CHAPTER II

NECESSITY OF
OBJECT AND
THE MEANING,
INTERPRETATION

SYNOPSIS

MEANING O F INTERPRETATION

INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION

INTERPRETATION
OBJECT AND PURPOSE
OF
MEANING OF AMBIGUITY

Latent Ambiguity
Patent Amblguity
PROVISION
NECESSITY TO INTERPRET A
CHAPTER SUMMARY

MEANING OF INTERPRETATION

with the Legislature. It is the

In India, the law making power rests
Law is enacted by the
Legislature, who enjoys the authority to legislate.
The Legislature opens its mind
Legislature with a definite purpose in mind.
its expression in the
in form of certain language. Hence, every law finds
will of
language itself. A statute therefore is the formal expression of the
Legislature.
The legislated law or statute law has attained supremacy over all other
sources of law. The other sources have almost yielded before it.
It has
become a type of standard. It is embodied in an authoritative form of written
words. This literary expression is an essential part of the law.
The courts are supposed to administer justice according to the mandate
of law enacted by the Legislature. In other words, it is the duty of the courts
to apply the letter of the law. Therefore it is necessary to understand the
language of the statute in its correct and true sense so that the intention or
legislature is carried out properly and the object and purpose for whien
statute was enacted is achieved. To ascertain the true sense of the language,
to as6ign correct
itin isthenecessary meaning to the words and expressions used
language.
It is presumed that the legislature has used
appropriate, clear
and

precise words to express itself. But where a word bears more than one
meaning, the language of the statute might be understood in two or ore

senses, out of which only one may be in tune with the true
întenut
legislature. Therefore it becomes necessary to determine what meaning is
be given to a mean
word used in the legislation. It is this exercise whic s the
the

24)
 THE MEANING, OBJECT AND NECESSITY OF INTERPRETATION 25

matter of inteterpretation. Interpretation therefore can be defined as a

subje
process which ich is adopted for ascertaining the meaning of writings or intent
pro framers of the document. According to SALMOND, by interpretation
of t
meant
the processby which courts seek to ascertain the meaning of
is gislation th the medium of authoritative forms in which it is
islation through
expressed

In interpreting and applying statute law, the courts are concerned with
within the
ords and their true meaning. Statute law is rigid and bound
wor
Where
limits of authoritative letters, if the words of the statute are clear.
its discretion to
the words of the statute are not clear, the court can exercise
interpret the statute in accordance with its object and purpose.
Bulk Trading S.A.,' it was held that judicial
In Bhatia International v.
is imbued with creativity as well as realism because
art of interpretation
of discretion and choice, regardless of the
interpretation implies a degree
are to expound, not legislate.
conventional principle that Judges
Status Spg. Mills Ltd., the Apex Court held
In TN. Electricity Board v.
statutes.
the last say in interpretation of
that the court has
INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
determination of the
Two expressions used to refer to the process of
are
and
used in the statute, i.e., Interpretation
meaning of language World Dictionary, interpretation
Construction. According to Webstar's New translation,
means the act or
result of interpreting, explanation, meaning,
Construction is an act or process
of constructing, the way in
exposition etc. COOLEY
m a n n e r or method of building.
which something is constructed, to him,
these two terms. According
made an effort to distinguish form of words
is the art of finding out the true sense of any
interpretation" which the author
from them the same idea
and enabling others to derive of drawing
whereas "construction" is the process
intended to convey of text
that lie beyond the direct expression
conclusions respecting subjects In simpler terms,
though not within the letter of law.
which are in the spirit we find out true meaning
of the words
it can be said that in "interpretation", real of the
"construction" we draw the
sense
but in
used in the language not be prima facie reflected by the words used
anguage itself which might in common usage, both
these words are
However, today
in the language. of each other and also used synonymously.
aKen as synonyms

INTERPRETATION

OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF

what the Legislature
interpretation is to discover
enactment. It is
The object of to be ascertained from the text of
Lended. This intention is speaks its mind by use of
correct expressions
the
umed that the Legislatureis an ambiguity in the words used in
herefore, unless there understood in their
should be read and
anguage, the provisions of a provision
is clear, it should not
the language used in
naical sense. When a "supposed
intention". The words
to arrive at
S e d or strained
1432.
(2002) 4 SCC 105: AIR 2002 SC
2. 2008) 7 SCC 353: AIR 2008 SC 2838.
26 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

the provision should be assigned their plain and ordinary meaning and tho.
the language should be understood in its literal sense. If the results d
are absurd, then the courts should look for some other "logical" meaning
those words to remove the ambiguity and absurdity The idoa behind thi of
that the Legislature is not expected to have used tne words capable of
bearing more than one meaning, so as to lead to alternative constructio
but if such a situation arises, then the construction which advance8 th
e
policy of the enactment must be upheld.
In Mahadev Govind Gharge v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper
Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka,' it was held that the provisions of
a statute are normally construed to achieve the ends of justice, advance the
interest of public and to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
In Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust v. A.G. Syed Mohideen," it was heid
that the purpose of interpretation is not to make a provision what the judge
thinks it should be, but to make it what the legislature intended it to b

MEANING OF AMBIGUITY
The term "ambiguity" means uncertainty. When a particular word is
said to be ambiguous, it means that such word bears doubtful sense or
uncertain meaning and it is open to more than one meaning.
Some examples of ambiguous words are given below
"Award" means (i) prize, e.g., he received bravery award at the hands
of the Prime Minister; (ii) decision of
court, e.g., the Labour
Court passed an award in favour of complainant; etc.
"Current" means (i) in common or general use, e.g., current coins are
made of metal; (i) of the
present time, e.g., the house-owner
shall charge higher rent in the current
month; or current
prices of the commodities are beyond reach of the
common
man; or for success in the competitive exam, one must De
aware of current
affairs; (ii) a stream of water, air or gas,
e-g, water current in the rivers is turbulent at the
where they originate; (iv) flow of place
electricity, e.g.,
pay the electricity bill and hence the current
he did n
house has been terminated; etc. supply in
"Plant" means (i) to fix something stealthily,
e.g., the terrorists m
plant the bomb in market
area; (ii) living organism s
aller

than trees and shrubs,

e.g., you can get a rose plant ro
nursery; (ii) equipments of an and
institution, e.g., the plant
machinery of the industry was damaged by the sstriking
workers; (iv) to sow the seeds or to n the
put
ground, e.g., this tree was planted by the sapiin5 of
a
the
Company; (v) an industry Chairma
set-up generate
to or produce
coramodity scale, e.g., there is a Theruiaal Powe
P o w e

large
in
Plant in Koradi, near
Nagpur; etc.
1. 2011 (6) SCC 321.
2. AIR 2010 SC 671 2010
(2) SCC 613.
 THE MEANING, OBJECT AND
NECESsITY OF INTERPRETATION 27
means (i) concerted
went on strike from stoppage work, e.g., the factory worker
Strike" of
yesterday; (ii) to hit, e.g., one must strike
when iron is hot; (iii) to produce the flame
strike the match; (iv) to cause by rubbing, e.g.,
to sound, e.g., the clock
ten (v) come into
mind, e.g., how did this idea strike tostrikes
mind; etc. your

"Well" means (i) a hole drilled to obtain

subsurface, e.g., a well is dug on his land water/gas/oil
from
to meet the water
requirements; (ii) in good health, e.g., he is quite well now
(iii) satisfactory, e.g., on the stage, he sang well; (iv) properly,
e.g., one must behave well (v) thoroughly, e.g., have you
prepared well for the exams; etc.

"Will" means ) determination, e.g., where there is a will, there is

a way; (ii) auxiliary verb expressing future tense, e,g., he will
go to his home town by car; (iv) an instrument for
bequeathing the property which is intended to take effect
after the death of testator, e.g., it is advisable to execute a
Will in order to avoid property disputes in future; etc.
In case the words used in a language are capable of bearing more than
one meaning, there is reasonable possibility that the language is
a

understood in two different senses. In that event, it becomes necessary to

determine which meaning should be considered to be correct. However, such
a difficulty shall not arise if
the words of a statute do not suffer from
of interpretation is
ambiguity. Therefore, the first and foremost principle only
and bear one
that if the words are plain, precise, unambiguous
their natural and ordinary meaning.
meaning, then they should be assigned of a
On the other hand, where the language provision gives out two different
then it would be legitimate for the
meanings due to ambiguity of the words,
which will introduce uncertainty, friction
courts to reject that interpretation,
one which best
effectuates the purpose of the
or confusion and uphold the

legislation.
The ambiguities are of two kinds,
viz., Latent ambiguity (ambiguitas
patens).
latens) and Patent ambiguity (ambiguitas

Latent ambiguity: means hidden or concealed or suppressed.

The term "latent" literally
in the language used in
an

such ambiguity is not apparent but the

Therefore is certain and explicit
On the face of it, the language extrinsic or by some
instrument. evidence of something
ambiguity is introduced by
instrument.
collateral matter outside the
and precise but by the
the words may be clear
Will, of many meanings
For example, in a vagueness may be revealed. Out intention of
rnsic evidence the been intended by
the testator. The
could have
aWn, only one
evidence.
estator may be shown by extrinsic Will, the
is. In a
what latent ambiguity The
illustration will elucidate cousin named X".
An Rs. one lac to my
has two
la may say, "I bequeath
free from ambiguity. But if the testator
a g e is apparently
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

which cousin is
28 creeps
in as to
uncertainty
the
name X, intention.
to show the
identical
cousins of admissible
Evidence is
intended.

Patent ambiguity: This kind of ambiguity is

obvious.
means
literally c a s e of patent
ambiguity, no
The term "patent" i n s t r u m e n t . In
the face of the intention.
apparent on admissible to
deduce the
extrinsic evidence
is to his aunt Y
bequeaths Rs. o n e lac
of the n a m e of "Z
testator
a Will, a
For example, in He has no aunt
cousin Z. aunt Y'. Now
lac to his before mentioned
and Rs. one two lacs of his
Rs. aunt Y". No
Afterwards he bequeaths "before mentioned
whom he refers to by
stating
the question is show the intention
of the testator.
extrinsic evidence is admissible to
PROVISION
TO INTERPRET A
NECESSITY
to construe a provision. If
becomes necessary
The question is when it o n e meaning, there
words used are certain and precise and admit of only
the is plain and
words. Similarly if the language
is no need to expound those can be invoked
effect. The rules of interpretation
explicit, it should be given
to the language used. In other words,
only if there is any doubt with regard words of
a statute is to be interpreted
when it is ambiguous. But when the
a statute are clear and plain
and are susceptible of only one meaning, the
courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences.

Following case laws effectively answer this vital question.

In Keshauji Ravji & Co. v. C.I.T, the Apex court observed that as long
as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language, resort to any
interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent cannot then be applied
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 of
interpretation arises when the words used in the statute are on their own
terms, ambivalent and do not manifest the intention of legislature.
In Arul Nadar
Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Section 21-A of
v.
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (58 of
1961) was interpreted by Supreme Court. It was held that the contentions
that the object of the Act being to further reduce the ceiling area, Section
21-A, if made applicable to the pending proceeding, then the said object
would be frustrated, cannot be sustained inasmuch as when the language or
a statute is unambiguous, in
interpreting the provisions thereof, it is not
necessary to look into the legislative intent or the object of the Act.
In Ombalika Das v. Hulisa
29-B of West Bengal Premises
Shaw," Supreme Court construed Section
Tenancy Act, 1956. It was held that for the
purpose of interpreting a provision of law, resort can
intent if the language be had to the legislative
employed
of meanings more than one.
by the Legislature is
doubtful or suscepti
But when the
language plain and explicit a
is
1. (1990) 2 SCC 231.
2. (1998) 7 SCC 157.
3. (2002) 4 SCC 539.
 THE MEANING, 0BJECT AND NECESSITY OF INTERPRETATION 29

aat admit of any doubtful interpretation, the Supreme Court cannot, by

reference to an assumed legislative intent, expand the meaning of an
expressid employed by the Legislature and therein include such category of
a s the Legislature has not chosen to do.
persons

n Prakash Kumar alias Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat,' it was

held
held that
that itit is a trite lawthat the jurisdiction of the court to interpret a
otute can be invoked only in case of ambiguity. It is also well settled that
every s t a tute
u t is to be interpreted without any violence to its language. When

n expression
is
capable or more than one meaning, the court would attempt
consistent with the purpose of the
to resolve the ambiguity in atomanner the Consequences of the alternative
provision, having regard
constructions.

v. C.I.7.," the said question has been

In Pandian Chemicals Ltd.
that the rules of interpretation
answered by Supreme Court by holding to the express
would into play only if there is any doubt with regard
come
for
Where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope
language used.
importing any rule of interpretation.
State of A.P.,' the Supreme Court
In Tata Consultancy Services v.
that a court should not be overzealous
observed that it is furthermore trite are plain.
or obscurities in words which
in searching ambiguities
BRLBC Division, Shimoga v. Lokesh
In Executive Engineer No. 4 such
Karnataka High Court held that
Reddy, the Division Bench of more than one to
necessity arises, if words in a statute are susceptible rule
there is no necessity to invoke any
construction. In case of plain words
intent.
to ascertain legislative
it was held that the court's
In Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal," invoked when the same is
statute can be
jurisdiction to interpret a can iron out the
that in a given case the court
ambiguous. It is well known It cannot enlarge the
but it cannot change the texture of the fabric.
creases is plain
or intention when
the language of the provision
scope of legislation a statute or read
It cannot add or subtract words to
and unambiguous. rewrite or recast legislation.
into it which is not there. It cannot
8omething
Mill (P) Ltd.," it was held
University v. Palitana Sugar
In Bhavnagar that the same should
of construction of statute
that it is the basic principle
then chapter by chapter, section by section and
word by
be read as a whole, of statute is necessary when
construction or interpretation
Word. Recourse to and not otherwise. An
inconsistency therein
here is ambiguity, obscurity,
or
statute and unless
effect to all parts of the
ort must be made nogive thereof shall be rendered surplusage the
to or

part determined on
ADEOlutely necessary,
of a provision
of law has to be the
redundant. True meaning with due regard to
its clear language,
ES18 of what it provides by
1, (2005) 2 SCC 409.
2. (2003) 5 SCC 690.
8. (2005) 1 SCC 308.
III CLR 126 (Karnataka High Court) (D.B.)
2003
6. (2003) 2 SCC 577.
6. (2003) 2 SCC 111 : AIR 2003 SC 511.
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

intention of the L
30
the on
islature
is nlaure
scheme of law. Scope of the legislation
the language
rovision
of the provision plain
ordineannd and
enlarged
when must enactments
rily e
be
cannot be
other words,
statutory
and no words be D
hall be
shall added.
In meaning
to do so to Dreved,
nambiguous.
their plain
according to necessary ent a
construed
unless it is plaily unreasonable able, unworkable
unworkabl
modified or
altered or absurd,
unintelligible,
is also well settlad
provision from being
the rest of the
statute. It hat
irreconciliable with c o n s t r u e d so as to fulsi
totally must liberally
be fulfil
a beneficent provision of legislation
frustrate it.
and not to
the statutory purpose Mandir Trust,' it has hor
Adarsh Vidya oeen
In Awdhesh Narayan Singh
v.
legislative
function. When
When Legislature
that enacting a law is a
executive or
Ior the
held to an executive, 1t 13 pernmissidle
delegates such power of statutory provision n,
exercise such power. Interpretation
government to
function-pure and
and simple. The simple. The
is a judicial
primary or delegated, in a statute and give meanine ta
do both, use words
government cannot latter is of judiciarv
of government, the
those words. The former is power
it is for the judiciary to give meaning to
Once a provision has been made,
to interpret them and to apply
the words used by the rule making authority,
to concrete cases.

it was held that when the

In State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh,'
are reasonably
words of a statute arè clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they
to give effect to that
susceptible of only one meaning, the courts are bound
to what has
meaning irrespective of consequences. Attention should be paid law but
been said as also to what has not been said. Court can interpret
cannot legislate.
In Sharadchandra Vasant Chitnis v. Mrs. Neela Ashok Korde, the
Bombay High Court observed that the Court has to give plain meaning to
the language used by the legislation and only when the language used by
the legislature is ambiguous the Court may try to interpret the same in sucu
a way that it serves and furthers the purpose and obiect of the legislati0n.
is question of reading something in the
But when there no such ambiguity,
statute is not permissible.
In C.I.T v. Caleutta
Knitwears," it was held that where words of stan
are
absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to pr
of interpretation other than literal rule.

1. 2004 (1) Mh LJ
676 (Bom. HC) (FB).
2. (2005) 10 SCC 437.
3. 2008 (4) Mh.L.J.
873.
4. (2014) 6 SCC 444: AIR 2014 SC 2970.
 THE MEANING, OBJECT AND
NECESSITY OF INTERPRETATION 31
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Meaning of
interpretation-Law is enacted by the
Legislature with
definite purpose 1n mind. The
Legislature opens its mind in form of certain
language. Hence, every law inds its expression in the language itself. The
ourts are supposed to administer justice according to the mandate of law
and hence the language of the statute is to be understood in its true sense.
TE the words are clear and precise, they themselves express the intention.
Rut where a word bears more than one meaning, the language of the statute
may give out several senses. In such a case it becomes necessary to
ascertain the meaning of the word. This exercise is known as interpretation.
SALMOND says that by interpretation is meant the process by which courts
seek to ascertain the meaning of legislation through the medium of
authoritative forms in which it is expressed.
Interpretation and construction--Two expressions are used to refer
to the process of determination of the meaning of language used in the
statute, i.e., Interpretation and Construction. COOLEY distinguished these
two terms. According to him "interpretation" is the art of finding out the
true sense of any form of words and enabling others to derive from them the
same idea which the author intended to convey whereas "construction" is the
process of drawing conclusions respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct
expression of text which are in the spirit though not within the letter of law.
However, presently both these words are taken synonyms of each other and
also used synonymously.
Object and purpose of interpretation-The object of interpretation
is to discover what the Legislature intended. If the words are specific, they
should be assigned their plain meaning and then the langusye should be
understood in its literal sense. But where words are susceptible to more
than one meaning, the courts have to ascertain what meaning the words
bear so that true intention of Legislature can be derived.

Meaning of ambiguity-The term "ambiguity" means uncertainty.

When a particular word bears more than one meaning, it is said to be
ambiguous. If the words used in a language are ambiguous, the language
may be understood in two or more different senses. In that event, it becomes
necessary to ascertain the true meaning of the ambiguous words. The
meaning which will introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion should be
rejected and that meaning should be upheld which best effectuates the
purpose of the legislation.
The ambiguities are of two kinds, viz., Latent ambiguity and Patent
ambiguity.
Latent ambiguity: This kind of ambiguity is not apparent. Prima
acie, the language is explicit but the ambiguity is introduced by evidence of
SOmething extrinsic.
Patent ambiguity : This kind of ambiguity is apparent. No extrinsie
dence is admissible to deduce the intention.
Necessity to interpret a provision-The necessity to interpret a
EOV1sion arises only if the words employed in the language are ambiguous.
 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
32
and precise, the courts a .
But when the words of a statute are clear, plain
to give effect to that meaning. The rules of interpretation would conmo
bound to the language used. In cCaB
into play only if there is any doubt with regard
to invoke any rulee to ascertain
of plain words there is no necessity it cannot
but it
the creases but cannot change
legislative intent. The court can iron out
the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation. It cannat
add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not
there. It cannot rewrite or recast legislation.