THE STATUTES SHOULD BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS CONTEXT

 

THE STATUTES SHOULD BE READ AS A WHOLE IN ITS CONTEXT:

 

It is a basic principle in the field of law that the statutes should be read a whole in its context. This principle is one of the most vital and fundamental rules which are used for interpretation or construction of statutes by the Courts. We are well aware of the fact that a statute is written with several parts such as the sections, sub-sections, clauses, sub-clauses, exceptions, explanations, illustrations, schedules etc. These parts of a Statute are inter-linked with eachother. Also, when a statute is made by the law-makers it is made with certain intention and object. Such intentions or objects that are reflected throughout the various parts of the statute which have been mentioned above. Now, the Court has the vital duty of determining the legislative intent which is reflected throughout these various parts of the statute. This is why this has become a basic rule that the court must read the statute as a whole in its context.

 

Legal Maxim:

 

The principle that ‘Statute must be read as a whole in its context’ is related to a well-known legal maxim. This Latin maxim is: ‘Construction ex visceribus actus’. This can be translated as every part of the statute must be construed within the four corners of the Act. In other words, no provision should be interpreted in isolation.

 

Explanation:

 

The conclusion that the language of a statute is crystal clear, certain and unambiguous can be drawn by us only when we have studied the statute in question its entirety, and not just only a part of it. This is due to the fact that each component or part of the statute not only is responsible in playing a vital role in determining the legislative intent of the law-makers or the legislature behind enacting such statute but also because the components influence eachothers’ meanings. However, how far and to what extent one component influences the meaning of another component varies form case to case that is, it would be different in each given case. Nevertheless, each part or component or word in a statute must be allowed to play its role no matter big or small such role is, in discovering the intention of the legislature behind enacting the statute.

 

In case of a Section in a Statute or in an Act, it must also be construed as a whole and not just in parts, whether or not one of the parts is a saving clause or a proviso. Lord Greene has opined regarding this matter that, to ascertain the meaning of a clause in a statute, the Court must look at the whole statute, at what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely the clause itself.

 

However, the Court should keep this in its in mind that while it is interpreting or construing a provision within a statute due to any case presented before it, the Court should not depend too much on the other provisions of that statute and should do so only when the case is such that it seems that the Legislature or the Law-makers must have intended so. It is to be noted in this regard that there may sometimes arise a necessity to interpret a particular section in the light of another section.

 

Judicial Pronouncement:

 

In the case Gurmej Singh v. Pratap Singh, 1960 (1) SCR 909, the respondent’s election was challenged by the appellant under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, ,1951 on the ground of use of corrupt practices by him because the village headmen or lambardars were appointed by him as his polling and counting agents. The law at that time was such that the revenue officers including the village accountants were not entitled to assist in the election process even though other village officers could. The Supreme Court held that while interpreting one enactment of a statute, all parts of the statute had to be kept in mind. Therefore, when the above-mentioned law was construed keeping in mind this rule, it was clear that the legislature had intended to distinguish between two kinds of officers here; - the revenue officers which included village accountants and also other officers. Since village headmen or lambardars were neither revenue officers nor village accountants, they fell in the category of other village officers who were not barred from assisting in the election in such capacity.

References:

 

Websites-

 

·      iPleaders Blog ( https://blog.ipleaders.in/ )

 

·      Legal Service India (  https://www.legalserviceindia.com/ )

 

·      Indian Kanoon ( https://indiankanoon.org/ )

 

Books-

 

·      ‘The Interpretation of Statutes’ by Prof. T. Bhattacharya.