Meaning of Subsidiary Rules of Interpretation of Statutes
Subsidiary rules of interpretation serve as supplementary guidelines when the literal meaning
of a legal statute is unclear. Acting as secondary principles to the primary rules, which prioritise
the plain and direct meaning of statutory language, subsidiary rules come into play when
ambiguity arises.
These secondary guidelines encompass considerations such as the preamble of a statute,
subsequent agreements between parties, customary international law and the context and
purpose of the law.
By employing these subsidiary rules, legal interpreters aim to derive a more comprehensive
understanding of statutes in situations where a straightforward application of the primary rules
is insufficient or inconclusive.
What are the Subsidiary Rules of interpretation of Statutes?
The most commonly used subsidiary rules of interpretation are:
Same Word, Same Meaning
This principle in subsidiary rules of interpretation suggests that if we intend to convey the same
idea, we typically use the same words. When Congress borrows a term for a law, it’s assumed
that the term carries the same meanings it had in the original context.
This is especially applicable when laws are related, as in the case of statutes in pari materia.
An example is the legal case Jmaiff v. The Grand Forks Rural Fire Protection District in
1990.
Use of Different Word
When different words are used in the same law, it is presumed that they carry different
meanings. For instance, in the Income Tax Act of 1922, the phrases “at the end of the previous
year” and “in the course of such previous year” were interpreted differently.
This principle of subsidiary rules of interpretation is illustrated in the legal case Shri Ishar
Alloy Steels Ltd v. Jayaswalas Neco Ltd., UT 2001(3)-SC 114.
Rule of Last Antecedent
This rule of subsidiary rules of interpretation dictates that words in a law usually modify or
apply to the words or phrases closest to them, rather than those located distantly. The maxim
expressing this rule is ‘ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sententia,’ meaning
relative words refer to the nearest antecedents unless the context requires otherwise.
An example in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and Ors. (AIR 1966 SC 1910)
shows how the placement of a comma in a list can alter the meaning of a statement.
Non-Obstante Clause
A “non-obstante clause,” derived from Latin, meaning “Notwithstanding,” is a provision in a
statute that renders it independent of conflicting provisions within the same law. Essentially,
when this clause is present, it signals that the specified provision will prevail, regardless of any
contradictory content in other sections.
It clarifies that, in case of inconsistency, the non-obstante clause takes precedence over
conflicting provisions. Its purpose is to ensure the specified provision’s dominance in the event
of a clash with other clauses.
Legal Fiction
Legal fiction, a concept prevalent in common law jurisdictions, involves courts assuming or
creating facts to facilitate decision-making or the application of legal rules. A classic example
is the notion that English courts do not “create” but rather “declare” common law. Legal
fictions are employed to achieve justice, allowing courts to equitably resolve matters. However,
there are limitations.
They should not be used to violate legal rules or moral principles and their application should
stay within their intended scope without leading to unjust outcomes. Additionally, stacking one
legal fiction upon another is generally avoided.
Mandatory and Directory Provisions
Mandatory provisions must be strictly adhered to, while substantial compliance is acceptable
for directory provisions. Generally, failure to comply with mandatory requirements renders the
act null and void.
However, exceptions exist, allowing waiver of mandatory requirements if they primarily serve
an individual’s or authority’s interest and are not against the public interest. On the other hand,
breaching directory provisions does not lead to invalidity.
Consequences of Non-Compliance
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions often results in nullification and is a common
subsidiary rule of interpretation. For instance, in the Limitation Act, failure to adhere to the
prescribed period for legal proceedings leads to dismissal.
Conversely, non-compliance with directory provisions does not provide grounds for legal
challenge.
Conjunctive and Disjunctive Words ‘or’ And ‘and’
Normally, “and” is conjunctive, while “or” is disjunctive. They are read as such unless
legislative intent suggests otherwise. In conjunctive statutes these subsidiary rules of
interpretation, all listed elements must be proven for a conviction, whereas in disjunctive
statutes, proof of any one element suffices.
Case law, such as Kamta Prasad Aggarwal v. Executive Engineer, illustrates the
significance of interpreting these words based on legislative intent.
