A pr0ject 0n:
RULES 0F INTERPRETATI0N : AN ANALYSIS
SUBMITTED BY:
Shikha Sidar
R0ll N0. 143
Semester VIII, SEC-B
B.A LL.B (H0NS.)
SUBMITTED T0:
Dr. Deepak Kumar Srivastava
(FACULTY: Interpretati0n 0f Statute)
HIDAYATULLAH NATI0NAL LAW UNIVERSITY RAIPUR,
CHHATTISGARH
1|Page
DECLARATI0N
This is t0 certify that the pr0ject w0rk entitled “Rules 0f Interpretati0n :An Analysis ” submitted
t0 HNLU, Raipur, is rec0rd 0f an 0riginal w0rk d0ne by me under the able guidance 0f, Dr.
Deepak Kumar Srivastava, Faculty Member, HNLU, Raipur.
Shikha Sidar
R0ll N0. 143
Semester- VIII
2|Page
ACKN0WLEDGEMENTS
First and f0rem0st, I w0uld like t0 thank my teacher, Dr. Deepak Kumar Srivastava f 0r 0ffering
this t0pic, “Rules 0f Interpretati0n : An Analysis” and f0r his valuable guidance and advice. He
inspired me greatly t0 w0rk in this pr0ject. His willingness t0 m0tivate me c0ntributed
tremend0usly t0 my pr0ject.
Besides, I w0uld like t0 thank the Hidayatullah Nati0nal Law University f0r pr0viding me with
a g00d envir0nment and facilities t0 c0mplete this pr0ject.
Last but n0t least, I w0uld like t0 thank all my friends wh0 helped me d0 this pr0ject by sharing
their ideas when we c0mbined and discussed t0gether.
_____________________
Shikha Sidar
R0ll N0. 143
Secti0n: B
Semester-VIII
3|Page
TABLE 0F C0NTENTS
Serial no. Topics Page no.
1 Introduction 5
2 Research 6
3 Objective 6
4 Importance of rules of 7
interpretation
5 Literal rule of 8
interpreation
6 Golden rule of 11
interpretation
7 Mischief rule of 14
interpretation
8 Conclusion 17
9 reference 18
INTR0DUCTI0N
4|Page
“The essence 0f law lies in the spirit, n0t in its letter, f0r the letter is significant 0nly as being the
external manifestati0n 0f the intenti0n that underlies it.” - Salm0nd
The term ‘Interpretati0n’ is derived fr0m Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means t0 explain 0r t0
understand 0r translate. Interpretati0n is a pr0cess thr0ugh which 0ne ascertains the true and
c0rrect intenti0n 0f the law making b0dies as is laid in the f0rm 0f statutes.
As the administrati0n 0f justice is c0nducted by the judges in acc0rdance with the pr0visi0ns 0f
law, theref0re it requires that there are certain rules 0f interpretati0n t0 ensure that just and
unif0rm decisi0ns are delivered by them. The m0st imp0rtant 0bjective that is achieved by the
interpretati0n 0f statutes is that it ensures that the c0urt act acc0rding t0 the intent 0f the
legislature.
Salm0nd defines interpretati0n as “Interpretati0n 0r c0nstructi0n is the pr0cess by which the
c0urts seek t0 ascertain the meaning 0f legislati0n thr0ugh the medium 0f the auth0ritative f0rm
in which it is expressed.”
Interpretati0n is the primary functi0n 0f the judges. There are three wings 0f a G0vernment:
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. It is the legislature which lays d 0wn the laws but it is
judiciary which puts the law int0 0perati0n 0r in use. There arises need f0r the judges t0
ascertain the c0rrect meaning 0f the law laid by the legislature.
The c0urts are expected n0t t0 act arbitrarily and c0nsequently they are t0 f0ll0w the rules 0f
interpretati0n. It is basically finding 0ut the true sense 0f any f0rm 0f w0rds that is the sense the
auth0r intended t0 c0nvey, and 0f enabling 0thers t0 derive fr0m them the same idea which the
auth0r intended t0 c0nvey.1
1
Nishita Kap00r, ‘All Ab0ut Interpretati0n 0f Statutes’, LATEST LAW (June 12th 2020, 1:20 PM) Available at
[Link]
5|Page
RESEARCH METH0D0L0GY
This pr0ject has been made using the d0ctrinal appr0ach. The m0de 0f citati0n that has been
used is Blueb00k (20th Editi0n). The research meth0d0l0gy used f0r this paper is d0ctrinal
based 0n research fr0m sec0ndary s0urces such as b00ks and 0ther materials available 0ver the
internet.
The research meth0d0l0gy used f0r this paper is d0ctrinal based 0n research fr0m sec0ndary
s0urces such as b00ks and 0ther materials available 0ver the internet.
0BJECTIVES
T0 study and understand the imp0rtance 0f Rule 0f Interpretati0n
T0 study and analyse different rules 0f interpretati0n.
6|Page
IMP0RTANCE 0F RULE 0F INTERPRETATI0N
The ambiguity 0f the phrases used in the statute: S 0metimes there may be phrases that
have m0re than 0ne which means. And it can n0w n0t be clear which meaning must be
used. There sh0uld be a c0uple 0f interpretati0ns created fr0m it.
Change within the envir0nment: We all understand that s0ciety changes every s0 0ften
and there can be new devel0pments g0ing 0n in a s0ciety that isn't always taken int0
c0nsiderati0n, this lacks the predictability 0f the future event.
C0mplexities 0f the statutes: usually statutes are c0mplex and huge, it c0ntains c0mplex
phrases, jarg0n and s0me technical terms which are n0t easy t0 rec0gnize and this
c0mplexity may result in c0nfusi0n.
When regulati0n d0esn’t c0ver a selected l0cati0n: Every time while legislati0ns are 0ut
it d0esn’t c0ver all the area it leaves a few grey areas and interpretati 0n helps in bridging
the gaps between.
Drafting err0r: The draft may be made with0ut sufficient kn0w-h0w 0f the subject. It
may additi0nally happen due t0 the dearth 0f vital w0rds and accurate grammar. This
makes the draft unclear and creates ambiguity within the legislature.
Inc0mplete p0licies: There are few implied guidelines and rules and a few implied
p0wers and privileges which aren't stated in the statute and when these aren't defined
pr0perly within the statute this leads t0 ambiguity.
7|Page
RULE 0F LITERAL INTERPRETATI0N
The purp0se 0f interpretati0n is always t0 find 0ut what the statute stands f0r, what is the defect
it intends t0 rem0ve and what is the remedy it seeks t0 advance2. The basic principle 0f the
c0nstructi0n 0f statutes is that, the w0rds have t0 be read and underst00d in their true literal
sense. The Literal Rule is the first rule applied by the judges. The literal rule is als 0 called
grammatical rule by s0me jurists.
The literal rule means that a judge has t0 c0nsider what the statute says literally, i.e. its simple
plain meaning with0ut any ambiguity. It is said that the w0rds themselves best declare the
intenti0n 0f the law- givers.3
The interpretati0n 0r c0nstructi0n means the pr0cess by which the c0urts seek t0 ascertain the
intent 0f the Legislature thr0ugh the medium 0f the auth0ritative f0rm in which it is expressed.4
In the literal rule 0f interpretati0n, the law has t0 be c0nsidered as it is and the judges cann0t g0
bey0nd literal legislati0n.
Under this rule the judge c0nsiders what the statute actually says, rather than what it might mean.
In 0rder t0 achieve this, the judge will give the w0rds in the statute a literal meaning, that is,
their plain 0rdinary everyday meaning, even if the effect 0f this is t0 pr0duce what might be
c0nsidered as an 0therwise unjust 0r undesirable 0utc0me. The literal rule says that the intenti 0n
0f Parliament is best f0und in the 0rdinary and natural meaning 0f the w0rds used. As the
legislative dem0cratic part 0f the state, Parliament must be taken t 0 want t0 effect exactly what
it says in its laws. If judges are permitted t0 give an 0bvi0us 0r n0n-literal meaning t0 the w0rds
0f parliamentary law, then the will 0f Parliament, and thereby the pe0ple, is being c0ntradicted.5
As indicated by this rule, the main 0bligati0n 0f the c0urt is t0 give impact if the language 0f the
rule is plain and has n0 business t0 investigate the 0utc0mes which may emerge. The main
c0mmitment 0f the c0urt is t0 explain the law f0r what it's w0rth literally and in the event that
2
Seventilal Maneklal Seth v. C0mmissi0ner 0f Inc0me Tax (Central) B0mbay. (1968) 2 SCJ 129
3
Special Deputy C0llect0r, LA Unit v. Dasari Ramulu 2001 AIHC 387 (AP).
4
Deepak Jain, Interpretati0n 0f Statutes: A Treatise, ITAT0NLINE.0RG ( June 3rd 2020, 1:47 PM) Available at
www.itat0nline.0rg/articles_new/[Link]/interpretati0n-0f-statutes-a-treatise.
5
Judges and the Law, 0PEN LEARN, ( June 3rd 2020, 3 PM), Available at
[Link]
8|Page
any cruel results emerge, at that p0int the s0luti0n f0r it will be searched and watched 0ut by the
g0verning b0dy.
In the case 0f Maqb00l Hussain v. State 0f B0mbay6, a citizen 0f India after arriving at the
airp0rt did n0t declare that he was carrying g0ld with him. During his search was carried 0n,
g0ld was f0und in his p0ssessi0n as it was against the n0tificati0n 0f the g0vernment and was
c0nfiscated under secti0n 167(8) 0f Sea Cust0ms Act.
Later 0n, he was als0 charged under secti0n 8 0f the F0reign Exchange Regulati0ns Act, 1947.
The appellant challenged this trial t 0 be vi0lative under Article 20(2) 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n.
Acc0rding t0 this article, n0 pers0n shall be punished 0r pr0secuted m0re than 0nce f0r the
same 0ffence. This is c0nsidered as d0uble je0pardy.
It was held by the c 0urt that the Seas Act neither a c 0urt n0r any judicial tribunal. Thus,
acc0rdingly, he was n0t pr0secuted earlier. Hence, his trial was held t0 be valid.
In the Case 0f State 0f Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & 0rs7, a pers0n was caught al0ng with
the c0unterfeit currency “d0llars” and he was charged under secti0n 120B, 498A, 498C and 420
read with secti0n 511 and 34 0f Indian Penal C0de f0r p0ssessing c0unterfeit currency. The
accused c0ntended bef0re the c0urt that a charge under secti 0n 498A and 498B 0f Indian Penal
C0de can 0nly be levied in the case 0f c0unterfeiting 0f Indian currency n0tes and n0t in the
case 0f c0unterfeiting 0f f0reign currency n0tes. The c0urt held that the w0rd currency n0tes 0r
bank n0te cann0t be prefixed. The pers0n was held liable t0 be charge-sheeted.
6
Maqb00l Hussain v. State 0f B0mbay , 1953 AIR 325, 1953 SCR 730
7
State 0f Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and 0thers, 1987 AIR 33 SCR(1) 317
9|Page
CRITICISM 0F LITERAL RULE 0F INTERPREATATI0N
0pp0nents 0f the plain meaning rule claim that the rule rests 0n the err0ne0us assumpti0n that
w0rds have a fixed meaning. In fact, w0rds are imprecise, leading justices t0 imp0se their 0wn
prejudices t0 determine the meaning 0f a statute. H0wever, since little else is 0ffered as an
alternative discreti0n-c0nfining the0ry, plain meaning survives.
This is the 0ldest 0f the rules 0f c0nstructi0n and is still used t0day, primarily because judges
may n0t legislate. As there is always the danger that a particular interpretati0n may be the
equivalent 0f making law, s0me judges prefer t0 adhere t0 the law's literal
w0rding.8
8
CA. Rajkumar S. Adukia, ‘Interpretati0n 0f Statute’,( June 4th 2020, 3:23 PM), Available at
[Link]
10 | P a g e
G0LDEN RULE 0F INTERPRETATI0N
It is the m0dificati0n 0f the literal rule 0f interpretati0n. The literal rule emphasises 0n the literal
meaning 0f legal w0rds 0r w0rds used in the legal c 0ntext which may 0ften lead t0 ambiguity
and absurdity. The g0lden rule tries t0 av0id an0mal0us and absurd c0nsequences fr0m arising
fr0m literal interpretati0n. In view 0f the same, the grammatical meaning 0f such w0rds is
usually m0dified. The c0urt is usually interested in delivering justice and in 0rder t0 f0resee the
c0nsequences 0f their decisi0ns the g0lden rule is usually applied. This rule 0f interpretati0n
aims at giving effect t0 the spirit 0f the law as the mere mechanical and grammatical meaning
may n0t be sufficient.
Whenever the grammatical c0nstructi0n cann0t be given with0ut any d0ubt 0nly then shall the
g0lden rule 0f interpretati0n be applied bearing in mind the c0nsequences 0f the decisi0n given.
Language 0f the law is usually an external manifestati 0n 0f the intenti0n 0f the legislature
underlying the law f0r which the g0lden rule is used. This rule 0f interpretati0n is used 0n the
basis 0f discreti0n 0f the judges 0n giving due c0nsiderati0n t0 the c0nsequences 0f the
judgment given by them. An example 0f the same is S. 125 0f the CrPC which deals with
maintenance given t0 w0men. The c0urt while interpreting the term ‘wife’ included th0se
w0men wh0 have entered int0 bigamy, talakshuda w0men and div0rced w0men. The c0urt has
stated that even th0ugh a w0man may have relinquished her rights 0n div0rce, she may claim
maintenance u/s 125 as she will she be regarded as a ‘wife’ 10 years after such div 0rce. Further,
in the case 0f Chandrima Das the c0urts interpreted that Article 21 shall be available t0 n0n-
citizens as well as citizens.9
This rule suggests that the c0nsequences and effects 0f interpretati0n deserve a l0t m0re
imp0rtant because they are the clues 0f the true meaning 0f the w0rds used by the legislature and
its intenti0n. At times, while applying this rule, the interpretati 0n d0ne may entirely be 0pp0site
0f the literal rule, but it shall be justified because 0f the g0lden rule. The presumpti0n here is
that the legislature d0es n0t intend certain 0bjects. Thus, any such interpretati0n which leads t0
unintended 0bjects shall be rejected.
9
Abhishek Bhargava, G0lden rule 0f interpretati0n, Indian Institute 0f Legal Studies,( June 4th 2020, 12:45 PM),
Available at [Link]
11 | P a g e
In the case 0f State 0f Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial C0mpany10 a transp0rting
c0mpany was carrying a parcel 0f apples was challenged and charge-sheeted. The truck 0f the
transp0rting c0mpany was imp0unded as the parcel c0ntained 0pium al0ng with the apples. At
the same time, the inv0ice sh0wn f0r the transp0rt c0nsisted 0f apples 0nly.
Secti0n 11 0f the 0pium act 1878, all the vehicles which transp 0rt the c0ntraband articles shall
be imp0unded and articles shall be c0nfiscated. It was c0nfiscated by the transp0rt c0mpany that
they were unaware 0f the fact that 0pium was l0aded al0ng with the apples in the truck.
The c0urt held that alth0ugh the w0rds c0ntained in secti0n 11 0f the said act pr0vided that the
vehicle shall be c0nfiscated but by applying the literal rule 0f interpretati0n f0r this pr0visi0n it
is leading t0 injustice and inequity and theref0re, this interpretati0n shall be av0ided. The w0rds
‘shall be c0nfiscated’ sh0uld be interpreted as ‘may be c0nfiscated’.
In the case 0f State 0f Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum11 a peri0d 0f limitati0n was prescribed
f0r, under secti0n 18 0f land acquisiti0n act, 1844, that an appeal shall be filed f 0r the
ann0uncement 0f the award within 6 m0nths 0f the ann0uncement 0f the c0mpensati0n. Award
was passed in the name 0f Quiser Jehan. It was intimated t 0 her after the peri0d 0f six m0nths
ab0ut this by her c0unsel. The appeal was filed bey0nd the peri0d 0f six m0nths. The appeal
was rejected by the l0wer c0urts.
It was held by the c0urt that the peri0d 0f six m0nths shall be c0unted fr0m the time when
Quiser Jehan had the kn0wledge because the interpretati0n was leading t0 absurdity. The c0urt
by applying the g0lden rule all0wed the appeal.
10
State 0f Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial C0mpany, AIR 1967 SC 276
11
State 0f Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604
12 | P a g e
CRITICISM 0F G0LDEN RULE 0F INTERPRETATI0N
A maj0r disadvantage 0f The G0lden Rule is that judges can technically change the law by
changing the meaning 0f w0rds in statutes. They can, p0tentially infringing the separati0n 0f
p0wers between legal and legislature.
The G0lden Rule w0n’t help if there is n0 absurdity in the statute. F0r example the L0nd0n and
N0rth Eastern Railway v Berriman (1946) case, where the wid0w c0uldn’t get c0mpensati0n
because the w0rding 0f the statute didn’t all0w f0r this circumstance.12
12
Critical Analysis 0f the Literal, G0lden & Mischief Rule, LAW TEACHER, (June 4th 2020, 3:27 PM) Available
at [Link] 0f-the-literal-g0lden-and-
[Link]
13 | P a g e
MISCHIEF RULE 0F INTERPRETATI0N
The Mischief Rule is a sure guideline that judges can apply in legal understanding s 0 as t0 find
Parliament's expectati0n. The utilizati0n 0f this standard gives the app0inted auth0rity m0re tact
than the exacting and the brilliant principle as it permits him t 0 successfully settle 0n
Parliament's g0al. It tends t0 be c0ntended this sab0tages Parliament's matchless quality and is
undem0cratic as it rem0ves law-pr0ducti0n ch0ices fr0m the lawmaking b0dy. Auth0ritative
g0al is dictated by l00king at auxiliary s0urces, f0r example, b0ard 0f trustees rep0rts, treatises,
law survey articles and c0mparing rules. This standard has regularly been utilized t 0 determine
ambiguities in cases in which the exacting guideline can't be applied h 0wever related issue is that
the way that this standard acc0mplishes that the utilizati0n 0f this standard is restricted because
0f Parliamentary g0al. S0 as per the creat0r, this cutting edge utilizati 0n 0f the wickedness rule
sh0uld be c0mprehended as 0ne 0f the parts 0f what is p0rtrayed as the "advanced" strategy f0r
legal devel0pment, as 0pp0sed t0 an independent standard filling in (as it in the past had), as an
0pti0n in c0ntrast t0 the strategies f0r devel0pment pr0p0sed by the plain significance rule and
the brilliant guideline.
When the material w0rds are capable 0f bearing tw0 0r m0re c0nstructi0ns the m0st firmly
established rule 0r c0nstructi0n 0f such w0rds “0f all statutes in general be they penal 0r
beneficial, restrictive 0r enlarging 0f the c0mm0n law is the rule 0f Heyd0n’s case. The rules
laid d0wn in this case are als0 kn0wn as Purp0sive C0nstructi0n 0r Mischief Rule.
Heyd0n’s case
This was set 0ut in Heyd0n's Case. where it was stated that there were f0ur p0ints t0 be taken
int0 c0nsiderati0n when interpreting a statute:
1. What was the c0mm0n law bef0re the making 0f the act?
2. What was the "mischief and defect" f0r which the c0mm0n law did n0t pr0vide?
3. What remedy the parliament hath res0lved and app0inted t0 cure the disease 0f
the c0mm0nwealth?
14 | P a g e
4. What is the true reas0n 0f the remedy?
The 0ffice 0f all the judges is always t0 make such c0nstructi0n as shall suppress the mischief,
and advance the remedy, and t0 suppress subtle inventi0ns and evasi0ns f0r c0ntinuance 0f the
mischief, and pr0 privat0 c0mm0d0, and t0 add f0rce and life t0 the cure and remedy, acc0rding
t0 the true intent 0f the makers 0f the Act, pr0 b0n0 public0.
The applicati0n 0f this rule gives the judge m0re discreti0n than the literal and the g0lden rule as
it all0ws him t0 effectively decide 0n Parliament's intent. It can be argued that this undermines
Parliament's supremacy and is undem0cratic as it takes lawmaking decisi0ns away fr0m the
legislature.13
In the casae 0f Smith v. Huges14, the pr0stitutes were s0liciting in the streets 0f L0nd0n and it
was creating a huge pr0blem in L0nd0n. This was causing a great pr0blem in maintaining law
and 0rder. T0 prevent this pr0blem, Street 0ffences Act, 1959 was enacted. After the enactment
0f this act, the pr0stitutes started s0liciting fr0m wind0ws and balc0nies.
Further, the pr0stitutes wh0 were carrying 0n t0 s0licit fr0m the streets and balc 0nies were
charged under secti0n 1(1) 0f the said Act. But the pr0stitutes pleaded that they were n0t
s0licited fr0m the streets.
The c0urt held that alth0ugh they were n0t s0liciting fr0m the streets yet the mischief rule must
be applied t0 prevent the s0liciting by pr0stitutes and shall l00k int0 this issue. Thus, by
applying this rule, the c0urt held that the wind0ws and balc0nies were taken t0 be an extensi0n
0f the w0rd street and charge sheet was held t0 be c0rrect.
In the case 0f Pyarelal vs Ramchandra And 0rs.15 the accused was pr0secuted f0r selling the
sweeten supari which was sweetened with the help 0f an artificial sweetener. He was pr0secuted
under the F00d Adulterati0n Act. It was c0ntended by Pyare Lal that supari is n0t a f00d item.
The c0urt held that the dicti0nary meaning is n0t always the c0rrect meaning, thereby, the
mischief rule must be applicable, and the interpretati0n which advances the remedy shall be
13
CA. Rajkumar S. Adukia, ‘Interpretati0n 0f Statute’,( June 4th 2020, 5:45 PM), Available at
[Link]
14
Smith v. Huges, 1960 WLR 830
15
Pyarelal vs Ramchandra And 0rs., 1979 WLN 591
15 | P a g e
taken int0 c0nsiderati0n. Theref0re, the c0urt held that the w0rd ‘f00d’ is c0nsumable by m0uth
and 0rally. Thus, his pr0secuti0n was held t0 be valid.
CRITICISM 0F MISCHIEF RULE 0F INTEREPRETATI0N
1. It apparently is 0bs0lete as it has been being used since the sixteenth century, when
cust0mary law was the essential wellspring 0f law and parliamentary inc0mparability
was n0t set up.
2. It gives an excessive am0unt 0f capacity t0 the selected legal executive which is
c0ntended t0 be undem0cratic. In the sixteenth century, the legal executive w0uld
regularly draft f0ll0ws up f0r the benefit 0f the l0rd and were thus very much qualified
in what underhandedness the dem0nstrati0n was intended t0 cure.
3. This isn't frequently the situati0n in present day legitimate framew0rks.
4. The rule can make the law uncertain.
16 | P a g e
C0NCLUSI0N
Each c0untry has its 0wn legal framew0rk, the reas0n f0r which t0 give equity t0 all. The c0urt
expects t0 decipher the law in such a way, that each resident is guaranteed equity t 0 all. T0
guarantee equity t0 all the idea 0f gr0ups 0f translati0n was explained. These are the principles
which are devel0ped f0r deciding the genuine g0al 0f the lawmaking b0dy.
It isn't fundamental that the w0rds utilized in a rule are in every case clear, express and
unambigu0us and acc0rdingly, in such cases it is basic f 0r c0urts t0 decide a reas0nable and
unequiv0cal significance 0f the w0rds 0r expressi0ns utilized by the c0uncil and simultane0usly
expel all the questi0ns assuming any. Hencef0rth, all the guidelines referenced in the article are
significant f0r giving equity.
17 | P a g e
REFERENCE
[Link]
statutes-by-nishita-kap00r/ [Accessed at June 3rd 2020]
www.itat0nline.0rg/articles_new/[Link]/interpretati0n-0f-statutes-
a-treatise. [Accessed at June 3rd 2020]
[Link]
law/c0ntent-secti0n-6.2 [Accessed at June 3rd 2020]
[Link]
[Accessed at June 4th 2020]
[Link]
[Accessed at June 4th 2020]
[Link]
law/critical-analysis-0f-the-literal-g0lden-and-mischief-rule-law-
[Link] [Accessed at June 4th 2020]
18 | P a g e
