Scribd
Upload
16 views6 pages

Statutory Interpretation Guidelines

1. The language of the statute should be read as written and the court cannot add or substitute words that are not there. The intention is gathered from what is said, not what is not said. 2. The court does not have the power to reframe legislation, as that would be legislating rather than interpreting. 3. Gaps or matters not provided for in a statute (casus omissus) cannot be supplied by courts through interpretation, as that would constitute legislation. Courts cannot amend statutes to address omissions.

Uploaded by

anon_200519719
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views6 pages

Statutory Interpretation Guidelines

1. The language of the statute should be read as written and the court cannot add or substitute words that are not there. The intention is gathered from what is said, not what is not said. 2. The court does not have the power to reframe legislation, as that would be legislating rather than interpreting. 3. Gaps or matters not provided for in a statute (casus omissus) cannot be supplied by courts through interpretation, as that would constitute legislation. Courts cannot amend statutes to address omissions.

Uploaded by

anon_200519719
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

GUIDING RULES

Ms. Neha Tripathi


Assistant Professor (Law)
MNLU, Aurangabad
1. Language of the Statute should be read
as it is
• Intention primarily gathered from the language used, so focus is generally on
what has been said and also on what has not been said.

• As a consequence a construction which requires for its support addition or


substitution of words or which results in rejection of the words as meaningless
has to be avoided.

• Example : Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518 (para 19)


a) Avoiding addition or substitution of
words
• The court cannot reframe the legislation because it has no power to legislate.

• British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh, AIR 1959 SC 1331 [MV
Act, 1939, Section 96(2)]

• Also look at
a) VLS Finance Limited v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 278 [Section 621A of Companies
Act, 1956]
b) Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services, (2012) 9 SCC 552.
c) Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359. [Section 12(5) and 15(5) of RTI
Act, 2005].
b) Casus omissus
• It is an application of the same principle that a matter which should have been, but has not
been provided for in a statute cannot be supplied by courts, as to do so will be legislation
and not construction.

• See, State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh, AIR 2005 SC 294 [Section 52(3) and 68 of the
Forest Act, 1927]

• Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 3 SCC 353.
[Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013]

• Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree, (2008) 9 SCC 648. [Section 23 and 25 of the Civil Procedure
Code]
• An omission by the Legislature to amend a related provision presents great
difficulties of construction. Rule 89 of Order 21, CPC and Article 127 of the
Limitation Act, 1963.

• Basavanatappa v. Gangadhar Naryana Dharwadkar, (1986) 4 SCC 273 [Implied


extension]

• P K Unni v. Nirmala Industries, (1990) 2 SCC 378 [Omission to amend rule


cannot be supplied by the Court]

• Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu, AIR 2001 SC 2699 [Over-ruled Nirmala


Industries, applied Harmonious Construction]

You might also like