ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 12. Hon’ble O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Girdhari Lal & sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur19, in His Lordship’s inimitable style, had the occasion to emphasize: “6. It may be worthwhile to restate and explain at this stage certain well-known principles of interpretation of statutes: Words are but mere vehicles of thought. They are meant to express or convey one’s thoughts. Generally, a person’s words and thoughts are coincidental. No problem arises then, but, not infrequently, they are not. It is common experience with most men, that occasionally there are no adequate words to express some of their thoughts. Words which very nearly express the thoughts may be found but not words which will express precisely. There is then a great fumbling for words. Longwinded explanations and, in conversation, even gestures are resorted to. Ambiguous words and words which unwittingly convey more that one meaning are used. Where different interpretations are likely to be put on words and a question arises what an individual meant when he used certain words, he may be asked to explain himself and he may do so and say that he meant one thing and not the other. But if it is the legislature that has expressed itself by making the laws and difficulties arise in interpreting what the legislature has said, a legislature cannot be asked to sit to resolve those difficulties. The legislatures, unlike individuals, cannot come forward to explain themselves as often as difficulties of interpretation arise. So the task of interpreting the laws by finding out what the legislature meant is allotted to the courts. Now, if one person puts into words the thoughts of another (as the draftsman puts into words the thoughts of the legislature) and a third person (the court) is to find out what they meant, more difficulties are bound to crop up. The draftsman may not have caught the spirit of the legislation at all; the words used by him may not adequately convey what is meant to be conveyed; the words may be ambiguous: they may be words capable of being differently understood by different persons. How are the courts to set about the task of resolving difficulties of interpretation of the laws? The foremost task of a court, as we conceive it, in the interpretation of statutes, is to find out the intention of the legislature. Of course, where words are clear and unambiguous no question of construction may arise. Such words ordinarily speak for themselves. Since the words must have spoken as clearly to legislators as to judges, it may be safely presumed that the legislature intended what the words plainly say. This is the real basis of the so-called golden rule of construction that where the words of statutes are plain and unambiguous effect must be given to them. A court should give effect to plain words, not because there is any charm or magic in the plainness of such words but because plain words may be expected to convey plainly the intention of the legislature to others as well as judges. Intention of the legislature and not the words is paramount. Even where the words of statutes appear to be prima facie clear and unambiguous it may sometimes be possible that the plain meaning of the words does not convey and may even defeat the intention of the legislature; in such cases there, is no reason why the true intention of the legislature, if it can be determined, clearly by other means, should not be given effect. Words are meant to serve and not to govern and we are not to add the tyranny of words to the other tyrannies of the world.” 13. Another crisp and enlightening passage is found in Reserve Bank of India (supra), where His Lordship observed as follows: “33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may 3 | P a g e R EC ENT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF SC/HC/ITAT Kapi l Goel a d v (9625306880) advocatekapi lgoel@gmai l .com take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. … ” WHETHER, WORDS CAN BE ADDED TO OR DELETED FROM A STATUTE? 18. The legal position is, thus, clear. A situation could arise where plain and literal reading of a statute could lead to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose for which the enactment was introduced and, the situation, necessarily compels the court to adopt that construction which would carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. The court would be justified in doing so, but it must be cautious that while it irons out the creases in the material it does not alter the material of which the legislation is woven. ON THE PRINCIPLE OF READING DOWN The question of ‘reading down’ a provision arises if it is found that the provision is ultra vires as it stands. This is the law laid down in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P. (1999) 4 SCC 458 Precedents on ‘reading down’ of a provision are legion and only a few of them are referred to here. CST v. Radhakrishan (1979) 2 SCC 249 Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 On the question as to whether harshness of a provision could afford reason for reading down the same, we find that a three-Judge bench of this Court in Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu (2024) 6 SCC 641 27. Thus, what follows from the above authoritative discussions is this. Whenever a court is seized of a question of vires of a primary legislation/ subordinate legislation or a part of it, a presumption of constitutionality is attached to the impugned provision and the courts would ordinarily strive to save the impugned provision from being declared ultra vires; however, there could be situations where the subordinate legislation (like a rule or a regulation) is challenged on the ground of excessive delegation or is itself violative of the enabling/primary legislation under which it is framed or even breaches constitutional guarantees. ‘Reading down’ of a provision is a subsidiary rule of interpretation of statutes, which the courts tend to employ in situations to save the subordinate legislation like a rule or a regulation, wherever possible and practical, by reading it down by a benevolent interpretation, rather than declaring it as unconstitutional or invalid. However, it has been clarified that it is to be used sparingly, and in limited circumstances. Additionally, it is clear that the act of reading down a provision, must be undertaken only if doing so can keep the operation of the statute “within the purpose of the Act and constitutionally valid”. WHETHER, RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUISITE PLEADINGS? 32. Without a doubt, a court cannot in the absence of the requisite pleadings grant relief claimed by a party. We first propose to notice two decisions which arose out of pure civil proceedings and then two decisions arising out of writ proceedings. 37. Based on the aforesaid authorities, we hold that while deciding a writ petition on the basis of affidavits, the writ court’s enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record as part of the writ petition or the counter/reply affidavit, as the case may be. Findings of the court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the parties. It is well-nigh impermissible for the writ court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in course of hearing.”