Chapter 2
Basic Principles
(Legislative Intent)
“The essence of law lies in its spirit not in the letter.”
Salmond: Jurisprudence, (12th Edn.), p. 132.
“The Court only interprets the law, it cannot legislate it.”
Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N., (2002) 3 SCC 533.
“Once the enacting process is over, the legislature has no right to
interpret the statute enacted by it: it becomes functus officio.”
“To be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul.”
lyer, J. in Ramjee case, AIR 1977 SC 965, 968.
“Freedom of judges in interpreting Constitution... is to be exercised
within permissible limits... They have to remain circumspect and selfdisciplined in discharge of their judicial functions.”
Dadi Jagannadhan v. J. Ramulu, (2001) 7 SCC 711.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
The following are the well-known basic principles of interpretation:
i. Determination of legislative intent.
ii. A statute must be read as a whole in its context.
iii. (a) If the meaning is plain, effect must be given to it, irrespective of
its consequences.
(b) A statute should be so construed as to make it effective and
workable.
WHAT IS A STATUTE
“A statute is an edict of the legislature. It is an established rule, formal regulation or
ordinance enacted by the legislature.”
COURT’S APPROACH
The Supreme Court in Kehar Singh laid down the approach for determining legislative
intent:
1. Plain Meaning Rule – If the statutory words are clear and precise, they should be
given their natural and ordinary meaning without further interpretation.
2. Resolving Ambiguity – If the language is ambiguous or uncertain, the Court must
assign a rational meaning while ensuring coherence within the statute.
3. Holistic Interpretation – Every word, section, and provision must be examined in the
context of the entire Act and its purpose. However, the Court cannot impose its own
interpretation but may choose among possible meanings using internal and external
aids.
Hence, the Court’s role is to interpret the law, not to legislate. If a provision is
misused, it is for the legislature, not the judiciary, to amend or repeal it.
INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE:
The intention of the legislature have two aspects:
1. Meaning is the first aspect. It tells us what the word means.
2. Purpose and object is the second aspect. It embraces the purpose
and object of the enacting statute.
PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION
The process of construction involves both literal and purposive
approaches to interpret legislative intent. The true meaning of an
enactment is determined by analyzing its words in the context of its
purpose and the issue it aims to address. Judges must rely on the
legislature's explicit wording rather than inserting their own
interpretations or assumptions about legislative intent or policy.
PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF STATUTE
• When the meaning of a provision is clear but judges differ in
interpretation, the statute’s purpose and spirit should guide
understanding. Words must be read in context, not in isolation,
considering both external and internal aids. Parliament does not use
unnecessary words or legislate without purpose.
• In “District Mining Officer v. TISCOIS”, it has been rightly said that a
bare mechanical interpretation of words and application of legislative
intent devoid of concept or purpose will reduce most of the remedial
and beneficial legislation to futility.
• Interpretation should avoid mechanical application and instead consider
the statute as a whole to ascertain legislative intent effectively.
COURT’S FUNCTION
Courts should not assume legislative functions by interpreting laws
based on personal ideologies. Instead, they must seek the true intent of
the legislature. While literal interpretation is important, it should not
overlook the statute’s purpose. The best approach is a purposive
interpretation that aligns the words with the law’s objective.
Denning L.J. in one case has said to the same effect that: "We sit here to
find out the intention of Parliament and of Ministers and carry it out, and
we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the
enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis." These
observations were disapproved in appeal by House of Lords. But the
Supreme Court of India has approved these observations in “Bangalore
Water Supply case.”