INTERPRETATION

   Judicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation.

Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge.

  

To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose.

 In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

    The process by which a judge constructs the meaning from the words of a statute book which jhe either believes to be thet of the Legislature of which he proposes to attribute to it is called as interpretation.

    Salmond describes interpretation as the process by which the court seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of the authoritative forms in which it is expressed.

    According to Keeton,the interpretation of statutes is a science of itself.

Objective of interpretation

 The objective of interpretation is to find out or collect the intention of the maker of the instrument, either from his own words, or from other conjectures, or both.

WHY IS INTERPRETATION NECESSARY??

  As to this question,

Legislation may contain uncertainties for a variety of reasons:

·         Words are imperfect symbols to communicate intent. They are ambiguous and change in meaning over time.

·         Unforeseen situations are inevitable, and new technologies and cultures make application of existing laws difficult.

·         Uncertainties may be added to the statute in the course of enactment, such as the need for compromise or catering to special interest groups.

KINDS OF INTERPRETATION

     1.Grammatical interpretation

     2.Logical interpretation

1.Grammatical interpretation:

a.It regards only the verbal expression of the legislature.

2.Logical interpretation

a.It emphasise more on the intention of the legislature.

RULES OF INTERPRETATION

      Some of the better known rules of Interpretation methods are:

·                     The Golden rule

·                      The Literal rule

·                      The Mischief rule

·                      The Purposive approach

The Golden Rule

    "The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.the golden rule gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature's intention, the golden rule dictates that a judge can depart from this meaning.

The golden rule allows a judge to depart from a word's normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.

This rule may be used in two ways.

i) It is applied most frequently in a narrow sense where there is some ambiguity or absurdity in the words themselves.

2)The second use of the golden rule is in a wider sense, to avoid a result that is controversial to principles of public policy, even where words have only one meaning.

The Literal Rule

  The Literal rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise.

 In other words, the law is to be read word for word and should not divert from its ordinary meaning.

The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law was intended to say.

Reasons favored:

Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sources.

Criticism:

This is the oldest of the rules of construction and is still used today, primarily because judges may not legislate. As there is always the danger that a particular interpretation may be the equivalent of making law, some judges prefer to adhere to the law's literal wording.

 The Mischief rule

The Mischief Rule is a rule of construction that judges can apply in statutory interpretation in order to discover Parliament's intention.

 In applying the rule, the court is essentially asking the question: what was the "mischief" that the previous law did not cover, which Parliament was seeking to remedy when it passed the law now being reviewed by the court?

The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament's intent.

Modern use of the mischief rule

Modern courts continue to apply the rule in a more restricted manner, and generally with a greater regard for the integrity of the statutes which they are interpreting.

Advantages

   1. The Law Commission sees it as a far more satisfactory way of interpreting acts as opposed to the Golden or Literal rules.

   2. It usually avoids unjust or absurd results in sentencing

   3. It abides to parliament sovereignty.

  Disadvantages

# It is seen to be out of date as it has been in use since the 16th century, when common law was the primary source of law and parliamentary supremacy was not established.

# It gives too much power to the unelected judiciary which is argued to be undemocratic.

# In the 16th century, the judiciary would often draft acts on behalf of the king and were therefore well qualified in what mischief the act was meant to remedy. This is not often the case in modern legal systems.

Purposive theory

It is also known as teleological approach.

It is a theory of statutory interpretation that holds that common law courts should interpret legislation in light of the purpose behind the legislation.

Purposive theory is the dominant theory of statutory interpretation in the United States today.

Purposive theory usually manifests in court opinions in the United States when courts examine the legislative history of statutes in an attempt to resolve ambiguity or confirm plain meaning.

In Australia, the construction of a statutory provision that promotes the purpose of the statute is to be preferred to a construction that does not promote the purpose or object of the statute.