Grasim Industries Ltd. V. Collector of Customs, Bombay-INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

STUDENT NAME: SUSMITA BANERJEE

UNIVERSITY: PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY (BANGALORE)

Abstract

Interpretation is the art of discovering the true meaning of a law by giving the words of the law their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of determining the true meaning of the words used in a law. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and, as a result, certain principles have emerged from the continued practice of the courts. These principles are sometimes called “rules of interpretation.” The court relies on any of the rules that produce an outcome that satisfies its sense of justice in the case before it. While the literal rule is the one most often mentioned in express terms, the courts consider all three to be valid and cite them as ad hoc requirements, but of course they do not give any reason for choosing one over the other. For example, in some cases the literal rule would be preferred over the fatal rule, and in other cases the opposite would be the case. It was not possible to predict with certainty which approach would be followed in a particular case.

Introduction

Laws are often enacted by legal experts under the guidance of experts of different fields and hence, the wordings or phrases used in these laws might cause confusion or result in ambiguity. Interpretation literally means to explain or to understand. The basic purpose of interpretation is to help understand the various statutes and provisions of law.For dealing with such ambiguity, interpretation of statutes comes into picture.

¹Meaning of Interpretation “the essence of law lies in the spirit, not its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it” – Salmond Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of

interpretation’. The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used. As stated by SALMOND, “by interpretation or construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.” Interpretation is as old as language.

Elaborate rules of interpretation were evolved even at a very early stage of the Hindu civilization and culture. The importance of avoiding literal interpretation was also stressed in various ancient text books – “Merely following the texts of the law, decisions are not to be rendered, for, if such decisions are wanting in equity, a gross failure of Dharma is caused.” Interpretation thus is a familiar process of considerable significance. In relation to statute law, interpretation is of importance because of the inherent nature of legislation as a source of law. The process of statute making and the process of interpretation of statutes are two distinct activities. In the process of interpretation, several aids are used. They may be statutory or non-statutory. Statutory aids may be illustrated by the General Clauses Act, 1897 and by specific definitions contained in individuals Acts whereas non-statutory aids is illustrated by common law rules of interpretation (including certain presumptions relating to interpretation) and also by case-laws relating to the interpretation of statutes

Objectives of the studies:

1. To know the meaning of Interpretation
2. To know the importance of interpretation of statutes and to examine the rules of interpretation
3. To analyse the literal rule of interpretation (Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay)

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The look at the scope of literal interpretation

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The facts is accumulated from diverse secondary Sources like Different books, Articles and some of other web sites related with Interpretation

RESEARCH QUESTION

1. What is the facts of the case?
2. Which rule of interpretation is applied in the case?
3. To analyse the rule of interpretation applied?

LITRATURE REVIEW

Interpretation is a tool by which verify the true sense of the original meaning of a particular or selected word is understood. The meaning of a simple or ordinary word of the English language isn’t a question of law. In looking to the definition of Gray, the method or process by which a judge constructs from the words given in a statute book, a meaning which he either believes to be that of the legislature or which he deems to attribute to it is interpretation.

Literally interpreting the law, focuses on cardinal rules of Interpretation of Statutes. When the words of a statute are unambiguous or are inconsistent then the first rule will be the literal rule of interpretation. Secondly, when the words are ambiguous then the Courts will next take the objectives and intent of the legislature into consideration. The primary rule of interpretation also called a literal rule or literal construction or plain rule of interpretation.

²B.N.Mani Tripathi, Jurisprudence legal theory (17th edition Allahabad law agency) says, “Most of the decisions of the Supreme Court are of significance not merely because they constitute an adjudication on the rights of the parties and resolve the dispute between them but also because in doing so they embody a declaration of law that works as a binding principle in future cases”. Only when the language is vague or ambiguous, the intention of the legislature must be taken.

Kafaltiya.A.B.Interpretation of statutes, 2008, asserts that in the past the legislature was not consistent in defining and drafting the principle of strict liability. He says that different statutes have a different element of culpability. According to him, this poses a difficulty for the Courts to interpret in accordance with the intent of the legislature. An exhaustive definition should be expanded or made extensive in order to embrace things that are strictly not within the meaning.

Elmer.A.Driedger, The construction of statutes, 1983, discusses the relationship between law and justice. He seeks the help of language to clarify this relationship. He is of the view that Social power can influence on law and language. He further opines that like justice, the law is also a matter of language. The courts have to follow this principle even if it results in irrationality or even if it is contrary to the policy of legislation.

HChristo J Botha, statutory interpretation, 1998 discusses the legal maxim for the literal rule of interpretation. “Verbis Legis non est recedendum”. From the words of the legislature, there should be no departure. A word gets colour from the context in which it is used. In case the meaning of a word changes due to the passage of time, the word should be taken to mean as to what it meant at the time the statute was enacted.

R.Gleave, Literal meaning, and interpretation defined as a statue shall not be interpreted so as to be inconsistent with other statutes. The literal rule of interpretation restricts courts to stick to the natural meaning of the given words. The judge cannot modify the language of the act.

Definition of Interpretation of Statutes

Salmond gave the definition of interpretation of statutes as follows:

• Interpretation of statutes is the procedure by which the courts aim to understand the meaning of a legislation through the means of the authoritative forms in which is expressed.

Blackstone also provided for the definition of interpretation of statutes which is as follows:

• He said that the fairest and most rational method of understanding and interpreting a statute is by exploring the intention of the legislation through the most natural and probable signs.

It can also be said that the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Preamble at the start of every Statute provides a guideline for the way in which the particular Act should be interpreted.

Interpretation of statutes is necessary for the following three reasons:

1. The complexity of Statutes: As mentioned earlier, laws are enacted by individuals who are experts in their particular fields and as a result, the provisions might be complex for a layman to understand. Hence, interpretation is deemed necessary.
2. Legislative Intent: Sometimes, due to the complex nature of the statute, the legislative intent might be lost and in order to understand the intent of the legislature, it is important to interpret the statutes.
3. Multifaceted Nature of Language: The problem with the English language is that the same word might have different meanings in different contexts. For example, the word “PLAY” has different meanings in different contexts – “Have you watched the play XYZ?”or “Are the kids playing?” Both the words are the same, however, their meaning is different in both the sentences.

Analysis of Literal Rule of Interpretation

In order to interpret statutes, the courts use various principles which help them understand the principles. One of the principles is called the “Literal Rule of Interpretation”

The literal rule of interpretation has been termed as the primary rule of interpretation. As the name suggests, the literal rule of interpretation means that the judge literally interprets the statute. It can also be called the plain-meaning rule or the grammatical rule.

Statutes are constructed using the ordinary meaning of language given to the term and the judges are not required to interpret the terms in any other way.In other words, the provisions have to be read word to word and no other meaning can be given to the statute.

In order to avoid ambiguity, the Act generally has “definitions” mentioned in it. If a particular meaning is given in the definition clause, the particular meaning shall be used and no other meaning.

In the literal rule of interpretation, the courts are required to observe the ordinary and natural meaning of words, interpret the phrase or words as it is. Judges are not required to add words or modify meaning and they must observe the actual intent of the legislature. It is the safest rule of interpretation.

The literal rule of interpretation, in a way, is against the use of intelligence in understanding language. Judges are bound by the literal meaning of the words and cannot use their judicial minds to deviate from it.

Sub Rules under the Literal Rule of Interpretation

1. Ejusdem Generis:

It literally translates to “of the same kind”. It means to follow the general meaning of word or words of similar kind.

2.Casus Omissus:

It literally means cases omitted. It can also be interpreted as a point which is not provided for by the statute. Where a point is not provided for by the statute, it is governed by case laws.

3.Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius:

It literally means that one thing has been mentioned whereas the other has been left out.

Advantages of Literal Rule of Interpretation:

1. Literal rule enables layman to understand the issue in hand.
2. It enables to understand the intent of legislature simply and clearly.

• This rule respects the parliamentary supremacy.

Criticisms of Literal Rule of Interpretation:

A major criticism of this rule of interpretation is that the meanings of words might change from time to time and hence the literal interpretation leads to injustice. Misleading precedents may be created due to this some ambiguity might still arise while interpreting due to the use of words like “or”, “and”, “all”. Another criticism of this rule is that it restricts and bounds the court making it unable to use its judicial mind to deviate from the literal meaning of the terms. Sometimes, a court might ascertain an absolute absurd meaning which the legislature never intended.

Case Laws on Literal Rule of Interpretation

1. Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay: In this case Maqbool, an Indian citizen, upon returning from an international trip brought some gold with him. According to the Sea Customs Act, no Indian citizen was allowed to bring any valuables such as gold and hence, his gold was confiscated. He was then prosecuted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Maqbool contended that since the gold had already been confiscated, and that was a trial in itself. He cannot be prosecuted under FERA, 1947 as it would amount to double jeopardy. However, the Supreme Court held that confiscation of gold cannot be termed as prosecution and hence it was not a case of double jeopardy according to the strict and literal interpretation of Article 20(2).
2. Ram Avtar v Assistant Sales Tax Officer: Under the Central Province and Berar Sales Tax Act, vegetables were tax-free. Ram Avtar contented that pan leaf is also covered under the purview of vegetable according to its dictionary meaning and hence should be tax-free. However, the court said that the dictionary meaning shall be referred to only when there is ambiguity in the provision and there wasn’t any ambiguity, hence the court rejected his plea.
3. CBI Bank Securities & Fraud Cell v Ramesh Gelli & Ors : In this case, the Supreme Court held that a managing director or chairman of a private bank will come under the purview of “public officer”.
4. Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay

Facts: The respondent imported four cases of hydrochloric acid synthesis unit of combustion chambers. The respondent claimed that the same are classifiable under Headings 84.13/84.17/84.59 of the Customs tariff Act, 1975 while the Revenue took the stand that they are classifiable under Headings 68. 01/16 (1) of the act on the ground that the articles made of graphite could not be assessed under Chapter 84 of the Act.

Here the court has explicitly observed that where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions.

Judgement: Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002)4 SCC 297 has followed the same principle and observed:

“Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions.”

The purpose of Interpretation of Statutes is to help the Judge to ascertain the intention of the Legislature – not to control that intention or to confine it within the limits, which the Judge may deem reasonable or expedient.

Some Important points to remember in the context of interpreting Statutes:

• Statute must be read as a whole in Context
• Statute should be Construed so as to make it Effective and Workable – if statutory provision is ambiguous and capable of various constructions, then that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to the other provisions of the enactment rather than that which will give none.
• The process of construction combines both the literal and purposive approaches. The purposive construction rule highlights that you should shift from literal construction when it leads to absurdity.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it is clear that the literal rule of interpretation is the primary rule of interpretation under which courts interpret statutes and provisions in the literal and ordinary sense without adding any meaning to them and without modifying them. This rule is helpful in cases where there is no ambiguity.