The interpretation of statutes is a good understanding of the law. The
courts usually follow this process to determine the true purpose of the
legislature. Because the purpose of the Court is not only to study the law but
to use it in a meaningful way, which is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It
is also used to ensure the true meaning of any law or document with the primary
purpose of the legislature.
There may be mischief in the law that needs to be
corrected, and this can be done by applying various ethical and higher
principles, which can sometimes be contrary to meaning. The purpose of the
interpretation is to explain the meaning of the words used in these vague laws.
Parliament passes laws, but the role of judges is to explain what
parliament says. There is a limit to reason and creativity in the way they
interpret the law. Like other forms of communication, the law contains words
that have many meanings or changes meanings depending on their context.
should be drafted in a way that can be used effectively in different situations,
often without clarity or accuracy. Language can create a vague, vague or
meaningless law that fails to achieve the desired results once incorrectly
described. In such cases, judges should give effective meaning to the law.
The paper tries to identify the presumptions made and difficulties in
interpreting the statutes and find solutions to avoid the difficulties in
The term is derived from the Latin word "interpretari", which means
explanation, expound, understanding or translation. Interpretation is the
process of interpreting, expounding and translating anything into any written
text or form written. It is essentially a question of finding the true meaning
of the language used in the statute. The various sources used are limited to
examining the written text and clarifying the words used in the written text or
According to Salmond, "interpretation" is a process in which the Court
tries to emphasize the meaning of the legislature through the official forms
In simple, construction is a process that derives consequences from things
that go beyond the direct expression of the text. The courts draw conclusions
after analyzing the meaning of the words used in texts or laws. This process is
called legal clarification. There is a certain set of facts in court, and
construction uses the conclusion of those facts.
The aim is to assist the judiciary in determining the true purpose of the
legislature. It aims to ensure legal influence on the legal text.
The interpretation of any data is to analyze publicly available data and
come up with a firm and clear idea. This increases a person's ability to
understand and interpret in his or her own way. It helps to find ways to
understand and analyze the law, moving the translator from common sense to a new
It is essential that all law students, lawyers and judges know how to
interpret the law whenever the legislator proposes a new law or amendment
because they deal with these laws every day. The main objective of the analysis
is to know the new changes resulting from the effects of this law on the law and
Objectives of the study
The objective of the study is to try and identify the problems in making
presumptions in interpreting the statutes and check for any possible solutions
to avoid difficulties in interpreting statutes.
The words used in the law must always be clear, open and explicit so that
in such cases it is very important for the courts to determine the clear meaning
of the words or expressions used by the legislator while removing all doubts.
Therefore, all the laws mentioned in the article are important for justice.
There are two contrasting views as to how judges should go about
determining the meaning of a statute – the restrictive, literal, controlled and
direct approach and the more permissive, purposive, realistic and pure approach.
Therefore, it is difficult in understanding the method of interpretation of
- What are the methods to interpret the statutes and when and how it is
- What are the presumptions made in interpreting the statutes? What are
- What are the remedial measures given to avoid difficulties in
The subject matter of my research is, "Analysis of presumption and
difficulties in interpreting the statutes". My study is based totally on
"DOCTRINAL METHOD." There are many concepts or doctrines in this challenge. And
additionally, this venture contains maximum of the issues related to this
subject matter. This undertaking is really primarily based on studies
The source materials are secondary. I even have used secondary assets like
books, articles, and journals, and Internet-based research.
Given the precise nature of its work, which is to define the purpose of
Parliament and give judges greater discretion than any other statute, much work
has been done on this particular issue, a legal interpretation that effectively
defines the purpose of Parliament. But, at the same time, it can be argued that
it ignores the dominance of Parliament and is undemocratic because it takes
legislative decisions from the legislature.
Judicially, this controversy has
been considered by many writers in their books, some of them Kafaltiya, B. M
Gandhi, Maxwell's "Interpretation of statutes" and GP Singh's "Principles of
Statutory Interpretation" and many more in this regard. The purposive
interpretation is used when courts use external documents at the pre-legislative
level, including drafts, Hansard, committee reports, etc. The purposive
interpretation includes the rejection of the exclusionary rule.
Interpretation is the art of finding a common sense of law by giving the
words of the law their natural and public meaning. It is a process that
guarantees the true meaning of the words used in the act. The Court does not
expect its interpretation, and therefore the continuing education of the courts
has developed some policies. These principles are called 'rules of
Legislators could be expected to draft legal laws, particularly modern laws
and laws, and could be expected to give less room for linguistic or constructive
interpretation. But the experience of all those who have to bear and share the
law is different.
Detailed rules of interpretation laws evolved in the early stages of Hindu
civilization and culture. The first rules presented by the author Of Mimamsat
Sutras, 'Jaimini' also used the interpretation of smritis to explain Srutis.
In the interpretation process, many aids are used. They are statutory or
non-statutory. Statutory aid can be interpreted by the General Clauses Act 1897
and the specific definitions of individual Acts, while non-statutory aid
describes legal interpretation laws (including some interpretation presumptions)
and case law on the interpretation of laws.
Legal interpretation is a process that confirms the true meaning of the
words used in the law. When the wording of the law is clear, explanatory laws
are not needed. But in some cases, the same word or phrase can create many
meanings. Therefore, it is necessary to explain the law to know the exact
purpose of the law.
Scope and Nature of Interpretation
The need for interpretation arises only when the language of the statutory
provision is vague or unclear, when there are two possible ideas, or when
another meaning is given that runs counter to the meaning of the statute.
If the wording is clear and regulated, there is no need for clarification.
A constitution bench of five judges of the Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v A.R.
 stated that the:
"… If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the
plainest duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words
used in the provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of
an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be
Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay
"Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no
ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no
scope for court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the
The purpose of interpreting statutes is to assist judges in confirming the
intention of the legislature - not to control that intention or to confine it
within the limits, judges may deem reasonable or expedient.
The correct is one that best harmonizes the words with the object of the
statute. As stated by Iyer J. "to be literal in meaning is to see the skin
and miss the soul. The judicial key of construction is the composite perception
of the deha and the dehi of the provision."
According to Blackstone the fairest and rational method for interpreting a
statute is by exploring the intention of the Legislature through the most
natural and probable signs which are 'either the words, the context, the
subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the
Interpretation of Statutes is required for two basic reasons:
Need for interpretation
- Legislative language - legislative language can be complex for the
common man, and therefore the need for interpretation;
- Legislative objectives - The purpose of the legislative or legislative
purpose combines two elements: a. The concept of meaning, i.e., what the
meaning of the word is; b. the concept of 'object' and 'purpose' or 'spirit'
or the 'reason' pervading through the statute.
Some Important Points to be taken care of in the context of interpreting
- Ambiguity of words used in the statute:
Sometimes there are words with many meanings. It may not be clear what to
use. This can lead to many interpretations made.
- Change in the environment:
We all know that society changes from time to time and that new development
may occur in a society that does not portend future events and is not taken
- Complexities of the statutes:
Generally, the statutes are complex and
large, it is not easy to understand complex words and words and there are a few
technical words that can cause this complex confusion.
- When the law does not cover a particular area:
It does not cover all
areas that help to bridge the gap between certain grey areas and interpretation
helps in filling the gaps.
- Drafting error:
The draft can be done without sufficient information.
This can happen because there are no necessary words or appropriate grammar.
This makes the draft unclear and creates ambiguity in the legislative assembly.
- Incomplete rules:
Some implied laws and regulations are not specified in
the law and some implied powers and privileges cause ambiguity if they are not
properly defined in the statute.
Rules of Interpretation
Literal or Grammatical Rule
- The intention of the Legislative Assembly.
- The law must be read in context as a whole.
- The law should be defined in such a way as to make it effective and
practical - if the legal system is vague and capable of a different
interpretation, construction should be approved, and other provisions of the
law should have meaning and influence.
- If meaning is plain, the effect must be given to it irrespective of
- The construction process combines purposive and literal approaches. The
purposive construction rule states that you should shift from literal
construction when it leads to absurdity.
This is the first rule of explanation. According to this law, the words
used in this text must be given or interpreted in their general or ordinary
sense. After the explanation, if the matter is completely clear and unambiguous,
whatever the outcome, the rule of law is given the effect.
The basic law should be expressed through words and thus whatever the
purpose of the legislature in making any law should be explained according to
the rules of grammar. It is a safe rule of interpretation of
laws as it originates from words and language used with the intention of the
According to the rule, if the wording of the law was clear and there was no
work to determine the consequences, the court's only duty was to have an impact.
The purpose of the law was to interpret the law, and if there were serious
consequences, the legislator would seek and preserve the solution.
Maqbool Hussain V. State of Bombay 
Did not announce on the occasion that an Indian national was carrying gold
with him after arriving at the airport. During their search, gold was found in
their possession as it was against government notification and seized under
Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.
He was subsequently charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act 1947. The appellant questioned the investigation into the
violation of Article 20 (2) of India's Constitution. According to this article,
no one is punished or tried more than once for the same offence. This is double
The court said the Seas Act was not a court or a judicial tribunal. Thus,
accordingly, he has not been prosecuted before. So, his case was considered
Manmohan Das versus Bishan Das
The case is regarding the interpretation of Section 3(1) (C) of the U.P
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. In this case, the tenant was liable for
evidence if he had made an additional and choice in the building without proper
authority and created an informal assumption that the accommodation had been
physically altered or likely to be reduced in value. The appellant said only a
constitution depreciating property can be controlled and the word 'or' should be
read as land.
Literally according to the law of interpretation, the word 'or' requires a
wise man to understand the fundamentals of the event, which must be included and
State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others
A person was caught using fake currency "dollar" and read using Sections
511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for possessing fake currency under sections
120B, 498A, 498C and 420 read with sections 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code
for possessing counterfeit currency. The accused argued in the court that
charges can be framed only under Section 498A and 498B of the Indian Penal Code
in the case of counterfeiting of Indian currency and not in the case of
counterfeiting of foreign currency. The court said the word currency notes or
banknote cannot be prefixed. That person was charged-sheeted.
- Judges started giving great importance to the literal meaning of
statutory provisions without considering the broader meaning of the
- This method ignores the limitations of language.
- Words go through a change in their spirit as time passes.
- On the basis of a false assumption that a word has only one definite
- Lack of clarity in the law
- It leads us to prejudices and determines the meaning of the law.
- Mischief Rule
The Mischief rule originated in the Hayden case in 1584. This is the rule
of retrospective construction because the purpose of this rule is very important
while implementing this rule. This is called Hayden's law because it was given
by Lord Poke in 1584 in the case of Hayden. This is called the mischief rule as
the focus is on curing the mischief.
In Hayden's case, it was said that four subjects were generally to be
followed for true and definite interpretation of all the inscriptions, which are
- What was the general law before drafting an Act.
- What mischief was the present law made for?
- What solution did Parliament seek or address and appoint to treat the
disease of the Commonwealth?
- Real reason for the solution.
The purpose of this rule is to suppress mischief and lead the solution.
Smith v. Huges 
In this case around the 1960s, prostitutes took to the streets of London
the 1960s and this creates a big problem in London. This has created a lot of
problems in maintaining law and order. The Street Offences Act 1959 was enacted
to prevent this problem. After the law was enforced, prostitutes started
soliciting from windows and balconies.
Further, prostitutes transported to search from roads and balconies were
charged under Section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes argued that they
were not asked for from the streets.
The Court stated that even if they did not ask the street, the Act should
be used to prevent prostitutes from claiming and the matter should be
investigated. The Court stated, in the implementation of the law, that the words
"windows" and "balcony" should be an extension of the street and that the
indictment should be correct.
Pyare Lal v. Ram Chandra 
A case has been registered against the accused of selling sweet supari with
the help of artificial sweetness. He was convicted under the Food Adulteration
Act. Pyare Lal argued that supari is not a food item. The court observed that
the dictionary does not always mean the right meaning so that the mischief rule
should apply and the definition of leading the solution should be considered.
Therefore, the court said that the word food is used by mouth and orally. Thus,
his prosecution was held as valid.
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration
The issue of the case is as follows: Section 418 of the Delhi Corporation
Act, 1902 empowered the Corporation to graze cattle on Government land. MCD
rounded up cattle belonging to Kanwar Singh. The words used in the law empowered
the corporation to round up abandoned cattle. Kanwar Singh argued that means it
was his loss of ownership and round cattle and hence it was not spared. The
court said that this mischief rule should be enforced, the dropped word rest and
it will also be added that it will also leave it at the temporary loss of
- It is considered an old rule because it came to the picture in the 16th
- Gives additional powers to the unelected judiciary and is considered
- This makes the law uncertain.
- In the 16th-century kings gave the judiciary all the powers to make
laws, so at that time they were well qualified for mischief acts.
- The Golden Rule
This is called the golden rule as it solves all the problems of
interpretation. But if the explanation provided by the literal rule leads to any
kind of ambiguity, injustice, restlessness, trouble and inequality in all such
situations, the literal meaning is discarded and interpreted in the manner the
purpose of the law is fulfilled.
The literal rule really follows the idea of explaining the natural meaning
of words used in law. But if explaining natural meaning leads to repugnance,
absurdity or hardship, it means that it should be revised to the level of
injustice or stupidity caused by the court and the consequences cannot be
This law says that the results and consequences of interpretation are of
great importance, as they symbolize the true meaning and purpose of the words
used by the legislature. Sometimes, when this law is used, the explanation
produced may be quite contrary to the law, but it is justified because of the
golden rule. The assumption here is that the legislature does not want certain
objectives. Therefore, such an explanation leading to unintended items is
Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh 
In this case, it was difficult to issue a notice under Section 99 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 on corrupt practices involved in
As per the rule, notices should be issued to all persons who are parties to
the election petition as well as those who are not a party to it. Tirath Singh
argued that no such notice was served to him under the said provision. Notices
have been issued only to those who were party to the election petition. An
enquiry was conducted on the specific basis that it is invalid.
The court said that even if given twice, information remains the same. The
petitioning party already has notice regarding the petition and therefore
Section 99 only requires notification against the parties and should be very
detailed by enacting the golden rule.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company 
A company was challenged and accused of the transport of parcel carrying
apples. The parcel contained opium along with Apple and seized the transport
company's truck. Meanwhile, only Apple was on the invoice shown for
Section 11 of the Opium Act, 1878 requires seizure and confiscation of all
vehicles carrying banned goods. The transport company seized it saying they did
not know that the truck was full of apples and blacks.
The court said that although the words of Section 11 of the above Act were
given to seize the vehicle, the introduction of direct law of interpretation in
the Act would create injustice and inequality and therefore this definition
should be avoided. The words 'shall be confiscated' should be described as
State of Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum 
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1844 states that the verdict should
be appealed within six months of the declaration of compensation. Quiser Jehan
was awarded. She was informed after a period of six months. The appeal was filed
after a period of six months. Lower courts rejected the appeal.
The court said that since the explanation led to absurdity, knowledge had
been in place for six months from the time of Quiser Jehan. The court passed an
appeal to enforce the golden rule.
- This infringes the separation of power among the wings of the government
that is between the judiciary and legislature.
- Here judges can technically change the law by changing the meaning of
the words in the statute.
- This method can be used only when there is an absurdity in the statute.
- Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
It is a Latin phrase that says 'Express Mention and Implied Exclusion',
which means that the clear context of a subject does not include everything
else. It is believed that items not on the list do not come under the purview of
the law. When something is clearly mentioned in the law, it leads to the
assumption that things not specified in the law are excluded.
In a law, general words must obtain a general structure if they do not
specify any specific meaning for common words. Whenever something is included in
the law, it is truly included. If there is nothing involved in the law, there
should be a reason behind it, which should be exempted from a particular
- Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege
It is one of the best and strongest ways to explain. The words used in law
change in their meaning over time, but when defined, the prescribed law should
have the same meaning as its origin and when it is passed.
In the event of the formulation of the law, the meaning of the law should
be explained. The purpose of enforcing old laws should be explained in a manner
that defines it. It will also consider the implementation of previous
application, interest or law during the implementation of the law.
If this word has been misinterpreted over the years, such words are not
entitled to an explanation. The conditions can be explained by the court only if
the ownership part of the property is affected or daily transactions are
- Noscitur a Soclis
Noscitur a soclis is a Latin word that means that the meaning of related
words, vague words or phrases must be determined or interpreted based on its
context and the words and phrases around it.
The related words try to explain the meaning of common words and try to
reduce the interpretation of specific words. When the word used in law is vague
or vague, the meaning of such words is determined by looking at the relevant
words around it. The associate words around it give it a clear and distinctive
The importance of this rule is that it is aimed at reading it and
explaining the entire law. It does not emphasize any particular word but
describes the word by looking at its preceding and succeeding words. These words
are clearly understood and the purpose of legislatures can be easily understood.
Every country has its own judicial system and its aim is to do justice to
all. The purpose of the court is to define the law to ensure that justice is
done to every citizen and all. It was explained to ensure justice to all ideas
of interpretive systems. These are established laws to determine the true
purpose of the legislature.
Therefore, judges can use all the resources and assumptions mentioned above
while interpreting the law. But it should be in line with the reading of all
primary and secondary laws in the European Conference on Human Rights (ECHR), S.
3 the Human Rights Act of 1998 which requires judges to read all primary and
secondary laws in a way that fits ECHR.
Thus, if section or law means more than
one - courts should interpret it according to ECHR. If the law does not match,
the judge directed the minister of the government and left it to resolve it.
This explanatory approach takes precedence over the general legal methods of
statutory interpretation prepared by Parliament. But this does not make the
common legal procedures unnecessary.
For example, the question of the relevant
law cannot include the issue of human rights. This legislation can be
interpreted after the judges use the above resources and beliefs and they are in
conformity with the ECHR.
- Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT. AIR 1965 SC 1636, p. 1644
- Law Commission of India, 60th Report, Chapter 2, para 2.2
- AIR 1984 SC 684
- (2002)4 SCC 297
- Justice GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Lexis Nexis,
14th Edition, 2016, p. 21
- State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963SC 1604, p. 1606
- Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1, p.59
- 1953 SCR 730
- AIR 1967 SC 643
- 1987 AIR 33 SCR (1) 317
- 1960 WLR 830
- 1979 WLN 591
- AIR 1965 SC 871
- AIR 1955 SC 850
- AIR 1967 SC 276
- AIR 1963 SC 1604