CHAPTER 3: RULES OF INTERPRETATION

CHAPTER 3: RULES OF INTERPRETATION

Statutory interpretation may be required in the conditions when there arises complexity and uncertainty. The most common rule of interpretation is that every part of the statute must be understood in a harmonious manner which can be done by reading every part of it together.

In Nepal parliament itself passed the Interpretation of Laws Act 2010, to set out general rules for the court to interpret acts. Ine Parliament Supremacy Judges cannot challenge the legislation. Therefore, they have to apply the laws as it is.

However, judges can interpret the provision of the Act narrowly or widely and through this process they can develop the law as well. 

Importance of statutory interpretation are: - 

• To avoid uncertainty and ambiguity.
• Sometimes there can be bad or poor drafting of the documents, statutes, acts, laws.
•  Existence of broad's anthem in the statute loss act.
• Because of unforeseeable developments in the statutes.
• Due to changes in the use of language.

3.a General Rules 

There are three types of rules of interpretation namely

•  Literal rule.
• Golden rule.
• Mischief rule.

1. Literal rule

It is one of the major and well accepted rules which is basically applied by the judges in the first instance.

In this rule words of a statute are given with their ordinary, plain and straight meaning and interprets as, it is what the law says instead of what law means. If the words of the statutes are clear, then they must be applied at the first instance. 

Advantages of using literal rule

• It respects parliamentary supremacy as it applies the law in the way it is written in the statutes.
• It restricts the role of judges to use their opinion in the regard of interpretation of words.

Disadvantages of using literal rules.

• It may create loopholes in the laws.
• Use of literal rule sometimes can create awkward precedents.
• It may undermine the public's confidence in laws.
• There can be disagreement to the ordinary meaning of the statutes.

Cases

R Vs. Judge of city of London Court (1892):

Has been stated that if the words are clear they must be applied even though the intention of the legislature may be different.

Fisher Vs. Bell (1961):

The courts applied a literal approach to define the Offensive Weapon Act 1959 whereby that act suggested that only a true offer would be provided by the law.

London and Northeastern Railway Company Vs. Berriman (1946):

Facts: - Fatal Accident Act has provision to give compensation payable on this death for those repairing/replacing or relaying the track. But the (railway worker) her husband was actually maintaining it, therefore the court uses the literal rule and stated that oiling did not come into this category.

2. Golden rule of interpretation of a statute

If the ordinary plain and grammatical meaning gives an absurd, vague, unclear result then there applies the golden rule to interpret such words which is the object of interpretation in a case

Golden rule of interpretation is applied when the literal rules does not work. The court applies golden rule if the plain and literal interpretation leads to the following things: - 

• Absurdity.
• Irrationality.
• If against legislation.

There are two approaches in the golden rule

Narrow Approach.

Broad Approach.

Advantages

• It can prevent the problems of the literal rule.
• It can put into practice what   parliament intended.
• It provides check on the strictness of literal rule.
• It respects parliamentary supremacy as well. 
• It does not give judges a complete freedom.

Disadvantages

• An absurdity may mean different things to different judges.
• Prof. Zander’s Critics: ‘an unpredictable safety valve’.

Cases:

Nepal government on behalf of ‘kha’ Kumari Vs. Prakash Ojha, D.N.  9629:

Supreme Court applies is golden rule.

Lee Vs. Knapp 

The object of interpretation was the word stop.

Section 77 of Road Traffic Act 1960 stated that “a driver causing accident shall stop after the accident”.

R Vs. Allen

Court use golden rules interpret the word ‘marry’.

3. Mischief Rule of Interpretation

Mischief in interpretation means the problem. It is applied to find out what the parliament meant instead of what parliament said. The objective of this rule is to confirm the Mischief and errors of the statutes. 

This rule enables the judges to have more discretionary power and so the superiority of parliament is reduced which is generally considered as on democratic as well.

The Heydon’s  Rule : 4 elements

• First, what was the common law before the act. 
• Second, what was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide? 
• Third, watch remedy the parliament envisioned?
• Fourth, what is the true reason for the remedy?

Advantages

• The judge has greater flexibility while applying this rule. 
• This rule helps to achieve the parliamentary intent in regard to the words in interpretation. 
• It helps to avoid absurdity and injustice.

 Disadvantages

• Highly reliance on extrinsic aids.
• Judges can rewrite statute/law.
• The use of this rule is limited due to the purposive approach.

3.c SUBSIDIARY RULE

i. Ejusdem generis rule

It means the rule of the same kind and also denoted to be understood as ‘of the same type’. It is the words associated together (of same genus or category). 

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the principle of ejusdem generis is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by words of a particular and specific meaning.

Cases

1. Ram krishna Gupta Vs. HMG, D.N. 4481:

Court stated that the word ‘motor’ of Vehicle Act 2020, here includes the tractor by using the ejusdem generis rule. 

2. Yagya Murti Banjade Vs. Durgadas Shreshtha D.N.  547, NKP 2027:

The object of interpretation of this case is ‘राष्ट्रिय निर्देशन ऐन २०२४, ‘विद्यार्थी सङ्गठन’ को सङ्गठन ’. Supreme Court laid down the concept of Maxwell, in Interpretation of Statute book page number 37 stating an example that ‘इजुस्डेम जेनेरीसको सिद्धान्त अर्थात कुनै खास शब्दहरु अगाडि प्रयोग भएका छन र त्यसपछि साधारण शब्दहरु प्रयोग भएका छन भने ति साधारण शब्दहरुले अगाडिका खास खास शब्दहरुले जनाए जस्तै जनाउँछ भन्ने व्याख्याको सिद्धान्त हो । बग्गीको घोडा, रेसको घोडा र यस्तै अरु घोडामा कर लगाउने ऐन भएकोमा पछि सो ऐनबाट रेसको घोडा झिकिएकोमा घोडा भन्ने शब्दले रेसको घोडालाई पनि जनाउँने भए तापनि रेसको घोडा झिकिएको नाताले रेसको घोडालाई ऐनको दायरा बाहिर परेको सम्झी व्याख्या भएको भन्ने बिषयमा माक्सवेलको कानूनको व्याख्या भन्ने पुस्तकको पृष्ट ३७ मा उल्लेख भएतर्फ विद्वान निवेदक तर्फको अधिवक्ताको तर्फबाट’). 

3. Rajiv Bastola Vs. office of Prime Minister,D.B. 7709, full bench 2063:

Facts: Article 93(1) of Constitution states that, “judicial council to make recommendations concerning appointment, transfer, disciplinary action against and judges dismiss other matters relating to judicial administration”. 

Object of interpretation:  Does the aspects like establishment, management and jurisdiction of the appellate, district, subordinate courts fall under the role of Judicial Council or not; regarding the other matters relating to judicial administration provision.

Court Helding: Article 93(1) has given matters of personal jurisdiction only. So, it cannot establish, manage and locate jurisdiction of court under the right of Judicial Council and cannot apply Ejusdem Generis Rule here.   [ प्रकरण २२.(धारा ९३ को उपधारा (१) को मनसाय उदेश्य र व्यवस्था निवेदकले जिकीर गरे सरह होइन । कानून व्याख्यासँग सम्बन्धित सिद्धान्त ejusdem generis को सिद्धान्तले त्यसो गर्न मिल्दैन । धारा ९३ को उपधारा (१) मा रहेको “ न्याय प्रशासनसँग सम्बन्धित अन्य कुराहरु” भन्ने वाक्यांशको व्याख्या गर्दा यी शब्दहरु भन्दा अगाडिका शब्दहरलाई लिएर व्याख्या गर्नु पर्छ ।)].

The Supreme Court has referred the cases of Siddheshwari Cotton Mill V. Union of India and Brown Sea Heaven V. Pools Corporation to explain this rule. 

4. Durga Bahadur Basnet Vs. Nepal Government, D.N. 8839:

In this case the court has defined the principle of ejusdem generis in प्र. २४ as “कानून व्याख्याका विभिन्न सिद्धान्तहरूमध्ये एक Ejusdem Generis Principleका अनुसार कुनै खास शब्दहरू अगाडि प्रयोग भएका छन् र त्यसपछि साधारण शब्दहरू प्रयोग भएका छन् भने ती साधारण शब्दहरूले अगाडिका खास खास शब्दहरूले जनाए जस्तै अर्थ वा विषयलाई जनाउदछ ।” 

5. Maharashtra University of Health and Science Vs. S.P. Mandal and others (25th February, 2010):

The High Court's decision rested on the legal principle of "ejusdem generis," where a general term is limited by specific words following it.

Supreme Court Judgement in page no. 14 it had stated that “The Latin expression "ejusdem generis" which means "of the same kind or nature" is a principle of construction, meaning thereby 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 is a principle which arises "from the linguistic implication by which words having literally a wide meaning (when taken in isolation) are treated as reduced in scope by the verbal context." It may be regarded as an instance of ellipsis, or reliance on implication. This principle is presumed to apply unless there is some contrary indication (See Glanville Williams, `The Origins and Logical Implications of the Ejusdem Generis Rule' 7 Conv (NS) 119).”

Other Cases:

See N.A.L.G.O Vs. Bolton Corporation 1943.

U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Harishankar , AIR 1979

2. Noscitur a sociis 

This principle means knowing from association, where ‘noscitur’ means ‘to know’ and ‘a sociis’ means ‘association’. In Latin Term it means “it is known by the company it keeps”.

It denotes the concept of being closely associated with neighboring words. The practice of the court to take this principle in interpreting the judgment is less.

Ejusdem generis - genus = noscitur a sociis.

Maxwell defines, this rule means that when two or more words susceptible to analogous, similar meanings clubbed together, they are understood to be used in their cognate, similar sense.

Cases

1. Pradeep Agarbatti Ludhiana Vs.  State of Punjab AIT 1998 SC 171:

Object of interpretation was whether dhoop,  agarbatti is perfume or not. 

Court stated that perfume does not include Dhoop which are not used for personal hygiene but for religious ceremonies.

2. Lokmat Newspaper Private Limited Vs. Shankar Prasad, 1999:

The court made a deep analysis of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis. In this case the question was whether the words ‘discharge’ and ‘dismissal’ are associated with each other or not.

3. Foster Vs. Diphwys Casson 1886:

The statute has the provision that explosives taken into a mine must be in a case or canister or tin. Here in this case the defendant used a cloth bag.

Question before the court is that the court has to consider whether a cloth bag was within the definition of statute or not.

Court Held: Under a noscitur a sociis it was held that a cloth bag could not have been within the statutory definition of such statute. 

4. Muir Vs. Keay (1875).

3. Reddendo singula singulis (by referring each to other).

In simple terms it means matching the most appropriate terms with each other. It is basically used in wills, deeds and legacy agreements and it is concerned with the use of words distributivity.

For example: - 

Cow and dog - bark and moo.

Gun and sword - draw and fire

This rule is used typically in distributing property. In a list of words with a phrase at the end, the phrase only applies to the last word. This rule helps ensure clear understanding and accuracy in legal matters.

For example: - judges, policemen and students in a school. Here, "in a school" only applies to students and not to judge and policeman.

Sutherland: - the difficult problems of interpretation involved in the rule of reddendo singula singulis. If sentences are short and contain a single subject and a single object, then this problem will be resolved.

In book Principles of Statutory Provision by Justice G.P. Singh has given an example of this rule stating as if anyone shall draw or load any sword or gun, the word draw is applied to sword only and the word load is applied to gun only.

Quim Vs. Lowell Electric Light Corporation.

4. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (expression of one is the exclusion of another).

This rule expresses the intention of one thing and excludes others. In simple terms it means that inclusion of one thing denotes the exclusion of another.

This rule is typically used in contract treaties. In applying expressio unius maxim, we identify legislative intent as if something has not been mentioned in the statute then it means legislature intended it to exclude. 

Cases:

1. State Vs. James 2005:

In this case, the Limited meaning of the word ‘includes’ was reached by the court using the maxim of statutory provision of expressio unius.

2. Taylor Vs. Taylor 1876:

If a statute has conferred a power to do an act, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner then that which has been prescribed.

3. Union of India V. Shiv Dayal Soin and Sons ltd:

Object of interpretation: the word ‘’residential purpose’

Facts:  lease agreement was done for use of land to construct a house.

Court Held: lease had only referred to construction of house and it has not any provision in regard of residential or non-differential purpose in the agreement. So, it can be said that it has expressed to construct that but not prohibit.

5. Contemporanea expositio.

This rule refers to the concept of interpreting the words or any statute with reference to the time. This rule defines that choose the old meaning but not the contemporary meaning while construing or interpreting a word when the subsidiary rule is to be applied.

By using this rule judges have to seek the original meaning and interpret strictly.

For the more it states that the words of a statute so normally be understood in the sense they have when it was passed.

Case:

1. Baleshwar Bhagarati Vs. Bhagirathi Das, 1908:

The court in regard to construing a statute will give much weight to the interpretation put upon it at the time of its enactment.

                                                                                                                                                                                             Prepared and Edited by Manish Rajak and Madhu Dahal