









Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Slides on IOS. Very useful for law students
Typology: Slides
1 / 15
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
(^) LANGUAGE OF STATUTE SHOULD BE READ AS IT IS. Avoiding addition or substitution of words, Casus omissus, Avoiding rejection of words, Departure from the rule. (^) THE RULE OF LITERAL CONSTRUCTION. Natural and grammatical meaning, Explanation of the rule, Exact meaning preferred to loose meaning, Technical words in technical sense. (^) REGARD TO SUBJECT AND OBJECT. General, Rule of Heydon’s case, purposive construction: Mischief rule (^) REGARD TO CONSEQUENCES. Hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity and anomaly to be avoided; Inconsistency and repugnancy to be avoided; harmonious construction; When reconciliation not possible; Avoiding uncertainty and friction in the system which the statute purports to regulate.
The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequences a construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. Shyam Kishore Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation, “the words of a statute never should, in interpretation, be added to or subtracted from without almost a necessity”. This rule like other rules is subject to exceptions. This rule has been approved by the Supreme Court. To be simple, some words might be required to be rejected or to be added and this has to be avoided.
To brief the court cannot reframe the legislation for the very good reason that the court has no power to legislate – State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese. (^) British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Captain Itbar Singh , AIR 1959. Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is exhaustive of defences open to an insurer, the Supreme court refused to add word “also” after the words “on any of the following grounds” and observed that this rules of interpretation, do not permit us to do unless the section as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning. (^) K.M.Vishwanath Pillai v. K.M.Sannughan Pillai, AIR 1969. The principle substitution or addition of words to be avoided, Section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939, which enacts that “ no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned”
The Supreme court held that the section did not make it necessary that the owner of the vehicle himself should obtain the permit and that there was no justification for reading the words “to him” after the words “permit granted”. (^) Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwala, AIR 1992. In construing Part I of the first schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, the Supreme Court strongly disapproved the view of the Allahabad High Court which had substituted the words “more than five years” for the words “not less than seven years” in para 2 of the schedule. It is not the duty of the court to enlarge the scope of legislation when the language of the provision is plain. It cannot rewrite the legislation for the reason that it had no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts.
TWO MAIN PRINCIPLES: well settled principles. (^) Casus omissus. (^) Regard to reading statute as a whole- the language employed in the statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used in the legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended, but what has been said. The court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. P.K.Unni case & Dadi Jagannadam case: (^) These cases relate to construction of Rule 89 , Order 21 of CPC after the amendment. (^) In P.K.Unni Case the period of limitation for making deposit preceding application for setting aside sale under Rule 89 Order 21, of CPC, is 30 days from the date of sale under Rule 92(2), while that for making the subsequent