InternalAidsinInterpretation|TaxDose.

com
Thefollowingmaybetakenintoaccountwhileinterpretingastatute:
Title
ThelongtitleofanActisapartoftheActandisadmissibleasanaidtoitsconstruction.Thelongtitlesetsout
ingeneralterms,thepurposeoftheActanditoftenprecedesthepreamble.Itmustbedistinguishedfromshort
titlewhichimpliesonlyanabbreviationforpurposesofreference,theobjectofwhichisidentificationand
notdescription.Togiveanexample,TheCivilProcedureCode,1908isalongtitleandCPC1908isashorttitle.
Thetruenatureofthelawisdeterminednotbythenamegiventoitbutbyitssubstance.However,thelongtitle
isalegitimateaidtotheconstruction.
WhiledealingwiththeSupremeCourtAdvocates(PracticeinHighCourt)Act,1951bearingafulltitleasAn
ActtoauthoriseAdvocatesoftheSupremeCourttopracticeasofrightinanyHighCourt,S.R.Das,J.
observed:OnecannotbutbeimpressedatoncewiththewordingofthefulltitleoftheAct.Althoughthereare
observationsinearlierEnglishCasesthatthetitleisnotapartofthestatuteandis,therefore,tobeexcluded
fromconsiderationinconstruingthestatutes.Itisnowasettledlawthatthetitleofastatuteisanimportantpart
oftheActandmaybereferredtoforthepurposeofascertainingitsgeneralscopeandofthrowinglightonits
construction,althoughitcannotoverridetheclearmeaningofanenactment.
Preamble
Thetrueplaceofapreambleinastatutewasatonetime,thesubjectofconflictingdecisions.InMillsv.
Wilkins,(1794)6Mad.62,LordHoldsaid:thepreambleofastatuteisnotpartthereof,butcontainsgenerally
themotivesorinducementthereof.Ontheotherhand,itwassaidthatthepreambleistobeconsidered,forit
isthekeytoopenthemeaningofthemakersoftheAct,andthemischiefitwasintendedtoremedy.The
modernruleliesbetweenthesetwoextremesandisthatwheretheenactingpartisexplicitandunambiguous
thepreamblecannotberesortedto,tocontrol,qualifyorrestrictit,butwheretheenactingpartisambiguous,
thepreamblecanbereferredtoexplainandelucidateit(RajMalv.HarnamSingh,(1928)9Lah.260).In
Powellv.KemptonParkRaceCourseCo.,(1899)AC143,157,LordHalsburysaid:Twopropositionsarequite
clearOnethatapreamblemayaffordusefullightastowhatastatuteintendstoreachandanotherthat,ifan
enactmentisitselfclearandunambiguous,nopreamblecanqualifyorcutdowntheenactment.Thisrulehas
beenappliedtoIndianstatutesalsobythePrivyCouncilinSecretaryofStatev.MaharajaBobbili,(1920)43
Mad.529,andbytheCourtsinIndiainanumberofcases(Seeforexample,BurrakurCoalCo.v.Unionof
India,AIR1961SC154.ReferringtothecasesinRe.KeralaEducationBill,AIR1958SC956andBishambar
Singhv.StateofOrissa,AIR1954SC139,theAllahabadHighCourthasheldinKashiPrasadv.State,AIR
1967All.173,thateventhoughthepreamblecannotbeusedtodefeattheenactingclausesofastatute,ithas
beentreatedtobeakeyfortheinterpretationofthestatute.
HeadingandTitleofaChapter
IndifferentpartsofanAct,thereisgenerallyfoundaseriesorclassofenactmentsapplicabletosome
specialobject,andsuchsectionsareinmanyinstances,precededbyaheading.Itisnowsettledthatthe
headingsortitlesprefixedtosectionsorgroupofsectionscanbereferredtoinconstruinganActofthe
legislature.Butconflictingopinionshavebeenexpressedonthequestionastowhatweightshouldbeattached
totheheadings.Aheading,accordingtooneviewistoberegardedasgivingthekeytotheinterpretationof
clausesrangedunderit,unlessthewordingisinconsistentwithsuchinterpretationandsothatheadings,might
betreatedaspreamblestotheprovisionsfollowingthem.Butaccordingtotheotherview,resorttothe
headingcanonlybetakenwhentheenactingwordsareambiguous.SoLordGoddard,C.J.expressedhimself
as:However,theCourtisentitledtolookattheheadingsinanActofParliamenttoresolveanydoubttheymay
haveastoambiguouswords,thelawisclearthatthoseheadingscannotbeusedtogiveadifferenteffectto
clearwordsinthesectionswheretherecannotbeanydoubtastotheordinarymeaningofthewords.Similarly,
itwassaidbyPatanjaliShastri,J.:Norcanthetitleofachapterbelegitimatelyusedtorestricttheplainterms
ofanenactment.Inthisregard,theMadhyaPradeshHighCourtinSureshKumarv.TownImprovementTrust,
AIR1975MP189,hasheld:Headingsortitlesprefixedtosectionsorgroupofsectionsmaybereferredtoas
toconstructionofdoubtfulexpressionsbutthetitleofachaptercannotbeusedtorestricttheplaintermsofan

enactment.
TheSupremeCourtobservedthat..theheadingsprefixedtosectionsorentries(ofaTariffSchedule)
cannotcontroltheplainwordsoftheprovisiontheycannotalsobereferredtoforthepurposeofconstruingthe
provisionwhenthewordsusedintheprovisionareclearandunambiguousnorcantheybeusedforcutting
downtheplainmeaningofthewordsintheprovision.Onlyinthecaseofambiguityordoubttheheadingorthe
subheadingmaybereferredtoasanaidforconstruingtheprovisionbuteveninsuchacaseaidcouldnotbe
usedforcuttingdownthewideapplicationoftheclearwordsusedintheprovision(FrickIndiaLtd.v.Unionof
India,AIR1990SC689).
MarginalNotes
InEngland,thedispositionoftheCourtistodisregardthemarginalnotes.InourcountrytheCourts
haveentertaineddifferentviews.Althoughopinionisnotuniform,theweightofauthorityisinfavouroftheview
thatthemarginalnoteappendedtoasectioncannotbeusedforconstruingthesection.
ThereseemstobenoreasonforgivingthemarginalnotesinanIndianstatuteanygreaterauthoritythan
themarginalnotesinanEnglishActofParliament(BalrajKumarv.JagatpalSingh,26All.393).Patanjali
Shastri,J.,afterreferringtotheabovecasewithapprovalobserved:MarginalnotesinanIndianstatute,asin
anActofParliamentcannotbereferredtoforthepurposeofconstruingtheStatute(C.I.T.v.AnandBhaiUmar
Bhai,A.I.R.1950S.C.134).Atanyrate,therecanbenojustificationforrestrictingthesectionbythemarginal
note,andthemarginalnotecannotcertainlycontrolthemeaningofthebodyofthesectionifthelanguage
employedthereinisclearandunambiguous(ChandrajiRaov.IncometaxCommissioner,A.I.R.1970S.C.158).
MarginalnotesappendedtotheArticlesoftheConstitutionhavebeenheldtoconstitutepartofthe
ConstitutionaspassedbytheConstituentAssemblyandtherefore,theyhavebeenmadeuseofinconsulting
theArticles,e.g.Article286,asfurnishingprimafacie,someclueastothemeaningandpurposeoftheArticle.
Whenreferencetomarginalnoteisrelevant?TheSupremeCourthasheldthatthemarginalnotealthough
maynotberelevantforrenditionofdecisionsinalltypesofcasesbutwherethemainprovisionissoughtto
beinterpreteddifferently,referencetomarginalnotewouldbepermissibleinlaw.[SarbajitRickSinghv.Union
ofIndia(2008)2SCC417SeealsoDewanSinghv.RajendraPrasad(2007)1Scale32].
InterpretationClauses
Itiscommontofindinstatutesdefinitionsofcertainwordsandexpressionsusedelsewhereinthebodyof
thestatute.Theobjectofsuchadefinitionistoavoidthenecessityoffrequentrepetitionsindescribingall
thesubjectmattertowhichthewordorexpressionsodefinedisintendedtoapply.Adefinitionsectionmay
borrowdefinitionsfromanearlierActanddefinitionssoborrowedneednotbefoundinthedefinitionsectionbut
insomeprovisionsoftheearlierAct.
Thedefinitionofawordinthedefinitionsectionmayeitherberestrictiveofitsordinarymeaningoritmay
beextensiveofthesame.Whenawordisdefinedtomeansuchandsuch,thedefinitionisprimafacie
restrictiveandexhaustive,whereaswheretheworddefinedisdeclaredtoincludesuchandsuch,thedefinition
isprimafacieextensive.Further,adefinitionmaybeintheformofmeansandincludes,whereagainthe
definitonisexhaustive.Ontheotherhand,ifawordisdefinedtoapplytoandinclude,thedefinitionis
understoodasextensive.(SeeBalkrishanv.M.BhaiAIR1999MP86)
Adefinitionsectionmayalsobewordedintheformsodeemedtoincludewhichagainisaninclusive
orextensivedefinitionandsuchaformisusedtobringinbyalegalfictionsomethingwithintheworddefined
whichaccordingtoordinarymeaningisnotincludedwithinit.
Adefinitionmaybebothinclusiveandexclusivei.e.itmayincludecertainthingsandexcludeothers.Insuch
acaselimitedexclusionofathingmaysuggestthatothercategoriesofthatthingwhicharenotexcluded
fallwithintheinclusivedefinition.
Thedefinitionsectionmayitselfbeambiguousandmayhavetobeinterpretedinthelightoftheother
provisionsoftheActandhavingregardtotheordinaryconnotationoftheworddefined.Adefinitionisnottobe
readinisolation.Itmustbereadinthecontextofthephrasewhichitdefines,realisingthatthefunctionofa
definitionistogiveprecisionandcertaintytoawordoraphrasewhichwouldotherwisebevagueanduncertain

butnottocontradictorsupplementitaltogether.
Whenawordhasbeendefinedintheinterpretationclause,primafaciethatdefinitiongovernswhenever
thatwordisusedinthebodyofthestatute.
Whenawordisdefinedtobearanumberofinclusivemeanings,thesenseinwhichthewordisusedin
aparticularprovisionmustbeascertainedfromthecontextoftheschemeoftheAct,thelanguage,the
provisionandtheobjectintendedtobeservedthereby.
Proviso
Whenonefindsaprovisotoasectionthenaturalpresumptionisthat,butfortheproviso,theenactingpart
ofthesectionwouldhaveincludedthesubjectmatterofproviso.InthewordsofLordMacmillan:The
properfunctionofaprovisoistoexceptandtodealwithacasewhichwouldotherwisefallwithinthegeneral
languageofthemainenactment,anditseffectisconfinedtothecase.
AsstatedbyHidayatullah,J.:Asageneralrule,aprovisoisaddedtoanenactmenttoqualifyorcreate
anexceptiontowhatisintheenactment,andordinarily,aprovisoisnotinterpretedasstatingageneralrule.
Adistinctionissaidtoexistbetweentheprovisionswordedasproviso,exceptionorsavingclause.
Exceptionisintendedtorestraintheenactingclausetoparticularcasesprovisoisusedtoremovespecial
casesfromthegeneralenactmentandprovideforthemspeciallyandsavingclauseisusedtopreservefrom
destructioncertainrights,remediesorprivilegesalreadyexisting.
IllustrationsorExplanation
Illustrationsattachedtosectionsarepartofthestatuteandtheyareusefulsofarastheyhelptofurnishsame
indicationofthepresumableintentionofthelegislature.Anexplanationisattimesappendedtoasectionto
explainthemeaningofwordscontainedinthesection.Itbecomesapartandparceloftheenactment.But
illustrationscannothavetheeffectofmodifyingthelanguageofthesectionandtheycannoteithercurtailor
expandtheambitofthesectionwhichaloneformstheenactment.Themeaningtobegiventoanexplanation
mustdependuponitsterms,andnotheoryofitspurposecanbeentertainedunlessitistobeinferredfromthe
languageused(LallaBallanmalv.AhmadShah,1918P.C.249).
Anexplanation,normally,shouldbesoreadastoharmonisewithandclearupanyambiguityinthemain
sectionandshouldnotbesoconstruedastowidentheambitofthesection.Itisalsopossiblethatan
explanationmayhavebeenaddedexabundanticautelatoallaygroundlessapprehension.
Schedules
Theschedulesformapartofthestatuteandmustbereadtogetherwithitforallpurposesofconstruction.But
expressionintheschedulecannotcontrolorprevailagainsttheexpressenactment(Allenv.Flicker,1989,10A
andF6.40).
InRamchandTextilev.SalesTaxOfficer,A.I.R.1961,All.24,theAllahabadHighCourthasheldthat,ifthere
isanyappearanceofinconsistencybetweenthescheduleandtheenactment,theenactmentshallprevail.If
theenactingpartandtheschedulecannotbemadetocorrespond,thelattermustyieldtotheformer.
TherearetwoprinciplesorrulesofinterpretationwhichoughttobeappliedtothecombinationofanActand
itsschedule.IftheActsaysthatthescheduleistobeusedforacertainpurposeandtheheadingofthepartof
thescheduleinquestionshowsthatitisprimafacieatanyratedevotedtothatpurpose,thentheActandthe
schedulemustbereadasiftheschedulewereoperatingforthatpurposeonly.Ifthelanguageofaclausein
theschedulecanbesatisfiedwithoutextendingitbeyondforacertainpurpose,inspiteofthat,ifthelanguage
oftheschedulehasinitswordsandtermsthatgoclearlyoutsidethepurpose,theeffectmustbegivenbythem
andtheymustnotbetreatedaslimitedbytheheadingofthepartofthescheduleorbythepurposementioned
intheActforwhichthescheduleisprimafacietobeused.Onecannotrefusetogiveeffecttoclearwords
simplybecauseprimafacietheyseemtobelimitedbytheheadingofthescheduleandthedefinitionofthe
purposeoftheschedulecontainedintheAct.
Whetheraparticularrequirementprescribedbyaformismandatoryordirectorymayhavetobedecidedin
eachcasehavingregardtothepurposeorobjectoftherequirementanditsinterrelationwithotherenacting

provisionsofthestatuteanditisdifficulttolaydownanyuniformrule.Whereformsprescribedundertherules
becomepartofrulesand,theActconfersanauthorityprescribedbyrulestoframeparticularsofanapplication
form,suchauthoritymayexercisethepowertoprescribeaparticularformofapplication.
ThestatementofobjectsandreasonsaswellasthenotesonclausesoftheBillrelatingtoany
particularlegislationmayberelieduponforconstruinganyofitsprovisionswheretheclauseshavebeen
adoptedbytheParliamentwithoutanychangeinenactingtheBill,butwheretherehavebeenextensive
changesduringthepassageoftheBillinParliament,theobjectsandreasonsofthechangedprovisionsmayor
maynotbethesameasoftheclausesoftheoriginalBillanditwillbeunsafetoattachundueimportancetothe
statementofobjectsandreasonsornotesonclauses.
TheCourtshaveonlytoenquire,whathasthelegislaturethoughtfittoenact?
Regardingthereferencetothestatementofobjectsandreasons,itisasettledlawthatitcanlegitimately
bereferredtoforacorrectappreciationof:
(1)whatwasthelawbeforethedisputedActwaspassed
(2)whatwasthemischiefordefectforwhichthelawhadnotprovided
(3)whatremedythelegislaturehasintendedand
(4)thereasonsforthestatute.