External methods
Module IV : External • Dictionaries • Foreign Decisions • Textbooks • Historical Background •
Aids to Interpretation Legislative History • Administrative Conveyancing and Commercial
20 Practice • Prospective and Retrospective operation of statutes
External aids to interpreting statutes are sources of information and guidance utilised by
courts and legal professionals to understand the meaning and intent behind a particular
statute. These aids are external to the statute’s text and provide supplementary context for
its interpretation.
External aids provide valuable assistance in the interpretation of statutes. They help resolve
uncertainties and fill gaps in the statutory text. The legislative history, including committee
reports, debates and statements made by lawmakers during the drafting process, is a
commonly used external aid. It provides insights into the statute’s objectives, purpose and
context, assisting in determining the lawmakers’ intent.
Case law is another important external aid. Judicial decisions on related statutes or similar
legal issues can help understand the interpretation given by courts in previous cases. These
precedents serve as a guide for future interpretations and contribute to the development of
legal principles.
Other external aids include dictionaries, legal treatises and scholarly articles. Dictionaries
help ascertain the ordinary meaning of words used in a statute. Legal treatises and scholarly
articles provide academic analysis and expert opinions on statutory interpretation, aiding in
understanding complex legal concepts.
External aids are resorted to when ambiguity persists even after exhausting the internal aids.
• In order to find out the intent if the legislature in true sense, external aids like
parliamentary debates, dictionaries, etc. can be looked upon.
Prabhakar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh “Where internal aids are not forthcoming we can
always assess external aids to discover the object of the legislation. External aids are not
ruled out. This is now a well settled principle of modern statutory construction
In Prabhakar Rao and others v. State of A.P. and others (AIR 1986 SC 120),
The Hon’ble court observed that “where internal aids are not forthcoming, we can always
have recourse to external aids to discover the object of the legislation. External aids are not
ruled out. This is now a well settled principle of modern statutory construction.”
a. Parliamentary History
Parliamentary history is another external aid to the interpretation of statutes and comprises
the original form of statutes presented before the legislature’s enactment. The ministry
responsible for introducing the bill would have justified its enactment, known as the
Statements of Objects and Reasons, which hold significant importance. Additionally,
Parliamentary History encompasses records of debates held in Parliament, committee
reports, resolutions passed by both houses and any amendments made to the bill.
Previously, Parliamentary History did not serve as a tool for interpreting statutes. This
perspective originated from the traditional English legal system and was followed by the
Supreme Court of India. However, subsequent court cases led to a change in this view,
including Parliamentary History as an external aid to interpretation.
In the Ashwini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose case, Chief Justice Patanjali Shastri expressed
that the Statements of Objects and Reasons should not be considered an external aid to
interpretation. This was because these statements are presented during the bill’s processing,
and the bill may undergo several changes during that period, making the statements subject
to amendments.
However, in the case of State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, Justice S. R. Das took
the Statements of Objects and Reasons into account to assess the socio-political and
economic context of the introduced bill, while still acknowledging the view expressed in the
Ashwini Kumar case.
Indira Sawhney v. UOI (1993) While interpreting Article 16(4) of the Constitution the
Supreme Court referred to Dr. Ambedkar’s speech in the Constituent Assembly as the
expression backward class of citizens’ is not defined. The court held that reference to
Parliamentary debate is permissible to ascertain the context, background and objective of
the legislatures but at the same time such references could not be taken as conclusive or
binding on the courts
Parliamentary history may include:
1. The bill in its original form or the amendments considered during its progress in the
Legislature
2. Statements of Objects and Reasons (Speech of the minister)
3. Parliamentary debates
4. Reports submitted by different Committees and commissions. These were not used
as an aid to interpretation initially. However, occasionally courts have adhered to use
them for expounding the true meaning of legislation
Whenever there is any ambiguity in the text of the Statute, the Court may refer to the
various reports of Committee or Commissions for understanding the exact meaning or
intention behind the provision.
Law Commission Reports, Mandal Commission Report, These reports may be referred for
understanding the background and intent behind any particular provision.
5. Historical Facts and Surrounding Circumstances
Historical setting cannot be used as an aid if the words are plain and clear. If the wordings
are ambiguous, the historical setting may be considered in order to arrive at the proper
construction.
Historical setting covers parliamentary history, historical facts, statement of objects and
reasons, report of expert committees.
This includes drafting of the bill, the debates made, the amendments proposed etc. Speech
made in mover of the bill, amendments considered during the progress of the bill are
considered in parliamentary history where as the papers placed before the cabinet which
took the decision for the introduction of the bill are not relevant since these papers are not
placed before the parliament. The historical facts of the statute that is the external
circumstances in which it was enacted in should also be taken into note so that it can be
understood that the statute in question was intended to alter the law or leave it where it
stood. Statement of objective and reasons as to why the statute is being brought to
enactment can also be a very helpful fact in the research for historical facts
Historical facts play a crucial role in establishing the context in which a statute was enacted,
providing background information and aiding in interpretation. This external aid to the
interpretation is particularly significant when applying the Mischief Rule of Interpretation, as
outlined in the case of Heydon. The Mischief Rule seeks to address four key points:
The state of the law before the enactment of the statute in question.
The earlier law failed to address the problem or issue (referred to as “mischief”).
The remedy provided by the statute in question.
The rationale behind the remedy.
These points directly correspond to the historical facts surrounding the statute, reflecting
the circumstances in which it was enacted. An example of the application of the mischief
rule can be seen in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, which involved the
interpretation of Article 286.
Facts
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd., headquartered in Calcutta, was a company engaged in
manufacturing and selling biological products and medicines. The company operated under
the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and sold its goods throughout India and abroad.
The sales were made from its Calcutta office, and the goods were dispatched via rail,
steamer, or air. Notably, the company had no office, godown, laboratory, or agent in Bihar.
The dispute began when the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, issued a
letter on October 24, 1951, requiring Bengal Immunity Co. to register under the Bihar Sales
Tax Act, 1947, and deposit sales tax dues. Subsequently, on December 18, 1951, a notice
under Section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, was issued, asking the company to
submit its turnover details. Bihar tax authorities argued that goods delivered in Bihar for
consumption fell within the jurisdiction of the Act.
Bengal Immunity Co. denied liability on the following grounds:
1. It was not a resident of Bihar.
2. It conducted no business in Bihar, and no sales occurred in the state.
3. It did not collect any sales tax from buyers in Bihar.
Despite their denial, the Bihar Sales Tax authorities maintained that, under Article 286 of the
Constitution and Section 33 of the Act, the company’s sales were taxable if goods were
delivered in Bihar for consumption.
The company filed a petition under Article 226 before the Patna High Court, challenging the
notices and the constitutionality of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The High Court dismissed the
petition, stating it was not maintainable at this stage as no assessment order had been
passed. A certificate under Article 132(1) was issued for an appeal to the Supreme Court,
given the substantial constitutional question involved
Judgement
Bengal Immunity Co v State of Bihar Judgement
The Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co v State of Bihar allowed the appeal and provided
a detailed analysis addressing each issue:
Maintainability of Writ of Prohibition
The Court in Bengal Immunity Co vs State of Bihar rejected the argument that the writ was
premature. It held that if the Bihar Sales Tax Act was indeed unconstitutional, then the mere
issuance of notices and demands for registration imposed undue hardship and violated
fundamental rights. The availability of alternative remedies was irrelevant if the Act itself
was ultra vires.
Revisiting United Motors Case (1953)
The Court overruled its earlier decision in United Motors, stating it was erroneous and had
adverse public consequences. It clarified that Article 286(2) restricted states from taxing
inter-state trade, irrespective of the explanation to Article 286(1)(a). The Court in Bengal
Immunity Co versus State of Bihar emphasised its duty to correct errors, especially when
public interest was at stake, even if it meant deviating from the doctrine of stare decisis.
Construction of Article 286 Using the Mischief Rule
Applying the mischief rule (from Heydon’s Case) of interpretation of statutes, the Court
examined the legislative intent of Article 286:
Before the Constitution, provinces imposed sales tax based on territorial nexus,
leading to multiple taxation of the same transaction.
Article 286 aimed to prevent this mischief and preserve free inter-state trade.
The Court held that the explanation to Article 286(1)(a) could not override the broader
prohibition in Article 286(2).
Marginal Notes as Aids to Interpretation
The marginal note to Article 286 (“Restrictions as to the imposition of tax on the sale or
purchase of goods”) reinforced the provision’s restrictive intent.
Validity of Bihar Sales Tax Act
The Act was declared ultra vires to the extent it sought to tax inter-state sales. However, the
Act was not wholly invalid, as the unconstitutional provisions were severable from the rest.
The Court analysed the definition of “sale” and “dealer” under the Act, concluding that inter-
state sales were beyond its scope due to Article 286.
Key Observations
1. Legal Fiction of Explanation: The explanation to Article 286(1)(a) could not convert
inter-state sales into intra-state sales for taxation purposes. It only determined the
location of sales within the framework of Article 286(1)(a).
2. Supremacy of Parliament: Article 286(2) established Parliament’s exclusive authority
to regulate the taxation of interstate commerce. Until parliamentary legislation
existed, states could not impose such taxes.
3. Multiple Taxation: The Bengal Immunity Co v State of Bihar judgement reinforced
the constitutional prohibition on multiple taxation to protect consumers and ensure
free trade.
4. Doctrine of Stare Decisis: The Court clarified that it could overturn its prior rulings
when they were erroneous and against the public interest. However, this power
should be exercised cautiously.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar was a landmark
judgement that:
1. Invalidated state taxation of inter-state sales unless authorised by Parliament.
2. Reinforced the constitutional safeguards under Article 286, ensuring free inter-state
trade and commerce.
3. Corrected an erroneous precedent (United Motors) to align with constitutional
principles.
4. Provided clarity on the interpretation of Article 286 and its implications for state
legislation
Historical facts are the facts that led to the evolution of a statute. They can assist judges in
uncovering the true nature of the statute, enabling a more efficient legal process. Any
relevant historical facts that contributed to the development of the statute can be helpful in
its interpretation.
b. Scientific Inventions
In the interpretation of statutes, it is essential to consider any subsequent developments
related to the statute’s provisions. This is particularly relevant in fields like science and
technology, constantly evolving. Society is continuously progressing and rapid advancements
are occurring in various domains. Therefore, while interpreting statutes designed to govern
these developments, it is important to consider these evolving circumstances.
A notable case illustrating this principle is State v. J. S. Chawdhry, which involved Section 45
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This section specifically mentioned handwriting experts
but did not include typewriting experts since typewriters were invented after the statute’s
enactment. However, in the case at hand, the party representing the state sought to rely on
the opinion of typewriting experts. The Supreme Court had previously held that the opinions
of typewriting experts were not admissible. Nevertheless, in this particular case, the
Supreme Court departed from its earlier view and deemed such opinions admissible.
This demonstrates the importance of considering subsequent developments and adapting
the interpretation of statutes accordingly, especially in light of technological advancements
and changing societal norms.
c. Other Statutes
When a statute lacks clarity regarding its intended meaning, other statutes in pari materia
that deal with the same or similar subjects can be considered for interpretation. It is also an
external aid to the interpretation of statutes. Although these statutes may not be identical,
they address related topics or different aspects of the same subject matter. They have
corresponding provisions despite being enacted at different times and under different
circumstances.
Statutes must be read as a whole in order to understand the words in their context. Problem
arises when a statute is not complete in itself i.e. the words used in the statute are not
explained clearly.
Extension of this rule of context permits reference to other statutes in pari-materia i.e.
statutes dealing with the same subject matter or forming part of the same system.
This may include referring to statutes in pari materia and earlier statutes.
In pari materia is a Latin phrase meaning "on the same subject" or "relating to the same
matter". In legal interpretation, it is a doctrine of statutory construction that requires courts
to read, interpret, and construe statutes that address similar subjects or have the same
purpose together as a single, coherent system.
In legal interpretation, it refers to the principle that statutes or legal provisions dealing with
the same subject matter should be read and construed together. This approach helps to
clarify meaning or resolve inconsistencies by considering the context provided by related
laws
It refers to a principle of legal interpretation where different laws, statutes, or legal
provisions that deal with the same topic or subject should be read and understood together.
Courts often apply this principle to gain a complete understanding of the lawmakers' intent,
to resolve any ambiguities, or to ensure consistency across related legal texts.
Here are some examples illustrating this concept:
Example 1: State Environmental Laws
Imagine a state has two separate laws: the "State Clean Water Act" and the "State
Hazardous Waste Disposal Act." Both laws aim to protect the environment from pollution. If
a court needs to interpret a vague term like "toxic substance" within the Clean Water Act,
and that act's definition is not entirely clear, the court might look to the Hazardous Waste
Disposal Act. Since both laws address environmental protection and the handling of harmful
materials, they are considered in pari materia. The more detailed definition of "toxic
substance" found in the Hazardous Waste Disposal Act could then be used to clarify the
meaning in the Clean Water Act, ensuring a consistent and comprehensive approach
• Statutes which relate to the same subject, the same person or thing or the same class of
persons or things are deemed to constitute one system of law, they are considered as one
statute.
• R v. Loxdale “Where there are different statutes in pari materia though made at different
times, or even expired, and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and construed
together as one system and as explanatory of each other”.
• Ahmedabad Pvt. P.T. Association v. Adm. Officer It was observed that the word “employee”
defined in section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act is to be construed by referring to other
Labour Enactments dealing with the same subject. • When the two legislations have
different scopes it cannot be said that they are in pari materia.
• Shah and Co., Bombay V. State of Maharashtra The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Rates
Control Act, 1947 and the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 were not held to be Acts in
pari materia as they do not relate to the same persons or thing or to the same class of
persons or things. • When a word is not defined in the Act, it is permissible to refer to
dictionaries. • Though dictionaries are not to be taken as authoritative in regard to the
meanings of the words used in statutes.
• In Rev. Stainslaus v. State of M.P. (1977) SC the court quoted the meaning of the word
‘Propagate’ from the Oxford and Century dictionaries
In the case of State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanath Iyer, the accused, an income-tax officer, was
charged with accepting a bribe. The trial court sentenced him to six months of rigorous
imprisonment. However, the High Court acquitted the accused upon appeal, suggesting that
he may have borrowed money instead of accepting it as a bribe.
The Supreme Court, in its examination of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947, ruled that if there is evidence that the accused accepted gratification in any form
other than legal remuneration, it shall be presumed that such gratification was accepted as a
bribe, unless proven otherwise. This provision was considered in pari materia with
the Indian Evidence Act 1872, where the words ‘shall presume’ corresponded to the words
‘it shall be presumed’ in the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court
overturned the High Court’s decision and found the accused guilty.
This case illustrates the application of the principle of pari materia, wherein related statutes
can be used to interpret ambiguous provisions and establish a consistent legal framework.
d. Foreign Decisions
Judges may refer to foreign laws and decision if the jurisprudence of both the countries is
same, similarity in political system and ideology, when there is no domestic law on point and
if the Indian court believe that decision passed by the foreign court is not arbitrary. However,
the foreign courts or decision have only persuasive value as the courts in India are not
bound by the foreign courts
When judicial pronouncements are been taken as reference it should be taken into note that
the decisions referred are Indian, if they are foreign it should be ensured that such a foreign
country follows the same system of jurisprudence as ours and that these decisions have
been taken in the ground of the same law as ours.
These foreign decisions have persuasive value only and are not binding on Indian courts
Before independence, it was common for Indian courts to refer to English judgments when
deciding cases on specific matters. This was because the Indian legal system had its roots in
the English legal system, and many laws in England and India were similar. However, after
the enactment of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India started placing
significant reliance on American judgments.
It is important to note that the decisions of foreign courts do not bind Indian courts and such
decisions are merely persuasive. In the case of M. V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and
Trading Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court took a different stance from the English courts when
interpreting the phrase “damage caused by a ship” under Section 443 of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1958. The court expanded the meaning of the phrase to include physical
damage and damage caused to the cargo within the ship.
This instance demonstrates that Indian courts have the discretion to depart from foreign
court decisions and interpret laws based on the specific context and requirements of Indian
law. While foreign judgments can provide persuasive authority, Indian courts ultimately have
the autonomy to arrive at their own interpretations.
e. Dictionaries and Textbooks
When a word used in the statute is not defined therein or if defined but the meaning is
unclear only in such situation, the court may refer to the dictionary meaning of the statute
to find out meaning of the word in ordinary sense. The meaning of such words shall be
interpreted so to make sure that it is speaking about the particular statute because words
bears different meaning in different context.
When a word is not defined in the statute itself, it is permissible to refer to dictionaries to
find out the general sense in which that word is understood in common parlance.
However, in the selection of one out of the various meanings of a word, regard must always
be had to the scheme, context and legislative history.
Motipur zamindary company private limited v. State of Bihar [10], the question was whether
sales tax can be levied on Sugarcane. The applicant argued that it is green vegetable and
should be exempted from tax. The dictionary meaning of vegetable said anything which
derived or obtained from the plants. The SC rejected dictionary meaning and held that in
common parlance vegetable is something which is grown in kitchen garden and used during
lunch and dinner and held that sugarcane is not vegetable. Text Books The court while
construing an enactment, may refer to the standard textbooks to clear the meaning.
Although, the courts are not bound to accept such view. The court time and again referred
to mulla, kautiliya, manu, arthshastra. Example: in Kesavananda Bharthi case [11], judges
quoted large number of books
When a statute is unclear about its intended meaning, the principle of pari materia allows
for considering other statutes that deal with the same or similar subjects. While these
statutes may not be identical, they address related topics or different aspects of the same
subject matter. Despite being enacted at different times and under different circumstances,
they contain corresponding provisions.
Conclusion: External Aids to Interpretation
External aids to the interpretation of statutes include parliamentary history, historical facts,
scientific inventions, other statutes, foreign decisions and dictionaries/textbooks