Imp. Rulings - Rule of Statutory Interpretation
Index;
High Court Bombay (2023.03.08) In Lyka Labs Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Application No. 886 of 2022]
Supreme Court (2022.07.27) in “Nemai Chandra Kumar & Others vs. Mani Square Ltd. & Others, (2015)14 SCC 203”
Supreme Court (2022.06.16) in Krishna Rai Vs. Benares Hindu University’ [Civil Appeal Nos. 45784580 of 2022
Supreme Court (2022.01.18)) in Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8411 of 2019]
Supreme Court (2006.12.06) in “Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 1”
Supreme Court (2001.01.01) in Union of India Vs. The Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., [Appeal (civil) 2995-2997 of 1984]
Supreme Court (1996.01.04) in Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424.
Supreme Court (1955.10.04) in The Member, Board Of Revenue vs Arthur Paul Benthall [Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1954.]
--------------------------------------------
1). High Court Bombay (2023.03.08) In Lyka Labs Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Application No. 886 of 2022] held that;
# 22. For appreciating submissions on interpretation of statute, well-settled rule of interpretation of a statute needs to be borne in mind that when a language of a provision is plain and unambiguous and capable of only one meaning, there is no question of the construction of a statute, as the provision speaks for itself. The natural and ordinary meaning of words should only be departed from if it is shown that the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning. In that case, it would not be open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the act. When the provision’s plain meaning produces injustice, absurdity or contradiction of the statutory object, the language may be interpreted to avoid such disadvantage. When the legislature chooses appropriate words to express its intention, such intention must be employed so long as this does not result in absurdity. .
# 23. It is also a settled rule of construction that all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together to ascertain the legislative intent. Each word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose of the act itself. Words and phrases occurring in a statute are to be taken not in an isolated 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. The meanings of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear. The principle that the statute must be read as a whole equally applies to different parts of the same section.
# 26. A reference can be made to the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Sri Ram Saba vs State of West Bengal [(2004) 11 SCC 497], the apex court held as follows:
“10.It is well-settled principle of interpretation that a statute is to be interpreted on its plain reading; in the absence of any doubt or difficulty arising out of such reading of a statute defeating or frustrating the object the purpose of an enactment, it must be read and understood by its plain reading. However, in case of any difficulty or doubt arising in interpreting a provision of an enactment, courts will interpret such a provision keeping in mind the objects sought to be achieved and the purpose intended to be served by such a provision so as to advance the cause for which the enactment is brought into force. If two interpretations are possible, the one which promotes or favours the object of the act and purpose it serves, is to be preferred. At any rate, in the guise of purposive interpretation, the courts cannot rewrite a statute. A purposive interpretation may permit a reading of the provision consistent with the purpose and object of the act but the courts cannot legislate and enact the provision either creating or taking away substantial rights by stretching or straining a piece of legislation.”
# 27. A reference can be made to the pronouncement of the apex court in Keshavji Ravji and Co and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1990) 2 SCC 231]. In this case, the question was whether gross interest payment should be deducted rather than net interest payment made by the partnership firm to its partners. Justice Venkatachaliah, writing for a bench of three judges, gave the following observations, which are not fact-specific but of a general expository nature:
11. …Section 40(b), it is true, seeks to prevent the evasion of tax by diversion of the profits of a firm; by the legislature expedience adopted to achieve that objective requires to be given effect on its own language…As long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislature intent become impermissible. The supposed intention of the legislature cannot then be appealed to to whittle down the statutory language which is otherwise unambiguous. If the intendment is not in the words used, it is nowhere else. The need for interpretation arises when the words used in the statute are, on their own terms, ambivalent and do not manifest the intention of the legislature.”
# 28. In para 12, Justice Venkatachaliah went on to quote Thomas M. Cooley in Law of Taxation, Vol. 2:
“12….Artificial rules of construction have probably found more favour with the courts than they ever deserved. Their application in legal controversies has oftentimes been pushed to an extreme which has defeated the plain and manifest purpose in enacting the laws. Penal laws have sometimes had all their meaning construed away and in remedial laws, remedies have been found which the legislature never intended to give. Something akin to this has befallen the revenue laws…”
# 29. In para 15, Justice Venkatachaliah went on the cite a principle stated by the Judicial Committee (of Privy Council) in H. H. Ruckmaboye v. Lullobhoy Mottichund, calling it a well recognised principle:
“15.…it is, therefore, of considerable importance to ascertain what has been deemed to be the legal import and meaning of them, because, of it shall appear that they have long been used, in a sense which may not improperly be called technical, and have been judicially construed to have a certain meaning, and have been adopted by the legislature in that sense, long prior to the statue…the rule of construction of statutes will require, that the words in the statute should be construed according to the sense in which they had been so previously used, although that sense may vary from strict literal meaning of them…”
# 30. The additional principle of interpretation which supports the view that the expression ‘drawer’ does not include ‘authorised signatory’ is that when a term has achieved a technical connotation over the years of its usage, the connotation must not be disturbed. The expression ‘drawer’ has obtained a fixed and legal connotation over the years on account of (i) the legislature never having changed said definition nor the context in which the expression is used, (ii) the judicial pronouncements having consistently held drawer to include only the principal offender and not those who are vicariously liable. Such legal connotation to the expression ‘drawer’ in section 143A strengthens from the clear, unambiguous meaning that the expression ‘drawer’ has always had. Such interpretation gets further support from the stage at which liability on the drawer to pay interim compensation gets triggered- the stage is recording the plea. At this stage, Magistrate cannot go beyond the averments contained in the complaint. This test is analogous material to be considered by the magistrate at the stage of issuance of summons. At the stage of recording the plea, to get out of liability under section 143A, the onus of proof to show innocence would be on the drawer, which he may only satisfactorily discharge with leading evidence. Such a consequence might have weighed with the legislature while enacting the Amendment Act of 2018 by choosing not to employ words that could have created a vicarious liability under section 143A.
# 31. In this regard, a reference must also be made to a judgment by the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. AIR 1958 SC 560, where the true meaning of the word “sale” as used in Entry 48 and Entry 54 was examined at length. It was observed after considering the earlier cases of the Supreme Court “that the expression ‘sale of goods’ in Entry 48 cannot be construed in its popular sense and that it must be interpreted in its legal sense.” Tracing from the Roman Law of emptio venditio, the Supreme Court considered “the common law of England relating to sales which had developed very much on the lines of the Roman Law in insisting on an agreement between parties and price as essential elements of a contract of sale of goods” and referring to the codification of the law in England by the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, and the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Venkatarama Aiyyar J. explained the general rule of construction that words used in statutes must be taken in their legal sense and observed,
“22. …………..the ratio of the rule of interpretation that words of legal import occurring in a statute should be construed in their legal sense is that those words have, in law, acquired a definite and precise sence, and that, accordingly, the legislature must be taken to have intended that they should be understood in that sense. In interpreting an expression used in a legal sense, therefore, we have only to ascertain the precise connotation which it possesses in law. It has been already stated that, both under the common law and the statute law relating to sale of goods in England and in India, to constitute a transaction of sale there should be an agreement, express or implied, relating to goods to be completed by passing of title in those goods. It is of the essence of this concept that both the agreement and the sale should relate to the same subject-matter. …………..”
# 37. In Central Bank of India v. Ravindra [(2002) 1 SCC 367], the question before the Constitution Bench was as to the meaning of the phrases “the principal sum adjudged” and “such principal sum” as occurring in Section 34 CPC as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act (66 of 1956) w.e.f. 1-1- 1957.While repelling the contention of borrowers that the expression “on such principal sum” as occurring twice in the latter part of Section 34(1), which refers to interest pendente lite and post-decree, should be interpreted to mean principal sum arrived at by excluding the interest even if it has stood capitalised which would be consistent with the legislative intent as reflected in the report of the Joint Committee and sought to be fulfilled by the 1956 amendment, the Constitution Bench has observed as under:
“42. ……………………….Ordinarily, a word or expression used at several places in one enactment should be assigned the same meaning so as to avoid “a head-on clash” between two meanings assigned to the same word or expression occurring at two places in the same enactment. It should not be lightly assumed that “Parliament had given with one hand what it took away with the other” (see Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Justice G.P. Singh, 7th Edn. 1999, p. 113). That construction is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion into the working of the system (ibid, p. 119). While embarking upon interpretation of words and expressions used in a statute, it is possible to find a situation when the same word or expression may have somewhat different meanings at different places depending on the subject or context. This is however an exception which can be resorted to only in the event of repugnancy in the subject or context being spelled out. It has been the consistent view of the Supreme Court that when the legislature used the same word or expression in different parts of the same section or statute, there is a presumption that the word is used in the same sense throughout (ibid, p. 263). More correct statement of the rule is, as held by the House of Lords in Farrell v. Alexander [(1976) 2 All ER 721 : 1977 AC 59 : (1976) 3 WLR 145 (HL)] All ER at p. 736b, “where the draftsman uses the same word or phrase in similar contexts, he must be presumed to intend it in each place to bear the same meaning”. The court having accepted invitation to embark upon interpretative expedition shall identify on its radar the contextual use of the word or expression and then determine its direction avoiding collision with icebergs of inconsistency and repugnancy.”
----------------------------------------
2). Supreme Court (2022.07.27) in “Nemai Chandra Kumar & Others vs. Mani Square Ltd. & Others, (2015)14 SCC 203” in paras 32 and 33 laid down following:-
“32. Ordinarily, the Court resorts to the plain meaning rule (also Known as literal rule) for statutory interpretation. The said rule emphasis that the starting point in the statutory interpretation is statute itself and if the language of statute is Clear and unambiguous there is no need to look outside the statue.
33. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used in the statute, “thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said” as observed by his Court in Dental Council of India v. Hari Prakash7. Relevant part of which is quoted hereunder:
- “7. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. When the words used are not ambiguous, literal meaning has to be applied, which is the golden rule of interpretation.””
------------------------------------------------=------
3). Supreme Court (2022.06.16) in Krishna Rai Vs. Benares Hindu University’ [Civil Appeal Nos. 45784580 of 2022] held that;
# 31. Further in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (preventive), Jamnagar [2015 (11) SCC 628], it has been laid down that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below:
“18. The Tribunal’s judgment has proceeded on the basis that even though the samples were drawn contrary to law,the appellants would be estopped because their representative was present when the samples were drawnand they did not object immediately. This is a completely perverse finding both on fact and law. On fact, it has been more than amply proved that no representative of the appellant was, in fact, present at the time the Customs Inspector took the samples. Shri K.M. Jani who was allegedly present not only stated that he did not represent the Clearing Agent of the appellants in that he was not their employee but also stated that he was not present when the samples were taken. In fact, therefore, there was no representative of the appellants when the samples were taken. In law equally the Tribunal ought to have realized that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires that something be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of law at all. The Customs Authorities are not absolved from following the law depending upon the acts of a particular assessee. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into something legal by the act of a third person.”
-----------------------------------------
4). Supreme Court (2022,01,18)) in Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8411 of 2019] ;
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION:
# 34. The principle governing statutory interpretation has been repeated with regularity by this Court on quite a few occasions. While construing the said principle adequate thought will have to be given to the nature of the statute and the provisions contained thereunder. The focus is on avoiding any interpretation which might cause an injury or destroy the intent behind the legislation.
# 35. Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, (1949) 2 KB 481 deals with the role required to be played by the Court even when there is a possible defect:
“When a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the drafts man. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament and then he must supplement the written word so as to give ‘force and life’ to the intention of the legislature. A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.”
# 36. MAXWELL ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUES, 11th Edition
“It is said to be the duty of the judge to make such construction of a statute as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Even where the usual meaning of the language falls short of whole object of the legislature, a more extended meaning may be attributed to the words, if they are fairly susceptible of it. The construction must not, of course, be strained to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of the words.” (Pg. 66)
“…In determining either the general object of the legislature, or the meaning of its language in any particular passage, it is obvious that the intention which appears to be most in accord with convenience, reason, justice or legal principles, should, in all cases of doubtful significance, be presumed to be the true one.” (Pg. 183)
# 37. CRAIES IN STATUTE LAW, 7th Edition, Pg. 262:
“… It is the duty of Courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed’ .. that in each case you must look to the subject-matter, consider the importance of the provision and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the Act, and upon a review of the case in that aspect decide whether the enactment is what is called imperative or only directory.”
# 38. A DRIEDGER, CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE, 2nd Edition, 1983, Pg. 37:
“Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the Scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.”
# 39. As repeated on various other occasions by this Court, judging a statute through ‘Literal to Heydon’s Golden rule’ has gone through a complete circle. Thus, we have come to a stage of applying a reasonable, creative and fair construction principle.
# 40. The often quoted words of Justice Chinnappa Reddy in the celebrated judgment in the Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited, (1987) 1 SCC 424 holds the field even today:
“33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place….”
# 41. Apropos the passage in the case of Union of India v. Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd., (2001) 4 SCC 139:
“While examining a particular statute for finding out the legislative intent it is the attitude of Judges in arriving at a solution by striking a balance between the letter and spirit of the statute without acknowledging that they have in any way supplemented the statute would be the proper criterion. The duty of Judges is to expound and not to legislate is a fundamental rule. There is no doubt a marginal area in which the courts mould or creatively interpret legislation and they are thus finishers, refiners and polishers of legislation which comes to them in a state requiring varying degrees of further processing. (See: Corocraft Ltd. v. Pan American Airways Inc. [(1968) 3 WLR 714 : (1968) 2 All ER 1059 : (1969) 1 QB 616] WLR, p. 732 and State of Haryana v. Sampuran Singh [(1975) 2 SCC 810] .) But by no stretch of imagination a Judge is entitled to add something more than what is there in the statute by way of a supposed intention of the legislature. It is, therefore, a cardinal principle of construction of statutes that the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any discernible purpose or object which comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed.”
----------------------------------------
5). Hon’ble Supreme Court (2006.12.06) in “Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 1” reiterated the same basic principle of statutory interpretation in Paras 23 and 24:-
“23. In Sussex Peerage6, the House of Lords, through Lord Chief Justice Tindal, stated the rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are of themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves do, in such case, best declare the intention of the Legislature.
24. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Hansoli Devi and Others7, approved the rule exposited by Lord Chief Justice Tindal in The Sussex Peerage’s case6 and stated the legal position thus: (Hansoli Devi case7, SCC p.281, para 9)
“9. … It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the court must give effect to the words used in the statute and it would not be open to the courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. In Kirkness v. John Hudson & Co. Ltd.8 Lord Reid pointed out as to what is the meaning of “ambiguous” and held that: (AC p.735)
‘A provision is not ambiguous merely because it contains a word which in different contexts is capable of different meanings. It would be hard to find anywhere a sentence of any length which does not contain such a word. A provision is, in my judgment, ambiguous only if it contains a word or phrase which in that particular context is capable of having more than one meaning.”
It is no doubt true that if on going through the plain meaning of the language of statutes, it leads to anomalies, injustices and absurdities, then the court may look into the purpose for which the statute has been brought and would try to give a meaning, which would adhere to the purpose of the statute. Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in the case of Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose9, had held that it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute. In Quebec Railway, Light Heat & Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry10 it had been observed that the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. Similarly, it is not permissible to add words to a statute which are not there unless on a literal construction being given a part of the statute becomes meaningless. But before any words are read to repair an omission in the Act, it should be possible to state with certainty that these words would have been inserted by the draftsman and approved by the legislature had their attention been drawn to the omission before the Bill had passed into a law. At times, the intention of the legislature is found to be clear but the unskilfulness of the draftsman in introducing certain words in the statute results in apparent ineffectiveness of the language and in such a situation, it may be permissible for the court to reject the surplus words, so as to make the statute effective……”
------------------------------------------------=------
6). Supreme Court (2001.01.01) in Union of India Vs. The Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., [Appeal (civil) 2995-2997 of 1984] held that;
“While examining a particular statute for finding out the legislative intent it is the attitude of judges in arriving at a solution by striking a balance between the letter and spirit of the statute without acknowledging that they have in any way supplement the statute would be the proper criteria. The duty of judges is to expound and not to legislate is a fundamental rule. There is no doubt a marginal area in which the courts mould or creatively interpret legislation and they are thus finishers, refiners and polishers of legislation which comes to them in a state requiring varying degrees of further processing. (see: Corocraft Ltd. vs. Pan American Airways Inc. (1968) 3 WLR 714, p.732, State of Haryana vs. Sampuran Singh 1975 (2) SCC 810). But by no stretch of imagination a Judge is entitled to add something more than what is there in the Statute by way of a supposed intention of the legislature. It is, therefore, a cardinal principle of construction of statute that the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any discernible purpose or object which comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed.”
-------------------------------------------------------
7). Supreme Court (1996.01.04) in Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424. held as under:
“33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. ***”
In the light of the above, a statute has to be construed after ascertaining the legislative intent and in the context and scheme of the enactment.
-------------------------------------------------
8). Supreme Court (1955.10.04) in The Member, Board Of Revenue vs Arthur Paul Benthall [Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1954.] held that;
When two words of different import are used in a statute in two consecutive provisions, it would be difficult to maintain that they are used in the same sense,
--------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment