STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
AND CONSTRUCTION –
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
SIDDHANT SINGH
213177033816
VIII – “D”
INTEPRETATION
OF STATUTES
TO: CHHABI OJHA
ABSTRACT: Statutes are “will or intention of the Legislature”. Every statutes enacted by
the Legislature is to give relief from any mischief which existed in society. Neither statutes
can be perfect or universal for very different circumstances of the every case. So, here the
Judiciary has duty to interpret the statues for the betterment of society and the justice would
prevail.
Introduction
The interpretation of laws is confined to courts of law. In course of time, courts have evolved
a large and elaborate body of rules to guide them in construing or interpreting laws. Most of
them have been collected in books on interpretation of statutes and the draftsman would be
well advised to keep these in mind in drafting Acts. Some Interpretation Acts, like the
Canadian one, lay down that every Act shall be deemed remedial and shall accordingly
receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the
attainment of the object of the Act according to its true intent, meaning and spirit. The object
of all such rules or principles as aforesaid broadly speaking, is to ascertain the true intent,
meaning and spirit of every statute. A statute is designed to be workable, and the
interpretation thereof by a court should be to secure that object, unless crucial omission or
clear direction makes that unattainable.
Interpretation1: The activity of determining the linguistic meaning (or semantic content) of a
legal text.
Construction2: The activity of translating the semantic content of a legal text into legal rules.
1
https://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2009/02/legal-theory-lexicon-interpretation-and-construction.html (last
visited on 19/04/2020)
2
Ibid.
Interpretation meaning3
The term has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’, which means to explain,
expound, understand, or to translate. Interpretation is the process of explaining, expounding
and translating any text or anything in written form. This basically involves an act of
discovering the true meaning of the language which has been used in the statute. Various
sources used are only limited to explore the written text and clarify what exactly has been
indicated by the words used in the written text or the statutes.
Interpretation of statutes is the correct understanding of the law. 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. It is also used for ascertaining the actual connotation of any
Act or document with the actual intention of the legislature.
There can be mischief in the statute which is required to be cured, and this can be done by
applying various norms and theories of interpretation which might go against the literal
meaning at times. The purpose behind interpretation is to clarify the meaning of the words
used in the statutes which might not be that clear.
3
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1675&context=facpub (last visited on
20/04/2020)
According to Salmond, “Interpretation” is the process by which the court seeks to ascertain
the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is
expressed.
Construction meaning4
In simple words, construction is the process of drawing conclusions of the subjects which are
beyond the direct expression of the text. The courts draw findings after analysing the
meaning of the words used in the text or the statutes. This process is known as legal
exposition. There are a certain set of facts pending before the court and construction is the
application of the conclusion of these facts.
The objective is to assist the judicial body in determining the real intention of the legislature.
Its aim is also to ascertain the legal effect of the legal text.
Classification of Statutes
Codified statutory law can be categorized as follows-
Codifying statutes
4
Supra note 3
The purpose of this kind of statute is to give an authoritative statement of the rules of the law
on a particular subject, which is customary laws. For example- The Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and The Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Consolidating statutes
This kind of statute covers and combines all law on a particular subject at one place which
was scattered and lying at different places. Here, the entire law is constituted in one
place. For example- Indian Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure.
Declaratory statutes
This kind of statute does an act of removing doubts, clarifying and improving the law based
on the interpretation given by the court, which might not be suitable from the point of view of
the parliament. For example- the definition of house property has been amended under the
Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985 through the judgement of the supreme court.
Remedial statutes
Granting of new remedies for enforcing one’s rights can be done through the remedial
statutes. The purpose of these kinds of statutes is to promote the general welfare for bringing
social reforms through the system. These statutes have liberal interpretation and thus, are not
interpreted through strict means. For example- The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, The
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 etc.
Enabling statutes
The purpose of this statute is to enlarge a particular common law. For example- Land
Acquisition Act enables the government to acquire the public property for the purpose of the
public, which is otherwise not permissible.
Disabling statutes
It is the opposite of what is provided under the enabling statute. Here the rights conferred by
common law are being cut down and are being restrained.
Penal statutes
The offences for various types of offences are provided through these statutes, and these
provisions have to be imposed strictly. For example- Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Taxing statutes
Tax is a form of revenue which is to be paid to the government. It can either be on income
that an individual earns or on any other transaction. A taxing statute thus, levies taxes on all
such transactions. There can be income tax, wealth tax, sales tax, gift tax, etc. Therefore, a
tax can be levied only when it has been specifically expressed and provided by any statute.
Explanatory statutes
The term explanatory itself indicates that this type of statute explains the law and rectifies
any omission left earlier in the enactment of the statutes. Further, ambiguities in the text are
also clarified and checked upon the previous statutes.
Amending statutes
The statutes which operate to make changes in the provisions of the enactment to change the
original law for making an improvement therein and for carrying out the provisions
effectively for which the original law was passed are referred to as amending
statutes. e.g.- Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 amended the code of 1898.
Repealing statutes
A repealing statute is one which terminates an earlier statute and may be done in the express
or explicit language of the statute. For example- Competition Act, 2002 repealed the MRTP
Act.
Curative or repealing statutes
Through these statutes, certain acts which would otherwise be illegal are validated by curing
the illegality and enables a particular line of action.
Rules of Interpretation
Literal or Grammatical Rule
It is the first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the words used in this text are to be
given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. After the interpretation, if the
meaning is completely clear and unambiguous then the effect shall be given to a provision of
a statute regardless of what may be the consequences.
The basic rule is that whatever the intention legislature had while making any provision it has
been expressed through words and thus, are to be interpreted according to the rules of
grammar. It is the safest rule of interpretation of statutes because the intention of the
legislature is deduced from the words and the language used.
According to this rule, the only duty of the court is to give effect if the language of the statute
is plain and has no business to look into the consequences which might arise. The only
obligation of the court is to expound the law as it is and if any harsh consequences arise then
the remedy for it shall be sought and looked out by the legislature.
Case Laws
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay5
In this case, the appellant, a citizen of India after arriving at the airport did not declare that he
was carrying gold with him. During his search was carried on, gold was found in his
possession as it was against the notification of the government and was confiscated
under section 167(8) of Sea Customs Act.
Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act,
1947. The appellant challenged this trial to be violative under Article 20(2) of the Indian
Constitution. According to this article, no person shall be punished or prosecuted more than
once for the same offence. This is considered as double jeopardy.
It was held by the court that the Seas Act neither a court nor any judicial tribunal. Thus,
accordingly, he was not prosecuted earlier. Hence, his trial was held to be valid.
Manmohan Das vs. Bishan Das6
The issue in the case was regarding the interpretation of section 3(1) (c) of U.P Control of
Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. In this case, a tenant was liable for evidence if he has made
addition and alternate in the building without proper authority and unauthorized perception as
materially altered the accommodation or is likely to diminish its value. The appellant stated
that only the constitution can be covered, which diminishes the value of the property and the
word ‘or’ should be read as land.
It was held that as per the rule of literal interpretation, the word ‘or’ should be given the
meaning that a prudent man understands the grounds of the event are alternative and not
combined.
5
1953 AIR 325, 1953 SCR 730
6
AIR 1967 SC 643
State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others7
In this case a person was caught along with the counterfeit currency “dollars” and he was
charged under section 120B, 498A, 498C and 420 read with section 511 and 34 of Indian
Penal Code for possessing counterfeit currency. The accused contended before the court that
a charge under section 498A and 498B of Indian Penal Code can only be levied in the case of
counterfeiting of Indian currency notes and not in the case of counterfeiting of foreign
currency notes. The court held that the word currency notes or bank note cannot be prefixed.
The person was held liable to be charge-sheeted.
The Mischief Rule
Mischief Rule was originated in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is the rule of purposive
construction because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying this rule. It
is known as Heydon’s rule because it was given by Lord Poke in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is
called as mischief rule because the focus is on curing the mischief.
In the Heydon’s case, it was held that there are four things which have to be followed for true
and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as follows-
What was the common law before the making of an act.
What was the mischief for which the present statute was enacted.
What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved and appointed to cure the disease of
the commonwealth.
The true reason of the remedy.
The purpose of this rule is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
Case laws
Smith v. Huges8
In this case around the 1960s, the prostitutes were soliciting in the streets of London and it
was creating a huge problem in London. This was causing a great problem in maintaining law
7
1987 AIR 33 SCR(1) 317
8
1960 WLR 830
and order. To prevent this problem, Street Offences Act, 1959 was enacted. After the
enactment of this act, the prostitutes started soliciting from windows and balconies.
Further, the prostitutes who were carrying on to solicit from the streets and balconies were
charged under section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that they were not
solicited from the streets.
The court held that although they were not soliciting from the streets yet the mischief
rule must be applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall look into this issue.
Thus, by applying this rule, the court held that the windows and balconies were taken to be an
extension of the word street and charge sheet was held to be correct.
Pyarali K. Tejani vs Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange9
The accused in this case, was prosecuted for selling the sweeten supari which was sweetened
with the help of an artificial sweetener. He was prosecuted under the Food Adulteration Act.
It was contended by Pyare Lal that supari is not a food item. The court held that the
dictionary meaning is not always the correct meaning, thereby, the mischief rule must be
applicable, and the interpretation which advances the remedy shall be taken into
consideration. Therefore, the court held that the word ‘food’ is consumable by mouth and
orally. Thus, his prosecution was held to be valid.
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration10
Issues of the case were as follows- section 418 of Delhi Corporation Act, 1902 authorised the
corporation to round up the cattle grazing on the government land. The MCD rounded up the
cattle belonging to Kanwar Singh. The words used in the statute authorised the corporation to
round up the abandoned cattle. It was contended by Kanwar Singh that the word abandoned
means the loss of ownership and those cattle which were round up belonged to him and
hence, was not abandoned. The court held that the mischief rule had to be applied and the
word abandoned must be interpreted to mean let loose or left unattended and even
the temporary loss of ownership would be covered as abandoned.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sri Krishna Manufacturing Company11
9
1974 AIR 228, 1974 SCR (2) 154
10
AIR 1965 SC 871
11
AIR 1962 SC 1526
Issue, in this Case, was that the respondent concerned was running a factory where four units
were for manufacturing. Out of these four units one was for paddy mill, other three consisted
of flour mill, saw mill and copper sheet units. The number of employees there were more
than 50. The RPFC applied the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 thereby
directing the factory to give the benefits to the employees.
The person concerned segregated the entire factory into four separate units wherein the
number of employees had fallen below 50, and he argued that the provisions were not
applicable to him because the number is more than 50 in each unit. It was held by the court
that the mischief rule has to be applied and all the four units must be taken to be one industry,
and therefore, the applicability of PFA was upheld.
The Golden Rule
It is known as the golden rule because it solves all the problems of interpretation. The rule
says that to start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the interpretation given
through the literal rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity, injustice, inconvenience,
hardship, inequity, then in all such events the literal meaning shall be discarded and
interpretation shall be done in such a manner that the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled.
The literal rule follows the concept of interpreting the natural meaning of the words used in
the statute. But if interpreting natural meaning leads to any sought of repugnance, absurdity
or hardship, then the court must modify the meaning to the extent of injustice or absurdity
caused and no further to prevent the consequence.
This rule suggests that the consequences and effects of interpretation deserve a lot more
important because they are the clues of the true meaning of the words used by the legislature
and its intention. At times, while applying this rule, the interpretation done may entirely be
opposite of the literal rule, but it shall be justified because of the golden rule. The
presumption here is that the legislature does not intend certain objects. Thus, any such
interpretation which leads to unintended objects shall be rejected.
Case laws
Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh12
12
AIR 1955 SC 850
In this case, there was an issue with regard to issuing of the notice under section 99 of
Representation of People’s Act, 1951, with regard to corrupt practices involved in the
election.
According to the rule, the notice shall be issued to all those persons who are a party to the
election petition and at the same time to those who are not a party to it. Tirath Singh
contended that no such notice was issued to him under the said provision. The notices were
only issued to those who were non-parties to the election petition. This was challenged to be
invalid on this particular ground.
The court held that what is contemplated is giving of the information and the information
even if it is given twice remains the same. The party to the petition is already having the
notice regarding the petition, therefore, section 99 shall be so interpreted by applying the
golden rule that notice is required against non-parties only.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company, AIR 1967 SC 276, Issues of the
case are as follows.
A transporting company was carrying a parcel of apples was challenged and charge-sheeted.
The truck of the transporting company was impounded as the parcel contained opium along
with the apples. At the same time, the invoice shown for the transport consisted of apples
only.
Section 11 of the opium act 1878, all the vehicles which transport the contraband articles
shall be impounded and articles shall be confiscated. It was confiscated by the transport
company that they were unaware of the fact that opium was loaded along with the apples in
the truck.
The court held that although the words contained in section 11 of the said act provided that
the vehicle shall be confiscated but by applying the literal rule of interpretation for this
provision it is leading to injustice and inequity and therefore, this interpretation shall be
avoided. The words ‘shall be confiscated’ should be interpreted as ‘may be confiscated’.
State of Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum13, a period of limitation was prescribed for, under
section 18 of land acquisition act, 1844, that an appeal shall be filed for the announcement of
the award within 6 months of the announcement of the compensation. Award was passed in
13
AIR 1963 SC 1604
the name of Quiser Jehan. It was intimated to her after the period of six months about this by
her counsel. The appeal was filed beyond the period of six months. The appeal was rejected
by the lower courts.
It was held by the court that the period of six months shall be counted from the time when
Quiser Jehan had the knowledge because the interpretation was leading to absurdity. The
court by applying the golden rule allowed the appeal.
Harmonious Construction14
According to this rule of interpretation, when two or more provisions of the same statute are
repugnant to each other, then in such a situation the court, if possible, will try to construe the
provisions in such a manner as to give effect to both the provisions by maintaining harmony
between the two. The question that the two provisions of the same statute are overlapping or
mutually exclusive may be difficult to determine.
The legislature clarifies its intention through the words used in the provision of the statute.
So, here the basic principle of harmonious construction is that the legislature could not have
tried to contradict itself. In the cases of interpretation of the Constitution, the rule of
harmonious construction is applied many times.
It can be assumed that if the legislature has intended to give something by one, it would not
intend to take it away with the other hand as both the provisions have been framed by the
legislature and absorbed the equal force of law. One provision of the same act cannot make
the other provision useless. Thus, in no circumstances, the legislature can be expected to
contradict itself.
The Supreme Court laid down five principles of rule of Harmonious Construction in the
landmark case of CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers:
1. The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must
construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.
2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in another
unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences.
When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the
14
http://ijlljs.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Harmonious-Construction.pdf (last visited on 19/04/2020)
courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given to both the provisions as
much as possible.
3. Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless
number or dead is not harmonious construction.
To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.
Cases
Ishwari Khaitan Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh15
In this case, the State Government proposed to acquire sugar industries under U.P Sugar
Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. This was challenged on the ground that these sugar
industries were declared to be a controlled one by the union under Industries (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1951. And accordingly, the state did not have the power of acquisition
of requisition of property which was under the control of the union. The Supreme Court held
that the power of acquisition was not occupied by Industries (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1951. The state had a separate power under Entry 42 List III.
M.S.M Sharma v. Krishna Sinha16
Facts of the case are as follows- Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution provides for freedom of
speech and expression. Article 194(3) provides to the Parliament for punishing for its
contempt and it is known as the Parliamentary Privilege. In this case, an editor of a
newspaper published the word -for- word record of the proceedings of the Parliament
including those portions which were expunged from the record. He was called for the breach
of parliamentary privilege.
He contended that he had a fundamental right to speech and expression. It was held by the
court that article 19(1) (a) itself talks about reasonable freedom and therefore freedom of
speech and expression shall pertain only to those portions which have not been expunged on
the record but not beyond that.
Calcutta Gas Company Pvt. Limited v State of West Bengal17
15
1980 AIR 1955, 1980 SCR (3) 331
16
AIR 1959 SC 395
17
1962 AIR 1044, 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 1
The Legislative Assembly of WB passed the Oriental Gas Company Act in 1960. The
respondent sought to take over the management of the Gas Company under this Act. The
appellant challenged the validity of this act by holding that the state Legislative Assembly
had no power to pass such an under Entries 24 and 25 of the State List because the Parliament
had already enacted the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 under Entry 52
of the Central List dealing with industries. It was observed by the Supreme Court that there
are so many subjects in three lists in the Constitution that there is bound to be some
overlapping and it is the duty of the courts in such situation is to yet to harmonise them, if
possible, so the effect can be given to each of them. Entry 24 of the State List covers entire
Industries in the State. Entry 25 is only limited to the Gas industry. Therefore Entry 24 covers
every industry barring the Gas Industries because it has been specifically covered under Entry
25. Corresponding to Entry 24 of the State List, there is Entry 52 in the Union List.
Therefore, by harmonious construction it became clear that gas industry was exclusively
covered by Entry 25 of the State List over which the state has full control. Therefore, the state
was fully competent to make laws in this regard.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP v. Radhakrishnan18
Under section 46 (1) c of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, criminal
prosecution of the respondent partners was sanctioned in this case by the Commissioner when
even after repeated demands the assesse did not pay the sales tax. The respondent challenged
this provision on the ground that there were two separate provisions under the Act, namely,
section 22 (4 – A) and section 46 (1) c under which two different procedures were prescribed
to realize the amount due but there was no provision of law which could tell that which
provision should be applied in which case. According to the Supreme Court, the provision
prescribed u/s 46 (1) c was more drastic. It was held that by harmonious construction of these
two provisions, the conclusion drawn is that the Commissioner had a judicial discretion to
decide as to which procedure to be followed in which case. Whenever the Commissioner will
fail to act judicially, the court will have the right to intervene. However, in this case, the
Commissioner had correctly decided that the more drastic procedure under section 46 (1) c
deserved to be followed because of the failure of the assesse firm in paying sales tax despite
the repeated demands by the sales tax officer.
18
1979 AIR 1588, 1979 SCC (2) 249
Rule of Beneficial Construction
Beneficent construction involves giving the widest meaning possible to the statutes. When
there are two or more possible ways of interpreting a section or a word, the meaning which
gives relief and protects the benefits which are purported to be given by the legislation,
should be chosen. A beneficial statute has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to
fructify the legislative intent. Although beneficial legislation does receive liberal
interpretation, the courts try to remain within the scheme and not extend the benefit to those
not covered by the scheme. It is also true that once the provision envisages the conferment of
benefit limited in point of time and subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, their non-
compliance will have the effect of nullifying the benefit. There should be due stress and
emphasis to Directive Principles of State Policy and any international convention on the
subject.
There is no set principle of construction that a beneficial legislation should always be
retrospectively operated although such legislation such legislation is either expressly or by
necessary intendment not made retrospective. Further, the rule of interpretation can only be
resorted to without doing any violence to the language of the statute. In case of any exception
when the implementation of the beneficent act is restricted the Court would construe it
narrowly so as not to unduly expand the area or scope of exception. The liberal construction
can only flow from the language of the act and there cannot be placing of unnatural
interpretation on the words contained in the enactment. Also, beneficial construction does not
permit rising of any presumption that protection of widest amplitude must be deemed to have
been conferred on those for whose benefit the legislation may have been enacted.
Beneficial Construction – A tendency rather than a rule
It is said by Maxwell, that Beneficial Construction is a tendency and not a rule. The reason is
that this principle is based on human tendency to be fair, accommodating, and just. Instead of
restricting the people from getting the benefit of the statute, Court tends to include as many
classes as it can while remaining faithful to the wordings of the statute. For example, in the
case of Alembic Chemical Works v Workman, an industrial tribunal awarded more number
of paid leaves to the workers than what Section 79(1) of Factories Act recommended. This
was challenged by the appellant. SC held that the enactment being welfare legislation for the
workers, it had to be beneficially constructed in the favor of worker and thus, if the words are
capable of two meanings, the one that gives benefit to the workers must be used.
When a statute is meant for the benefit of a specific class, and if a word in the statute is
capable of two meanings, one which would preserve the benefits and one which would not,
then the meaning that would preserve the benefits must be adopted and shall be followed by
the court of law. It is important to note that omissions will not be supplied by the court. Only
when multiple meanings are possible, can the court shall pick the beneficial one. Thus, where
the court has to choose between a wider mean that carries out the objective of the legislature
better and a narrow meaning, then it usually chooses the former meaning carrying out the
objective of the legislation. Similarly, when the language used by the legislature fails to
achieve the objective of a statute, an extended meaning could be given to it to achieve that
objective, if the language is fairly susceptible to the extended meaning.
Strict Construction of Penal Statutes
The general rule for the construction of a penal statute is that it would be strictly interpreted,
that is, if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the
Court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than
the one which imposes a penalty. A penal statute has to be construed narrowly in favour of
the person proceeded against. This rule implies a preference for the liberty of the subject, in
case of ambiguity in the language of the provision. The courts invariably follow the principle
of strict construction in penal statutes. In constructing a penal Act, if a reasonable
interpretation in a particular case can avoid the penalty the Court adopts that construction.
Key Differences between Interpretation and Construction
The difference between interpretation and construction can be drawn clearly on the following
grounds:
In law, interpretation refers to, understanding the words and true sense in the provisions of
the statute. On the other hand, construction is described as drawing conclusions, in relation to
the case, that lie beyond the outright expression of the legal text.
While interpretation is all about the linguistic meaning of the legal text, Construction
determines the legal effect of the words and writings of the statute.
When the simple meaning of the legal text is to be drawn, then that will be called an
interpretation. Conversely, when the literal meaning of the words used in the legal text results
in ambiguity, then construction is opted, so as to decide whether the case is covered by it or
not.
Interpretation Construction
In law, interpretation refers to exposing the true Construction, on the other hand, refers to drawing
sense of the provisions of the statutes and to conclusions from the written texts which are
understand the exact meaning of the words used in beyond the outright expression of the legal text.
any text.
The purpose of construction is to determine the
Interpretation refers to the linguistic meaning of the legal effect of words and the written text of the
legal text. statute.
In the case where the simple meaning of the text is to In the case where the literal meaning of the legal
be adopted then the concept of interpretation is being text results in ambiguity then the concept of
referred to. construction is adopted.
Comparison Chart
BASIS FOR
INTERPRETATION CONSTRUCTION
COMPARISON
Meaning Interpretation implies the Construction means drawing inferences
identification of true sense of about the subject, that are above the
the statute. direct expression of text.
Determines Linguistic meaning Legal effect
Used when Court complies with simple Legal text exhibits ambiguous meaning
meaning of the legal text. and the court has to decide whether the
words used in the legal text covers the
case or not.
CONCLUSION:
When it comes to the legal exposition of the statute, act or any agreement, interpretation
precedes construction. While the interpretation of the statute, is all about exploring the
written text, whereas construction is used in the broader sense, i.e. it not only helps in
determining the sense and explanation of the provisions of the act but also elucidates its legal
effect.
References
1. Gray Nature and Sources of Law, 176 (EDN. 2)
2. P. J. Fitzgerald, “Salmond on Jurisprudence”. Universal Law Publication, EDN.12, 2008.
3. Singh, Avtar. “Interpretation of Statutes”. Gurgaon: LexisNexis Publication, EDN.4, 2015.
4.https://www.academia.edu/42839757/Virtuous_Adjudication_or_the_Relevance_of_Judicia
l_Character_to_Legal_Interpretation
5.https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/the-interpretation-of-statute-
constitutional-law-essay.php
6.https://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2009/02/legal-theory-lexicon-interpretation-and-
construction.html
