Interpretation of Statutes-BA/BBA LLB PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Interpretation of Statutes-BA/BBA LLB PDF

Description

Interpretation of Statutes What do you mean by Statute? Statute signifies an act of the legislature; a law established by the act of the legislative power. It is a law or enactment of a legislative authority and set forth in a formal document. It is said that ‘statute’ (statutum) was first used on an act of 55 Henry III. This word is used to designate the written law in contradistinction to the unwritten law.1 Words spoken or written are the means of communication. Where they are possible of giving one and only one meaning there is no problem. But where there is a possibility of two meanings, a problem arises and the real intention is to be sorted out. It two persons communicating with each other are sitting together; they can by subsequent conversation clear the confusion and make things clear. But what will happen if a provision in any statute is found to convey more than one meaning? The Judges and the Lawyers whose duty it is to interpret statutes have no opportunity to converse with the Legislature which had enacted a particular statute. The Legislature, after enacting statutes becomes functus officio so far as those statutes are concerned. It is not their function to interpret the statutes. Thus two functions are clearly demarcated. Legislature enacts and the Judges interpret. The difficulty with Judges is that they cannot say that they do not understand a particular provision of an enactment. They have to interpret in one way or another. They cannot remand or refer back the matter to the Legislature for interpretation. That situation led to the birth of principles of interpretation to find out the real intent of the Legislature. Consequently, the Superior Courts had to give us the rules of interpretation to ease ambiguities, inconsistencies, contradictions or lacunas. The rules of interpretation come into play only where clarity or precision in the provisions of the statute are found missing. There are two types of Ambiguities, namely; • •

Latent Ambiguity – means introduced by explicit evidence whose vagueness is hidden and can be introduced at later stage. Patent Ambiguity – means an ambiguity that is not introduced by extrinsic evidence and is apparent of face of record so requires no introduction.

Good enactments are those which have least ambiguities, inconsistencies, contradictions or lacunas. Bad enactments are gold mine for lawyers because for half of the litigation the legislative draftsmen are undoubtedly the cause. The purpose of the interpretation of the statute is to unlock the locks put by the Legislature. For such an unlocking, keys are to be found out. These keys may be termed as aids for interpretation and principles of interpretation. 2

1 2

The Major Law Lexicon – P Ramanatha Aiyar, 4th Edn 2010 P. 6455/56. http://www.ijtr.nic.in/articles/art21.pdf

Page 1 of 203

Interpretation of Statutes Definition of Interpretation & Construction Michael Zander3 gives three reasons why statutory interpretation is necessary. 1. 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. 2. 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. E.g. use of the word ‘reasonable’. 3. 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. Interpretation is the process by which the Courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislation through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.4 It is the process by which a judge (or indeed any person, lawyer or layman, who has occasion to search for the meaning of a statute) constructs from the words of a Statute Book a meaning which he either believes it to be that of the legislature, or which he proposes to attribute to it.5 Interpretation is the process by which the courts determine the meaning of a statutory provision for the purpose of applying it to the situation before them.6 Construction, as applied to written law, is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful either by reason of apparently conflicting provisions or directions, or by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law.7 Construction means construing, explaining or interpreting of a text, statement, action or words etc. in a statute.

3

British Legal Scholar. Salmond: Jurisprudence, 11th Edn, P. 152. 5 Gray: The nature and the source of the law, 2nd Edn. P.176. 6 Cross: Statutory Interpretation, 3rd Edn. P.34. 7 Henry Campbell Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws 1 (1896).

4

Page 2 of 203

Interpretation of Statutes Presumptions & Considerations in Interpretation Presumption in interpretation means that certain things are considered to be true and correct. Some of such presumptions are:1. Presumption as to validity of the statute Every statute enacted by the Legislature is considered to be valid and there is a strong presumption in favor of the validity of an enactment. It is presumed that every law is able to pass the test of constitutionality. While interpreting a statute or a provision thereof, the courts have to proceed with the presumption that a particular law is intra vires and does not confront the Constitution. Unless contrary is established beyond doubt, the court shall uphold the law.8 2. Presumption as to territorial operation of the statute It is presumed that the law enacted by a Legislature would operate within the territorial limits of that Legislature only. The Legislature of one country cannot call on the subject of another country to appear before its tribunals because he has never been within their jurisdiction. Any legislation is presumed to be limited to those persons, property and events in the territory over which the Parliament enacting the law has jurisdiction, unless otherwise is expressly provided in the language of a statute or the same is inferred by necessary implications. 3. Presumption that statutes are consistent with International Law It is presumed that the Legislature does not to enact anything contrary to International Law or the Common Law of the realm. 4. Presumption that Legislature does not commit mistake There is a strong presumption that Legislature is a good writer in its own field and does not commit any kind of mistake. This means that every word given by Legislature in the language of a statute has been used mindfully, intentionally and suitably. However, in case of any mistakes in an enactment the court cannot cure the same. The remedy lies with the Legislature by way of bringing an amendment to rectify the same. It is not for the court to add or to amend the language, or by construction make up deficiencies which are left in the Act. 5. Presumption that Legislature does not use superfluous words It is presumed that every word in an enactment has been inserted at a proper place with a definite object and as such, none of the words can be ignored. While construing a provision, the presumption is always against the superfluity in a statute.9 8 9

C.S.T., M.P v Radhakrishnan, (1979) 2 SCC 249. V Jagannadha Rao v State of AP, (2001) 10 SCC 401.

Page 3 of 203

Interpretation of Statutes 6. Presumption that words used by Legislature bear ordinary meaning It is presumed that Legislature has used each word in its ordinary and natural sense unless otherwise is proved beyond doubt. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to first assign plain and ordinary meaning to the words. However, if the result draw is absurd, the court may look for other senses of the word like technical sense, legal sense etc. 7. Presumption that Legislature has knowledge of English grammar Legislature opens its mind in the form of a language and the intention of Legislature is therefore gathered from the language itself. English is the language used in enactments and is presumed that Legislature is well conversant with the rules of English grammar and as such the language used in an enactment is grammatically correct. Once the court is sure that there are no grammatical errors in the provision and the language properly represents the legislative intent, it may proceed to interpret the provision accordingly. 8. Presumption that Legislature knows law and judicial decisions Legislature is presumed to know the law and judicial decisions as to interpretation of words and language used in a statute. Therefore the court will proceed to construe a language with the assumption that the Legislature was aware of existing statutes, the rules of statutory construction and the judicial decisions. 9. Presumption as to re-enactment There is a presumption that when Legislature reproduces the material of an earlier enactment into a subsequent Act, then it intends that those repeated words shall mean the same what they meant in the previous Act as settled by judicial construction. The court therefore should be slow to overrule a previous decision on the interpretation of a statute. 10. Presumption that vested rights are preserved The presumption is that public or private vested rights are not taken away by the Legislature without compensation. The vested rights are deemed to be preserved. There is a strong presumption against the taking away of a vested right by any fresh legislation. Unless it is clearly shown that the Legislature has expressly intended to take away any vested right, the vested rights are presumed no to be abrogated. 11. Presumption that Legislature does not intend what is inconvenient It is presumed that the intention of Legislature is always fair and does not do anything which is unreasonable. Legislature never intends to create any kind of inconvenience. As such, no law should be so interpreted at to arrive at unreasonable results. A construction by which inconvenience is caused should be avoided.

Page 4 of 203

Interpretation of Statutes 12. Presumption that Legislature does not intend any alteration in existing law except what it expressly declares The presumption is that the intention of Legislature in enacting a statute is not to alter an existing common law. But if such is the intention, the Legislature would clearly reveal it in express words. Hence, unless it is specifically provided, a statute cannot be considered to have the effect of introducing a change in the general law. In view of this presumption, the ambiguous words of a statute are to be attributed such meaning which is in tune with the common law. 13. Presumption against retrospectivity Legislature is competent to legislate both prospectively and retrospectively. Retrospective law means the law which is intended to be applied to pending proceedings also. Where Legislature enacts a law having retrospective effect, it has to be so declared in unequivocal terms. In the absence of such declaration, the law is deemed to be prospective. There is a strong presumption against retrospectivity. 14. Presumption as to jurisdiction of courts There is a strong presumption against ouster of jurisdiction of a civil court. It is only the Legislature which can take away the jurisdiction of a court but unless such intention is clear, the court cannot be deprived of its jurisdiction. However, ouster of jurisdiction of a court should not be readily accepted. The presumption is that the court has jurisdiction unless otherwise is proved beyond doubt. If a statute purports to exclude the ordinary jurisdiction of a civil court, it must do so by express terms.

Page 5 of 203

Interpretation of Statutes Considerations – Certain aspects which require attention while construing a statute or any provision thereof:1. Consideration of Absurdity If the words of an Act are clear and precise, the court must follow them even though they lead to absurdity. Courts must construe a section according to the plain meaning of the language used, irrespective of consequences. The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statute literally by assigning the words their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If such a reading leads to absurdity, the court may examine whether the words are capable of bearing some othe3r meaning. When alternative meaning is reasonably possible and by applying that meaning absurdity is removed, the court may adopt that meaning. But the court cannot create an ambiguity when actually there is none. 2. Consideration of Futility Legislature is deemed to have enacted a law with a definite purpose in mind. The object and purpose of law is to be achieved, therefore the law has to remain workable and effective. An enactment cannot be rendered useless by putting a particular interpretation on the language. It is well settled that in construing the provisions of a statute courts should be slow to adopt a construction which tends to make any part of the statute meaningless or ineffective; an attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. 3. Consideration of Reasonableness The first rule of construction of any enactment is to give the words their natural meaning. If reasonable results are not derived, then some other interpretation is permissible. A reasonable interpretation is preferred over that which produces unreasonable results. Preference should be given to a reasonable meaning if provision is not plain. The court is not competent modify the language of a section of the Act to make it reasonable. But when the question is to choose one out of several meanings, then the question of reasonableness becomes material and that construction should be accepted which leads to reasonable results. The court must always lean to the interpretation which is reasonable one, and discard the literal interpretation which does not fit in with the scheme of the Act under consideration. 4. Consideration of Injustice The intention of Legislature is not to cause inconvenience or injustice. But if injustice flows from literal or grammatical construction, it cannot be a ground for disregarding the meaning. Injustice, hardship or inconvenience is no consideration. However, unjust, arbitrary or inconvenient the meaning conveyed may be, it must receive its full effect. If there is a possibility of unjust results by one interpretation, the court may adopt Page 6 of 203

Interpretation of Statutes alternative construction, if it is reasonably possible. Whenever the language of a provision is susceptible to two constructions, one leading to obvious injustice, the courts act upon the view that such a result could not have been intended and prefer that which ends in the furtherance of the object of the statute rather than the one that would frustrate it. 5. Consideration of Hardship An argument based on an inconvenience and hardship shall be admissible only when the meaning of the statute is obscure. Where the meaning of a statute is clear and explicit but any hardship or inconvenience is felt, courts cannot help it. The court cannot legislate under the garb of interpretation. 6. Consideration of Inconvenience When the language is explicit, its consequences are irrelevant. Even if the results flowing from unambiguous language are inconvenient, the court must enforce it. The argument of inconvenience is admissible only when there is ambiguity in the language. 7. Consideration of Anomaly When the text is clear and precise yet the anomalous results flow, the court cannot help it. But when on a construction of a statute, two views are possible, one of which results in an anomaly and the other does not, the court must adopt the latter. 8. Consideration of Consequences When the language employed is plain and unambiguous, the same must be given effect to irrespective of the consequences that may arise. If the language employed is reasonably capable of more meanings than one, then the court will consider the consequences that may flow from accepting one or the other of the interpretations.

Page 7 of 203

Interpretation of Statutes The Process of Interpretation Salmond refers to 2 kinds of Interpretations:A. Grammatical Interpretation / Literal Construction In case of grammatical interpretation, only the verbal expression of law is taken into consideration and the courts do not go beyond what is expressed by words. The dictate of words is known as literal legis. The grammatical or literal construction is totally confined to the words or expressions used in the language of the statute and the consequences are not in consideration. It remains firm on the letter of law even if injustice or hardship is caused. Limitations of Grammatical Interpretation The following defects could cause failure of grammatical interpretation: (i)

Ambiguity If the words used in the provision are imprecise and can reasonably bear meanings more than one, then rule of literal or grammatical construction ceases to be sure guide to reach real legislative intent. In such a case, the courts may step out of strict grammatical interpretation and go behind the letter of the law to find the true intention of the Legislature and may call in aid other well recognized rules of construction such as legislative history, the basic scheme and framework of the statute as a whole, each portion throwing light on the rest, the purpose of legislation, the object sought to be achieved and the consequences that may follow from the adoption of one in preference to other possible interpretation. The court would then adopt the interpretation which advances the object of law. (ii) Inconsistency The different sections of the enactment may be inconsistent with each another. Due to this, either their meaning is nullified or one section loses its effect. In such a case, the courts are duty bound to find out the true intention of the Legislature but the same may not be possible through grammatical interpretation. (iii) Deficiency in the Act itself There may be some lacuna in the law itself which may not allow the whole meaning to be expressed. Such a defect can be remedies only by recourse to logical interpretation. However, the omission in the law must be such as to make it incomplete logically. B. Logical Interpretation Logical interpretation lays more emphasis on deriving the true spirit of law i.e. Sententia legis, even by travelling beyond what words reflect. If the words used in the language of a statute are unable to bring out the intention of the Legislature, the courts are at liberty to depart from the letter of the law in search of true intention.

Page 8 of 203

Interpretation of Statutes Classification of Statutes A statute is the will of the legislature. Indian statute is an act of the Central or State Legislature. Statutes include Acts passed by the Imperial or Provincial Legislature in Preindependence days as well as regulations. Statutes generally refer to the laws and regulations of every sort, every provision of law which permits or prohibits anything. A statute may be classified with reference to its duration, nature of operation, object and extent of application. The classification of statutes with reference to the basis of duration is as follows: • •

Perpetual / Permanent statutes; Temporary statutes.

The perpetual or permanent statutes fix no time limit for the life of the enactment. Such act remains in force until it is repealed either expressed or implied. E.g. MRTP Act, 1969 has been in life up to the enactment of Competition Act, 2002. This Act repealed the MRTP Act. The temporary statutes are for a short period or for a specified...