Chapter-8 Part-13

Rules of Interpretation are Not Rules of Laws

I would just add that it is a common feature of those cases to cite a statement in a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States[1]which says “ When an aid to construction of the meaning of words as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be “no rule of law” which forbids its use, however clear the words may be on superficial examination.

The rules of interpretation are not rules of law. They are mere aid to construction and constitute some broad pointers. The interpretative criteria apposite in a given situation may, by themselves, be mutually irreconcilable. It is the task of the court to decide which one, in the light of all relevant circumstances, ought to prevail. [2] However, the rules of interpretation are not rules of law. They are mere aid to construction and constitute some broad pointers. The interpretative criteria apposite in a given situation may, by themselves, be mutually irreconcilable. It is the task of the court to decide which one, in the light of all relevant circumstances, ought to prevail[3].

It is appropriate to recall the words of Lord Reid's :

"Then rules of construction are relied on.They are not rules in the ordinary sense of having some binding force. They are our servants not our masters. They are aids to construction, presumptions or pointers. Not infrequently one 'rule' points in one direction, another in a different direction. In each case we must look at all relevant circum stances and decide as a matter of judgment what weight toattach to any particular 'rule'[4]."

---

[1] (United States, the American Trucking Association [1940] 310 US 534 at 543)

[2]See: Maunsell v. Olins, [1975] 1 All ER 16 and Utkal Contrac- tors & Joinery v. State of Orissa, [1987] 3 SCR 317 at330.

[3] Maunsell v. Olins, [1975] 1 All ER 16 and Utkal Contractors & Joinery v. State of Orissa, [1987] 3 SCR 317 at 330,referred to.

[4] Maunsell v. olins, [1975] 1 All ER 16: