Synopsis
I. Object oriented approach or Purposive construction
i. Application of the rule of purposive interpretation
ii. Intention of the Legislature
iii. Mischief Rule
iv. Where rule not applicable
I. Object oriented approach or Purposive construction
The main object of interpretation of statutes is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature or of the enacting authority. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said. [Union of India vs Rajiv Kumar (2003)]
Object means something on which the purposes are fixed as the end of an action or an effort.
Object can be said to be the purpose and design which is the object of a contract, it is the aim, end or intent to which a particular discussion or writing is directed.
i. Application of the rule of purposive interpretation
Where literal construction leads to anomaly or absurdity, it must be avoided and purposive construction should be resorted to. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia (2008)]
Where such interpretation renders the statute unworkable, it should be abandoned. [Sarabjit Rick Singh vs Union of India 2008]
Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited vs Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys 2011
It is necessary to adopt purposive construction in cases where the words are capable of bearing two or more constructions. To identify the construction to be preferred, the following questions should be considered:
1. What is the purpose of the provision for which it is made?
2. Before making the provision, what was the position?
3. If any of the constructions proposed would render any part of the provision redundant or would lead to an absurd result?
4. Which interpretation will advance the object of the provision?
ii. Intention of the Legislature
There are two aspects behind the intention of the Legislature:
1. The first aspect is "meaning". It explains what does a particular word mean.
2. Second aspect is "purpose and object".
The courts for ascertaining the intention of the Legislature can resort to the following avenues:
1. Examine the social background in order to recognize the social or juristic defect.
2. A conspectus of the entire body of law.
3. Regard to the long title, Preamble.
4. Scrutiny in light of the established canons of interpretation of the words to be interpreted.
5. Examination of other statutes in pari materia and other provisions of the statute.
iii. Mischief Rule
Mischief rule was first propounded in Heydon (1584).
According to this rule, for sure and true interpretation of all statues, four things are to be discussed and considered
First. What was the common law before the making of the act?
Second. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
Third. What remedy Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Common Wealth?
Fourth. The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle invasions and evasions for continuance of the mischief and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico.
Mandal Revenue officer vs Goundla Venkaiah 2010
In this case, the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 was in question. It was held that since the basic objective of the Land Grabbing Act is to free the public as well as private lands from encroachers and unauthorised occupants, the provisions contained therein are required to be interpreted by applying the rule of purposive construction or mischief rule which was enunciated in Haydon's case and which has been invoked by the court for controlling different legislations.
iv. Where rule not applicable
The object oriented approach, however, cannot be carried out to the extent of doing violence to the plain language used by rewriting the section or substituting words in place of the actual words used by the legislature. [CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.,(1994)]
Purposive construction need not be applied when the relevant Act has been amended from time to time on the basis of fresh needs and has,thus, not remained static. [Dental Council of India v. Hari Prakash (2001)]
!