It is remarkably relevant and important also that the Courts explain the law in such a way that guarantees ‘access to law’ to every person.
To secure that truth is made open to all, the judiciary practice must be grown in all countries. It is remarkably relevant and important also that the Courts explain the law in such a way that guarantees ‘access to law’ to every person. For this idea, the thought of ‘Canons of Interpretation’ has been described. The Canons are these laws that have been developed by the Judiciary to help Governments define the meaning and the purpose of the legislation.
SALMOND has defined it as “the method by which the Courts seek to determine the purpose of the Legislature through the factor of legal information in which it is expressed.”[1]
A Statute is an order of the Legislature and it needs to be explained “to the purpose of them who make It” and “the judicature has to act upon the genuine purpose of the Legislature- the men or sententia legis.”
Need for Interpretation
While the Law was framing, Michael Zander provides three purposes why statutory interpretation is important:
- The complexity of statutes concerns the character of the subject, various draftsmen, and the combination of legal and technical communication can appear in uncertain, uncertain and ambiguous language.
- The expectation of future conclusions leads to the use of general terms. The difficult task of assuming every possible scenario also points to the use of indeterminate language. Judges, consequently, have to understand statutes because of the ways in the law. Examples of indeterminate language introduce concepts such as “reasonable”. In this case, the bars are reliable for defining what constitutes the word “reasonable”.
- The multifaceted quality of language. Language, words, and expressions are an imprecise form of expression. Words can have various interpretations and applications. Each party in court will appropriate the sense and purpose of the language most beneficial to their special needs. It is up to the courts to determine the most accurate use of the language employed.
Conjunctive and Disjunctive Words:
Prima Facie may show that understanding of the words “and” and “or” require not be deemed necessary, are a subsidiary, and do not require much concentration. Nevertheless, numerous times, it is just through the interpretation of the terms “and” and “or” that the full application of the Statute has been developed and the Judicature has developed a new policy collectively which was never demanded.
This article aims to lay knowledge on the quality and the need for accurate interpretation of the words “and” and “or”, as an aid to construction to guarantee that result is given to the true purpose of the Legislature.
The word “or” is usually disjunctive and “and” is usually conjunctive but at points, they are read as vice versa to effectuate the clear intent of the legislature as revealed from the circumstances. As stated by SCRUTTON L.J, ‘you do seldom read “or” as “and” in a statute. But you do not do it except you are required because “or” does not usually mean “and” and “and” does not usually mean “or”. Still, the rule is that “or” is usually disjunctive and “and” is usually conjunctive and a withdrawal from the same is not available unless the very purpose and object of the Statute so needed. The reason being that if the Legislature wants to use “and” in a special statutory provision, then it has each right to do and nothing interrupts them from making so. So if the word “and” has not been practiced and rather of the word “or” has been practiced, it is clear that the Legislature has purposely applied the word “or”. Except it is not confirmed, that there was some design or problem that stopped the Legislature from using the “and”, literal translation has to be used to the statutory provision and the rule – “or” is usually disjunctive and “and” is usually conjunctive has to be provided effect to.
In my view, this rule is an expansion of the “Purposive Interpretation Rule.” The purposive approach is a theory of statutory interpretation that Courts should enact legislation in light of the idea following the legislation. According to this method, Courts do not need to limit the text. It is a practical path or slightly a practical aspect of understanding the law, wherein difference from the usual rule is allowed for the greater benefit of the nation.
A Judge must be a jurist provided with the legislator’s knowledge, history’s search for perfection, prophet’s spirit, the capability to react to the requirements of the present, flexibility to cope with the requirements of the future and to determine accurately losing himself/herself from every individual control or preferences. Therefore, the judges should choose a purposive interpretation of the changing ideas of the Constitution and the Act with its interpretative magazine to connect the felt requirements of the time.
Judicial Precedents
In Manmohan das Shah v. Bishun Das[2], the Supreme Court upheld that-
“The common law of construction is that preparation of a Statute must be interpreted in accordance with the style applied inside except there are compelling grounds. Such as, where a strict plan would decrease the provision to improbability or limit the clear purpose of the legislature from being taken out. There is no cause why the word “or” should be interpreted otherwise than in its usual meaning. If the construction proposed by Mr. Desai were to be taken and the term “or” were to be interpreted as indicating “and”, it would suggest that the construction should not only be such as actually changing the service but is also such that it would essentially reduce its value. ……..”
In Kamta Prasad Aggarwal v. Executive Engineer[3], Ballabhgarh, the Apex Court upheld that “depending upon the meaning, “or” maybe read as “and” but the Court would not do it except it is so required because “or” takes not usually expect and including “and” does not usually indicate “or”. Moreover, again in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products v. Union of India[4], the Court restated the command for analysis of the terms ‘and’ plus ‘or’ and believed as that –
“The expression of the rule is clear and easy. It does not approve of any difficulty in understanding. Provisos 1(i) and 2(i) are divided by the use of the conjunction “and”. They have to be expressed conjointly. The condition of both the requirements has to be provided to avail the privilege.”
Pursuing are samples of few instances when the rule of understanding the word “or” as frequently disjunctive and “and” as frequently conjunctive has been abandoned by the Judges to interrupt inequality or to give impact to the real meaning of the Statute-
To limit the use of arbitrary rules
The terms ‘owner or master’ as both befall in Section 1(2) of the Oil in Navigation Waters Act, 1955 were defined by the House of Lords to express ‘owner and master’ performing both of them chargeable of the crime under that Section as the expression of “or” as “or” would have acted like an unreasonable determination of transmitting it to the Administrator to choose either the control or master for being prosecuted without the Act providing any direction. Such a decision would have been against the lawful method.
To ensure the satisfaction of liabilities
The phrase ‘established or incorporated’ practiced in University Grants Commission Act was seen as ‘established and incorporated’ must view the constitutional design and to ensure that the Act is ready to accomplish its purposes and the University Grants Commission is ready to fulfill its obligations and liabilities.
Negative and Positive Condition
A definition may be advanced within positive and negative situations directed by a Statute for obtaining a right or interest. Certain states distributed by “or” are read in the choice but negative situations related by “or” are construed as collective and “or” is seen as “nor” or “and”.
Prevention of Crime
In section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920[5], which states ‘Any person who endeavors to perform any crime under the primary Act or this Act, or requests or encourages or attempts to influence another person to commit a crime, or aids or helps and does any act previous to the commission of an attack’, the word “and” written in Italics was seen as “or” for by learning “and” as “and” the result returned was meaningless and stupid and against the apparent purpose of the Legislature. Thus even a person who does any act previous to the commission of an offense is proportionately responsible.
[1] SALMOND: “Jurisprudence” 11th Edition, p. 152
[2] Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 643, 1967 SCR (1) 836
[3] Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 685, 1974 SCR (2) 827
[4] on 7 December, 1999
[5] Any person who attempts to commit any offense under the principal Act or this Act, or solicits or incites or endeavors to persuade another person to commit an offense, or aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offense under the principal Act or this Act, shall be guilty of a felony or a misdemeanor or a summary offense according as the offense in question is a felony, a misdemeanor or a summary offense, and on conviction shall be liable to the same punishment, and to be proceeded against in the same manner, as if he had committed the offense.
