In this article, we shall understand the meaning of interpretation of Statutes. Interpretation of Statutes is a systematic study of the rules of interpretation which regulate the interpretation of statutes and to explain their effect and operation.
In the words of Salmond, “Legislation is that source of law which consists in the declaration of legal rule by a competent authority”. In the strict sense, Legislation “is the laying down of legal rules by a sovereign or subordinate legislator”.
According to Prof. Allen “The operation of the statute is not automatic, and can never be so. Like all legal rules, it has to take effect through the interpretation of the courts”.
The term ‘Interpretation’ is derived from Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means to explain or to understand or translate. Interpretation is a process through which one ascertains the true and correct intention of the law making bodies as is laid in the form of statutes. It is a familiar feature of law and legal practices. Interpretation is an important aspect of the practice of law. Interpretation has very important role in justice administration in the sense that it helps the legal system “understand” the law. Interpretation makes understanding possible of the subject. Interpretation is the art of finding out the true sense of any form or words; i.e. the sense which their framers intended to convey, and of enabling other to drive from them the same idea which the author intended to convey. Interpretation only takes place if the text conveys some meaning or other. Thus the courts are expected not to act arbitrarily and consequently they are to follow the rules of interpretation.
Salmond defines interpretation as “Interpretation or construction is the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of legislation through the medium of the authoritative form in which it is expressed.”
According to Gray “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 Statute book a meaning which he either believes to be that of a legislature or which he proposes to attribute to it, is called interpretation.”
In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co., AIR 1987 SC 1023 case, the Court held that a statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted and that interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual.
In State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201 case the Court held that the interpretation of statutes is the exclusive privilege of the constitutional courts.
In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Status Spg. Mills Ltd. (2008) 7 SCC 353 case, the Court held that Court has the last say in the interpretation of statutes.
In Sudevanand v. State (2012) 3 SCC 387 (397, 398) case, the Court held that while interpretation of the legal provision is always independent of the facts of any given case, the application of a statutory provision would always depend on the exact facts of a given case.
In State of Jammu and Kashmir V. Thakur Ganga Singh, 1960 2SCR 346 case, Subba Rao J. observed that interpretation is the method by which the true sense or the meaning of the word is understood. Interpretation is the method by which the true sense or the meaning of the word is understood.
There are some authors who claim that interpretation and construction are two distinct expressions, According to Cooley interpretation differs from construction. According to him, Interpretation is the art of finding out the true sense of any form of the words; that is, the sense which their author intended to convey; and of enabling others to derive from them the same idea which the author intended to convey. Construction on the other hand is the drawing of conclusion respecting subjects that are beyond the direct expression of the text; conclusion which are in spirit, though not within the letter of the Law.
In United States v. F. W. Keitel, 211 US 370 (386) case, White J. observed: “in common usage interpretation and construction are usually understood as having the same significance.”
In Pandian Chemicals Ltd. V. CIT (2003) 5 SCC 590 case, the Court observed that the rules of interpretation would come into play only if there is any doubt with regard to the express language used. Where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing any rule of interpretation.
In Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409 case, the Court held that jurisdiction of the court to interpret a statute can be invoked only in case of ambiguity.
Justice G.P. Singh in his book Principles of Statutory Interpretation observes that the process of judicial interpretation is only necessary in case of enacted law and it is not called for in respect of customary or case law. Courts resort to interpretation when they endeavour to ascertain the meaning of a word found in a statute which , when considered in the light of other words in the statute, may reveal any meaning different from that apparent when the word is considered abstractly, or when given its usual meaning. Words in any language are not scientific symbols having any one precise or definite meaning, and language is but an imperfect medium to convey one’s thought, much less of a large assembly consisting of persons of various shades of opinion. It is impossible even for the most imaginative legislature to forestall exhaustively situations and circumstances that may emerge after enacting a statute where its application may be called for. The problem of interpretation is a problem of meaning of words and their effectiveness as medium of expression to communicate a particular thought. A word is used to refer to some object as situation in the real world and this object or situation has been assigned a technical name referred.
Need for Interpretation of Statutes:
In following situation, interpretation of statutes is required.
- Some words used in statute are designed to cover several possibilities and it is left to the user to judge what situations fall within it.
- Some words have two or more meanings and it may not be clear which meaning should be used in that particular statute.
- There may be an error that has not been noticed by Parliament during the drafting of the Bill. This situation occurs when the Bill has been amended several times during debates.
- Improper use of word due to a printing error, or another error such as the use of a word with a wide meaning which is not defined.
- There is continuous change in society particularly in technology and use of it. In such situation the old Act may not be applicable in the new age. Sometimes the meaning of words can itself change over the years.
- The Bill drafter may have missed some words and the user may be ignorant about it.
- A situations could arise which are not specifically covered under the statute. The question then is whether the court should interpret the legislation so as to include the situation which was omitted or whether they should limit the legislation to the precise points listed by Parliament.
Care to be Taken During Interpretation:
Following case laws give idea about the care to be taken during the interpretation of statutes.
In CCE v. Bhalla Enterprises’ (2005) 8 SCC 2891 case, the Court held that the basic rule of interpretation is that plain words of the statute must be given effect to and the question of applying the principle of strict or liberal interpretation would arise only in case of ambiguity.
In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. Bombay Environmental Action Group (2006) 3 SCC 434 case, the Court held that in certain cases, common sense construction rule should be taken recourse to.
In A. N. Roy v. Suresh Sham Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 745 case, the Court held that courts should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility. Narrow and pedantic construction may not always be given effect to.
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder Singh Banolta, (2006) 12 SCC 484 case, the Court held that in case of obscurity, the statute should be read in light of the Constitutional scheme.
In Ravindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, (2008) 7 SCC 663 case, the Court held that construction of ongoing statutes must be in consonance with the development of science and technology.
In D. Veluswamy v. D. Pachaiammal, (2012) 10 SCC 469 case, the Court held that the court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute.
Conclusion:
The purpose of the Interpretation of Statutes is to help the Judge to ascertain the intention of the Legislature and not to control that intention or to confine it within the limits, which the Judge may deem reasonable or expedient.