Statutory Interpretation is theprocess by which courts interpret and apply laws. Even if the statutes are very much detailed, some amount of interpretation is often required when a case involves specific facts. To understand the primary and secondary rules of interpretation of statutes, let’s first decode the important terms.
“A statute” is a formal written enactment of a legislative body, such as a Parliament or State Legislature. It is a formal codified rule that must be followed and is binding on all persons within the jurisdiction.
“Interpretation” is a judicial process whereby courts seek to ascertain the true meaning of Legislative texts, especially when the language is ambiguous or unclear. The aim is to determine the intent of the legislature and apply it appropriately to the facts of the case. Interpretation means explaining or understanding the meaning of word in a Statute, contract or any legal document. It involves decoding Ambiguities, conflicting provisions and undefined or broad terms.
Need for Interpretation of Statutes
Statutory Interpretation is needed when:
- The language of the statute is ambiguous, vague or unclear.
- There is a conflict between two provisions and the statute is silent on a specific issue.
- Certain words are technical foreign or uncommon.
- To ascertain the legislative intent.
- To avoid absurdity or injustice in application.
- To harmonize conflicting provisions.
- To ensure that justice is served in changing socio-legal contexts.
- Some statutes use technical language because of their complicated subject matter. They also sometimes require simplification by the Courts.
Rules of Interpretation: Two Broad Categories
The Courts usually follow two main categories of interpretative rules, those are Primary Rules of Interpretation and Secondary Rules of Interpretation.
While primary rules (like literal rule) are the starting point, they may not always resolve complexities. In such cases, courts resort to secondary rules of interpretation to find clarity and justice. In this blog, we will focus upon the interpretation of statutes in India through secondary rules.
Secondary Rules of Interpretation of Statutes
Noscitur a Sociis
“Noscitur a Sociis” is a Latin phrase which means ‘a word is known by the company it keeps’. In legal interpretation, it means that the meaning of unclear or vague word can be understood by looking at the other words surrounded in the same sentence or list. Every word in a sentence has two things to consider: its actual meaning (denotation) and how it fits into the sentence (connotation). Both of these are important when we use the rule of noscitur a sociis – to figure out what a word means in a law or contract. It helps in understanding the law. It comes from Latin words: “noscitur” means knowing, “a” means with and “socii” means association. So, noscitur a sociis means “knowing with association.” 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.
Purpose of Rule:
The goal of the Noscitur a Sociis is to avoid giving a word a broad or inappropriate meaning and ensuring the word fits within the context. It helps in identifying the legislature’s true intent. However, it can be used in cases where the intention of Legislature or Parliament, as the case may be, reflects its deliberate usages of words which would widen the scope.
Example:
The law prohibits carrying knives, guns and other dangerous objects. Hence, the term” other dangerous objects” would be interpreted to mean objects similar to knives and guns like swords or explosives – not things like sharp pencils or kitchen forks. So the general word “objects” gets a narrow specific meaning based on the words knives and guns.
Case Law on Noscitor a Sociis
One prominent case where the principle was discussed is State of Bombay v.Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (1960). While the court ultimately rejected the application of the rule in that specific case, it provided a detailed analysis of the rule and its scope. The court emphasized that noscitur a sociis is a rule of construction that helps clarify the meaning of ambiguous terms by examining the words with which they are associated. It should not be used when the legislative intent is clear and the words are deliberately used in an open-ended manner.
Conclusion:
Noscitur a Sociis is a powerful rule that prevents legal misinterpretation. It reminds us that context is everything, and that words shouldn’t be pulled out of their surroundings to give meaning that doesn’t fit the sentence or legal intents. Courts use it to ensure clarity, consistency and justice in statutory interpretation.
Ejusdem Generis
Ejusdem Generis means “of the same kind or class”. When the general words follow specific words, the general words are restricted to things of the same nature as those specifically listed. While interpreting a statute, the Court often faces provisions that include a list of specific words followed by general words. The doctrine steps in to ensure that these general words are not interpreted in isolation but are limited to the same category or genus as the specific words. This approach safeguards the intention of the legislature and prevents an overly expansive interpretation.
Purpose of Rule:
The primary objective of the Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis is to align the interpretation of statutes with legislative intent. By ensuring that general words are not given an overly broad meaning, Courts maintain coherence and the purpose of law. This is particularly important when ambiguous language in statutes could lead to multiple interpretations.
Example:
In cars, trucks, vans and other vehicles, the general word “vehicles” is interpreted to mean road vehicles not airplanes or boats.
Case laws:
Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise (1972): The Supreme Court used ejusdem generis to interpret “other intoxicating liquors” in an excise duty law, limiting it to liquors similar to those already listed, rather than all possible liquors.
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala (1960): The court applied the rule to limit the interpretation of “other land” to land of the same type as the specific lands mentioned earlier in the statute.
Conclusion:
The rule of Ejusdem Generis is an important tool in the interpretation of statutes. This secondary rule of interpretation of statutes ensures that general words following a list of specific words are not interpreted too broadly, but are instead confined to the same class or category as those specifically mentioned. This rule helps maintain clarity, coherence, and legislative intent in legal interpretation. By preventing overextension of the meaning of general terms, it protects the law from being misapplied or stretched beyond what was intended by the lawmakers. In summary, Ejusdem Generis promotes fairness and consistency by reading general terms in light of their specific context, ensuring the law is applied in a way that aligns with its true purpose.
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius” is a Latin legal maxim that means “The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the others.” In simple terms, when a law explicitly lists certain items, it is assumed that anything not listed is intentionally excluded by the lawmakers. Courts use this maxim to understand the intent of the Legislature when interpreting laws. If a law lists specific items or actions, it can be inferred that other items or actions were intentionally left out.
Purpose of the Expressio Unius Est ExclusioAlterius:
The main purpose of this secondary rule of interpretation is to:
- Respect the deliberate choices made by the Legislature.
- Avoid adding words or meanings that are not included in the statute.
- Ensure the intention of the lawmaker is followed as written.
- Maintain precision and clarity in legal interpretation.
This rule helps Courts refrain from interpreting laws in a way that includes things not mentioned, unless there is clear intention to do so.
Example
If a provision says: “Students are allowed to bring pens, pencils, and erasers to the exam hall”, it implies that other items like calculators or rulers are not allowed, even though they are not specifically prohibited. The mention of certain items excludes all others.
Case Law:
The Supreme Court of India, in GVK Industries Ltd. vs. ITO (2011), provided the definition of the maxim:
“The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.”
In practice, this means that if a statute lists certain rights, obligations, or exemptions. Anything not included in the list is presumed not to apply. The rationale behind this principle is to prevent courts from reading into statutory provisions that were intentionally omitted by the Legislature.
Conclusion:
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius is a valuable rule of statutory interpretation. It ensures that courts do not go beyond the language of the law, respecting the words actually used by the Legislature. By assuming that anything not mentioned is excluded, this rule promotes clarity, precision, and faithful application of the laws.
However, this rule is not absolute and should be applied only when the context clearly supports it. If the statute shows intent to include more than what is mentioned, the rule may not apply.
Contemporanea Expositio
It is one of the important secondary rules of interpretation of statutes. “Contemporanea Expositio” is a Latin legal maxim which means: “Interpretation should be in accordance with how it was understood at the time it was enacted.”
In simpler terms, this rule says that old statutes should be interpreted based on how people understood and applied them when they were originally passed.
It is especially used for ancient or historical laws, where the meanings of words or phrases may have changed over time.
Purpose of Contemporanea Expositio:
The main purpose of this secondary rule of statutory interpretation is to:
- Ensure that laws are interpreted in their original context, avoiding modern distortions.
- Preserve the intent of the Lawmakers who drafted the statute.
- Respect the traditional understanding and application of the laws.
- Avoid misinterpretation due to the evolution of language or modern societal changes.
This rule recognizes that the language and social conditions at the time of enactment play a vital role in understanding what the law truly meant.
Example:
Suppose a law from 1920 refers to “carriage” as a mode of transport.
At that time, the term “carriage” meant a horse-drawn vehicle. Under Contemporanea Expositio, we interpret “carriage” in the sense used in 1920—not as a railway coach or motor vehicle, unless the statute clearly supports such modern meaning.
Conclusion:
Contemporanea Expositio is a principle that emphasizes the importance of historical and contextual interpretation, especially for older statutes. It helps in maintaining stability, consistency, and fidelity to the original legislative intent.
However, this rule is less effective for modern statutes, where language and circumstances evolve rapidly. In such cases, a dynamic or purposive interpretation may be preferred. Still, for old laws, Contemporanea Expositio ensures the law is not misinterpreted by applying modern meanings to old expressions, which could result in injustice or absurdity.
Two Words on Secondary Rules of Interpretation
| Legal interpretation isn’t just about grammar—it’s about intention, logic, and fairness. When the words of a law don’t give clear answers, Judges rely on primary and secondary rules of interpretation to find meaning. While Primary Rules are the first step, Secondary Rules play a crucial role in solving deeper legal puzzles. These rules ensure that justice is not defeated by technicality or ambiguity, and that the spirit of the law is respected. The secondary rules of interpretation of statutes have been decoded by our intern, Ms Nandini Patel. She has been assisting the team in bringing informational legal blogs. |
