Brief Regarding Rules Of Interpretation Of Statutes: The modern rules and acts under enacted laws are drafted by legal experts. However, it can be expected that the language used could leave some room for constructional advice or interpretation.
The experience differs for all those who carry around and share the task of interpretation of the law.
The words often used in a statue don’t need to be at all times unambiguous, clear, and explicit.
Thus, in these cases, courts must determine a clear and comprehensive meaning of phrases or words used simultaneously and by the legislature removes all the doubts if anybody has any.
Hence, all the rules briefed in the article are critical for understanding justice.
- What Does The Term Interpretation Mean?
- Reasons for Interpretation of Statutes
- Principles Of interpretation
- Rules Of Interpretation
The term, interpretation, means to explain, understand, translate and even expound. Interpretation is the process of defining, translating, or expounding any text or phrase in a written form.
Interpretation involves the Act of discovering the true meaning of the language that is used in the statue. However, the sources used are only limited to inspect the written text and clarify the written text or statutes.
Interpretation of statutes is the correct understanding of the law and is commonly adopted by the courts. Interpretation of statutes is used for determining the exact intention of the legislature.
The court’s objective is not just to read the law but also to apply it most effectively to befit multiple cases.
The application is used to establish the actual connotation of the Act or document with the legislature’s true intention.
The main motive of the interpretation is to throw light on the meaning of the words used in the statues, which might stay ambiguous.
Statutory interpretation is the process of interpretation and application of legislation used commonly by the courts.
In a case that involves a statute, some amount of interpretation is often necessary. However, in several instances, the written texts of the statute hold vagueness or ambiguity that the judge must resolve.
The process of ascertaining the true meaning of the written texts in the statute is called interpretation of the statute.
There are two fundamental reasons for the need for interpretation of statues-
- Legislative Language – Legislative language is often complicated for a layperson to comprehend and may require interpretation.
- Legislative Intent – Legislative intent or the intention of the legislature assimilates in two significant aspects:
- The concept of ‘meaning’, that is, the definition and summary of the word
- The concept of ‘purpose’ and ‘object’ or the ‘reason’ or ‘spirit’ permeating through the statute of interpretation
The principle of the statute of interpretation is a written text that must be read as per the grammatical and standard sense. The rule must be read in entire context with the Act’s scheme, the legislature’s intention, and the object of the Act.
A few essential points to remember in the context of interpreting statutes are-
- The statute of interpretation must be read as a whole in the context.
- The intention of the legislature must be maintained.
- The construction process is a combination of both the purposive and literal approaches.
- The statute of interpretation should be construed to make the rule practical and workable; however, if the provision is ambiguous, then the adoption of the suitable construction.
- The purposive construction rule highlights the shift from literal construction when it leads to absurdity.
- If the statute’s meaning is plain, the effect is irrespective of the consequences.
The court is implausible to interpret arbitrarily. There have been specific principles that have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the courts, known as the rules of interpretation.
There are two primary rules of interpretation-
- Literal or Grammatical Rule
- Mischief Rule or Purposive Construction
Literal or Grammatical Rule
In the Literal or Grammatical Rule, the phrases and words used the interpreted or given in their ordinary or natural meaning.
Even after interpretation, if the meaning remains unambiguous, an effect passed explains the consequences of the provision of the statute.
The basic rule is to maintain and interpret the provision for the intention legislature according to the laws of interpretation.
This is the safest rule as the legislature’s intention is deduced from the phrases and words and the language used.
In the Literal or Grammatical Rule, the only duty of the court is to give the effect of the language remains plain in the language of the statute and no reason to deal with the consequences.
The only obligation of the court is to expound the laws if harsh consequences and remedies are to be sought by the legislature.
Mischief Rule or Purposive Construction
Mischief Rule is a purposive construction as it upholds the purpose of this statute is most important during the application.
This rule is also known as Heydon’s rule because it was put in use by Lord Poke in Heydon’s case in 1584.
Four things have to be followed for a credible interpretation of all the statutes such as-
- What is the common law before the construction of an Act?
- The mischief for which the present statute was enacted upon
- Enlist the remedies the Parliament sought to cure the disease of the commonwealth
- The final point to remember was the valid reason for the remedy.
The purpose of the mischief rule of purposive construction is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
The Golden Rule
A golden rule solves all the problems of interpretation as it goes by the literal law where any ambiguity, injustice, inconvenience, hardship, inequity shall be discarded. The understanding is to be a manner that upholds the purpose of the legislation.
The rule follows the interpretation of the natural meaning of the written text used in the statute of understanding.
The Golden Rule suggests that the consequences and effects of interpretation deserve high significance. The presumption here is that the legislature does not intend particular objects. Such interpretation that leads to unintended things shall be rejected and the court must construe to harmonise them and not destroy them.