Question-16 कानून को सम्पूर्ण रूप से पढ़ा जाना चाहिए।" निर्वचन के इस सिद्धान्त की विवेचना निर्णीत वादों की सहायता से कीजिए।
"The Statute should be read as a whole." Discuss this principle of interpretation with the help of decided cases.
Answer-16
The principle "The Statute should be read as a
whole" is a fundamental approach in the interpretation of statutes. This
principle ensures that when courts interpret a statute, they do not isolate one
provision or section but instead consider the entire statute as an integrated
whole. The aim is to ensure that the interpretation of each provision is in
harmony with the other provisions and that the statute achieves its overall
objective.
Here's a point-wise explanation of the principle with
reference to decided cases:
1. Contextual Interpretation
• Explanation:
Courts must read the statute in its entirety to understand the context in which
specific provisions or words are used. A single provision cannot be interpreted
in isolation without considering its place in the larger framework of the
statute.
• Case Law:
In T. R. Kothandaraman v. S. Rajagopal (1983), the Supreme Court emphasized the
need to read the statute in its entirety and not treat individual provisions in
isolation.
2. Avoiding Contradictions
• Explanation:
The principle helps avoid any contradictions between different provisions of
the statute. By interpreting the statute, courts seek a construction that
harmonizes all parts of the law.
• Case Law:
In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the court held that a statute
must be read to avoid contradictions and to give effect to all its provisions.
3. Presumption of Consistency
• Explanation:
When reading a statute, there is a presumption that all parts of the statute
are meant to be consistent with each other. This presumption ensures that the
meaning of individual provisions is derived from the whole statute.
• Case Law:
In Maxwell v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1960), the English court
emphasized that one part of a statute cannot be interpreted in a way that
contradicts the rest of the provisions.
4. Holistic Understanding of Legislative Intent
• Explanation:
The primary aim of interpreting the statute is to understand the legislative
intent. Courts should not focus on one provision but should aim to understand
the broader purpose behind the entire statute.
• Case Law:
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court referred to
the Constitution as a whole and emphasized that individual provisions should be
understood in the context of the document's overall purpose.
5. Grammatical Construction in Conjunction with Purpose
• Explanation:
While the grammatical construction of individual provisions is important, it
should be done keeping in mind the statute's purpose and overall objective.
• Case Law:
In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1986), the court observed
that the purpose of the statute must be considered along with the textual
meaning of its provisions.
6. Interpretation to Fulfill Legislative Purpose
• Explanation:
Courts should adopt an interpretation that promotes the legislative purpose.
This means that no provision should be interpreted in a way that frustrates the
statute's overall intent.
• Case Law:
In Union of India v. N. R. Parmar (1986), the court held that an interpretation
that nullifies the entire statute's purpose is undesirable.
7. Specific Provisions and General Provisions
• Explanation:
The principle also helps in understanding the relationship between general and
specific provisions within the statute. A specific provision can override a
general provision, but the reading should be done carefully to ensure
consistency.
• Case Law:
In G.S. Rathi v. Union of India (1983), the court read the entire statute to
determine how a specific provision interacted with the general provisions.
8. Incorporating Amendments and Repeals
• Explanation:
When a statute undergoes amendments or repeals, these changes must be
interpreted considering the entire statute. Courts should read the statute in a
way that reflects these changes rather than isolating the amendment or repeal.
• Case Law:
In Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India (1950), the Supreme Court explained how
amendments should be integrated into the statute to maintain its coherence.
9. Avoiding Narrow or Literal Interpretation
• Explanation:
By reading the statute, courts avoid a narrow or overly literal interpretation
of individual sections. They adopt an interpretation that ensures the entire
statute is consistent and meaningful.
• Case Law:
In B. S. Iyer v. State of Kerala (1972), the court rejected a literal
interpretation of one section, opting instead for a purposive construction
based on the statute.
10. Intent to Avoid Absurdities
• Explanation:
When reading a statute in its entirety, courts try to avoid absurd or
irrational outcomes. The principle ensures that no part of the statute leads to
an illogical result.
• Case Law:
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Nooh (1958), the court applied the principle
of reading the statute to avoid an absurd result that would have arisen from
reading a section in isolation.
________________________________________
In conclusion, the principle that a statute should be read
promotes consistency, clarity, and harmony in the interpretation of statutory
provisions. It reflects the need for judicial restraint, ensuring that the
courts respect the legislative framework and interpret it in a manner that
upholds its intended purpose.
Comments
Post a Comment