Swaroop Sarkar v/s Pradeep Kumar
Sarkar (A.l R 1997 Calcutta 197). It decided in them that- where any word
has two meanings or expressions and one of them is in accordance with
the intention of provision and the second one is opposed to it, there that
would be accepted which is in accordance with the intention.
Meaning of Trade Words
Statutes and Laws regarding trade-business or commercial matters
generally use words in the trading world. In such a situation, such words
should be given that meaning which is followed in the trading world.
Illustration—if word Tariff’ is used in any Act then the trade or dictionary
meaning should be considered interpreting it. (Collector, Central Excise,
Madras v/s Ms. I.T.C. Ltd., A.I R 2003 S.C. 1484).
Meaning of Legal Words           
Legal words are somehow different from common worlds. Their meaning
and intention are also a district. Hence, whenever the legal words are
interpreted, they should be given only one legal meaning.
Illustration—‘sale’ and ‘Agreement to Sell’ are both legal words. Their
meaning and intention are both different. Therefore, while interpreting
them, their legal importance should be taken into consideration.
Meaning of Technical Words
Words related to Technical Subjects are many times of technical nature
and their meaning is different from the literal meaning. Hence, such should
be interpreted in Technical sense.
Rukma Bai vs Lal Bhai Motichand (5 M.I.A. 234)—It was decided that
where the legislature has intentionally used a technical word in any statute,
there it should be accepted in the technical meaning only, even though it
may be different from the literal meaning.
 Meaning of Artistic Words
Many times, Artistic words are used in the statute. In such situations, they
should be understood in an artistic sense only.
Ordinary and Natural Meaning
It is the golden rule of interpretation of statutes that the words used should
be accepted in their Ordinary and natural meaning only unless it does not
mean otherwise.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Shindu Kaur (A.I.R. 1998 Punjab and
Haryana 184)—Punjab and Haryana High Court decided that ‘when the
language is clear and plain, then the plain meaning of words has to be
followed.
 Much before, ‘Sheikh Gulfan v/s Sanat Kumar Banerjee‘
(A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1839)—
Supreme Court said the same that—
“It is an important rule of interpretation of statutes that when parties
executing any document or record intentionally use certain words then such
words should be given their ordinary and natural meaning.”