Law in Translation: The Power of Interpretation in
Shaping Justice
Introduction:
Language constitutes the very architecture of law; interpretation operates as the dynamic
engine that animates its structure. The oft-repeated maxim lex loquitur—“the law
speaks”—obscures a deeper jurisprudential truth: the law speaks only through language, and
language, being inherently indeterminate, demands interpretation. Every act of legal
translation—whether across linguistic boundaries, normative systems, temporal contexts, or
juridical traditions—becomes an act of reconstructing meaning within a contested field of
power, culture, and ideology. It is through interpretation that statutes, constitutions, contracts,
and international instruments acquire juridical force, transmuting textual formulations into
operative norms. The consequences are profound: interpretive methodologies do not merely
clarify pre-existing meaning but actively constitute it, thereby defining the ambit of
fundamental rights, delineating the contours of sovereign authority, and shaping the very
architecture of justice itself.
Theoretical Background: Law, Language and Translation
Legal interpretation theory is fundamentally anchored in the interplay between text, context,
and purpose. The law speaks through language, and interpretation becomes the principal
mechanism through which legal meaning is constructed. The hermeneutic challenge lies in
reconciling the apparent fixity of legislative text with the fluidity of linguistic meaning.
Classical common law interpretation developed along three canonical trajectories – the literal
(textual) rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule – each embodying distinct jurisprudential
assumptions about the relationship between legislative intent and judicial function.
In Bangladeshi jurisprudence, the purposive approach has similarly gained traction,
particularly in constitutional interpretation. In Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh (8th
Amendment Case) [1989], the Appellate Division invoked purposive reasoning to safeguard
the basic structure of the Constitution, holding that interpretive fidelity must extend to the
“spirit and scheme” of the Constitution, not merely its words. Likewise, in Bangladesh
Italian Marble Works Ltd v Government of Bangladesh (5th Amendment Case) [2010], the
Court treated textual and contextual interpretation as co-constitutive of constitutional
meaning, recognising that legal language is embedded within historical and political
contingencies.
Parallel to doctrinal developments in interpretation theory, translation studies offer a
conceptual reorientation that deepens our understanding of legal hermeneutics. Legal
translation transcends the mechanical transference of words between languages; it is a
1
semiotic, hermeneutic, and institutional practice that negotiates legal concepts across
epistemic and cultural boundaries. As Susan Šarčević argues in New Approach to Legal
Translation (Kluwer Law International, 1997), legal translation entails the transfer of entire
conceptual systems, not merely terminological equivalents. The translator, much like the
judge, operates as a normative agent whose choices shape the legal effect of the text.
The contemporary scholars on “law-in-translation” reconceptualise translation as an act of
legal reasoning. It underscores that every interpretive act – whether by the legislator, drafter,
or adjudicator – is itself a form of translation between linguistic, doctrinal, and normative
registers. Translation thus becomes constitutive of law’s meaning-making process, especially
in multilingual or transnational regimes such as the European Union or international law,
where textual authenticity in multiple languages (e.g., Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, 1969) introduces interpretive pluralism.
In sum, the theoretical convergence of law, language, and translation reveals interpretation as
both a linguistic and normative enterprise. Whether through judicial reasoning or interlingual
translation, meaning in law is not discovered but constructed through a dialectic between
text, purpose, and context. This understanding situates the interpreter – judge, translator, or
scholar – as a co-author of legal meaning within an ongoing hermeneutic conversation
between law and justice.
Methods of Interpretation and Their Translational Implications:
Different interpretive methods imply different translational priorities:
1. Literal/Textual Interpretation:
Prioritises grammatical meaning, minimizing judicial law-making. Its virtue is
predictability; its vice is rigidity and potential unfairness when the words produce
absurd or unjust results.
2. Golden Rule:
Allows limited modification of literal meaning to avoid absurdity, preserving
grammar where possible while steering outcome away from manifest error.
3. Mischief Rule:
Seeks legislative remedy for a discrete defect; it demands historical and
problem-oriented inquiry (a proto-translation of social problem into remedial
wording). Heydon’s Case is the foundational statement.
4. Purposive/Teleological Interpretation:
Moves beyond words to statutory purpose and values. It is especially salient in
rights-protective contexts and in the interpretation of broadly framed constitutional
guarantees.
2
5. Contextual/Constitutional Harmonisation:
In systems with a written constitution, interpretive practice must reconcile statutes with
constitutional norms; courts may therefore read statutory language in light of constitutional
values — a form of intratextual translation from constitutional principle to statutory meaning.
Each method involves translation-like choices: selecting which contextual materials to
consult (legislative history, travaux préparatoires, object and purpose clauses), which sources
to privilege, and how to calibrate semantic fidelity with normative outcomes. The selection of
method is itself a judgment about the appropriate democratic and institutional balance
between legislature and judiciary.
Law in Translation:
how translation shapes justice are described below:
1. Drafting and the General Clauses Act
Drafting is the first order of translation. Abstract policy and social problems are encoded into
statutory text. In Bangladesh, the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides interpretive aids
(definitions, rules of construction) that operate as the legislature’s preferred gloss on common
terms; it thereby standardises how terms like “person”, “time” or “month” are to be read
across statutes. The existence of such a general interpretive statute means that many
interpretive outcomes are pre-delegated by the legislature to a set of default meanings.
The drafting stage is, therefore, an essential locus of translational power: a failure of
precision or cross-linguistic clarity at drafting multiplies interpretive burdens later.
2. Adjudication and Legislative History
Courts mediate textual indeterminacy. The permissibility of extrinsic materials (Hansard,
preparatory materials) varies across jurisdictions; Pepper v Hart relaxed previous prohibition
in Britain, permitting parliamentary materials in narrowly defined cases of ambiguity. That
decision exemplifies how courts may actively seek the legislature’s voice as an interpretive
instrument, thereby translating legislative intention (as expressed in debates) into judicial
meaning.
In Bangladesh, the High Court and Appellate Division have frequently faced the tension
between textual fidelity and purposive reading when constitutional rights are implicated. The
judiciary’s recourse to contextual materials reflects a recognition that text alone may not
capture socio-legal realities or the legislature’s remedial objectives. Institutional practices for
recording and publishing legislative history (including committee reports and explanatory
notes) therefore materially affect interpretive possibilities.
3
3. Multilingualism, Transnational Law and International Instruments
Translation is unavoidable where laws and treaties cross linguistic borders. International
instruments are drafted in several authentic languages; different language texts may diverge
in nuance. Scholars warn that terminological harmonisation efforts and the “multilingual law”
dynamic (for example in EU law and international organisations) operate as a form of legal
translation that reshapes domestic legal meaning. The problem is acute in countries where
official texts exist in multiple languages or where English functions as a legal lingua franca
while Bangla is the constitutional language in daily life and litigation. Literature on
terminological harmonisation and legal translation underscores the epistemic risk: distinct
conceptual repertoires can yield divergent legal constructs when translated inadequately.
Bangladesh’s Perspective : Constitutional Context and Case Law
Illustrations
Bangladesh’s written Constitution (1972) is the supreme source for rights and the architecture
of state power; courts therefore often translate constitutional principles into statutory
construction and vice versa. Two illustrative strands of Bangladeshi jurisprudence reveal
translation’s impact:
BLAST and Rights-Protective Purposive Construction:
The Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) litigation challenged mandatory
death penalty provisions and other penal statutes on constitutional grounds, leading courts to
adopt purposive constructions that aligned penal provisions with constitutional guarantees of
fairness and judicial discretion. The Supreme Court used purposive reasoning to read
statutory schemes in the light of constitutional rights — a paradigmatic instance of
intratextual translation where constitutional values reshape statutory meaning and remedy.
Statutory Ambiguities and Administrative Rule-Making:
A range of High Court decisions, including Writ Petition judgments (e.g., disputes involving
administrative interpretations of licensing or regulatory acts), demonstrate that administrative
practice, legislative drafting and judicial translation together determine how statutory terms
operate in practice. The judiciary, confronted with ambiguous statutory wording, frequently
consults the General Clauses Act, legislative purpose and contemporaneous administrative
practice to resolve uncertainty. Such choices have distributive consequences for regulation,
criminal law and social policy.
Translation Problems:
Several recurrent problems arise when law is translated — whether between languages,
contexts or legal instruments:
1. Semantic Drift and Polysemy:
Legal terms are often polysemous; repeated translation or re-use in different statutes
4
can cause drift where a term’s meaning diverges from its original matrix.
2. Under-inclusiveness and Over-breadth:
Literal translations may narrow legislative reach unintentionally; purposive readings
can broaden it, sometimes beyond democratic choice.
3. Institutional Asymmetry:
Judges, drafters and translators occupy different democratic legitimacy registers.
Judicial translational acts that effectively rewrite statutes raise separation-of-powers
concerns if unchecked.
4. Asymmetric Multilingual Texts:
When instruments exist in multiple “authentic” languages, conflict between texts (or
lack of a hierarchy among languages) produces interpretive instability.
5. Lack of Legislative History:
Where legislative drafting processes are opaque or records absent, courts’ ability to
perform purposive translation is constrained, increasing reliance on judicial policy
choices.
These problems are not merely theoretical: they shape outcomes in sentencing,
property rights, regulatory enforcement and constitutional adjudication.
Admissibility of Legislative Materials and the Role of Translation:
Comparative experience shows trade-offs. England’s move in Pepper v Hart to permit limited
use of parliamentary materials responds to the need for context in purposive interpretation but
also raises evidentiary and legitimacy questions.
International scholars on legal translation stresses system-sensitive approaches: translators
and judges should combine lexical competence with doctrinal awareness and institutional
reflexivity. Terminological harmonisation efforts at international organisations (for instance,
multilingual drafting in EU and treaty practice) illustrate the technical solutions available
(standard glossaries, negotiating authoritative language hierarchies), yet also reveal political
contestation over conceptual priority.
Normative Stakes: Justice, Democracy and Accountability:
Interpretive translation has distributive and normative consequences. A purposive reading
that expands a welfare provision promotes substantive justice; the same approach could, in a
different context, widen administrative discretion and reduce predictability. Thus, the
normative assessment of translation depends on institutional safeguards:
● Transparency:
Courts should justify interpretive translations with reasoned explanations that reveal
the materials used and their weight. Where legislative history is used, the court should
5
identify the particular statements relied upon and explain how they resolve ambiguity.
● Consistency:
Use of standard glossaries, reliance on a general clause statute, and careful recourse
to canons of construction enhance predictability.
● Proportionality to Institutional Competence:
Judges should be cautious about substituting policy judgments for legislative choice;
purposive interpretation must be constrained by constitutional values and legislative
intent.
● Access to Legislative Materials:
Democracies should maintain and publish explanatory memoranda, committee reports
and official translations to reduce interpretive guesswork.
These safeguards reconcile adaptation (a necessary role of courts) with democratic legitimacy
and legal certainty.
Reform Proposals for Bangladesh:
Some reform proposal to address the problems in Bangladesh are mentioned below:
Legislative Drafting Reform:
Strengthen explanatory memoranda and require a short statement of purpose accompanying
each bill in both Bangla and English when an English text is to be used administratively. This
will make legislative intent accessible and reduce post-hoc translational disputes.
Institutional Glossaries and Terminology Units:
Create an official legal terminology unit within the Ministry of Law to produce and maintain
standardised glossaries for technical terms (tax, family law, corporate law) to reduce semantic
drift between legislative instruments and administrative rules.
Legislative History Archive:
Mandate publication of committee debates, explanatory notes and official translations in a
central, searchable public repository to assist courts and litigants in purposive interpretation.
Judicial Reasoning Standards:
The Supreme Court should adopt and publish a clear practice direction on the admissibility
and use of legislative materials (mirroring but tailored from Pepper v Hart), specifying when
Hansard-type materials are permissible and how they will be weighed. This avoids ad hoc
6
usage and increases legitimacy.
Capacity Building:
Train judges and law officers in comparative translation problems and legal linguistics, and
encourage collaboration with expert translators in complex multilingual cases.
Access to Expert Evidence:
In disputes requiring technical translation (e.g., treaty texts in multiple languages), courts
should permit limited expert evidence on comparative linguistic meaning, treated as an
adjunct not a substitute for legal reasoning.
Conclusion
Translation is not peripheral to law; it is constitutive of legal meaning. From drafting rooms
to the bench, acts of translation — lexical, doctrinal and institutional — shape what law does
in society. In Bangladesh, existing instruments such as the General Clauses Act and
constitutional supremacy create frameworks that both enable and constrain interpretive
translation. Comparative jurisprudence (e.g., Pepper v Hart) and scholarship in legal
translation instruct that transparency, institutional support for terminology and careful judicial
reasoning can harness translation’s creative potential while protecting democratic legitimacy
and legal certainty. Reform that combines better drafting, accessible legislative history and
judicial practices for responsible purposive interpretation will strengthen the capacity of law
to deliver justice without permitting undemocratic law-making by judges or administrative
actors.
7
References
Statutes and Constitutional Texts
The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972
The General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. X of 1897)
Cases
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593 (HL).
Heydon’s Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a (Exch).
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394.
Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and others v Bangladesh (Civil Appeal
No. 116 of 2010; High Court and Appellate Division materials). (Full text judgment
available: Civil Appeal No.116/2010 PDF).
Nurul Islam v Government of Bangladesh (Writ Petition No. — tobacco advertising case)
(High Court Division, 2000).
Books and Articles
Simone Glanert, ‘Law-in-Translation: an assemblage in motion’ in Law in Translation:
Current Issues and Challenges in Research Methods and Applications (ed. I. Simonnæs et al.)
(publication details). [See discussion of law-in-translation and assemblage approach].
Fernando Prieto Ramos and Albert Morales, ‘Terminological innovation and harmonisation
in international organisations’ (2014) (discussion of multilingual law and harmonisation).
Peter Goodrich, ‘Historical Aspects of Legal Interpretation’, Indiana Law Journal (discussion
of interpretive history and theory).
Maria Carmen A. Vidal Claramonte (MCÁV Claramonte), Towards a New Research Model in
Legal Translation: Future Perspectives in the Era of Asymmetry (2013).
Translating Law (editor/collection), (on legal translation and comparative challenges).