NEED FOR INTERPRETATION

 No doubt in modern times, the enacted laws are drafted by legal experts, yet they are expressed in language and no language is so perfect as to leave no ambiguities. Further, by its very nature, a statute is an edict of the legislature and many-a-time the intent of the legislature has to be gathered not only from the language but the surrounding circumstances that prevailed at the time when that particular law was enacted. If any provision of the statute is open to two interpretations, the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature.

 Also, it is not within human powers to foresee the manifold set of facts which may arise in the future and even if it were so it is not possible to provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity. All these aspects add to give great prominence to the subject of interpretation and construction in the practical administration of the law.

It would be worthwhile to note what Denning L.J. has said on the need for statutory interpretation: It is not within human powers to foresee the manifold sets of facts which may arise; and that, even if it were, it is not possible to provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity. The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. Our literature would be much the poorer if it were. This is where the draftsmen of Acts of Parliament have often been unfairly criticized. 

A judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that he must look to the language and nothing else, laments that the draftsmen have not provided for this or that, or have been guilty of some or other ambiguity. It would certainly save the judges’ trouble if Acts of Parliament were drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. In the absence of it, when a defect appears, a judge can not simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament, and he must do this, not only from the language of the statute, but also from a consideration of the social conditions which gave rise to it, and of the mischief which it was passed to remedy, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give ‘force and life’ to the intention of the legislature.

It has been rightly said that a statute is the will of the legislature. The fundamental rule of interpretation of a statute is that it should be expounded according to the intent of those that made it. In the event of the words of the statute being precise and unambiguous in themselves it is only just necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense: thus far and no further. 

This is because these words distinctly indicate the intention of the legislature. The purpose of interpretation is to discern the intention which is conveyed either expressly or impliedly by the language used. 

If the intention is express, then the task becomes one of ‘verbal construction’ alone. But in the absence of any intention being expressed by the statute on the question to which it gives rise and yet some intention has to be, of necessity, imputed to the legislature regarding it, then the interpreter has to determine it by inference based on certain legal principles. In such a case, the interpretation has to be one which is commensurate with the public benefit. Consequently, if a statute levies a penalty without expressly mentioning the recipient of the penalty, then, by implication, it goes to the officers of the State.


1.  The ambiguity of the words used in the statute:

 Sometimes there will be words that have more than one meaning. And it may not be clear which meaning has to be used. There could be multiple interpretations made out of it. 

 

2.The multifaceted nature of language.

Language, words and phrases are an imprecise form of communication. Words can have multiple definitions and meanings. Each party in court will utilize the definition and meaning of the language most advantageous to their particular need. It is up to the courts to decide the most correct use of the language employed

3.  Change in the environment:

We all know that society changes from time to time and there may be new developments happening in a society that is not taken into consideration, this lacks the predictability of the future event.

4.  Complexities of the statutes:

usually statutes are complex and huge, it contains complicated words, jargon and some technical terms which are not easy to understand and this complexity may lead to confusion.

5.  When legislation doesn’t cover a specific area:

Every time when legislations are out it doesn’t cover all the area it leaves some grey areas and interpretation helps in bridging the gaps between

6.  Drafting error:

The draft may be made without sufficient knowledge of the subject. It may also happen due to the lack of necessary words and correct grammar. This makes the draft unclear and creates ambiguity in the legislature and many times bills are passed without discussion , shifting the burden of interpretation on courts.

7.  Incomplete rules:

There are few implied rules and regulations and some implied powers and privileges which are not mentioned in the statute and when these are not defined properly in the statute this leads to ambiguity.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

INTERNAL AIDS TO INTERPRETATION

MEANING OF INTERPRETATION & CONSTRUCTION

CLASSIFICATION OF STATUTES