1. Define nature and scope of interpretation of Statutes?

Interpretation is the method by which the true sense or the meaning of the word is
understood.[i] The meaning of an ordinary word of the English language is not a question
of law. The proper construction of a statute is a question of law. The purpose of the
interpretation of the statute is to unlock the locks put by the legislature. For such unlocking,
keys are to be found out. These keys may be termed as aids for interpretation and principles
of interpretation.

According to Gray,[ii] the process by which a judge (or indeed any person, lawyer or
layman, who has occasion to search for the meaning of a statute) constructs from words
of a statute book, a meaning which he either believes to be that of the legislature, or which
he proposes to attribute to it, is called ‘interpretation’.[iii]

The conventional way of interpreting a statute is to seek the intention of its makers, [iv]
and apply that to the facts of the case at hand.[v] An interpretation of the statutory provision
which defeats the intent and purpose for which the statute was enacted should be
avoided.[vi] Justice Chakravarti made two observations in his behalf in Badsha Mia v
Rajjab Ali:[vii]

The primary object in interpreting a statute is always to discover the intention of the
legislature and in England the rules of interpretation, developed there , can be relied on to
aid the discovery because those whose task is to put the intention of the legislature into
language, fashion their language with those very rules in view. Since framers of statutes
couch the enactments in accordance with the same rules as the judicial interpreter applies,
application of those rules in the analysis of a statute naturally brings up the intended
meaning to the surface. It is at least doubtful whether in a case of framers of Indian statutes
of the present times, specially of the provincial legislature, the same assumption can always
be made.

2. What is Grammatical Rule of Interpretation of Statutes and its application by courts of India

Interpretation is of two kinds – grammatical and logical. Grammatical interpretation is arrived at

by reference to the laws of speech to the words used in the statute; in other words, it regards only
the verbal expression of the legislature. Logical interpretation gives effect to the intention of the
legislature by taking into account other circumstances permissible according to the rules settled in
this behalf. ‘Proper construction’ is not satisfied by taking the words as if they were self-contained
phrases. So considered, the words do not yield the meaning of a statute.[viii]

According to Gray, grammatical interpretation is the application to a statute of the laws of speech;
logical interpretation calls for the comparison of the statute with other statutes and with the whole
system of law, and for the consideration of the time and circumstances in which the statute was
passed. It is the duty of the judicature to ascertain the true legal meaning of the words used by the
legislature. A statute is the will of the legislature and the fundamental rule of interpretation , to
which all others are subordinate, and that a statute is to be expounded, according to the intent of
them that made it. [ix] The object of interpretation is to find out the intention of the legislature.

The primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the
legislature, actual or imputed. The words of the statute are to be construed so as to ascertain the
mind of the legislature from the natural and grammatical meaning of the words which it has used.
‘The essence of the Law’, according to Salmond:[x]

Lies in its spirit, nor in its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation
of the intention that underlies it. Nevertheless in all ordinary cases the courts must be content to
accept the litera legis as the exclusive and conclusive evidence of the sententia legis. They must,
in general, take it absolutely for granted that the legislature has said what it meant, and meant what
it has said. Ita scriptumest is the first principal of interpretation. Judges are not at liberty to add to
or take from or modify the letter of the law simply because they have reason to believe that the
true sententia legis is not completely or correctly expressed by it. It is to say, in all ordinary case
grammatical interpretation is the sole form allowable.

Parke B in Becke v Smith[xi] formulated the following well-known rule for the interpretation of
statutes:

If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, in our judgment, we are bound to construe
them in their ordinary sense, even though it does lead, in our view of the case, to an absurdity or
manifest injustice. Words may be modified or varied where their import is doubtful or obscure,
but we assume the function of legislators when we depart from, the ordinary meaning of the precise
words used merely because we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or manifest injustice from an
adherence to their literal meaning.

Burton J in Warburton v Loveland,[xii] observed:

I apprehend it is a rule in the construction of statutes, that, in the first instance, the grammatical
sense of the words is to be adhered to. If that is contrary to, or inconsistent with any expressed
intention, or declared purpose of the statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnance, or
inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended, or abridged so far as to
avoid such inconvenience, but no further.

Grammatical interpretation means interpretation that is based exclusively on the words

themselves. It uses words in phrases and sentences to construct meaningful combinations. It is
also called as historical-grammatical method. The historical-grammatical method is the primary
method of interpretation for scholars in the major branches of Christianity such as Protestant,
Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.
The following ‘Eight Rules’ are the heart or center of all grammatical interpretation:

1. Define the terms or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings;

2. Do not add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the
culture and time period when the passage was written;

3. Avoid using words or phrases out of context. Context must define terms and how words are
used;

4. Do not separate interpretation and historical investigation;

5. Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise;

6. Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which
there are no precedent;

7. Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them;

8. Base conclusions on what is already known and established or can be reasonably implied from
all known facts.

3. Explain the Secondary Rules of Interpretation of Statutes

4. Explain the Kinds statutes?

5. Discuss about the Literal Rule of Interpretation and its Limitation.