INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Overview:-
Jurisprudence Theories of Law & Justice

Introduction of IOS Need/Scope/Purpose/Principles/Classification

Primary Literal/Golden/Mischief/Harmonious
Rules of Interpretation
I.O.S. & its Application Secondary Non-Obstante Clause/ Legal Fiction/
Mandatory & Directive Proviso/
Conjunctive & Disjunctive Words
Maxims & Presumption Of
Statutory Interpretation

Interpretation Of Subject Matter Penal/Tax/Constitutional/General Clause Act

In Reference To Statutes

Aids To Interpretation Internal Aids

External Aids
 Society: Morality, Ethics, Justice, Righteousness, etc
Legislature: Rules, Regulation, Statutes, Ordinances, etc
Judiciary: Order/Decree/Judgments, Rulings/Writs
Definitions:-
 Salmond – “the law may be defined as the body of principles recognized and applied by
the state in the administration of Justice”
 Austin – “A law is command which obliges a person or persons to a course of conduct.”
THEORY OF LAW
Natural Theory Of Law:- Law as the dictate by Devin/Nature: It suggests that law as not
formed by human beings, it is rather something that the nature provides us with in the form of
ethics, morality, and the ability to judge whether any act is right or wrong. Criticism: Ethics &
morality differ from one person to another making the laws differ on a subjective basis.
Positive Theory of Law/Imperative Law: Law as the command of the sovereign that is
backed by sanction. Criticism:- law has existed before the existence of states and sovereigns.
Realist Theory of Law/Legal Realism: Law as the practice of the Court. Law is a product of
judgements of judges by their social, economic and contextual influences. Criticism:- It is
exclusively based on litigation but ignore the other circumstances which do not warrant court
interference. Further, different judges would use different approaches to deliver justice in their
best knowledge, hence interpretation varies subjectively.
 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE & FUNCTION OF LAW?
Law was established to maintain order. If people were to let loose without any restrictions
and limitations that correspond to unfair or immoral practices, the society would be in chaos.
Human behavior needs to be regulated in order for civilizations to exist. Further, law sets the
standards of code of conduct and etiquettes that would be the minimum requirements in
order to be part of a society or community.
Thus, laws perform various functions. One of the most accurate functions of law were
stated by ROSCOE POND, who treated LAW AS A SPECIES OF SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
According to him the Major Functions of law:
1) Maintenance of Law & Order in society; RULE OF LAW
AV DICEY in his work Introduction To The Study
2) Protection of Fundamental Rights;
Of The Law Of The Constitution has given four
3) To ensure maximum freedom of individuals; features of Rule Of Law.
4) To satisfy the basic needs of the people; 1) No one should be punished except for breach of
5) Control of Political System; law.
6) The regulations of economic activity; 2) The law should not discriminate against persons
7) Regulations of human relations; & and apply equally to ordinary citizens and
8) International relations. government officials.
3) There must be certainty of punishment when law
is broken.
4) Rights and liberties of individual should be
embodied in the ‘ordinary law’ of the land.
 SOURCE OF LAW

FORMAL MATERIAL

HISTORICAL LEGAL

JUDICIAL PRECEDENT CUSTOM/RELIGION

LEGISLATION

SUPREME SUBORDINATE
LEGISLATION LEGISLATION

EXECUTIVE MUNICIPAL JUDICIAL AUTONOMOUS

 AUTHORITIES OF LAW MAKINGS
Separation Of Powers
LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE JUDICIARY
Make Implement Enforce & Interpret

Advantage of Law Disadvantage of Law

1) Uniformity & Certainty; 1) Rigidity;

2) Reliability; 2) Conservation;

3) Protection against improper motive of 3) Formality; &

judges; &
4) Complexity.
4) Freedom from errors of individual
judgments .
THEORY OF JUSTICE A system of fair & equal rights, freedoms & opportunities for all in society.
TYPES OF JUSTICE

LEGAL
SOCIAL POLITICAL ECONOMIC JUSTICE
JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE
It refers to the rule of law,
It provide all individuals with not the rule of any
It is defined as the equality All individuals have
equivalent political rights & individual. It states that all
of all persons in a society, suitable opportunities to
chances to participate in the men are equal before the
with no discrimination on make a livelihood and get
administration of their law and that the law applies
the grounds of faith, caste, fair wages, enabling them
respective countries. Citizens equally to all.
creed, colour, sex, or to satisfy their basic
should be free to vote without It ensures that everyone is
status. necessities while also
fear of being discriminated protected by the law. The
assisting them in their
against on the basis of religion, law makes no distinction
Example: Article 15 growth and advancement.
race, class, creed, gender, place between the wealthy and the
Example: Article 19(1)(g)
of birth, or social standing. destitute.
39 & Part XIII 301 – 307
Example: Article 15 - 19 Example: Article 14 to 18
 Dwarkin's Rights Thesis: He emphasizes the importance of the rights of the individuals.
 Utilitarian Theory Of Justice: Bentham claims that a law should be enacted with the prime object of providing
maximum justice to the maximum number of people.
 Amartya Sen's Theory Of Justice: A law should be enacted understanding the needs of the society and should be
based on demand of justice.
 Gandhian Theory of Justice: The concept of Lok Adalat based on the principles of truth, equality and social justice.
 Rawl's Theory of Justice: Justice is the first virtue of social institution
 Indian Constitution: Preamble defines the terms Justice, Liberty, Equality among the Other feature.
 JOHN RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE
John Bordley Rawls was an American Moral & Political Philosopher. UTILITARIANISM
He is best known for his political-philosophical publication “A Theory the greatest amount of good for
of Justice” (1971). the greatest number of people.
He was a firm opposer of Utilitarianism. As it covers the way for
governments to function in ways that bring happiness to a majority
but ignore the wishes and rights of a minority. Social Contract is a
hypothetical agreement between
Rawls’ theory of justice is largely influenced by the Social Contract the government & the people
Theory. He emphasized, the need for a state that is neutral between governed that defines
the various perspectives of values. their rights & duties.
He calls his conception “JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS.”
Accordingly, He proposed a hypothetical scenario where a group of people ignorant of their or others’
social, economic, physical, or mental factors come together to make laws for themselves.
The idea behind this hypothecation is that under such a circumstance, everyone will be virtually
equal. Rule-making will not be influenced by the self-centered desires of particular sections of society.
Then, there will be no hierarchy in the bargaining power within the collective idea of justice. Under this
state, there will also be equal sharing of burdens and benefits among all.
So, the theory of justice proposed by Rawls advocates for a system of rule-making that ignores the
social, economic, physical, or mental factors that differentiate the people in society.
 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE JOHN RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE:
 EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS INVIOLABLE:
• Any Individual should not be sacrificed for the sake of majority;
• An Act of injustice is tolerable if & only if it is necessary to avoid greater act of injustice; &
• Individual liberties should be restricted in order to maintain equality of opportunity.
Apart form the principle & in addition to the same, Rawls introduced two basic principles of justice:

 JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS:
• Equal Liberty Principle: 1) Equal access to basic human needs; 2) Rights; & 3) Liberties.
• Difference Principle: 1) Idea of fair equality of opportunity & The equal distribution of
socio-economic inequalities.
To adopt this principles universally he suggested with his notion & explained the concept of
WELL-ORDERED SOCIETY:
• Original Position: It’s a through of expression whereby the parties have the choice to select
the principles of justice that are to govern the basic structure of society.
• Veil Of Ignorance: It’s an unbiased position, the Individuals hide their identity without
influence of their sex, race, natural abilities, social status, economic conditions and the like
to promote the justice in the interest of society at a large.
“to give meaning to” INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES “Act or Will of the Legislature”

C.K. Alien – “A Statute is the highest constitutional

Interpretation is a process to ascertain the real &
formulation of law, the means by which the
true meaning & legislative intent of a particular word
supreme legislature, after the fullest deliberation
or provision used in the statute, which was unclear
expresses its final will.”
& vague.
Classification of Statutes:
Crawford – “Interpretation is the art of finding out the
1) Duration :
true sense of word.”
 Temporary or Permanent/Perpetual
Cross – “Interpretation is the process by which the 2) Nature of Operation:
court determine the meaning of a statutory provision  Prospective or Retrospective
for the purpose of applying it to the situation before  Mandatory or Directory
them” 3) Objective:
 Codifying & Consolidating;
Ideally, it is the duty of the court to interpret the Act  Declaratory;
& lay to give meaning to each words of the statute.  Remedial;
 Enabling or Disabling;
Object/Purpose or Necessity of Interpretation:  Penal;
1) To find out the intention of the legislature; &  Taxing;
2) To remove ambiguity.  Explanatory;
3) Achieving the purpose for which the statute was  Amending;
brought into force:  Repealing; &
 Curative or Validating
 RBI V/s. Peerless General Financial & Investment Co. (AIR1987SC1023)
The Object of all interpretation is to ascertain & give effect to intention of the Legislation expressed or
implied the intention can be ascertained only from the actual used in the text of the statute. The text
of statute must be read as a whole & in its context. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it
was enacted & that interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the
contextual.
 UOI V/s. Filip Tiago De Gama [1990(1)SCC277]
“The paramount object in statutory interpretation is to discover what the legislature intended. This
intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of enactment in question.”
 Jharkhand V/s. Govind Singh (2005(10)SCC437)
“When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to
only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. ”
 State of West Bengal V/s. Kesaram India Ltd (2004)
Interpretation of the statue is the exclusive privilege of the Constitutional Court
 Prakash Kumar V/s. State of Gujarat (2005)
Jurisdiction of the court to interpret a statue can be invoked only in case of ambiguity.
 T. N. Electricity Board V/s. Status Spg. Mills Ltd. (2008)
Court has the last say in the interpretation of the statue
 Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. V/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
After parliament has enacted the Act only the Court may say what parliament mean to say.
“to give meaning to” Interpretation & Construction “to draw meaning of”

Both terms are generally used interchangeably, but these two terms have different connotations.
 The Cardinal Law Of Interpretation is that if  The Cardinal Rule Of Construction of a statute
the language is simple and unambiguous, it is to is to read it literally, which means by giving to the
be read with the clear intention of the with the words used by the legislature their ordinary,
clear intention of legislation. natural and grammatical.
Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax V/s. H. Begum (1989 SCR (1) 155)
 It is a process by which the true sense or  Every act or deed is construed using the ordinary
meaning of the word is understood & hence it is words hence it is question of law
NOT a question of law
 It does not lies within the letter of law as it
 It lies within the letter of law as it depend upon depends upon the inference which lies in the spirit
the spirit of law
 It involves the drawing of conclusion regarding
 It aim to ascertain the true sense of words used subjects that are not always included in the direct
in a statute. expression.

Bhagwati Prasad Kedia V/s. C.I.T (2001 (248) ITR 562 Cal)
Where the Court adheres to the plain meaning of the language used by the legislature, it would be
‘interpretation’ of the words, but where the meaning is not plain, the court has to decide whether the
wording was meant to cover the situation before the court. Here the court would be resorting to what is
called ‘construction’.
 GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF INTERPRETATION
When there is an actual When its purpose is
rule of law which binds to discover
the Judge to place a ‘real’ & ‘true’ meaning
LEGAL DOCTRINAL of the statute.
certain interpretation of
the statute.

AUTHENTIC USUAL GRAMMATICAL LOGICAL

Rule of It comes from some Applies only the ordinary When the court goes
Interpretation is other source such rules of speech for finding beyond the words and
derived from the as custom or case out the meaning of the tries to discover the
legislator himself law words used in the statute. intention of the statute

Strict Construction states

Liberal construction indicates CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION
that each word in legislation
that the interpretation must
must be interpreted letter by
be liberal in order to advance
letter, and the interpretation
the legislation or accomplish
LIBERAL STRICT must not go beyond the scope
the legislation’s purpose.
of the statute
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES & RULES OF INTERPRETATION
Interpretation of Statutes is required for TWO BASIC REASONS:-
 Legislative Language – It may be complicated for a layman, and hence may require interpretation; &
 Legislative Intent – The intention of the legislature or Legislative intent integrates two aspects:
a) The concept of ‘Meaning’, i.e., what the word/letter means; and
b) The concept of ‘Purpose’ & ‘Object’ or the ‘Reason’ or ‘Spirit’ pervading through the statute.
Principles Of Interpretation: The fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is that the words of a
statute be read in their entire context & in their grammatical & ordinary sense harmoniously with the
scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of the legislature.
 Predominance of Legislative Intent: Significant of the Legislature Intention.
 Ex Visceribus Actus : Statute must be read as a whole in its Context.
 A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendem : One must not vary the words of a Statute.
 Raghunath Bareja V/s. PNB (2007): Language used for words & provision the statue is determinative
factor of legislative intent.
 Rajkot Municipal corporation V/s. Manjulaben Nikum (1997): While determining the legislative
intuition Three factors should be consider : 1) The context & object of the Statue; 2) Nature & precise
scope of the relevant provision; & 3) The damage suffered not of the kind to be guarded.
 State Of West Bengal V/s. UOI (1964): SC observed that to determine the intent of the legislature,
only a particular section of the statute not only see but the whole statute should be read to determine
the true intention and to discover that purposes of the legislature.
 Bhavnagar University V/s. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Air 2003 – SC opined that one of the
basic principles of the construction of the statute is that it should be read as a whole, then chapter,
section by section, and word by word.
 Darshan Singh V/s. State of Punjab: Word & phrases occurring in a statue are to be taken not in an
isolation or detached manner dissociated from the context, but are to be read together and construed
in the light of the purpose and object of the Act itself.

 Literal Or Grammatical Rule of Interpretation: The Primary Rule: Plain Meaning Rule:

Literal Interpretation = Letter of Law : Legislative Intent

Salmond
Functional Interpretation = Spirit of Law : Object/Purpose of Statute.
• It is first fundamental principle of interpretation which say that the words of the statute are first
understood in their natural, popular and/or ordinary meaning.
• If the meaning of such statute is clear and unambiguous then the effect should be given to the provision
whatever may be the consequences.
• It is the duty of the court to find out the intension of the legislature while interpreting the law.
• The courts are bound by the legislature and once any legislature has expressed its intention in clear
words they are binding unless there arise any ambiguity.
• The objective of the rules used by the court is to interpret the law while keeping in mind the intension of
the legislature. Therefore, if the words are clear in a legislature they should be applied even though their
intention may be different or the result is harsh or undesirable.
• The focus should be on what the law says rather than what the law means.
 Natural, Popular and/or Ordinary Meaning;
Aspect of the Literal Rule of  Explanation of Secondary Meaning;
Interpretation  Exact Meaning Preferred to the Lose Meaning; &
 Technical Word in Technical Senses,
 State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar (AIR2005SC2265): One of the basic principles of
interpretation of Statutes is to construe them according to plain, literal and grammatical meaning of the
words. If that is contrary to, or inconsistent with, any express intention or declared purpose of the
Statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must
then be modified, extended or abridged, so far as to avoid such an inconvenience, but no further.
 Municipal Board V/s. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan (AIR1965SC458): In this case the
location of a bus stand was changed by the Regional Transport Authority. An application could be
moved within 30 days of receipt of order of regional transport authority according to section 64A of the
Motor vehicles Act, 1939. The application was moved after 30 days on the contention that statute must
be read as “30 days from the knowledge of the order”. The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation
must be made and hence rejected the application as invalid.
 Kanai Lal Sur V/s. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan (AIR 1957 SC 907): The Supreme Court had observed
that the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of legislature must be found in the
words used by the legislature itself.
 Prithipal Singh V/s. UOI. (AIR1982SC1413): It was held that there is a presumption that the words
are used in act of parliament correctly and exactly and not loosely, wrongly & inaccurately.
 Ashwini Kumar Ghose V/s. Arabinda Bose (AIR1952SC369): In construing the word ‘PRACTICE’ in
the Supreme Court Advocates Act, 1951, it was observed that practice of law generally involves both
acting and pleading on behalf of a litigant party. When legislature confers upon an advocate the right to
practice in a court, it is to be understood as authorizing him to appear and plead as well as to act on
behalf of suitors in that court.
 Conditions Apply To The Literal Meaning:
1) A statute may allow for a special meaning for a term, which is normally found in the interpretation
section i.e., Definition clause of the Act;
2) If the statute does not provide otherwise, technical terms are given their ordinary technical
meaning;
3) By inference, no words will be added;
4) Word's meanings may shift over time; &
5) It's important to remember that the meaning of words is determined by their context.
LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
 The literal rule can lead to unreasonable decision
 The literal rule enables the common man to
making.
understand the statue.
 It can create loopholes in the law.
 The intent of the legislature is simple and
 It can lead to injustice.
clear.
 It fails to injustice recognize the complexities and
 The literal rule respects the parliamentary
limitations of the English Language.
supremacy in administration of justice.
 The application of literal meaning in all situations
 Under literal rule the law is quite predictable.
and circumstances is not possible.
 It provides no scope for judges to use their own
 The rule expects standards of unattainable
opinions or prejudices.
perfection from the parliamentary draftsman.
 It gives Judges little discretion to adapt the low to
changing times.
 THE GOLDEN RULE British Rule : Rule of Reasonable/Logical Construction
Principles Of Interpretation: > Grey V/s. Pearson, 1857 (6) HLC 61
1) Same word to have same meaning, unless otherwise intended; &
2) Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat : Words of Statute must be construed so as to lead to a Sensible Meaning.
 It is the deviation from / modification of the Literal/Grammatical Rule of Interpretation. Ordinarily the
court must follow the true meaning of the word or law given in the statute but when such words used
in a statute by their natural or ordinarily meaning leads to unreasonable, ambiguity, injustice,
inconvenience, hardship, inequity or evasion 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.
 In other words, this rule provides flexibility in the interpretation process by permitting a Judge to apply
the most appropriate meaning by depart from the ordinary meaning of a word when interpreting it
would lead to an unreasonable result.
THE GOLDEN RULE
NARROW SENSE WIDE SENSE
Rule is applied to ambiguous words Rule is employed to avoid outcomes
with multiple possible meanings. that are contrary to public policy
 Ms. Eera Through Dr. Manjula V/s. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi), [AIR2017SC34577]: After
referring Grey V/s. Pearson, 1857, it is observed that “This celebrated passage has since come to
represent what has been described as the ‘Golden Rule’ of interpretation of statutes. The construction of a
clause in a Will was before the House of Lords and not the construction of a statute. Nevertheless, the
“Golden Rule” was held to cover the construction of Wills, Statutes and all other Written Instruments.”
 Lee V/s. Knapp [(1967)2QB442]: in this case, the interpretation of the word ‘stop’ was involved. Under
section 77 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 a driver causing accident shall stop after the accident. In
this case the driver stopped for a moment after causing an accident and then moved away. Applying the
golden rule the court held that requirement of the section had not been followed by the driver as he had
not stopped for a reasonable period requiring interested persons to make necessary inquiries from him
about the accident.
 R V/s. Allen [(1872)LR1CCR367]: In this case the defendant was charged under Sec. 57 of the
Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. The provision includes a person married shall marry any other
person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offense. The literal rule will not
be applicable because civil courts do not recognize second marriages. The golden rule was applied to
avoid ambiguity in the word marriage means to go through a ceremony of marriage.
 Fitzpatrick V. Sterling Housing Association Limited [(1999)4AllER705]: The House of Lords had
declined to allow same-sex partners to inherit statutory tenancies on the ground that they could not be
considered to be the ‘wife or husband’ of the deceased. The Appellate Court held that the Rent Act,
1977, as the House of Lords had constructed it in this case, was incompatible with the convention on
the grounds of its discriminatory treatment of surviving same-sex partners. The court applied the golden
rule and held that the incompatibility could be remedied by reading the words 'as his or her wife or
husband' as meaning 'as they were his wife or husband
 U. P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti V/s. Brij Kishore (AIR1988SC2239): In this case Section 14 of the U.P
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 had to be interpreted. This Section provided land for “landless person”. It was
interpreted as the “landless agricultural labourers” though the Section did not specify that such landless
persons should be agricultural labourers or whose source of livelihood should be agriculture; and
source of livelihood of those persons should not be trade and business
 State of Punjab V. Q.J. Begam [AIR1963SC1604]:According to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
1844, an appeal shall be filed for the announcement of the award within 6 months of the announcement
of the compensation. The court held that the period of limitation (6 months) is to be counted from the
time when the respondent knew because the literal interpretation was leading to absurdity.
 Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab [AIR2001SC2524], the phrase ‘abuse of his powers’ was
used in the expression ‘abuse of his powers or habitual failure to perform his duties’ in Section 22 of the
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The SC stated that to determine the meaning of the term not specified in
an enactment, courts follow the “Subject and Object Rule” which requires a thorough examination of the
topic of the law where the word appears and consideration of the legislature's intent. When choosing a
word from a list of possibilities, the context must always be considered. In this context, the term "abuse
of power" refers to an intentional abuse or a willful wrong. A legitimate but inaccurate exercise of
authority or inaction is not an abuse of power.
 V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State (2023SCCOnlineSC934) Cash for Job Scam Case: SC held that word “such
custody” occurring in Sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C 1973 would include not only police custody but also that of
other investigating agencies. Further by refereeing the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul V/s. State of
Assam, [(2017)15SCC67] the SC upheld that “While interpreting any statutory provision, it has always
been accepted as a Golden rule of Interpretation that the words used by the legislature should be given
their natural meaning. Normally, the courts should be hesitant to add words or subtract words from the
statutory provision. An effort should always be made to read the legislative provision in such a way that
there is no wastage of words and any construction which makes some words of the statute redundant
should be avoided. No doubt, if the natural meaning of the words leads to an interpretation which is
contrary to the objects of the Act or makes the provision unworkable or highly unreasonable and arbitrary,
then the courts either add words or subtract words or read down the statute, but this should only be done
when there is an ambiguity in the language used.”
 GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
 It allows the judge to choose the most sensible  There is no real guidelines as to when it can be
meaning where there is more than one used.
meaning to the words in the Act or Statute.
 A statute can be amended by the judges to override
 It gives the courts power to avoid absurdity the reading;
which aims to the extent of providing justice;
 It is unpredictable, and there are no rules for when
 It aims to avoid speedy amending legislation in and when to use the golden rule;
parliament;
 Judges can't undo past laws, and they can't even
 It helps to close the loopholes; amend the present ones;
 It provides a check on the strictness of the  The capacity of the Golden Rule is severely limited
literal rule; since the literal rule is to be applied first only in
instances when the literal rule generates an
 It respects parliamentary supremacy and
absurdity;
constitutional doctrines of separation of
powers;  There is no clear guideline on when the Golden
Rule should be implemented; each court may have
 It respects the laws and therefore the statutes
its unique viewpoint; what appears silly to one
that are formed by the parliament by applying
judge may not appear absurd to another;
the literal rule, the golden rule is to be applied
only there are an irrationality and  It only authorizes the judge to change the statute's
inconsistencies created by the Literal Rule of meaning in very specific circumstances.
Interpretation.
 Mischief Rule of Interpretation : Purposive Construction Rule
Mischief = “Voluntarily Cause Injury Or Loss To Someone”
 It is used to determine the exact scope of the “mischief” that the statute in question has set out to
remedy, and to guide the court in ruling in a manner which will “suppress the mischief, and advance
the remedy”.
 This Rule, interpret that any mischief in statute must be avoided.
 The Rule aims to cure/prevent the mischief by uncover the reason & finding the objective/purpose
behind a statue's creation.
 Its purpose is to aid judges in determining the "mischief" and resolve them by understanding the statute
in a manner that meets the legislative intent.
 Rule in Heydon's Case: Heydon’s Case (1584) 3 CO REP landmark case that introduced the mischief
rule and outlined FOUR CRITERIA on which the mischief rule is constructed/interpretated:
 1st Common law before the Act :- What was the law before making of the act?
 2nd Mischief & defect :- What was the reason behind making of the law or
What was the mischief or defect which the law did not provide ?
 3rd Parliament's remedy :- What is the remedy which the act has provided ? &
 4th True reason of the remedy :- What is the true reason of the remedy ?
The Rule then detects the defects and enhance the law for providing the remedy. If there is any defect in
any statute then the court must adopt the purposive construction which shall suppress the mischief or
defect and advance the remedy.
The use of this rule allows judges more flexibility in determining the lawmakers’ intent, rather than
being strictly bound by the literal and golden rules of interpretation.
 PROCESS OF APPLYING THE MISCHIEF RULE
 Identify the Statute : To identify which statute or law is needing interpretation;
 Examine the Mischief : The issue/problem of mischief that needed resolution;
 Identify the Remedy : It involves uncovering the intended solution provided by the legislature for the
issue at hand.; &
 Interpretation : The Court must scrutinize the statute & give meaning by keeping the issue in
the mind to solve the defect/mischief.
 Smith V/s. Hughes [1960 WLR 830]: The inquiry at hand was whether a Street Prostitute i.e., the
defendant, could be convicted of soliciting with the intention of prostitution. As per the Street Offences
Act, 1959, it was against the law for a regular prostitute to linger or entice in a public place or street for
the objective of prostitution.
IN THIS CASE:
 Identify the Statute: The Street Offences Act of 1959 was the statute that should be identified.
 Examine the Mischief: The solicitation of prostitutes on the streets was the "mischief“.
 Identify the Remedy: Prostitutes were not allowed to solicit on public places as per the legislature's
intended remedy.
 Interpretation: Applying the mischief rule, the court made its interpretation by taking into consideration
both the issue and the intended solution, 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.
 Thomas v. Lord Clan Morris: Here it was stated that interpretation of any statutory enactment should
not only restrict them to the interpretation of words and phrases used, but they should also look at the
history of the act and the reasons behind passing such acts.

 Elliot V. Grey, 1960: According to the Road Traffic Act of 1930 uninsured cars are not allowed to be
driven or parked on the road. The defendant’s car was parked on the road near the public place but he
was not using it. The defendant was held guilty because the parliament has passed a bill which states
that people should insure their car only then they can drive the car. The mischief rule was applied by
the court by stating that the car being used in the road if in case the car causes an accident, insurance
would be required. The reason behind this was that people should be compensated when they are
injured by such incidents and danger caused to them by others.
 Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 SC 871: Issues of the case were as follows – Section
418 of the Delhi Corporation Act, 1902 authorized the corporation to round up the abandoned cattle
grazing on the government land. The MCD rounded up the cattle belonging to Kanwar Singh. 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.

 Glaxo Laboratories V/s. Presiding Officer (A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 505): Supreme Court said that the
purpose of interpretation is to give effect to the intention underlying the statute, and therefore, unless
the literal or grammatical construction leads to absurdity, it has to be given effect to. If two construction
is possible, that construction which advances the intention of legislation and remedies the mischief
should be accepted.
 K.S. Paripooran V/s. State of Kerala, [AIR 1995 SC 1012]: It was held by the court that when
interpreting provisions of law, it is important for the court to determine the pre-existing law, identify any
issues or flaws in that law, and understand Parliament's intentions for addressing the situation.
Legislation, especially if enacted to prevent social mischief, is typically interpreted to benefit the general
public.

 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V/s. Sri Krishna Manufacturing Company [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.

 Badshah v. Urmila Badshah, (2014) 1 SCC 188: in this case “Who is a ‘Wife’ for the purposes of
Section 125 of the CrPC ?” has held that ‘wife’ for the purpose of Section 125 means legally wedded
wife, therefore, second wife will not be ‘wife’ for the purposes of maintenance, however, an important
exception has been carved out in cases where there is concealment of fact of first marriage from the
second wife and she has been deceived into believing that she is the first wife. In this case, the Supreme
Court gave a purposive interpretation to S.125 of the CRPC and applied the ‘mischief rule’ with a view to
subserve the objective of the Act and to prevent evasion of this provision.
 British Airways Plc V/s. Union of India [AIR 2002 SC 391]: The Supreme Court observed that
advancing the remedy and suppressing the mischief is what the court's duty is.
 Novartis Ag V/s. Union of India [(2013) 6 SCC 1], The court stated that the most effective means of
ascertaining the meaning and intent of a statute is through the mischief rule.
MISCHIEF RULE OF INTERPRETATION
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
 Consistent with legislative intent: To  Can be subjective: The identification of the
identify the legislature's intent in enacting the "mischief" or problem that the statute was
statute, and therefore can lead to an designed to address can be subjective, and
interpretation that is consistent with that different judges may reach different conclusions
intent. about what that problem is.

 Flexible: It allows judges to apply their minds  Can lead to uncertainty: The use of the Mischief
and to depart from a literal interpretation of Rule can create uncertainty for individuals and
the statute's words in order to achieve the businesses who must comply with the statute, as
purpose of the statute. they may not know how a court will interpret the
statute in a given case.
 Adaptable to changing circumstances: It
allows judges apply their mind to consider the  Can be manipulated: It can be manipulated to
social and technological changes. achieve a desired outcome, as a judge could
identify a different "mischief" or problem in order
 It helps avoid unjust results. to support a particular interpretation of the
statute.
 DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION
 In generally sense, it means to maintain a balance between two concepts/provision/subject of equal
importance in the event of their conflict with each other in any law.
 The Doctrine states:- Whenever there is a conflict between two or more Statutes or between two or more
parts or provisions of a Statute, then the Statute has to be interpreted upon harmonious construction.
It signifies that in case of inconsistencies, proper harmonization is to be done between the conflicting
parts so that one part does not defeat the purpose of another. It is considered the thumb rule to the
Rule of Interpretation of Statutes. It aims to achieve a harmonious balance between different legal
provisions while upholding the overall intent and purpose of the law.
 It is based on a cardinal principle in law that –
• Every statute has been formulated with a specific purpose and intention and thereby should be read
as a whole; &
• It is usually presumption that what the Parliament has given by one hand is not sought to be taken
away from another.
The essence/goal is to give effect to all the provisions. However, If it’s impossible to harmoniously
interpret or reconcile the different parts or provisions, then it’s the responsibility of the judiciary to make
the final decision and give its judgment. Courts aim to interpret the law in a way that resolves conflicts
between the provisions, making the statute consistent as a whole and ensuring it’s understood
accordingly.
Bengal Immunity Co. V/s. The State of Bihar (1955) 6 STC 446 (SC): In this Case it was held that when
there are two provisions in a statute, which are in conflict with each other, they should be interpreted such
that effect can be given to both and the construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless
should not be adopted except in the last resort.
 The Principles Of Doctrine Of Harmonious Construction:- According to the Doctrine, a Statute
should be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other
provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Such an
interpretation is beneficial in avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or
between a section and other parts of the statute.

 APPLICATION: The Courts have outlined specific procedures for the interpretation as follows:
1) Equal Importance;
2) Comprehensive Reading of Section/Sub-section/Proviso/Explanation;
3) Considering & Analyzing the Scope Law and its Provision;
4) Non-Obstante Clause Usage;
5) Establishing Legislative Intent;
6) Avoid superfluous words;
7) Applicability of constitution principles;
8) Conflict between Statute & Rules/Regulation made there under;
9) Conflict between general & special provision of the statute:
(a) Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant : General laws do not prevail over Special Laws; &
(b) Generalibus Specialia Derogant : If a special provision is made on a certain matter, the matter
is excluded from the general provisions. For Eg. Indian Constitution - Article 351 V/s. Article 348 ;
10)Conflict between General Act & Special Act or between two Special Act;
11)Conflict between Substantive Law & Procedural Law; &
12)When reconciliation is not warrant.
 Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo V/s. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 458)

 This case revolved around a conflict between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV
(Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Indian Constitution.

 It challenged the validity of the first amendments on grounds that with the insertion of
A31-A and A31-B the two provisions limited the scope of right to property - a fundamental
right. It was contended that the first amendment also violated Article 13(2), which is
deemed as a protector of fundamental right. Also, it raised issues such as-whether the
parliament can amend the constitution? Can the fundamental rights be amended? And, to
what extent can the constitution be amended under Article 368?

 It was evident that there existed a conflict between Article 13 and Article 368 of the Indian
constitution. On one hand Article 368 gave legislature the power to amend the constitution
at the same time Article 13 (2) restricted the same. The Supreme Court in this case used
the doctrine of harmonious construction in an attempt to resolve the conflicting provisions.
It was concluded that the word 'law' in Article 13 (2) is for ordinary laws and not
constitutional laws. Thereby limiting the extent of 'law' under Article 13 (2).This also meant
that the parliament had exclusive power under Article 368 to amend the constitution
including the fundamental rights under part III of the constitution. The apex court
validated Article 31 A&B and also upheld the validity of the agrarian land reforms
 Sri Venkataramana Devaruand Others V/s. The State of Mysore (1958 AIR 255)

 In this case, trustees of the temple of Shri Venkataramana of Moolky Petta challenged
the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, which allowed entry of Harijans in the
temple, as breaching the right to manage its own affairs.

 Here an appeal against the High Court decision was filed by the trustees of the temple of
Sri Venkataramana of Moolky Petta demanding to uphold the ban of entry Harijan into
the temple premises.

 The Temple of claimed to be a religious denomination having an absolute right to manage

its own affairs with respect to its religious practice and outside the purview of
governmental control. The High court maintained the prohibition only certain instance of
special ceremonies but however upheld the public right to worship.

 The Supreme Court when dismissing the appeal reasoned that Article 25(2)(b) must be
read harmoniously with Article 26 i.e. it must be given a liberal interpretation to benefit
the public. It also declared that Article 26 is not an absolute right and yields to the
restrictions found in Article 25. The scheme in Article 26 was further read down by
extending the application of the essentiality principle to clause (b) ‘matters of religion.’

 The entry of Harijans was allowed with the exception of some special ceremonies when
entry could be restricted.
 Unni Krishnan J.P. V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 AIR 2178: The Court in Unni Krishnan
expressed its disagreement with the finding in the earlier case of Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka 1992
AIR 1858 that the right to education at all levels is guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that the right to basic education is implied by the fundamental right to life
(Article 21) when read in conjunction with the directive principle on education (Article 41).
The Court held that the parameters of the right must be understood in the context of the Directive
Principles of State Policy, including Article 45 which provides that the state is to endeavour to provide,
within a period of ten years from the commencement of the Constitution, for free and compulsory
education for all children under the age of 14.
The Court ruled that there is no fundamental right to education for a professional degree that flows
from Article 21.
It held, however, that the passage of 44 years since the enactment of the Constitution had effectively
converted the non-justiciable right to education of children under 14 into one enforceable under the
law. After reaching the age of fourteen, their right to education is subject to the limits of economic
capacity and development of the state (as per Article 41).
Quoting Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Court
stated that the state's obligation to provide higher education requires it to take steps to the maximum
of its available resources with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right of
education by all appropriate means.
Outcomes: 93rd Amendment, Article 21-A, which provides for the fundamental right to education for
children between the ages of six and fourteen. In addition, passed legislation making primary education
compulsory.
 K.M. Nanavati v. The State of Maharashtra (1962 AIR 605):

 In the case, a Navy Commander, KM Nanavati, was accused of murdering his wife’s secret lover, Prem
Ahuja. He was charged under Section 302 and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial
took place before a Sessions Judge in Bombay and a special jury found him not guilty under both
sections.

 However, the Sessions Judge disagreed with the jury’s decision, believing it was not supported by the
evidence. He referred the case to the High Court of Bombay under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, providing reasons for his view. The High Court agreed with the Sessions Judge,
stating that considering the circumstances, the offense could not be reduced from murder to culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. The High Court convicted Nanavati of murder and this decision
was further appealed in the Supreme Court.

 During this time, the Governor of Bombay, using the power granted under Article 161 of the Indian
Constitution, ordered Nanavati’s suspension. This decision was challenged because it occurred while
the case was pending before the Supreme Court. To resolve the conflict between the executive and the
judiciary, the Supreme Court applied the principle of harmonious construction. It held that Article
161 and the Governor’s suspension order were not applicable when a case was sub-judice or pending
before the court.

 This case is notable not only for its impact on the abolition of jury trials in India but also for its
clarification of the relationship between executive and judicial powers in matters of suspension during
ongoing legal proceedings
GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGAT:- GENERAL LAWS DO NOT PREVAIL OVER SPECIAL LAWS
This maxim has its literal meaning as when there are two rules or laws, one general and one specific, the
specific rule takes priority over the general rule. In other words, special law is given superiority over later
general law. It says that in case of conflict between two statutes, the later will repeal the earlier one.
For Eg.: Traffic Laws, Arbitration Law V/s. CPC, etc.
CONDITIONS:
a) Both are inconsistent to each other; &
b) Some reference should exist in expressed form, in the later to the earlier enactment.
LIMITATIONS: The application of this maxim not applicable on the use of the principle:
• Harmonious construction; &
• Principle of the election.
For Eg: When more than one form of remedy exists for the same issue under two different acts.
Such as CPA 2019 V/s. Arbitration V/s. RERA
Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I [2008] SCC 3 674: There are 2 Acts that provide for impounding of passports:
•Criminal Procedure Code;
•Passports Act.
In this case, the petitioner lost access to his license as the result of the procedures of a case in which he
was the accused. His passport was seized by C.B.I., thus, he couldn’t travel.
Therefore, there was a conflict between section 104 of CrPC and section 10(3) of the Passport Act.
The court decided that the scope of the law under CrPC was defined by saying that the courts or the police
cannot impound but can only seize a passport. As impounding a passport has far-reaching and permanent
consequences, special law provisions will prevail to provide a better remedy to the petitioner.
 EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE OF INTERPRETATION
Latin Maxim – “Of The Same Kind And Nature”
 The doctrine states that when a statute uses specific words, followed by general words, the general
words will be given a restricted meaning, limited to the same class or genus as the specific words. It is
merely a rule of construction to aid the Courts to find out the true intention of the Legislature. Usually
this principle is applied when doubts are arisen whether the word or words fall within the general words
like – other articles, etc., such things, similar acts, etc.
 Applicability of Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis
The provision must consist of specific words and general words

The specific words should be followed by general words

The specific words should constitute a distinct genus/class/category

The meaning of the general words will be restricted to same class/category of the specific words.
 Eg.: 1) Cars, Trucks, Tractors, Bikes & Other motor-powered vehicles (Ship & Airplane not included);
2) Bulls, Goat, Cows, Buffaloes, Horses, Etc. (Wild & Pets animal not included)
 When Applied:
 There is ambiguity in the language of the provisions of statutes, or
 When in the provision, there is a possibility of two views, or
 The meaning which the provision of a statute gives, defeats the purpose of the statute.
There is NO NEED for the interpretation if in the language there is no ambiguity and it is clear.
 Jage Ram V/s. State Of Haryana: Rule is applicable subject to the following conditions:
 Statute contains the enumeration (list) by specific words;
 Members of the enumeration constitute a class;
 Class is not exhausted by enumeration;
 General term follows enumeration;
 There is a distinct genus which comprises more than one species; &
 There is no clearly manifested intention that the general term be given a broader meaning than the
doctrine requires.

The rule is required to be applied with great caution because it implies a departure from a natural
meaning of words, in order to give effect to supposed intention of legislature.

 Elements for the application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis are:

 The specific words should constitute a particular class or genus (not apply to different objects of a
widely different character); &
 The intention of the legislation should be there for such restriction of the general words to the
genus/class of the specific words it follows

 Halsbury stated: “...for the ejusdem generis rule to apply, the specific words must constitute a
category, class or genus, if they constitute such a category, class or genus, then only things which
belong to that category, class or genus fall within the general words.”

 Therefore, unless there is a genus or category, there is no room for the application of ejusdem generis.
 Evans V/s. Cross [(1938) 1 KB 694]: the Court had applied the ejusdem generis rule. The issue was in
relation to the interpretation of the word “other devices”. It was under the definition of “traffic signals”
under Section 48(9) Road Traffic Act, 1930, to include “all signals, warning sign posts, signs, or other
devices”. The Court held that a painted line on a road cannot be included in the “other devices” as a
traffic signs because devices are here indicating a thing, whereas painted line on a road is not.

 Assistant Collector of Central Excise V/s. Ramdev Tobacco Company: The question was the
interpretation of section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 before its amendment was
provided, that, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding could be instituted for anything done or
ordered to be done…

The SC held that the expression ‘other legal proceedings’ must be read ejusdem generis with the
preceding words suit and prosecution as they constitute a genus. Therefore ‘penalty’ and ‘adjudication’
proceedings do not fall within the expression ‘other legal proceeding’.

 Powell V/s. Kempton Park Racecourse (1897): The Betting Act 1853 made it an offence to “…keep a
house, office, room or other place for the purposes of betting”.

The issues before the House of Lords had to decide if the statute applied to a betting stand in an
uncovered enclosure at Kempton Park Racecourse?

The Court applied the ejusdem generis rule and held that the other items mentioned in the statute
related to places indoors whereas the enclosure was outside. Therefore, the general term “other place”
will not include uncovered enclosure at a racecourse. There was thus no offence committed.
 B.H.E.L. Vs Globe Hi-Fabs Ltd. (2015 (5) SCC 718) - The principle of ejusdem
generis does not apply in every situation and it is essential for its application that the
enumerated things before the general words must constitute a category or a genus or a
family which admits of a number of species or members. Thus the specific words must
form a distinct genus or category”. If the specified things preceding general words belong to
different categories, this principle of construction will not apply. At the same time this rule
has no inverse application in as much as general words preceding the enumeration of
specific instances are not governed by this rule and their import cannot be limited by any
such principle….. The Rule of ejusdem generis has to be applied with care and caution. It
is not an inviolable Rule of law, but it is the only permissible inference in the absence of an
indication to the contrary, and where context and the object and mischief of the enactment
do not require restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, it becomes the
duty of the courts to give those words their plain and ordinary meaning

 Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal (AIR 2010

SC 1325) SC interpreted the Latin expression “ejusdem generis” as meaning “of the same
kind or nature” and held it to be a principle of construction i.e. when general words in a
statutory text are flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general words are taken
to be restricted by implication with the meaning of restricted words. This principle is
presumed to apply unless there is some contrary indication. The said principle was held to
be applied only when a contrary intention does not appear –.
 NOSCITUR A SOCIIS RULE OF INTERPRETATION
Latin Maxim – “It Is Known By Its Associates”
 The doctrine states that while interpreting the statutes and/or other documents the meaning of words
should be identified by reference to other words in the context of which they appear i.e., a word takes
meaning from the company it keeps.
 Say that supports this idea:
 Latin – ‘He who cannot be known from himself may be known from his associates’.
 Legal – ‘Words that are ineffective on their own become effective when considered together’.
 State of Bombay V/s. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1960 SC 610): Philosophy behind this principle
is that the meaning of doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words
associated with it.
 In practical terms, when a word or term is unclear or ambiguous in a legal document, such as a statute
or contract, it is interpreted by looking at the other words, phrases or terms that are associated with it
in that specific provision. By examining how the word is used within the context of the surrounding
language, one can better understand its intended meaning and purpose.
 Scope of Rule
 It can only be applied in the circumstances where the law is either not clear or it is ambiguous;
 With the help of the Rule, ambiguity can be resolve by reasonably interpretation;
 It assists in the legislative or contractual intent;
 Prevent absurd or unintended outcomes in legal interpretations; &
 Avoids interpretations that would lead to illogical or unreasonable results.
 State of Assam V.s. Ranga Muhammad (AIR 1967 SC 903) – The court applied the rule for the
question of whether the HC had to be consulted by the Governor in the transfer of a sitting Judge, and
held that upon applying the rule of noscitur a socii in the instant case, the word “posting” in the context
of district judges was associated with the other words of “appointments” as well as “promotions.” But
these two words could not be interpreted to include “transfer” as well, and hence the Governor had to
consult the HC in this circumstance.

 Dr. Devendra M. Surti V/s. State of Gujarat (AIR 1969 SC 63) – The court was dealing with the
definition of ‘Commercial Establishment’ in section 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act,
1948, that reads: “Commercial establishment means an establishment which carries on any business or
trade or profession”.
Q: Whether a private dispensary of a doctor will fall within the definition of commercial establishment?
A: The word ‘profession’ was construed with the associated words business and trade and the Supreme
Court held that a private dispensary of a doctor was not within the definition of commercial
establishment given in the Act.

 Pradeep Agarbatti, Ludhiana V/s. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 171) – SC dealt with interpretation
of term perfumery as used in Schedule ‘A’ Entry 16 of Punjab Sales Tax Act, which reads as: “cosmetics,
perfumery & toilet goods excluding toothpaste, tooth powder kumkum & soap.”
Q: Whether dhoop and agarbatti will fall under ‘perfumery’ as mentioned above.
A: With reference to the Punjab Sales Tax Act held that the word, “perfumery’’ means such articles as
used in cosmetics and toilet goods viz, sprays, etc. but does not include ‘Dhoop’ and ‘Agarbatti’.
 Rainbow Steels Ltd. V/s. Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1981 SC 2101)
Q: Consider the interpretation of the word ‘old’ as used in “old, discarded, unserviceable or obsolete
machinery, stores or vehicles etc.”
A: It was held that the four adjectives - old, discarded, unserviceable, obsolete, which are susceptible
to analogous meaning are clubbed together while qualifying machinery. The first adjective is more
general than the other three and as such all the four would take their color from each other, the
meaning of the more general adjective ‘old’ being restricted to a sense analogous to that of less
general namely “discarded, unserviceable or obsolete”. The expression ‘old’ was therefore construed
to refer to machinery that had become non-functional or non-usable.

 Devendra M Surti v. St of Gujarat (AIR 1969 SC 63)

The conviction of the appellant under S. 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act of 1948
was held to be illegal. This interpretation was also brought using the rule of Noscitur A Socii.
It was held that the words “commercial establishment” and “profession” were considered with the
words “trade” and “business” and hence the scope of the former words must be restricted to that of
the latter. The court later went on to prove that the profession of the appellant did not fall under the
purview of the Act and hence his conviction was liable to be set aside
SR EJUSDEM GENERIS ASPECT NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
1) Of the same kind or Of the same
Meaning It is known by its associates
nature
2) To interpret general terms in To understand the meaning of a word
Purpose
context in context
3) When specific terms precede a When words are vulnerable to related
Application
general term meanings
4) Narrowing the scope of general Contextual interpretation to avoid
Focus
terms ambiguity
5) Deals with specific V/s. general Applies to any words with related
Specific Vs. General
terms within lists meanings
6) Addresses ambiguity within specific Addresses broader ambiguity within
Nature of Ambiguity
vs. general terms context
7) No vehicles, including cars, trucks The employee must attend meetings,
Example
and other vehicles conferences and other related events

Ejusdem Generis Nexus Noscitur A Sociis

 Maharashtra University of Health V/s. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal:
The court pointed out that when you have general words mixed with specific words, you can’t just
focus on the general words alone. You need to understand them based on the specific words and the
context they’re in.
 REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS RULE OF INTERPRETATION
"Reddendo" (Referring), "Singula" (Each), And "Singulis" (To Each)
Latin Maxim – “Referring Each To Each / Let Each Be Put In Its Own Place”
 This rule says that when a sentence in a law has several parts, each part should be
interpreted in connection with the words that are closely related to it. In a sentence with
several antecedents and consequents, each word or phrase should be linked to its appropriate
place i.e., by referring each phrase or expression to its corresponding object. It’s a mechanism
to preserve legislative intent through careful grammatical analysis.
 This principle based on ‘Distributivity’ nature. Where a complex sentence has more than one
subject, and more than one object, it may be the right construction to render each to each,
by reading the provision distributivity and applying each object to its appropriate subject.
 Object & Idea: When interpreting a statute or legal document, words and phrases should be
read in context and matched to their appropriate referents based on grammar and logic. For
example, if there is a list of two nouns followed by a list of two verbs, the first noun should be
matched with the first verb, and the second noun with the second verb.
Example:
1) Q) I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to A.
A) It means that I devise all my real property and bequeath my personal property to A.
2) Q)If anyone shall draw or load any sword or gun.
A) The word draw is applied to sword only and the word load to gun only.
 Koteshwar Vittal Kamath vs K Rangappa Baliga (AIR 1969 SC 504), in the construction of the
Proviso to Article 304 of the Constitution which reads, “Provided that no bill or amendment for the
purpose of clause (b), shall be introduced or moved in the legislature of a state without the previous
sanction of the President”.
It was held that the word introduced applies to bill and moved applies to amendment.

ADVANTAGES
 Precision In Interpretation: Ensures that each clause is understood in its context;
 Avoids Generalization: Prevents generalizing of clauses that apply to a specific part only.
 Resolves Ambiguities: Resolves ambiguities if a statue has multiple clause that could be taken
together.

DISADVANTAGES
 Complexity: Can make the interpretation of laws more complex.
 Not Always Applicable: May not be applicable in all case, especially where this rule itself is causing
ambiguity.
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS RULE OF INTERPRETATION
Latin Maxim – “The Expression Of One Thing Is The Exclusion Of The Other”
NEGATIVE IMPLICATION RULE
 This rule assumes that the legislature intentionally specified one set of criteria as opposed to the other.
It simply means that when one or more things are expressly stated, other things not mentioned are
impliedly excluded. This is usually indicated by a word such as “includes” or “such as”.
For Ex.:
1) ‘Weekends & Public Holidays’ excludes ordinary weekdays.
2) If a lease agreement states that the tenant is allowed to use the property for residential purposes
only, it implies that they are not allowed to use it for commercial purposes.
3) If law gives power to record confession to magistrates, this power cannot be delegated.
 In a law, general words in a statute must receive a general construction unless the statute is
specifying any special meaning to the general words. Whenever something is added in the statute it is
added with the due consciousness. It is assumed that if something is not added in the statute there is
a reason behind it, which is to exclude that from the particular statute.
 Literal meaning of Maxim was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GVK Industries
Ltd. V/s. ITO [2011] 332 ITR 130 (SC) – as follows: The express mention of one thing implies the
exclusion of another. This maxim indicates that when something is expressly mentioned in a statute, it
leads to the presumption that the things which are not specified in the statute are excluded.
 Taylor V/s. Taylor (1975): When a statute describes or requires a thing to be done in a particular
manner; it should be done in that manner or not at all.
The TWO CONDITIONS which need to be fulfilled cumulatively in order to apply this maxim are:
1st :- The list of words appearing in a statute should be specific in nature; &
2nd:- Those specific words should not be followed by general words.
For Ex.: 1st board which says “Car and Bike Parking – 08 a.m. to 10 p.m.”
2nd board, which says “Car, Bike & Vehicle Parking – 08 a.m. to 10 p.m.”

ADVANTAGE:
 Clarity: It provides a clear guideline for interpreting laws by focusing only on what is expressly
mentioned
 Prevents Overreaching: It ensure that law are not applied more broadly than intended.

DISADVANTAGE:
 Too Restrictive: It may lead to narrow interpretation, excluding relevant item or issues not explicitly
mentioned.
 Assumes Prefect Drafting: Assumes that the law is perfectly written & all intended item are listed
which may not always be the case.
 M/S Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd V/s. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd (2013 (9) SCC 32)
In this case, a dispute arose between the parties and the parties made several attempts to resolve the
dispute amicably, but they all failed. The Respondent eventually filed a case against the Appellant in the
Rajasthan High Court, whereas Clause 18 of the agreement stipulated that the Agreement would be
subject to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta courts. larity that the lack of words such as “alone,” “only,”
“exclusive,” or “exclusive jurisdiThe same was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court, instructing them
to approach the Calcutta High Court, which had exclusive jurisdiction over the issue. When the parties
moved to the Supreme Court, it was dismissed and it was ruled that only the Calcutta High Court had the
authority to hear their concerns.
The Supreme court provided cction” is neither conclusive nor significant in determining a court’s
jurisdiction.
The parties’ intention by including Clause 18 in the contract is obvious, that the courts in Calcutta shall
have jurisdiction, which means that the courts in Calcutta alone shall have jurisdiction. In such cases,
the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (expression of one is an exclusion of the other) would
apply, according to the ruling. The above-mentioned decision was followed in B.E. Simoese Von
Staraburg Niedenthal V/s. Chhattisgarh Investment Ltd. & Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. V/s.
Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd.
 EXPRESSUM FACIT CESSARE TACITUM
Latin Maxim – Express Mention Of One Thing Implies The Exclusion Of Other
 The first and primary rule of construction is that intention of the legislature is to be found in the words
used by the legislature itself. So, when a matter is clear and precise provided in a statutes,
contracts/deeds and documents then implied meaning need not be adopted.
For Ex. When a condition is provided that a contract should be fulfilled on a certain date, the tactic
construction that the contract should be fulfilled within a reasonable time need not be adopted. When
an express date is provided for repayment of a debt, the creditor cannot demand payment before that
date.
 Idea & Object: It is always important for the Court to keep in mind the purpose which lies behind the
statute while interpreting the statutory provisions. The true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived
by construing the meaning of the word in the light of the apparent purpose or object which
comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which an enactment is directed.
 B. Shankara Rao Badami v. State of Mysore – 1969 (3) SCR 112
 Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel – AIR 1985 SC 1416.
 Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama – AIR 1990 SC 981
 Padma Sundara Rao V/s. State of T.N. – AIR 2002 SC 1334