DICTIONARY MEANINGS ARE NOT GUIDE TO THE LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS. !!!!!
There is a growing perception in modern times, in India that the
courts, while interpreting law need not to follow the dictionary meaning of the
words employed. It is told that ‘may’ is interpreted as ‘shall’, which is
beyond the dictionary meaning of interpretation. Does it mean that ‘may’ can be
read as ‘may not’ also, just because, there is no need to go by the dictionary meaning
while interpreting law? If courts can interpret the law at it's own sweet will
in accordance of it's whims and fancies, it will form the death knell of
constitutional democracy, which is founded upon the written constitution. If
the courts are empowered to interpret the law, without any rules or objectives
of interpretation, then it amounts to manipulation, not interpretation. The
dictionary meaning is the basic rule of interpretation. It is known as literal
interpretation. That’s where the concept
of written constitution is embedded with and grown up. If the literal
interpretation fails, to achieve the legislative intent, the court can look
into other rules of interpretations. But, never the courts can interpret law
without any rules of interpretations. If it is done so, its manipulation
founded upon its tyranny. But as long as the language is unambiguous, and it do
not fail the legislative intent, then the courts are duty bound to give effect
to the literal meaning, without resorting to manipulations.
Sl.No.
|
Titles
|
Citation
|
Ratio Decidenti
|
Page/ Para No.
|
i
|
Doypack Systems (P) Ltd. Vs.Union of India
|
(1988) 2 SCC 299, 331-332, AIR 1988 SC 782
|
In the absence of ambiguity, plain meaning must by
given effect to, irrespective of its consequences. In such cases, the
question whether a differently worded or conceived statute would have yielded
more reasonable and fair results need not be considered.
|
Page 36-37 of ‘Interpretation of Statute’ By
B.M.Gandhi(Eastern Book Company, Lucknow)
2014( Second Edition)
|
ii
|
Ajay Pradhan
Vs. State of M.P.
|
(1988) 4 SCC 514, 518-19; AIR 1988 SC 1875
|
||
iii
|
Bombay Dyeing
& Mfg.Co.Ltd(3) Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group
|
(2006) 3 SCC 434;
AIR 2006 SC
1489
|
Unless literal meaning
given to a document leads to anomaly or absurdity, the principle of literal
interpretation should be adhered to
|
Page 37 of
‘Interpretation of Statute’ By B.M.Gandhi(Eastern Book Company, Lucknow) 2014( Second Edition)
|
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Premanand
& Ors. Vs. Mohan Koikal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2684 of 2007; Decided
on 16 March, 2011) has explained the literal rule of interpretation of
statutes. The rule provides that the meaning has to be ascertained from the
text of the law itself. The essence of the judgment is given below.
The Court explained the concept that if there is a conflict
between equity and the law, it is the law which must prevail. It may be
mentioned in this connection that the first and foremost principle of
interpretation of a statute in every system of interpretation is the literal
rule of interpretation. The other rules of interpretation e.g. the mischief
rule, purposive interpretation etc. can only be resorted to when the plain
words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read
literally would nullify the very object of the statute. Where the words of a
statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the
principles of interpretation other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AB
vs. Securities and Exchange Board, India, AIR 2004 SC 4219.
The legislature is presumed to have made no mistake. The
presumption is that it intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a
defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court cannot
correct or make up the deficiency, as explained vide Delhi Financial
Corporation vs. Rajiv Anand 2004 (11) SCC 625. Where the legislative intent is
clear from the language, the Court should give effect to it, explained vide
Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association
2004(6) SCC 210, and the Court should not seek to amend the law in the garb of
interpretation.
Ordinarily, it is not proper for the Court to depart from the
literal rule as that would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation,
which is not permissible as explained
vide J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 1405, State of
Jharkhand & Anr. vs. Govind Singh JT 2004(10) SC 349 etc.. It is for the
legislature to amend the law and not the Court as stated vide State of
Jharkhand & Anr. vs. Govind Singh JT 2004(10) SC 349. Hence, there should
be judicial restraint in this connection, and the temptation to do judicial
legislation should be eschewed by the Courts. In fact, judicial legislation is
an oxymoron (“oxymoron” means a phrase in which two words of contradictory
meaning are used together for special effect, e.g. “wise fool” or “legal
murder”).The function of the Court is only to expound the law and not to
legislate, as explained vide District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel
Company 2002 (7) SCC 358. If we accept the interpretation canvassed by the
learned counsel for the private respondents, we will really be legislating
because in the guise of interpretation we will be really amending Rule 27(c) of
the Rules. The literal rule of interpretation really means that there should be
no interpretation. In other words, we should read the statute as it is, without
distorting or twisting its language.
If courts are not bound by the rules of interpretation, and can
interpret the constitution and law at it's sweet will, then there is no
requirement of constitution or rather written law at all. Anything and
everything the court tells or dictates shall be digested as law! Many of the
monarchies before the medieval age were not having any law. What the monarchs
declared instantly were the law. If the judiciary can interpret the
constitution, without any broad framework of interpretations, we are travelling
back in times. But our need is to go forward with times. Hence the modern
nations always adopt settled laws, either written or otherwise. Dictionary meaning is a well accepted tool of
interpretation, all over the world in major democracies. Even the King is duty
bound to observe law. The foundation f rule of law is upon the very principle
that the law should not be violated even by the King. “Lex non a rage est
violanda”. In Indian legal philosophy,
it is known as “Dharma Rajya”, where the King is duty bound to observe “Raj
Dharma”, which is nothing but the observance of ‘Rule of Law’. But, by a catena of judgements the judiciary
has proved that the judiciary is above law and there is no need for the
judiciary to follow the law of the land. The law is for others, and there is no
requirement for the judiciary to observe law or constitutional provisions.
If such written law shall be interpreted without resorting to
the plain meaning the language manifests, then it can even lead to absurdity.
It can even lead to chaos. Language is a medium of communication. The tool of
language is always used by the law makers to convey what the law is. The
legislature, of course speaks through the medium of language.
If the rules of language
are not taken into consideration, by rejecting literal interpretation, it is
nothing but chaos. Anything can be interpreted.
So the courts can travel beyond the literal interpretations,
only for the purpose of giving effect to legislative intent, and not to vitiate
it.
In, Promoters & Builders’ Association v. Pune Municipal
Corporation, (2007) 6 SCC 143 and
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pane Chemicals, (1995) 1 SCC 58 (Paras 11 and 13)
it was held by Supreme Court as foloows:- “Where language of the statute
is plain and unambiguous, the Court must
give effect to the words used in
the statute. Interpretation of a statute
contrary to the plain language used
therein is an error apparent on the face of record (legal error) and
review will lie.”
The law of equity declares the following propositions/maxims:-
“A verbis
legis non est recedendum” : “the words of the statue shall not be
varied, while interpreting it”
“Aucupia verborum sunt judice
indigna.”: “A
twisting of language is unworthy of a judge”.
No comments:
Post a Comment