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 the preamble as an internal aid to the interpretation of statutes.
The term ‘Interpretation’ is derived from 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, 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.
Preamble:
The preamble of a statute like the long title is a part of the Act and is an admissible aid to construction. Although not an enacting part, the preamble is expected to express the scope, object and purpose of the Act more comprehensively than the long title. It may recite the ground and cause of making the statute, the evils sought to be remedied or the doubts which may be intended to be settled.
The preamble usually mentions the general object and intention of the legislature in passing enactment, and is considered as a key to the understanding of it. The preamble may be in brief and simple form or its recitals it may set out the main objects of the Act, its scope and purpose and the mischief to be remedied. It is an admissible aid to construction when a provision is ambiguous, obscure, indefinite, it cannot however, control plain meaning of provision. It is to be noted that the preamble serves as a preface to the Act. It is a part of the Act but not an enacting part. Preamble is said to be a necessary but not an indispensable part for there are Acts which do not contain preamble.
In Brett v. Brett, (1826) 162 ER 456 case, Sir John Nicholl observed: “It is to the preamble more specifically that we are to look for the reason or spirit of every statute, rehearsing this, as it ordinarily does, the evils sought to be remedied, or the doubts purported to be removed by the statute, and so evidencing, in the best and most satisfactory manner, the object or intention of the Legislature in making or passing the statute itself.”
In Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co., (1899) A.C. 143, 157 case, Lord Halsburry L.C. made the following pronouncement on the subject: one that preamble affords useful light as to what a statute intends to reach, and another that if an enactment is itself clear and unambiguous, no preamble can qualify or cut down the enactment.
In Burakar Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC pp.954, 956, 957 case, Mudholkar J. enunciated the principle and observed: “It is one of the cardinal principles of construction that where the language of an Act is clear, the preamble may be resorted to explain it. Again, where very general language is used in an enactment which, it is clear must be intended to have a limited application, the preamble may be used to indicate to what particular instances, the enactment is intended to apply. We cannot, therefore, start with the preamble for construing the provisions of an Act, though we could be justified in resorting to it, nay, we will be required to do so, if we find that the language used by Parliament is ambiguous or is too general though in point of fact parliament intended that it should have a limited application.”
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461case, wherein the apex court strongly relied on the Preamble to the Constitution of India in reaching a conclusion that the power of the Parliament to amend the constitution under Article 368 was not unlimited and did not enable the Parliament to alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The Court observed: “If the language in an ordinary statute is not plain and clear, then the preamble may have effect either to extend or restrict the language used in the body of the enactment.
In Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. NTC (South Maharashtra), AIR 1996 SC 710 case, the Supreme Court while interpreting certain provisions of the Textile Undertakings (Take over of Management) Act, 1983 held that when the language of the Act is clear, preamble cannot be invoked to curtail or restrict the scope of an enactment.
Limitation of Preamble as Internal Aid:
- The preamble can be resorted to only when the language of a provision is reasonably capable of alternative construction. i.e. when the provision is ambiguous, obscure, indefinite.
- The preamble cannot either restrict or extend the meaning and scope of the words used in the enacting part.
- In case of conflict between Preamble and a section, the section shall prevail over the preamble.
- The preamble cannot be regarded as a source of any substantive power or of any prohibition or limitation.
- A preamble retrospectively inserted into an earlier Act is not of much assistance for gathering the intention of the original Act. Similarly, it seems the repeal of a preamble simpliciter will not affect the construction of the Statute.
The Preamble of the Constitution of India:
The Preamble of the Constitution like the Preamble of any statute furnishes the key to open the mind of the makers of the Constitution more so because the Constituent Assembly took great pains in formulating it so that it may reflect the essential features and basic objectives of the Constitution. The Preamble is a part of the Constitution. The Preamble embodies the fundamentals underlining the structure of the Constitution.
The Constitution, including the Preamble, must be read as a whole
and in case of doubt interpreted consistent with its basic structure to
promote the great objectives stated in the preamble.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299 case, the Court held that the Preamble can neither be regarded as the source of any substantive power nor as a source of any prohibition or limitation.
In Kesavananda v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, and Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC pp.1789, 1798, 1806 cases, the Court strongly relied upon the Preamble in reaching the conclusion that the power of amendment conferred by Article 368 was limited and did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The preamble sets out the main objects of the Act, its scope and purpose and the mischief to be remedied. It is an admissible aid to construction when a provision in enactment is ambiguous, obscure, indefinite, it cannot however, control plain meaning of provision. In case of conflict between Preamble and a section, the section shall prevail over the preamble.