free counters

The most comprehensive coverage on the construction of Statutes. It includes parts of statutes,Extrinsic-Aids,Intrinsic aids, Reading down, Amendments,Repeals,codifications,Quasi-Judicial agencies,Non-obstante clause,Mandatory/Declatory provisions,Tax ,Beneficial, Criminal,Fiscal Statute's Interpretation and sub-ordinate legislations.Besides it contains the Rules of Interpretation and the Role of Judiciary.Citations are in abundance.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

as a whole..

When read as a whole, we believe that the language compels the conclusion that the word "applicable" means "applicable to the individual."[Gately v Commonwealth of Massachusetts [1993] USCA1 395; 2 F.3d 1221 (18 August 1993)]Besides this we all know that the task of statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute, and statutory language must be accorded its ordinary meaning. [See, e.g., Telematics Int'l, Inc. v. NEMLC Leasing Corp., [1992] USCA1 317; 967 F.2d 703, 706 (1st Cir.1992)]It has now become a matter of policy that :".The first step in our inquiry is to determine whether the statutory language has an unambiguous meaning. If the statutory language is unambiguous, in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.[United States v. Emerson, [2001] USCA5 296; 270 F.3d 203, 213 (5th Cir.2001).]Atchison v A Collins W Hcs Hcs Hcs N L [2002] USCA5 125; 288 F.3d 177 (4 April  Some general rules also emrge from this kind of reading and keeping other canons in mind as was observed:When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature."But, "[w]hen the language of the law is susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law."In addition, "[w]hen a statute is susceptible to two or more interpretations, that which affords a reasonable and practical effect to the entire act is to be preferred to one which renders part thereof ridiculous or nugatory."[Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., 392 So.2d 398 (La.1980) citing, State v. Cazes, 262 La. 202, 263 So.2d 8 (1972).]The last three statements are based upon the presumptions that we should select the interpretation that advances the object of the statute and in case there are options to select out of the competing interpretations we should select the one that serves this purpose only and stated other wise we should select the interpretation that does not attack on the constitutionality of the statute or its provisions.It is almost the duty of the courts to see that nothing of this sort arises during the course of litigation as we have a strong presumption that Congress does not enact void laws and that every statute is enacted to meet some purpose and goal.Further it may be noted that matter of interpretation is a question of 'law'.[Blogger]
A matter requiring statutory interpretation is a question of law requiring de novo review, United States v. Hans, [1990] USCA6 2583; 921 F.2d 81, 82 (6th Cir.1990), and the "starting point" for interpretation "is the language of the statute itself." Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., [1980] USSC 104; 447 U.S. 102, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 64 L.Ed.2d 766(1980). The statute is read as a whole and construed to give each word operative effect. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.,[1992] USSC 18; 503 U.S. 30, 36[1992] USSC 18; , 112 S.Ct. 1011, 1015[1992] USSC 18; , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992).III.
Let us analyse this statement'The statute is read as a whole and construed to give each word operative effect' that is taken from the above quote. This is an important statement and forms the basis of yet another powerful rule of construction that every word of a statute should be assigned some meaning and that nothing in the statute is surplus. The rule has been an extension of the presumption that we make in the case of drafting of statute that Congress is aware of the terms or the words employed in the statute meaning thereby that Parliament has selected the words with due care after analyzing its likely interpretation as per the prevailing rules of interpretation. These presumptions are necessary so that the entire fabric of the statutory language is understood in the light of the main purpose of the Act . We are concerned with what the legislators/congress has put in words rather than our expectations that what ought to have been put in words.The words employed in a statute speak for themselves.Words are small concept in themselves with no precision element contained in them. They get the coloring from the surrounding text that forms the context.
                                                                                                                                      Go Next..Contd

No comments:

Post a Comment