Rules of Interpretation
In the ensuing paragraphs, we have made an attempt to discuss the Rules of Interpretation, largely
in the context of income-tax law, citing appropriate instances.
I. Significant rules of interpretation used by courts:
• Rule of literal interpretation - This rule is based on the age-old doctrine that “judges do not legislate, they only interpret law”. It stipulates that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. Attention must be given to what has been
said and also what has not been said. Nothing should be added or subtracted. If the provision
is unambiguous and if from that provision the legislative intent is clear, the other rules of
construction of statutes need not be called into aid.
• Mischief rule - The mischief rule originated in 16th century in the Heydon’s case in the
United Kingdom. It is commonly known as the Heydon’s Rule or Purposive construction.
Under this rule, the position before an amendment or enactment of an Act is examined to find
out the mischief sought to be remedied to determine the rationale for the remedy. In order to
do so, the following aspects are looked at:
- What was law before the provision was introduced or amended?
- What was the mischief or the defect for which the earlier provision of law did not provide
a remedy?
- What remedy has the Parliament effected in the provisions of law to cure the mischief or
defect?
- What is the intended effect of such remedy?
Courts then have to make a construction that suppresses the mischief and advances the
remedy.
- Rules of Interpretation are principles that have evolved over the years, on account of interpretation of provision of law by various Courts. These rules help in interpretation of law. The object behind use of these rules is to ascertain the intention of the lawmakers.
- These rules are not static and keep on evolving. At times, there may be more than one rule of interpretation which appear to applicable to a given situation. The Courts then decide the most appropriate one in the given situation considering the facts of the case.
In the ensuing paragraphs, we have made an attempt to discuss the Rules of Interpretation, largely
in the context of income-tax law, citing appropriate instances.
I. Significant rules of interpretation used by courts:
• Rule of literal interpretation - This rule is based on the age-old doctrine that “judges do not legislate, they only interpret law”. It stipulates that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. Attention must be given to what has been
said and also what has not been said. Nothing should be added or subtracted. If the provision
is unambiguous and if from that provision the legislative intent is clear, the other rules of
construction of statutes need not be called into aid.
• Mischief rule - The mischief rule originated in 16th century in the Heydon’s case in the
United Kingdom. It is commonly known as the Heydon’s Rule or Purposive construction.
Under this rule, the position before an amendment or enactment of an Act is examined to find
out the mischief sought to be remedied to determine the rationale for the remedy. In order to
do so, the following aspects are looked at:
- What was law before the provision was introduced or amended?
- What was the mischief or the defect for which the earlier provision of law did not provide
a remedy?
- What remedy has the Parliament effected in the provisions of law to cure the mischief or
defect?
- What is the intended effect of such remedy?
Courts then have to make a construction that suppresses the mischief and advances the
remedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment