It is generally supposed that the legislature while legislating the law has used the clear and precise words to express itself. But where a word bears more than one meaning the language of the statute might be understood in two or more sense out of which only one may be in tune with the true intention of legislature. Therefore it become necessary to ascertain the true intention of legislature behind that words and hence the process of interpretation by the court commence at this juncture. The present study is an attempt to understand the conceptual discourse of interpretation under Interpretation of Statutes and its objective and necessity in the present context
Introduction:
In country like India, the law making power rests with legislature. Under Indian Constitution, the legislature is empower to make law with certain objectives to secure such as protecting various rights and interest of the people of India and its governance and administration. There are law colleges in Cooch Behar that had discusses under their law curriculum the concept of Interpretation through class deliberation, debates, group discussion and seminars as a topic under their modules. The legislature opens its minds in form of certain language. A statute is therefore is the formal expression of the will of legislature. The legislated law or statute law has attained supremacy over all other source of law. Its embodied in an authoritative form of written words which is the fundamental part of the law in India. Through the mandate of legislative law, the Indian judiciary are basically administer justice in a society. In other words, it is the duty of the courts to apply the letter of word. Therefore it is necessary to understand the language of the statute in its correct and true sense so that the intention of legislature is carried out properly and the vision of the statute is achieved. To ascertain the true sense of the language it is necessary to assign correct meaning to the words and expression used in language.
Meaning:
Interpretation can be defined as a process which is adopted for ascertaining the meaning of writings or intent of the framers of the deocument. Salmondhad defined the word interpretation as the “process by which court seeks to ascertain the meaning of legislation through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed”. In Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal the meaning of phrase“Interpretation” was elucidate as a process by which court determine the true meaning of statutory provisions with the object of applying it in a situation before it
Object:
The foremost objective the application of interpretation is basically to establish what the legislature is intended in making the statute for the people and what was its objective. It is presumed that the legislature speaks its mind by use of correct expression and therefore unless there is an ambiguity in the words used in the language, the provisions of the statute should be understod in their grammatical sense. When the language of a provision is clear it should not be twisted or strained to arrive at a supposed intention. The word used in the provision should be assigned their plain and ordinary meaning and then the language should be understood in its literal sense. If the results drawn are absured then the court should look for some other logical meaning of those words to remove the ambiguity and absurdity. In Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust v. A G Syed Mohideen it was held that the resolution of interpretation is not to make a provisions what the judges under judiciary thinks it should be, but to make and explain it what the legislature is truly intended it to be.
When to interpret a provisions?
Under interpretation discourse, the most foremost question which is asked is that, when it becomesessential to construe a provisions in a statute. The answer to this question is that, If the words used in a statute are unambiguous, clear, certain and precise and have only one meaning, then there is no need to expound those words in a statute. Likewise if the provisions dialect in a statutory lawis plain and obvious, then it should without any doubt be given effect and there is no need of interpretation required in it. The rule of interpretation can be invoked only if there is any doubt with regard to the language used. In India, a statutory lawis required to be interpreted only in a situation when the words or letter of its provisions are ambiguous and unclear. But when the words of a statute care clear and plain and are susceptible of only one meaning, the court are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. In CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, it was held that where words of statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to principles of interpretation other than literal rule.
Conclusion:
The rules of interpretation in the interpretation of statute are not an enacted laws, however it can be said that it had been derived from the comments, observation made and ratio laid down by the judiciary in various judgments.The law colleges in Cooch Behar discusses and explore its varied aspect and spread awareness among the citizens about the necessity of interpretation in legal education and practice and its issues and challenges through analyzing the various judgment of court.Therefore the concept of interpretation of statue is primarily a process of interpreting and applying legislation to decide cases which is necessary only in the cases which involves certain ambiguous aspects of a statute.
