You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.
Interpretation of Statutes
Literal rule: – The first and most elementary rule of construction is that it is to be assumed that the words and phrases of technical legislation are used in their technical meaning if they have acquired one, and otherwise in their ordinary meaning, and the second is that phrases and sentences are to be construed according to the rules of grammar.
• Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohammed
• Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay v. Indian Oil Corporation
• Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Mischief Rule
• DPP v. Bull
• Royal College of Nursing v. DHSS
Golden Rule
• R v. Allen
• Adler v. George
• Narayan Swami v. Pannerselvam
• S R Batra v. Taruna Batra
Rule – statute must be read as a whole
• Regional Provident fund Commissioner v. Shri Krishna Manufacturing Bhandara
Generalia Specialibus non derogant
• Venkata Ramana Devaru v. State of Mysore
Ut res Magis Valeat quam pereat
Strict interpretation
• Chinubhai v. State of Bombay
• CIT v. Kotla Yadgiri
• Cape Brandy Syndicate v I.R.C
Noscitur a Sociis
• Commissioner of Custom v. Savoy Hotel
• State of Assam v. R. Mohammed
Ejusdem Generis
• DPP v. Jordan
• DCCT v. Ambika Stores
• Siddheshwari Cotton Mills v. Collector of Excise
Presumptions of Construction
- R. Hariprasad v. State – Unless a statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of the crime, a person should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind.
- Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra – Book shop owner charged with charges of carrying or selling obscene objects. Defence – no knowledge exists. The court said that the first subsection of s.292 does not make the knowledge of obscenity an ingredient of the offence. The prosecution need not prove something that law hasn’t burdened it with. If knowledge were to be made an essential requirement in this crime, then the defence would have an impenetrable defence.
Ex Post Facto Laws
- Pyaare Lal Sharma v JK industries – No one can be penalised on the ground of a conduct which was not penal on the day it was committed. Amended regulation could not operate retrospectively but only from the date of amendment. Unauthorised absence amendment leading to termination. Order of termination cannot be sustained.
Contemporania Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima Lege
Nemo Potent Mutare Consillium Suum In Alterius Injuriam (No one is allowed to change his mind to the injury of others)
Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
Directory or Mandatory Rules
• T V Usman v. Food Inspector (Subsidiary rules)
• State of UP v. M L Shrivastava
Legal Fiction
· State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah
Non Obstante Clause
· Kanwar Raj v. Pramod
· Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arbind Bose
Internal Aids to Interpretation – Preamble
• Berubari Union
• Kesavananda Bharati v Union of India
Internal Aids to Interpretation – Headings
Frick India v Union of India
Internal Aids to Interpretation – Illustrations
Mohammed Syedol Ariffin v. Yeoh Oai Gark
Internal Aids to Interpretation – Definition Clause
· CIT v. Taj Hyderabad
· Pushpa v Milkhiram
Internal Aids to Interpretation – Short Title
• Biswambhar Singh v. State of Orissa
Internal Aids to Interpretation – Marginal Notes
• Bengal Immunity Case
Proviso Clause
· Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman
Punctuation
• Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose
• Mohammad Shabir v. State of Maharashtra
Interpretation of Tax Statutes
• State of Punjab v. Jalandhar Vegetables
• Atlas Cycles industries v. State of Haryana
Effect of Repeal
• Shambhudayal v. Union of India
• Govt. Of India v. Indian tobacco Association
Conjunctive and disjunctive words
• R v. Oakes – In section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, which reads : ‘Any person who attempts to commit any offence under the principal Act or this Act, or solicits or incites or endeavours to persuade another person to commit an offence, or aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence’,
the word ‘and’ printed in Italics was read as ‘or’ for by reading ‘and’ as ‘and’ the result produced was unintelligible and absurd and against the clear intention of the Legislature
You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.
