JURIPRUDENCE

TOPIC- LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF STATUES

Submitted by: - Submitted to: -

AVIK AGGARWAL Dr.SACHIN SHARMA
Roll Number – 19071 Asst. Prof. of Law
Group Number – 14 RGNUL, Punjab

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law

2020
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On completion of this project it is my privilege to acknowledge my heartfelt gratitude and

indebtedness towards my teachers for their valuable suggestion and constructive criticism.
Their precious guidance and unrelenting support kept me on the right path throughout the
whole project. I am very much thankful to my teacher in charge and project coordinators
for giving me this relevant and knowledgeable topic.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my teacher Dr. Sachin Sharma for his guidance and
encouragement in carrying out this project work.

2
 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB

SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE

Mr. Sachin sharma

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
Punjab

This is to certify that the Project on liberal interpretation of statutes submitted to Rajiv
Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, in partial fulfilment of the requirement of the
B.A.LLB (Hons.) Course is an original and bona fide research work carried out by Mr. Avik
Aggarwal under my supervision and guidance. No part of this project has been submitted to
any University for the award of any Degree or Diploma, whatsoever.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT………………………………………………….. 5

2. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………6

3. RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES……… 8

4. THE CONCEPT OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF

STATUTES ………………………………………………….13

5. CRITICISM AND CAUTIONS WITH LIBERAL

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES……………………..15

6. CONCLUSION……………………………………………... 16

4
CH-1 ABSTRACT

In this project I would like to discuss about the various prominent rules of interpretation of
statues along with that literal and liberal means of analyzing statutes. A brief discussion on
the question of extent of liberal interpretation would be addressed and various cautions which
the judiciary must keep in mind would be suggested which will ensure that while analyzing
the laws, contemporary needs of the society are taken into account without harming the
legislative intent which the framers of statute had in their mind.

5
CH-2 INTRODUCTION

The term has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’ which means to explain,
expound, understand, or to translate. Interpretation is the process of explaining, expounding
and translating any text or anything in written form. This basically involves an act of
discovering the true meaning of the language which has been used in the statute. Various
sources used are only limited to explore the written text and clarify what exactly has been
indicated by the words used in the written text or the statutes.

There can be mischief in the statute which is required to be cured, and this can be done by
applying various norms and theories of interpretation which might go against the literal
meaning at times. The purpose behind interpretation is to clarify the meaning of the words
used in the statutes which might not be that clear.
According to Salmond, “Interpretation” is the process by which the court seeks to ascertain
the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is
expressed.
Drafting a law is a complex task, the legislature has to keep in mind thousands of scenarios
so that the legislation drafted is complete in itself. In an ideal world, the meaning of the
statute would be clear and direct. In the real world that we live in, most of the times the law
drafted is complicated and vague.
In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher1, the need for interpretation of statutes was
highlighted. It was stated that when a defect appears in a statute, the judge cannot simply
wash his hands off the responsibility and blame the legislature, he should interpret the statute
by finding the intent behind it. The judge should not only focus on the language of the statute
but also on the social considerations that made the parliament draft a particular statute.

Need for interpretation

1. The ambiguity of the words used in the statute: Sometimes there will be words that
have more than one meaning. And it may not be clear which meaning has to be used. There
could be multiple interpretations made out of it.

1
[1949] 2 KB 481

6
2. Change in the environment: We all know that society changes from time to time and
there may be new developments happening in a society that is not taken into consideration,
this lacks the predictability of the future event.
3. Complexities of the statutes: usually statutes are complex and huge, it contains
complicated words, jargon and some technical terms which are not easy to understand and
this complexity may lead to confusion.
4. When legislation doesn’t cover a specific area: Every time when legislations are out it
doesn’t cover all the area it leaves some grey areas and interpretation helps in bridging the
gaps between.
5. Drafting error: The draft may be made without sufficient knowledge of the subject. It
may also happen due to the lack of necessary words and correct grammar. This makes the
draft unclear and creates ambiguity in the legislature.
6. Incomplete rules: There are few implied rules and regulations and some implied
powers and privileges which are not mentioned in the statute and when these are not defined
properly in the statute this leads to ambiguity.

7
CH-3 RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Literal or Grammatical Rule

It is the first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the words used in this text are to be
given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. After the interpretation, if the
meaning is completely clear and unambiguous then the effect shall be given to a provision of
a statute regardless of what may be the consequences.
The basic rule is that whatever the intention legislature had while making any provision it has
been expressed through words and thus, are to be interpreted according to the rules of
grammar. It is the safest rule of interpretation of statutes because the intention of the
legislature is deduced from the words and the language used.
According to this rule, the only duty of the court is to give effect if the language of the statute
is plain and has no business to look into the consequences which might arise. The only
obligation of the court is to expound the law as it is and if any harsh consequences arise then
the remedy for it shall be sought and looked out by the legislature.

Case Laws

Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay2, In this case, the appellant, a citizen of India after
arriving at the airport did not declare that he was carrying gold with him. During his search
was carried on, gold was found in his possession as it was against the notification of the
government and was confiscated under section 167(8) of Sea Customs Act.

Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act,
1947. The appellant challenged this trial to be violative under Article 20(2) of the Indian
Constitution. According to this article, no person shall be punished or prosecuted more than
once for the same offence. This is considered as double jeopardy.

It was held by the court that the Seas Act neither a court nor any judicial tribunal. Thus,
accordingly, he was not prosecuted earlier. Hence, his trial was held to be valid.

2
1953 AIR 325

8
In Manmohan Das versus Bishan Das3 the issue in the case was regarding the interpretation
of section 3(1)(c) of U.P Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. In this case, a tenant was
liable for evidence if he has made addition and alternate in the building without proper
authority and unauthorized perception as materially altered the accommodation or is likely to
diminish its value. The appellant stated that only the constitution can be covered, which
diminishes the value of the property and the word ‘or’ should be read as land.
It was held that as per the rule of literal interpretation, the word ‘or’ should be given the
meaning that a prudent man understands the grounds of the event are alternative and not
combined.

The Mischief Rule

Mischief Rule was originated in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is the rule of purposive
construction because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying this rule. It
is known as Heydon’s rule because it was given by Lord Poke in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is
called as mischief rule because the focus is on curing the mischief.

In the Heydon’s case, it was held that there are four things which have to be followed for true
and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as follows-

1. What was the common law before the making of an act.

2. What was the mischief for which the present statute was enacted.
3. What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved and appointed to cure the
disease of the commonwealth.
4. The true reason of the remedy.

The purpose of this rule is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy

Case laws

3
1967 AIR 643

9
Smith v. Huges4, in this case around the 1960s, the prostitutes were soliciting in the streets of
London and it was creating a huge problem in London. This was causing a great problem in
maintaining law and order. To prevent this problem, Street Offences Act, 1959 was enacted.
After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started soliciting from windows and balconies.

Further, the prostitutes who were carrying on to solicit from the streets and balconies were
charged under section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that they were not
solicited from the streets.

The court held that although they were not soliciting from the streets yet the mischief
rule must be applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall look into this issue.
Thus, by applying this rule, the court held that the windows and balconies were taken to be an
extension of the word street and charge sheet was held to be correct.

Pyare Lal v. Ram Chandra5, the accused in this case, was prosecuted for selling the sweeten
supari which was sweetened with the help of an artificial sweetener. He was prosecuted under
the Food Adulteration Act. It was contended by Pyare Lal that supari is not a food item. The
court held that the dictionary meaning is not always the correct meaning, thereby, the
mischief rule must be applicable, and the interpretation which advances the remedy shall be
taken into consideration. Therefore, the court held that the word ‘food’ is consumable by
mouth and orally. Thus, his prosecution was held to be valid.

The Golden Rule

It is known as the golden rule because it solves all the problems of interpretation. The rule
says that to start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the interpretation given
through the literal rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity, injustice, inconvenience,
hardship, inequity, then in all such events the literal meaning shall be discarded and
in1terpretation shall be done in such a manner that the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled.

4
1960 WLR 830
5
1979 WLN 591

10
The literal rule follows the concept of interpreting the natural meaning of the words used in
the statute. But if interpreting natural meaning leads to any sought of repugnance, absurdity
or hardship, then the court must modify the meaning to the extent of injustice or absurdity
caused and no further to prevent the consequence.

This rule suggests that the consequences and effects of interpretation deserve a lot more
important because they are the clues of the true meaning of the words used by the legislature
and its intention. At times, while applying this rule, the interpretation done may entirely be
opposite of the literal rule, but it shall be justified because of the golden rule. The
presumption here is that the legislature does not intend certain objects. Thus, any such
interpretation which leads to unintended objects shall be rejected.

Case laws

Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh6,

In this case, there was an issue with regard to issuing of the notice under section 99 of
Representation of People’s Act, 1951, with regard to corrupt practices involved in the
election.

According to the rule, the notice shall be issued to all those persons who are a party to the
election petition and at the same time to those who are not a party to it. Tirath Singh
contended that no such notice was issued to him under the said provision. The notices were
only issued to those who were non-parties to the election petition. This was challenged to be
invalid on this particular ground.

The court held that what is contemplated is giving of the information and the information
even if it is given twice remains the same. The party to the petition is already having the
notice regarding the petition, therefore, section 99 shall be so interpreted by applying the
golden rule that notice is required against non-parties only.

6
AIR 1955 SC 850

11
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company7, Issues of the case are as
follows.

A transporting company was carrying a parcel of apples was challenged and charge-sheeted.
The truck of the transporting company was impounded as the parcel contained opium along
with the apples. At the same time, the invoice shown for the transport consisted of apples
only.

Section 11 of the opium act 1878, all the vehicles which transport the contraband articles
shall be impounded and articles shall be confiscated. It was confiscated by the transport
company that they were unaware of the fact that opium was loaded along with the apples in
the truck.

The court held that although the words contained in section 11 of the said act provided that
the vehicle shall be confiscated but by applying the literal rule of interpretation for this
provision it is leading to injustice and inequity and therefore, this interpretation shall be
avoided. The words ‘shall be confiscated’ should be interpreted as ‘may be confiscated’.

State of Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum8, a period of limitation was prescribed for, under
section 18 of land acquisition act, 1844, that an appeal shall be filed for the announcement of
the award within 6 months of the announcement of the compensation. Award was passed in
the name of Quiser Jehan. It was intimated to her after the period of six months about this by
her counsel. The appeal was filed beyond the period of six months. The appeal was rejected
by the lower courts.

It was held by the court that the period of six months shall be counted from the time when
Quiser Jehan had the knowledge because the interpretation was leading to absurdity. The
court by applying the golden rule allowed the appeal.

7
AIR 1967 SC 276
8
AIR 1963 SC 1604

12
CH-4 THE CONCEPT OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

In case of liberal interpretation of a statute, the construction of the statute is done in such a
way that it enlarges the meaning of the legislation to bring within its ambit situations or cases
which are within the spirit of the statute, which ultimately gives such a meaning to the statute
that the end can be achieved without being inconsistent to the words of the statute. Such
meaning of the statute may or may not be directly drawn from the words of the statute, but it
clearly encompasses the intendment of the statute Visa-Vis doing justice to the case. This
does not mean that the words should be stretched beyond the scope of their natural meaning
to an extent that they lose their original intent; neither does it advocate extension of a
provision which is already clearly and unambiguously worded and fit for the case to be
applied to. By way of giving that part liberal interpretation the logical defect can be rectified
and the latent intent of the legislature behind the statue of law can be given effect. In leading
cases judiciary has given liberal interpretation to the statues so as to advance substantial
justice
Liberal construction only means that the words of the statute should be constructed so that
they can be interpreted in a fair, reasonable manner adhering to the spirit of the law. In
application of liberal construction, the interpreter cannot, however, construct the words so as
to read into the statute something that is clearly rejected through the plain meaning of the
words9. According to Eskrigde, interpretation of statutes should always be done with a
solution-oriented approach. In the case of some statutes, the words are such that they are
applicable inspite of the changing social and economic scenario.
If the example of The Indian Telegraph Act can be given as an example, the ambit of which
was extended by the Indian Judiciary to include “interference” even in wireless
communication. In The Senior Inspector and Others v Laxmi Narayan Chopra and Others10
the Judgment was given by Subbarao, J., saying that wire is just the physical matter; the
purpose of the section was to prohibit interference in communication. Thus the ambit of an
1885 Act was increased to accommodate the changes in the social scenario. Juvenile Justice
Act 2000 is another addition to the list of beneficial legislations. The earlier Act of 1986
defined ‘juvenile’ a person not having attained sixteen year of age in case of a boy, and a

9
W. Eskrigde – DYNAMIC STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
10
1962 AIR 159

13
person not having attained age of eighteen years in case of a girl. Act of 2000 replaced it
defined juvenile as a person who has not completed age of eighteen years of age11.
Eskrigde says that the liberal or dynamic interpretation of a statute depends on the nature of
the statute, whether it is worded generally, and caters to a wider realm of problems, and is
intended to have a long life; on the situation wherein it is to be applied in, taking into
consideration the social and economic backdrop; and, also, whether it is to have future
applications.
The relevance of liberal interpretation can be highlighted by elaborating the concept of hard
case. A Hard case is one such which is hard to solve, i.e. no pre-formed legal statute can be
squarely applied to it, or the statute which exists is not enough to accommodate the case at
hand. Advocates of the liberal regime of interpretation puts down the argument that literal
construction of statues is not often enough to arrive at a solution in a hard case, such that a
new criteria or approach has to be taken up to solve the case. In R v. Harris12, where the
respondent bit off the victim’s nose, had to be acquitted. The reason for his acquittal was that
the law, which provides that it is an offence to “stab, cut or wound” presuppose the
requirement of a weapon. Since the statute could not be squarely set around the problem, the
defendant could not be penalized. The idea of using strict interpretation in case of penal
statutes failed to deliver justice to the victim.
The legitimate expectation from judiciary is that it would deliver judgment keeping in mind
the expectations of the society. But this is not always possible when the court applies literal
construction. When situations of such absurdity arise, then applying the law to its word does
not pose much of a solution. In case of an absurdity arising due to literal interpretation, the
Golden rule of Interpretation needs to be employed

11
Lawctopus, Beneficient Statutes and Beneficient Rules of Construction, August 12, 2015.
12
(1836) 7 C & P 446

14
CH-5 CRITICISM AND CAUTIONS WITH LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTES.
It should be kept in mind that, aim behind liberal construction of statutes is to keep law
moving with the development of society and to satisfy the progressive needs of people. But
as everything in this world have limitations, canon of liberal interpretation should not be used
where the meaning of the provision is clear, precise and unambiguous. In Sundarambal v.
Government of Goa13 appellant demanded Supreme Court to declare a school teacher
workman under Industrial Dispute Act. Court considering the definition of ‘workman’ under
section 2 (d) of ID Act held that teacher does not comes under any of the category (skilled or
unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work), hence cannot be declared as
‘workman’ under Industrial Dispute Act. In this case court did not go beyond the literal scope
of provision as it was clear and unambiguous. It should be applied without “redrafting or
doing violence to the provision”.
While interpreting one should not be guided solely by sympathy. In Secretary State of
Karnataka v Umadevi14 , Supreme Court held that those employed by state or its
instrumentalities, temporarily or on contractual basis on daily wages do not have right o
regularization only because they have served for many years.
Though the beneficial statutes should receive liberal interpretation, It should also be kept in
mind that the benefit be given to only those for which it was meant to and the scope should
not be extended. If the statute confers the benefit only upon the fulfillment of certain
conditions, then non-compliance with those conditions would nullify the benefit. In Nasir
Uddin v Sita Ram it was held that Legislations such as the Control of Rent and Eviction Acts
are for the protection of tenant from unjust eviction and should be construed liberally in case
of doubt, but this Act also creates restriction that benefit under this can be enjoyed if the
statutory provisions under this are strictly complied with.15
Another most thing which should be taken care of while the current topic is discussed is that
personal bias of judges is kept at bay while they perform their duty as has been alleged a lot
of times that the personal biases of judges reflects in their judgements. Moreover the
principle of separation of powers should be kept in mind by the judges as it is the very
essence of our constitution.

13
AIR 1988 SC 1700
14
(2006) 4 SCC 1
15
(2003) 2 SCC 577

15
CH -6 CONCLUSION
Literal construction is mainly concerned with the text of the law, while Liberal construction
concerns itself with the spirit of the law, or the reason behind the law. Literal and Liberal
interpretations of statutes cannot be compared to each other to determine which shall have
superiority over the other. In case of clarity in words of the statute, literal construction can be
employed without any sweat. If the statute is aimed at welfare, then liberal construction is the
best option
While construing the statutes, the interpretation which advance the object of the law enacted
should be resorted to. Aim behind liberal construction has always been to safeguard the
interest of the people by safeguarding their socio-economic rights. Welfare statutes should be
given widest possible interpretation and not to narrow it down so as to defeat the ulterior
intention of the legislature. With the evolution of the societal living standards and hence their
right, principle of strict and narrow jacket legislation is no more followed. Liberal
construction of statutes has made the justice system more progressive.

16