RESEARCH PROJECT OF LEGAL METHODS ON THE TOPIC RULES OF INTERPRETATION PRESENTED BY ---KUMAR MANGALAM B.A.

LLB, FIRST YEAR

ROLL NO.-936 SUBJECT TEACHERNITEESH KUMAR UPADHAYAY

1. INTRODUCTION

The term interpretation means To give meaning to. Interpretation of statues to provide justice is the primary function of the judiciary. It is the duty of the Court to interpret the Act and give meaning to each word of the Statute. The most common rule of interpretation is that every part of the statute must be understood in a harmonious manner by reading and construing every part of it together. The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used. The main body of the law is to be found in statues, together with the relevant statutory instruments, and in a case of law as enunciated by judges in the courts. But the judges not only have the duty of declaring the common law, they are also frequently called upon to settle disputes as to the meaning of words or clauses in a statute. Parliament is the supreme law-maker, and the judges must follow statutes. Nevertheless there is a considerable amount of case law which gathers round Acts of Parliament and delegated legislation since the wording sometimes turns out to be obscure. However, the rules relating to the interpretation of statutes are so numerous, have so many exceptions, and several are so flatly contradictory, that some writers hold view that there are in effect no rules at all. Statutes are extremely complex legal documents and no parliamentary draftsman can anticipate future contingencies; neither can they always accommodate the natural ambiguities of our language. As a result, judges are often called upon to interpret a word or phrase which can be crucial to the outcome of a case.

1. AIM OF THE RESEARCHER

The aim of the researcher is to find out the rules of interpretation of statutes, uses, its kinds and various cases dealing with it.

2. HYPOTHESIS
THESE ARE THE HYPOTHESIS OF THE RESEARCHER:-

A. The interpretation is used in language, literature, conferences, public sector, sign interpretation etc. and it has very less scope in law or judiciary. B. A statute is resumed not to alter the existing law unless it expressly states that it does. C. When a statute deprives a person of property, there is a presumption that compensation will be paid. Unless so stated it is presumed that an Act does not interfere with rights over private property.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher has opted totally doctrinal method for the research. The researcher has used various books of statutory interpretation, journals and online databases. There is no field work done in this research work.

4. KINDS OF INTERPRETATION
A. LITERAL INTERPRETATION
When the words are given their ordinary and natural meaning is known as literal interpretation or litera legis.1 it is the duty of the court not to modify the language of the Act and if such meaning is clear and unambiguous, effect should be given to the provisions of a statute whatever may be the consequence. The idea behind such a principle is that the legislature, being the supreme law making body must know what it intends in the words of the statute. Literal interpretation has been called the safest rule because the legislatures

The elementary rule of construction is that the language must be construed in its grammatical and literal sense and hence it is termed as litera legis.

intention can be deduced only from the language through which it has expressed itself. The bare words of the Act must be construed to get the meaning of the statute and one need not probe into the intention of the legislature.

THE GOLDEN RULE

The Golden Rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. This interpretation is supreme and is called the golden rule of interpretation.

The 'golden rule' is dealt Interpretation in the following words:-

'The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning'. Natural and ordinary meaning of words should not be departed from 'unless it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning'. Such a meaning cannot be departed from by the judges 'in the light of their own views as to policy' although they can 'adopt a purposive interpretation if they can find in the statute read as a whole or in material to which they are permitted by law to refer as aids to interpretation an expression of Parliament's purpose or policy'. 2

Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes deals with the golden rule in the following words:The so-called 'golden rule' is really a modification of the literal rule. It was stated in this way by Parke B.: 'It is a very useful rule, in the construction of a statute, to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature, to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified, so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further3

Advantages of The Golden Rule

2

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/print_this_page.asp?article_id=3105 last accessed on 07/10/2013 at 20:00 hrs 3 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/print_this_page.asp

It respects the words of the parliament except certain situations; the golden rule provides an escape route where there is a problem with using the literal meaning.

It allows the judges to choose the most sensible meaning where there is more than one meaning to the words in the Act or Statute.

It can also provide reasonable decisions in cases where the literal rule would lead to wider meaning.

Disadvantages of The Golden Rule

There are no real guidelines as to when to use and when not to use. What seems to be unreasonable to one judge may not be to another. It is very limited in its use, so it is only used on rare occasions. It's not always possible to predict when courts will use the golden rule, making it hard for lawyers and people who are advising their clients

CASES UNDER GOLDEN RULE.4

1. Sutters v. Briggs [1922]

"There is indeed no reason for limiting the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used. The term "holders or indorses" means any holder and any indorsee, whether the holder be the original payee or a mere agent for him, and the rights of the drawer must be construed accordingly. The circumstance that the law apart from the section in question was repealed in 1845, without any repeal of the section itself may lead to anomalies, but cannot have weight in construing the section."

2. Sigsworth case [1985]

Anonymous, retrieved from www.e-lawresource.co.uk last accessed on 07/10/2013 at 20:39 hr

FACT:-A son murdered his mother. She had not made a will. Under the statute setting the law on intestacy he was her sole issue and stood to inherit her entire estate. The court applied the Golden rule holding that an application of the literal rule would lead to a repugnant result. He was thus entitled to nothing. COURT HELD:-The Administration of Estates Act 1925, which provides for the distribution of the property of an intestate amongst his next of kin, did not confer a benefit upon the person (a son) who had murdered the intestate (his mother), even though the murderer was the intestates next of kin, for it is a general principle of law that no one profit from his own wrong.

3. Sweet v Parsley[(1970]
FACTS:-A schoolteacher was convicted for a strict liability offence because she had permitted her house to be used for cannabis smoking, even though she herself was abroad at the time and had no knowledge of the activity. COURT HELD:- The mens rea element should be read into the case, as Parliament would never have intended that an innocent person should ever be convicted. This illustrates how flexible the law can be by putting the alleged commission of an offence into its proper context. The Law Commission submitted a report in 1979, entitled The Interpretation of Statutes , and supported the use of the Golden Rule, although it also recommended the use of an explanatory memorandum to clarify parliamentary intention.

4. In Dental Council of India and Anr. v. Hari Prakash and Ors.

IT WAS HELD:"The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. When the words used are not ambiguous, literal meaning has to be applied, which is the golden rule of interpretation."

5. In Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT, Bombay [1955]

IT WAS OBSERVED BY HONORABLE SUPREME COURT:-

"The golden rule of interpretation is that words should be read in their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning subject to the rider that in construing words in a Constitution conferring legislative power the most liberal construction should be put upon the words so that they may have effect in their widest amplitude."

Exceptions to the rule of literal interpretation:Generally a statute must be interpreted in its grammatical sense but under the following circumstances it is not possible:-

A) Ambiguity B) Inconsistency C) Incompleteness or lacunae D) Unreasonableness

B. LOGICAL INTERPRETATION

THE MISCHIEF RULE

The mischief rule is applied to find out what Parliament meant. It is a contextual method of interpreting statutes, and looks for the wrong, or mischief, which the stature was trying to correct. The statute is then interpreted in the light of this. The judge should interpret the statute in such a way as to put a stop to the problem that Parliament was addressing. This rule was laid down in Haydons Case in the 16th century (1584). If the words of a statute give rise to two or more construction, then the construction which validates the object of the Act must be given effect while interpreting. It is better to validate a thing than to invalidate it or it is better the Act prevails than perish. The purpose of construction is to ascertain the intention of the parliament. The courts while applying the principle tries to find out the real intention

behind the enactment. This rule thus assists the court in identifying the proper construction of statutory wording according to the original intention of the legislators. It was said that judges should: Always consider what the law was before the passing of the act. To identify what was wrong with that law; Decide that how Parliament intended to improve the law through the statute in question Apply that finding to the case before the court.

ADVANTAGES
In a common law jurisdiction, the existence of precedent and effects that are knocked of constructing a statute prevents the misuse of the rule. The Law Commission sees it as a far more satisfactory way of interpreting acts as compared to the Golden rules. It usually avoids unjust results in sentencing; It is consistent with parliament sovereignty. It closes loopholes.

DISADVANTAGES

It is seen to be out of date as it has been in use, when common law was the primary
source of law and supremacy of parliament was not established.

It gives too much power to the judiciary which are not elected and which is argued to
be undemocratic.

In the earlier times, the judiciary would often draft acts on behalf of the king and were
therefore well qualified in what mischief the act was meant to remedy. This is not the case in modern legal systems.

The rule can make the law uncertain.

 Rule of casus omissus5

The court is bound to harmonize the various provisions of an Act passed by the legislature during interpretation so that repugnancy is avoided in general. Sometimes certain matters might have been omitted in a statute. In such cases, they cannot be added by construction as it amounts to making of laws or amending which is a function of legislature. A new provision cannot be added in a statute giving it meaning not otherwise found therein.

In Padma Sundara Rao v State of Tamil Nadu it was held that the cassus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of a clear necessity and when reason for it is found within the four corners of the statute itself.

Rule of ejusdem generis

Ejusdem generis means of the same kind. Particular words are given their natural meaning provided the context does not require otherwise. If general words follow particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus then it is construed that general words are limited to mean the person or thing of the same general class, category or genus as those particularly exposed. The basic rule is that if the legislature intended general words to be used in unrestricted sense, then it need not have used particular words at all. This rule is not of universal application.

C. CASES UNDER THE MISCHIEF RULE:-6

1. Smith v Hughes [1960]

5

A word omitted from the language of the statute, but within the general scope of the statute, and omitted due to inadvertence is known as Casus Omissus
6

ANONYMOUS, retrieved from www.e-lawresource.co.uk last accessed on 07/10/2013 at 23:09 hrs

FACTS: The defendants were prostitutes who had been charged under the Street Offences Act 1959 which made it an offence to ask in to having sex with someone. The prostitutes were soliciting from private premises in windows or on balconies so could be seen by the public. HELD: The court applied the mischief rule holding that the activities of the defendants were within the mischief the Act was aimed at even though under a literal interpretation they would be in a private place.

2. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS [1981]

FACTS The Royal College of Nursing brought an action challenging the legality of the involvement of nurses in carrying out abortions. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it an offence for any person to carry out an abortion. The Abortion Act 1967 provided that it would be an absolute defence for a medically registered practitioner (ie a doctor) to carry out abortions provided certain conditions were satisfied. Advances in medical science meant surgical abortions were largely replaced with hormonal abortions and it was common for these to be administered by nurses. HELD It was legal for nurses to carry out such abortions. The Act was aimed at doing away with back street abortions where no medical care was available. The actions of the nurses were therefore outside the mischief of the Act of 1861 and within the contemplate defence in the 1967 Act.

3. Elliot v Grey [1960]

FACTS The defendant's car was parked on the road. It was jacked up and had its battery removed. He was charged with an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1930 of using an uninsured vehicle on the road. The defendant argued he was not 'using' the car on the road as clearly it was not driveable. HELD The court applied the mischief rule and held that the car was being used on the road as it represented a hazard and therefore insurance would be required in the event of an incident. The statute was aimed at ensuring people were compensated when injured due to the hazards created by others.

4. Corkery v Carpenter [1951]

FACTS The defendant was riding his bicycle whilst under the influence of alcohol. S.12 of the Licensing Act 1872 made it an offence to be drunk in charge of a 'carriage' on the highway. HELD The court applied the mischief rule holding that a riding a bicycle was within the mischief of the Act as the defendant represented a danger to him and other road users.

5. DPP v Bull [1995]

FACTS: A man was charged with an offence under s.1 (1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 which makes it an offence for a 'common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a public street or public

place for the purposes of prostitution'. The magistrates found him not guilty on the grounds that 'common prostitute' only related to females and not males. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated. HELD: The court held that the Act did only apply to females. The word prostitute was ambiguous and they applied the mischief rule. The Street Offences Act was introduced as a result of the work of the Wolfe den Report into homosexuality and prostitution. The Report only referred to female prostitution and did not mention male prostitutes. The court therefore held the mischief the Act was aimed at was controlling the behaviour of only female prostitutes.

D. CONCLUSION
By doing the above research, the researcher has come to the following conclusions:Interpretation has vast use in legal field also. If judgements not interpretated correctly then it could lead to a wrong judgement also. There are some disadvantages of also but advantage covers the disadvantages of the interpretation rules. The interpretation is also used in fields other than legal fields also such as commercial area, meetings, sign language etc Statutory interpretation primary main objective was to help judges to interpret on the purpose of the Act but till today this objective still stand but at the same time there is something holding it back. This had made so many decisions in cases to be absurd or better be known as injustice but yet again what can we do to resolve such things from happening.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod2/2_2_3_stat_interp/05_internal_aids_.htm 2. www.e-lawresource.co.uk 3. www.lawteacher.net 4. Interpretation of statutes by A.B.kafaltiya

5. Principles of statutory interpretation by G.P.Singh 6. Dynamic statutory interpretation by William N. Eskridge