In the Indian system of distribution of power, power is distributed horizontally amongst legislative, executive and judiciary. The legislature is given the duty of making laws, executive for enforcing the law and the judiciary for correcting and interpreting the laws. Many a times it is criticised by people that the legislature makes laws which are difficult for common people to understand even a change in punctuation can change the whole meaning and thereby mitigating with the intent of making laws.

For example, Change from 'shall' to 'may' in a statute, alter the meaning whereby 'shall' denotes mandatory provision whereas 'may' denotes directory. This is where the subject of interpretation of statutes comes into play, the way one interprets the law and presents the case makes a huge difference in the result of the case. It is also possible that the terms used in the statutes and intent behind making the law might differ and can be misused but this is prevented by the judiciary by interpreting the law in just and fair manner and true meaning is given to the statute as per the intent of the legislature during making the laws.

Interpretation of statutes is one of the important pillars of the legal system. The meaning of interpretation is explored through the lens of its Latin roots, "interpretari" signifying the process of uncovering the genuine intent behind the statutory language. The courts in Indian legal system has given the duty of interpreting the laws where the Indian court apply their mind and try to give meaning to the statute which was intended by the legislature to give the meaning of that statute. Even though the Court is not supposed to interpret cases in an arbitrary manner. While interpreting the statute the court came with some rule which are termed as 'rule of interpretation'.

One of the rule of interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation whereby the court, while interpreting a law, give words their ordinary and natural meaning as they appear in the text, without adding or subtracting anything. The Supreme Court in the case of G. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam[1] held interpretation should begin by closely examining the actual language of the statute and other interpretative methods are used only if the language is unclear, problematic or ambiguous.

In Vijay Narayan Thatte v. State of Maharashtra[2], the Supreme Court observed the following:

• When the language of a statute is plain and clear, the literal rule of interpretation must be applied.
• Under the literal rule, judges interpret the statute strictly according to its ordinary and natural meaning, without considering equity, public interest, or even legislative intent.
• There is no scope for alternative interpretation unless the statutory language is ambiguous, unclear, or leads to conflict or absurdity.
• If the language of the proviso to Section 6 is clear, the literal rule should be applied to it.
• In cases where law and equity are in conflict, the law prevails, as expressed by the maxim "Dura Lex Sed Lex" ("The law is hard, but it is the law").

Statement of Problem

• The purpose of interpreting statutes is not to limit the meaning of a statute.
• Interpretation should not confine the statute within bounds that a court or judge may find acceptable or practical.
• The primary goal of interpretation is to assist judges in understanding the legislative intent behind the statute.
• Interpretation serves as a tool to comprehend legislative intent, rather than to restrict or alter the meaning based on what a judge considers reasonable or practical.

Research Questions

• Why is the interpretation of statutes essential in ensuring justice?
• What are the rules of interpretation that are applied by Indian courts while interpreting the statutes?
• What are the implications of judicial activism and judicial restraint in statutory interpretation, and how do these approaches affect the balance of power between branches of government?

Scope of Research

This paper primarily focuses on the necessity and complexities of statutory interpretation in legal systems. It aims to analyze the theories, tools, and trends in interpreting statutes, highlighting their impact on justice, legal certainty, and societal needs. By examining important case laws, it investigates both theoretical underpinnings and practical uses of interpretation of statutes.

Significance of the Study

This research emphasizes how it enhances legal clarity by examining statutory interpretation's crucial role in addressing ambiguities. It aims to guide judicial decisions toward just outcomes, emphasizing the need for consistent and reasoned interpretation to uphold the rule of law. Additionally, this study informs legal education by giving law students, professionals, and policymakers insights into various interpretive methods.

Hypothesis

This research suggests that purposive interpretation, compared to literal interpretation, more accurately reflects legislative intent, especially when statutes are ambiguous.

Objective of the Research

• To explore the need for interpretation of statutes.
• To explore various methods of interpretation.
• To analyse the impact of judicial activism on the interpretation of statutes.

Research Methodology

This paper adopts a doctrinal and analytical approach to study the need for interpretation of statutes in the Indian legal system. The methodology involves primary and secondary sources of legal data. The primary sources include statutory provisions and landmark judgments of the Supreme Court. The secondary sources include different legal commentaries, books on the interpretation of statutes, scholarly articles, and online legal databases including SCC Online, Manupatra, and academic platforms such as Academike, Lawctopus, and Drishti IAS. No empirical data has been collected. Landmark judgments have been analyzed to understand how the judiciary interprets statutes. This paper only deals with the Indian legal system.

Meaning of Interpretation

Presently, the laws are drafted by those who are experts in the field of law and they are made in one or the other language, but there is not any single language which is perfect. Every language has a scope of ambiguities in it. Laws are made to deal with problems that exist in a society to maintain the societal order, and the society changes with time but the law is stagnant and that also leads to ambiguity and tussle between the law and the society. Here the role of courts came into play.[3]

The court interprets the law side by side to align with the intent of the legislature while making the statute. There are possibilities that any statute can give two meanings of the same provision at that time the courts have to go through the meaning which is more likely to reflect the intent of the legislature.

In the case of State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements,[4] Hon. Supreme Court Held:
"Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein."

Interpretation is a subject as a duty and power of the judiciary to interpret the law, which allow them preventing the exercise of power and ensuring that duties are fulfilled, as if a unclear provision of a statute is interpreted by government agency, there is high possibilities that they gave it a meaning which may tend to arbitrariness and abuse of power.

Need of Interpretation

• If the used word is ambiguous: There is a possibility that the law contains some ambiguous term which becomes an obstacle in meeting the intent behind making the law by the legislature. At that time, interpretation helps in removing obstacles and ambiguities from the law.
• To adjust with societal change: Society is just like a living creature and keeps changing due to many factors affecting it. The laws also need to be changed with the changing society.
• Giving meaning to complex and ambiguous language to the statutes: Many statutes contain complex language that is difficult to interpret. Courts provide meaning to these statutes to fulfill legislative intent.
• Drafting error: A law is drafted by a person, and no person is perfect. It is possible that the drafter lacks sufficient technical knowledge, necessitating judicial interpretation.
• Some areas are not covered: Laws are made to solve complex societal problems but may not cover every aspect. Courts help reduce loopholes and fill gaps where necessary.

Rules of Interpretation

• Literal Rule: The statute is given its basic and natural meaning unless doing so leads to absurdity or unreasonableness.
• Golden Rule: Courts can modify the meaning of a statute if it results in absurdity or unreasonableness.
• Rule of Harmonious Construction: When two provisions of the same or different statutes conflict, they are interpreted harmoniously without negating each other.
• Mischief Rule: Courts interpret statutes to address the mischief the law was meant to remedy.
• Purposive Approach: The purpose of the legislature is considered in interpreting the statute.
• Noscitur a Sociis Rule: Surrounding words are analyzed to interpret the statute correctly.

Implications Of Judicial Activism & Judicial Restraint
Judicial activism and judicial restraints are the two fundamental principle of interpretation of statutes by the constitutional courts. Judicial activism refers to the judiciary actively shaping policy and law beyond strictly interpreting existing legislation. It involves judges using their power of judicial review to set aside government actions and to decide on constitutional issues more readily.[14]

This proactive role can lead to both positive and negative impacts, impacting the balance of power between the judiciary and other branches of government and judicial restraints is the anti-thesis to the judicial activism that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power and decide cases on the basis of whatsoever given in the statutes, the constitutional framework and the precedents of the court.[15] In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[16] the apex court using judicial activism formulated guidelines on sexual violence against women at workplace at the time when there was no specific law. Later the Parliament came with Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Judicial activism involves judges in shaping the law by interpreting statutory and constitutional provisions to address current social issues prevailing in society or to protect individual rights. Proponents argue that judicial activism is essential for advancing social justice and filling gaps left by the legislature, especially when elected branches fail to protect minority rights or adapt laws to changing societal needs. However it is also criticized that judicial activism is against the doctrine of separation of power because this gives more power to judiciary in making laws and as per the doctrine of separation of power

Conclusion
Interpretation of statute is one of the important pillars of legal system in any country which works for filling the gap between legislative intent and judicial application. A law well drafted cannot anticipate every possible circumstance or societal change. Thus, interpretation of statutes is essential not only in giving meaning to the ambiguous language but also helps in the administration of justice.

Through employing various rules of interpretation like- literal rule, mischief rule, harmonious rule of construction, pivotal role in applying statutes fairly and effectively. Judicial decisions have supported the idea that by following the literal text of the statute may fail to uphold justice, especially when the statute's language is unclear, broad, outdated or silent on emerging issues.

Furthermore, the balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint continues to shape how interpretation is carried out. While judicial activism allows the judiciary to adapt legal provisions to contemporary societal realities, judicial restraint ensures that courts do not encroach upon the legislative domain. Both approaches, when used judiciously, contribute to a healthy and functional democratic system.

End Notes:

1. (1972) 3 SCC 717
2. (2009) 9 SCC 92
3. Scope and Relevance of Interpretation of Statutes, Academike, 2024 available at: (last visited April 12, 2025).
4. (2005) 1 SCC 368
5. (1984) 2 SCC 183
6. (2002) 4 SCC 297
7. A study on the rules of statutory interpretation | International Journal of Current Advanced Research, Journalijcar.org, 2019 available at: https://journalijcar.org/issues/study-rules-statutory-interpretation (last visited April 23, 2025).
8. Robert A. Katzmann, Judicial Interpretation of Statutes Judging Statutes 29–54 (2014).
9. (2018) 10 SCC 1
10. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 704
11. (2018) 8 SCC 501
12. Justice G P Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (Lexisnexis, Haryana, 15th edn., 2021)
13. Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends, Congress.gov, 2025 available at: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45153 (last visited April 23, 2025).
14. Role of Judges in the Art of Interpretation of Statutes: International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 2021 available at: https://ijlmh.com/paper/role-of-judges-in-the-art-of-interpretation-of-statutes/ (last visited April 23, 2025).
15. Judicial Activism, Restraint & Overreach, Drishti IAS, 2024 available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/judicial-activism-restraint-overreach (last visited April 23, 2025).
16. (1997) 6 SCC 241