Internal aids mean those aids which are available in the statute itself, though they may not be part of enactment. These internal aids include long title, preamble, headings, marginal notes, illustrations, punctuation, proviso, schedule, transitory provisions, etc. When internal aids are not adequate, the court has to take recourse to external aids. In this article, we shall study the use of a title as an internal aid to the interpretation of statutes.
The term ‘Interpretation’ is derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means to explain or to understand or translate. Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of enactment by giving the words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. Thus 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. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’. This process is commonly adopted by the courts for determining the exact intention of the legislature. Because the objective of the court is not only merely to read the law but is also to apply it in a meaningful manner to suit from case to case.
According to 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.”
Jurists take the help of both Rules and Aids in the interpretation of Statutes. There are three rules of interpretation of statutes- Literal, Golden and Mischief. An Aid, on the other hand is a device that helps or assists. For the purpose of construction or interpretation, the court has to take recourse to various internal and external aids.
In B. Prabhakar Rao and others v State of A.P. and others , AIR 1986 SC 120 case, O. Chennappa, Reddy J. has observed : “Where internal aids are not forthcoming, we can always have recourse to external aids to discover the object of the legislation. External aids are not ruled out. This is now a well settled principle of modern statutory construction.”
Internal Aids:
Internal aids mean those aids which are available in the statute itself, though they may not be part of enactment. These internal aids include long title, preamble, headings, marginal notes, illustrations, punctuation, proviso, schedule, transitory provisions, etc. When internal aids are not adequate, the court has to take recourse to external aids. External Aids may be parliamentary material, historical background, reports of a committee or a commission, official statement, dictionary meanings, foreign decisions, etc.
Title:
Nearly all modern Acts, have both a long title and a short title.
Long Title:
Although there are observations in earlier English cases that the title is not a part of the statute and is, therefore, to be excluded from consideration in construing the statutes, it is now settled law that the title of a statute is an important part of the Act and may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining its general scope and of throwing light on its construction, although it cannot override the clear meaning of the enactment.
In R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1994) 1 All ER 45, P. 465 (QBD) case, the Court observed that the long title to an Act is part of the Act and is admissible as an aid to its construction.
In Union of India v. Elphinstone Spg & Wvg Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 724 case, the Court held that the long title alone or along with the preamble is a good guide regarding the object, scope, or purpose of the Act.
In Sage v. Eicholz (1919) 2 KB 171 case, the Court observed: “the title is never allowed to affect or restrain the plain meaning of a statute but only to act as an aid to resolving difficulty.”
In Aswinikumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369 and 388 case, while dealing with the Supreme Court Advocates (Practice in High Courts) Act, 1951, which bears a full title thus ‘An Act to authorise Advocates of the Supreme Court to practise as of right in any High Court, S. R. DAS, J., observed: “… It is now settled law that the title of a statute is an important part of the Act and may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining its general scope and of throwing light on its construction, although it cannot override the clear meaning of the enactment”
In Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274 case, the title of the Madras General Sales Tax, 1939, was utilized to indicate that the object of the Act is to impose taxes on sales that take place within the province.
In Manoharlal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 418 case, Justice G. P. Singh observed: “no doubt, it (Long Title) indicates the main purposes of the enactment but cannot, obviously, control the express operative provisions of the Act.”
In the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2014) 4 SCC 583 case, the Supreme Court has held that: “The title of a statute is no doubt an important part of enactment and can be referred to for determining the general scope of the legislation. But the true nature of any such enactment has always to be determined not on the basis of the given to it but on the basis of its substance.”
In Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404 case, Section 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, was interpreted. This section, under which, the state government was empowered to choose as to which particular case should go for reference to the Special Court and be tried under a special procedure, was go for reference to the Special Court and be tried under a special procedure, was challenged as violative of Article 14 of the constitution. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that long title of the Act which said as “An Act to provide for the more speedy trial and more effective punishment of certain offences” was clear enough to give the state government discretion as to which offences deserved to be tried by the special courts under a special procedure.
Short Title:
The short title serves as a label for the Act. Its purpose is to facilitate ease of reference. The short title is generally placed in a section. The short title of the Act has been held to be irrelevant for the purpose of interpretations of statutes. Hence the short title is not a useful aid to construction. For example, the short title of the Indian penal Act is the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In Vacher and Sons Ltd. v. London Society of Compositors, 1913 AC 107 case, Lord Moulton described the short title of an Act as follows: “A title given to the Act is solely for the purpose of facility of reference. If I may use the phrase, it is a statutory nickname to obviate the necessity of always referring to the Act under its full and descriptive title ….. Its object is identification and not description.”
Limitations of Tile as Internal Aid:
- If the words employed in the language are plain and precise and bear only one meaning, then there is no role of title for the construction.
- It can be called in aid only when there is an ambiguity in the language giving rise to alternative construction.
- The long title is used for the purpose of ascertaining its general scope and of throwing light on its construction only.
- It cannot prevail over the clear meaning of an enactment.
- It cannot be used to narrow down or restrict the plain meaning of the language of the statute.
- The short title is a nickname of the Act and is not a useful aid to construction
Conclusion:
The long title of a statute is an important part of the Act and may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining its general scope and of throwing light on its construction, although it cannot override the clear meaning of the enactment, while the short title is a statutory nickname to obviate the necessity of always referring to the Act under its full and descriptive title. The short title is irrelevant for the purpose of interpretations of statutes.