i

ASSIGNMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

NAME: ADNAN YOUSUF

BA. LL.B 6th SEMESTER (REGULAR)

ROLL NO. 02

PURPOSE OF STATUTES AND FUNCTION OF JUDGES

SUBMITTED TO Dr. Qazi Usman Sir

ii

CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION

2. STATUTE

i. Meaning and classification of statutes

ii. Purpose of Statutes
3. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
i. Object of Statutory interpretation;
ii. Purpose of Statutory Interpretation
iii. Scope of Interpretation
4. FUNCTION OF JUDGES
5. CONCLUSION

6. REFERENCES
iii

INTRODUCTION

Enacted laws, especially the modern acts and rules, are drafted by legal experts and it could
be expected that the language used will leave little room for interpretation or construction.
But the experience of all those who have to bear and share the task of application of the law
has been different.
Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true
meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and
therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous
exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’. The
object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed
expressly or impliedly in the language used. As stated by SALMOND, “by interpretation or
construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the
legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.” In the
process of interpretation, several aids are used. They may be statutory or non-statutory.
Statutory aids may be illustrated by the General Clauses Act, 1897 and by specific definitions
contained in individuals Acts whereas non-statutory aids are illustrated by common law rules
of interpretation (including certain presumptions relating to interpretation) and also by case-
laws relating to the interpretation of statutes.
iv

STATUTES

A Statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a country,

state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare
policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from the
judicial decisions of the common law and the regulations issued by Government
agencies.1
A statute is a will of legislature conveyed in the form of text. The Constitution of India
does not use the term ‘Statute’ but it uses the term ‘law’. ‘Law’ includes any ordinance,
order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law.2
Therefore, a Statute is the will of the legislature and Indian Statute is an Act of the
Central or State Legislature. Statutes include Acts passed by the Imperial or Provincial
Legislature in Pre-Independence days as well as Regulations. Statutes generally refer to
the laws and regulations of every sort, every provision of law which permits or prohibit
anything.

Types of classifications of Statutes may be elaborated as follows-

Classification with reference to Objective

(i) Enabling statutes – These statutes are which enlarges the common law where it is too
strict or narrow. It is a statute which makes it lawful to do something which would not
otherwise be lawful.
(ii) Disabling statutes – These statutes restrict or cut down rights existing at common law.
(iii) Permissive statute – This type of statute allows certain acts to be done without
commanding that they be performed.
(iv) Prohibitory statute – This type of statute which forbids the doing of certain things.
(v) Codifying Statute – It presents and orderly and authoritative statement of the leading
rules of law on a given subject, whether those rules are to be found in statute law or common
law.
(vi) Consolidating statute – The purpose of consolidating statute is to present the whole
body of statutory law on a subject in complete form repeating the former statute.
(vii) Curative or validating Statute - It is passed to cure defects in the prior law and too
validate legal proceedings, instruments or acts of public and private administrative powers
which in the absence of such statute would be void for want of conformity with existing legal
requirements but which would have been valid if the statute has so provided at the time of
enacting.

1
Black, Henry Campbell (1990). Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

2
[Article 13 (3) (a) of the constitution].
v

(viii) Repealing Statute – A statute which either expressly or by necessary implication

revokes or terminates another statute is a repealing statute.
(ix) Amending Statute – It is a Statute which makes and addition to or operates to change
the original law so as to effect an improvement or more effectively carry out the purpose for
which the original law was passed.

PURPOSE OF STATUTES

A statute which makes it lawful to do something which would not otherwise be lawful is
called la. A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state
or city or country typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The
word is often used to distinguish law made by legilative bodies from case laws, decided by
courts, and regulations issued by government authorities. Statutes are sometimes referred to
as legislations or "black letter law." As a source of law, statutes are considered primary
authority (as opposed to secondary law). Ideally all statutes must be in harmony with the
fundamental law of the land (constitutional).

This word is used in contradistinction to the commmon law. Statutes acquire their force from
the time of their passage, however unless otherwise provided. Statutes are of several kinds;
namely, Public or private. Declaratory or remedial. Temporary or perpetual. A temporary
statute is one which is limited in its duration at the time of its enactment. It continues in force
until the time of its limitation has expired, unless sooner repealed. A perpetual statute is one
for the continuance of which there is no limited time, although it may not be expressly
declared to be so. If, however, a statute which did not itself contain any limitation is to be
governed by another which is temporary only, the former will also be temporary and
dependent upon the existence of the latter.3

Before a statute becomes law in some countries, it must be agreed upon by the highest
executive in the government, and finally published as part of a code. In many countries,
statutes are organized in topical arrangements (or "codified") within publications called codes
,as the United Sate Codes. In many nations statutory law is distinguished from and
subordinate to constitutional law. One of the principles of law with regards to the effects of
an enabling act is that if the legislature enables something to be done, it gives power at the
same time, by necessary implications, to do everything which is indespensable for the
purposes of carrying out the purposes in view. This general rule under the law is that
whenever the legislature gives any power to a public body to do anything of a “public
character”, the legislature means also gives to the public body all rights without which the
power would be wholly unavailable, although such a meaning cannot be implied in relation to
the circumstances arising accidentally only.4

3
Justice GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Lexis Nexis, 14th Edition, 2016, p. 21
4
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1, p.59
vi

Thus, if any public body is authorised to make byelaws, it implies that it has also the power
to enforce it. When a capacity or power is given to a public body, there may be circumstances
which is coupled with power a duty to exercise it or to exercise it in a manner in which it may
only be exercised [4]. In other words, it would mean that if the legislature enables something
to be done, it gives power at the same time by necessary implication to do anything which is
indespensible for the purpose of carrying out the object in view: ubi aliquid concedetur,
conceditur etiam id sine quo res ipsa non esse potest (i.e. where anything is conceded, there is
conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist). The grant of a right to do
anything naturally implies the grant of the means of necessary for its exercise. This is wat is
called as doctrine of implied powers. Quando lex aliquid concedit Concedere videtur et illud
sine que res ipsa non esse potest,i.e, “whoever grants a thing is deemed to have that without
whichthe grant itself would be of no effect”

In India, similarly in Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchant Association v. St. of Bombay and
others, the Supreme Court held that the statutory provisions would be a dead letter and
cannot be enforced unless a subsidiary power is implied. Therfore, if it is found that a duty
has been imposed or a power conferred on an authority by a statute, and it is further found
that a duty cannot be discharged , unless some auxiliary power is assumed to have exist, it
would be quite legitimate to invoke the doctrine of implied powers.

2. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

According to Salmond interpretation or construction is the process by which the courts seek
to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in
which it is expressed.” 5 It has been said that there is a distinction between the two
expressions. As explained by Cooley: “Interpretation differs from construction in the sense
that the former is the art of finding out the true sense of any form of words; i.e. the sense that
their author intended to convey. Construction on the other hand, is the drawing of
conclusions, respecting the subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text.6 This
distinction has been widely criticized. The term interpretation means “To give meaning to”.
Governmental power has been divided into three wings namely the legislature, the executive
and the judiciary. Interpretation of statues to render justice is the primary function of the
judiciary. It is the duty of the Court to interpret the Act and give meaning to each word of the
Statute. The most common rule of interpretation is that every part of the statute must be
understood in a harmonious manner by reading and construing every part of it together. The
maxim “A Verbis legis non est recedendum” means that you must not vary the words of the
statute while interpreting it. The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the
intention of the legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used.

5
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT. AIR 1965 SC 1636, p. 1644
6
Law Commission of India, 60th Report, Chapter 2, para 2.2
vii

Object of Interpretation
The object of interpretaton of statute is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed
expressly or impliedly in the language used in Santi swarup Sarkar v pradeep kumar sarkar,7
the Supreme Court held that if two interpretations are possible of the same statute,the one
which validates the statute must be preferred.Interpretation is the primary function function
of the court. The court interprets the legislature whenever a dispute arises before the court.
Since the will of the legislature is generally expressed in the form of statutes, the prime
concern of the court is to find out the intentions of the legislature in the language used by the
legislature in the statute.

The court is not expected to to interpret arbitarily and consequently there have to be certain
principles which have evolved out of the continous exercise by the courts. These principles
are sometimes called rules of interpretation. The words interpretation and construction are
generally used synonymously even though jurisprudentially they are perhaps different.
Interpreation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
in their natural and ordinary meaning whereas construction means drawing conclusion on the
basis of the true spirit of the enactment even though the same does not appear if the words
used in the enactments are given their natural meaning. To ensure that justice is made
available to all, the judicial system has beenevolved in all nations. It is extremely important
and infact necessary also that the Courts interpret the law in such a manner that ensures
‘access to justice’ to the maximum. For this purpose, the concept of ‘Canons of
Interpretation’ has been expounded. The Canons are those rules that have been evolved by
the Judiciary to help Courts determine the meaning and the intent of legislation.
Interpretation of statute is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a
statute. When the language of the statute is clear, there is no need for the rules of
interpretation. But, in certain cases, more than one meaning may be derived from the same
word or sentence. It is, therefore, necessary to interpret the statute to find out the real
intention of the statute.

PURPOSE FOR STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Interpretation of Statutes is required for two basic reasons:-

Legislative Language – Legislative language may be complicated for a layman, and hence
may require interpretation; and
Legislative Intent – The intention of the legislature or Legislative intent assimilates two
aspects: a. the concept of ‘meaning’, i.e., what the word means; and b. the concept of
‘purpose’ and ‘object’ or the ‘reason’ or ‘spirit’ pervading through the statute.
Some Important points to be taken care of in the context of interpreting Statutes:
Intention of the legislature.

7
AIR 1984 SC 684
viii

Statute must be read as a whole in its Context.

Statute should be Construed so as to make it Effective and Workable – if statutory provision
is ambiguous and capable of various constructions, then that construction must be adopted
which will give meaning and effect to the other provisions of the enactment rather than that
which will give none.
If meaning is plain, effect must be given to it irrespective of consequences.
The process of construction combines both the literal and purposive approaches. The
purposive construction rule highlights that you should shift from literal construction when it
leads to absurdity.

In his The Law-Making Process, Michael Zander gives three reasons why statutory
interpretation is necessary:

1. Complexity of statutes in regards to the nature of the subject, numerous draftsmen and the
blend of legal and technical language can result in incoherence, vague and ambiguous
language.

2. Anticipation of future events leads to the use of indeterminate terms. The impossible task
of anticipating every possible scenario also leads to the use of indeterminate language. Judges
therefore have to interpret statutes because of the gaps in law. Examples of inderterminate
language include words such as “reasonable”. In this case the courts are responsible for
determining what constitutes the word “reasonable”.

3. 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. General
Rules of Interpretation, Internal Aids to Interpretation, External Aids to Interpretation, Literal
Rule, Golden Rule, Mischief Rule, Subsidiary Rules and Harmonious Construction are some
of the most important rules.

The meaning of law in a statute should be clear and explicit, but this is not always achieved.
Thus, many of the cases which come before the courts concern a dispute over the meaning of
a word or phrase in a statute. In those cases the task of the court is to decide the exact
meaning of that particular word or phrase. There are a number of factors which can lead to an
unclear meaning.
A broad term – There may be words designed to cover several possibilities and it is left to
the user to judge what situations fall within it.
Ambiguity – A word may have two or more meanings and it may not be clear which
meaning should be used.
ix

A drafting error – The parliamentary council which drafted the original Bill may have made
an error that has not been noticed by Parliament. This is more likely to occur where a Bill has
been amended several times during debates.
Wording may be inadequate – There may be many ways in which the wording may be
inadequate, for example, a printing error, or another error such as the use of a word with a
wide meaning which is not defined.
New developments – New technology may mean that an old Act of Parliament does not
apparently cover present-day situations.
Changes in the use of language – The meaning of words can change over the years.
Certain words not used – The draftsmen may refrain from using certain words that they
regard as being implied. The problem here is that users may not realise that this is the case.
Failure of legislation to cover a specific point – The legislation may have been drafted in
detail, with the draftsman trying to cover every possible contingency. Despite this, situations
could arise which are not specifically covered. The question then is whether the court should
interpret the legislation so as to include the situation which was omitted or whether they
should limit the legislation to the precise points listed by Parliament.

Nature and Scope of Interpretation

Necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of a statutory provision is
ambiguous, not clear or where two views are possible or where the provision gives a different
meaning defeating the object of the statute. If the language is clear and unambiguous, no need
of interpretation would arise. In this regard, a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the
Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v A.R. Antulay,8 has held:
“… If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court
to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The question of
construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used
in the Statute would be self-defeating.”
Again Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay9, has
followed the same principle and observed:
“Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the
intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for court to take upon itself
the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions.”
The purpose of Interpretation of Statutes is to help the Judge to ascertain the intention of the
Legislature – not to control that intention or to confine it within the limits, which the Judge
may deem reasonable or expedient.

8
AIR 1984 SC 684
9
(2002)4 SCC 297
x

The correct is one that best harmonises the words with the object of the statute.10 As stated by
Iyer J. “to be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul. The judicial key of
construction is the composite perception of the deha and the dehi of the provision.”11
According to Blackstone the fairest and rational method for interpreting a statute is by
exploring the intention of the Legislature through the most natural and probable signs which
are ‘either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the
spirit and reason of the law’.12

FUCNCTION OF JUDGES IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

MUCH of the confusion and uncertainty in interpreting and applying statutes is due to a
failure to distinguish the sev- eral distinct steps or problems in the process. Of these, four ap-
pear quite clearly in determining the functions of the court and jury in statutory cases. In their
logical order they are as follows: First, how far does the process of interpreting statutes
involve questions of fact and of law; how far in this respect is the prob- lem similar to that of
other writings; and having determined law and fact in the process, how far are they
distributed in accordance with the usual disposition of legal and factual questions in jury
cases? Secondly, is there any necessity for distinguishing interpretation from application of
statutes in determining the functions of court and jury; and, if so, how does the distinction
clarify the problem? Thirdly, when are extrinsic aids or evidence as to the meaning of a
statute for the court and when for the jury? Lastly, in what respect are these functions altered
on constitutional or other grounds in interpreting and applying penal legislation. It is
submitted that certain basic distinctions worthy of consideration and inherent in the cases are
often misunderstood or inarticulately expressed.

ROLE OF JUDGES:-

1. When words are imperfect and they are ambiguous and they keep changing meaning over
time which does not appear to be directly addressing a particular issue and which appears to
have a drafting error.
2. Some situations are inevitable and new technologies make existing laws difficult.
3. Some uncertainties can be added to the statute in course of enactment.
4. When any statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts stated that, the inquiry into
legislative intents ends at that particular point. The intention of the legislature is to be
construed when there is a possibility of two interpretations differently arising and this has to
be essentially constructed of two aspects, one is the concept of meaning i.e what the words

10
Justice GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Lexis Nexis, 14th Edition, 2016, p. 21
11
State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963SC 1604, p. 1606
12
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1, p.59
xi

mean and another is the words that state the concept of purpose and object or the reason and
spirit coming through the statute.
5. The process of construction combines both literal and logical. The legislative intention is
the true or legal
meaning of an enactment which is derived by considering the meaning of words which is
used in the enactment for a purpose or object to which the enactment is directed.
6. The courts will have to keep in mind while reading any statute, by certain legislative intent.
They are the text of any statute which has proposed to the legislature. These proposed
amendments to the stature can be accepted or rejected with reasons. They include the record
of court hearings on a particular topic. Parliamentary debates and speeches are made prior to
the bill on vote. They maintain the legislative records or journals. The General Clauses Act,
1897 can be used to understand the relevant definitions in the statute.
7. Prior to the formation of statute, the case laws demonstrates the problems or issues which
the legislative was dealing with tackling the problem. Legislative intent is the reason for
passing the law.
8. Other relevant statutes which indicate the limits of the statute in question; such as previous
statutes on the same matter. The intention of legislature is a shorthand reference to the words
meaning which is used by the Legislature and determined with guidance accepted principles
of Interpretation. This interpretation is done by judges when the legislation was drafted
because a statute is an edict of the Legislature. It is considered to be a reason that
interpretation of a stature is done according to the intention of those persons who make it. It
is the duty of the judicature to act upon the true intention of legislature –the mens or
sentential legis. The main object of interpreting the statute is to ascertain the intention in
which a legislature is made. The primary function of all the appellate courts is the
interpretation of statures and it is also conventional for courts to make it use of the rules in
the actual course of interpretation. Some of the rules in interpretation of law are considered to
be very ancient and others are actually recent. Some statutes are applicable only to one field
such as criminal law or constitutional law.

IV. CONCLUSION
The usage of the intention of a legislature by every court should be justified by a proper
reason and it should not be left open to statutes which are present. Errors are committed and
should be rectified as soon as possible. Every court is assigned a task of statutory
interpretation and that should always be done with a proper care and caution which is taking
care of all the rules and regulations regarding the construction. The court can always interpret
legislation in its own way as to what considers for them to be right and they are taken care for
finding out the intention of legislature in enacting the statute. There are different statutes
where every intention can be looked upon on the case of „Taxation‟and „Penal code‟ statutes
which is never looked by the court. The interpretation of all the statutes is different from
ordinary ones as they have clear provisions as to what impose tax or liability on certain
subjects. People will suffer if the interpretation goes in a wrong way. Both statutes should be
xii

clear for interpretation and if it is ambiguous or unclear, there will be no interpretation. In

these statutes, the court will not give effect to all the word. They will only interpret if the
word is clear and in the case of any ambiguity the court will look into
enacting provisions of the statute. Here the court will apply only the Literal Interpretation by
taking a popular or an ordinary meaning and the court will not apply any canon of
construction for Interpretation of statute. Regarding law, every word has a meaning and the
interpretation will become the scope and beyond the reach of objectives and reasons for
which the statute was enacted in the legislature. Hence the court should understand
this construction on for determining any statute or constitutional provision.

REFERENCES

1. Justice GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Lexis Nexis, 14th Edition, 2016.
2. M.P Tandon: Interpretation of Statutes and legislation, Allahabad Law Agency,
Allahabad.
3. P.M Bakshi: Statutory Interpretation of Statutes, Orient Publishing Company.
4. Avtar Singh and Harpreet Kaur: Introduction to interpretation of Statutes, LexisNexis
India, Gurgaon