Principle Powers of the Court in Statutory Interpretation - Essay Example

Principle Powers of the Court in Sta y Interpretation The Courts throughout the world have the power to interpret legislation with respect to certain rules and procedures which it is deemed to follow in the course of such interpretation. The essay shall address those powers and procedures in detail and also try to analyse the way in which the Courts interpret the legislations. Every State is governed by the Constitution of its country where the Constitution is the supreme law. The Constitution lays down the platform for subsequent laws to be enacted and enforced within the territorial jurisdiction of the State. Apart from the Constitution, principles of natural justice are important when a statute is enacted within the territory of a State. The Judiciary is the system of the Court which interprets the law and puts it into application in real life. It is the structure which defines the applicability of a certain statute and has the responsibility of deciding whether such law is fit to be followed in the State or not. The power of the Courts is twofold in the process of interpreting and applying the law. This essay shall cover all the aspects of the Court’s power and responsibilities, which shall be divided into different parts of the essay. Courts have the following powers with respect to the interpretation of the law: 1. Power to Interpret on the applicability of the Law 2. Power to apply the Law in Cases Through these measures, the Courts also end up making laws as they have the power to decide on the validity of the law and regard it to be ultra vires, if required. They also modify the existing laws with respect to the changes in society. Interpretation of the Law: The first and foremost duty of the Court is to interpret the law as it has been enacted in the Statute. When a case comes up before the Judge, he has the responsibility to interpret the law with respect to the spirit of the law as well as the agenda with which the law was passed. The judge looks at the law and tries to bring harmony between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The Judge has the power to nullify the law if he thinks that it violates the principles of natural justice as well as the Constitutional principles embodied within the Constitution. The spirit of the legislation is the most important thing which remains in the minds of the Judge while interpreting the law. While the Parliament is designed to make laws for the people, the Judiciary has been established as a watchdog before the Parliament. It has the duty to filter laws passed by the Parliament and assess them according to the principles of the Constitution. The Constitution in this regard acts as the base for any law passed in the State. Judicial Review is the concept through which the Judiciary reviews and analyses laws put into perspective by the Parliament. Every law ought to go the test of judicial review. Judicial review is essential in the way that it keeps checks and balances for the legislature in the process of enacting laws. Once the Judiciary takes up the role of reviewing the existing laws, the parliament is kept in order to make sure that unconstitutional laws which go against the spirit of natural justice are not enacted in the State. The Judge is required to interpret the words of a statute in order to ‘declare the law’ and to make a judgment. The interpretation may result in: The statute being more precise or consistent A clearer definition of the terms used in the statute Overall changes to the way the law works Application of Law in Cases: Along with the interpretation of the law, another feature of the Courts is to apply the given law to the case in hand. Once the Court has interpreted the law in a certain way, it is deemed to apply the law in the same way to the case at hand and then come up with an outcome. The Court is supposed to give its opinion on the law and also lay down certified procedure to be followed with respect to the application of the law. Once the judiciary has interpreted the law the law should be deemed to be interpreted in the same way within the territorial jurisdiction of the State, as it is the power which the Courts have with respect to the interpretation of the law. Let us now analyse the rules of interpretation of the Statue of the Court and how they reflect with the interpretive powers of the Court to answer the second part of the essay. Literal Rule: “The literal rule means the interpretation of Acts purely according to their literal meaning. It means following the literal, ordinary or natural meaning of words.” According to this rule of interpretation, the Judge interprets and analyses the laws based on the words written in the statute without going into the meaning of the law, or any hidden understanding which might be there. The judge is required to lay down the meaning of the law as it is given in the words and is not supposed to read beyond the words in Statute. However, this type of interpretation has now been reduced in many countries as it has fallen out of favour with the Courts worldwide. “The court’s aim is to find the intention of Parliament as expressed in the words it used” The literal rule restricts the powers of the Court with respect to the interpretation of the legislation and therefore its usage has been curtailed by the Courts over the years to give them more freedom while interpreting a particular Act. Golden Rule: Let us look at the definition of the Golden Rule of interpretation as defined in the case of Grey v. Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1: “the ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless it would lead to absurdity, when the ordinary sense may be modified to avoid the absurdity but no further.” In Luke v. I.R.C 1963 the following was held: “It is only where the words are absolutely incapable of a construction that will accord with the apparent intention of the provision and will avoid a wholly unreasonable result that the words of the enactment must prevail.” In other words, Golden rule of interpretation involves the Courts to analyse the meaning of the words as it is given in the legislation and should not go beyond the constructive meaning of the words which is absent in the literal rule of interpretation. The Court has the power to interpret the statute according to the rules laid down. However, the golden rule of interpretation lacks the skill to master the real intention behind the law. Whatever rule the courts are using it is imperative that they end up finding out the real intention of the legislature behind the enactment of such laws and put those ideas into perspective while deciding upon the validity of the law. This rule lets the judge avoid the plain and literal meaning of a word in order to avoid an absurdity had the word been interpreted in its plain and literal sense. The power which the court has with respect to this method of construction is that when it is interpreting the law and applies the golden rule of interpretation and figures out that even at that point the meaning of the word or the sentence is ambiguous or is against the spirit of the intention of the legislature, then the Court has the power to strike down such sentence, or to modify along with the spirit of the legislature while it is in the process of declaring the law. Mischief Rule: Mischief rule of interpretation is considered to be the most solid form of interpretation. It is the process of interpretation by the Courts where the courts try to figure out the mischief which the previous legislation did not cover, or which was not covered by any legislation for that matter, and in the course of finding the mischief they figure out the real intention behind the enactment of such laws by the legislature. It is more narrowed form of interpretation of the statute and requires the Court to come up with the meaning of the words mentioned in the statute to establish a meaning out of the law. Once the Courts have been able to figure out the mischief, then the statute is interpreted in the words of the judge and a more clear cut and established meaning is given by the court for further usage, which can also be termed as the declaration of the law by the Courts. Work Cited http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-2-2a-4.html http://www.richinstyle.com/masterclass/smallerblack/interpretation.html Grey v. Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1 Luke v. I.R.C 1963 http://legal-directory.net/english-law/interpretation-mischief-rule.htm Pepper v. Hart [1993] AC 573 Heydons Case [1584] EWHC Exch J36 Read More