Statutory Interpretation of Courts - Essay Example

Sta y Interpretation of Courts Introduction The Courts are empowered with the task of interpreting a Statute once the legislation is passed by the Legislature. It is the duty of the court to act as the watchdog for the laws which are being put into place by the legislature as it works out the efficiency of such laws from the perspective of the common man. The Courts have the power to declare a law void if it goes against the spirit of the Constitution of the supreme law of the land prevailing in the country. It has the power to nullify the effect of the law if it goes beyond the boundaries and parameters set forth to enact laws. The Courts have to keep an eye with the way the legislation is passing laws since it keeps checks and balances on the laws which are enacted in the Parliament, and the authority to decide on that is solely with the Juduciary. The Courts have to decide on the applicability of any law. This is the greatest power which it possesses being a wing of the State. The Court has been granted the duty and the responsibility to guard the spirit of the law in its right perspective. Let us now analyse the two main duties of the courts: 1. Power to make the law 2. Power to apply the law The above are the two basic powers which the courts possess. The Judiciary is assigned the duty to apply the law as it stands out to be in cases which it gets for referral from the people. It has the power to decide a case based on the basis of the law which has been passed by the legislation. The courts go through each and every aspect of the law and try to come up with the correct interpretation which lies in the process of making the law as well. Interpretation is the first part of making law, and we shall now discuss the different schools of interpretation which exists in Judiciary today. Literal Rule: “The literal rule of statutory interpretation should be the first rule applied by judges. Under the literal rule, the words of the statute are given their natural or ordinary meaning and applied without the judge seeking to put a gloss on the words or seek to make sense of the statute.”( http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Literal-rule.php) Literal rule is the way of interpretation where the Courts try to analyse the law with respect to its strict wording. According to this rule, the law is understood by the judges from the literal meaning of the word. The judges do not apply their own opinion or thoughts and read the law as it is given in the code form. One of the major advantages of this form of interpretation is that law is made by the court on the basis of the meaning of the word, so there is no chance of cheating since the meaning of the word cannot be changed from it is in the dictionary. It promotes transparency as well as upholds the Legislature as the supreme authority in making the laws, even though the courts have a stake in the way the law is applied. However, the disadvantage of this form of interpretation is that sometimes the word can have inherently two meanings, or it may have been put to avoid a mischief, which the courts will not take into account when they interpret the law with accordance to the literal rule of interpretation. Golden Rule: “The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law-giver."( http://cssonline.forummotion.com/t1735-golden-rule-of-interpretation) In the case of Maumsell v. Olins, (1975) AC 373, Lord Simon formulated the exception to the "golden rule" required by technical words, or words of art, as follows : "(The golden rule) is sometimes put. (sic) that in statutes dealing with ordinary people, in their everyday lives, the language is presumed to be used in its primary ordinary sense unless this stultified the purpose of the statute or otherwise produces some injustice, absurdity, anomaly or contradiction in which case some secondary ordinary sense may be preferred so as to obviate the injustice, absurdity, anomaly or contradiction, or fulfil the purpose of the statute ; while in statutes dealing with technical matters, words which are capable of both bearing the ordinary meaning and being terms of art in the technical matter of the legislation will presumptively bear their primary meaning as such terms of art (or, if they must necessarily be modified, some secondary meaning as terms of art.") Looking at the above explanations, the golden rule of interpretation talks about the power of the Court to analyse the meaning of the word with the way it exists, and not go beyond its constructive meaning. The whole point of having this interpretation is to understand the spirit of the Legislature, which however, in some cases may not be enough when looked at from the angle of golden rule. Mischief Rule: “the courts can take into account the reasons why the legislation was passed; what ‘mischief’ the legislation was designed to cure, and whether the act in question fell within the ‘mischief” The point behind having the mischief rule is to find out the mischief or the lacuna which the legislation was trying to cure in the process of framing the laws. The idea is to find out the true legislative intent and then applying that intent into the interpretation and the declaration of the law.( http://legal-directory.net/english-law/interpretation-mischief-rule.htm) When the law is passed, there can be various interpretations with respect to its ideology and functioning. The mischief rule comes closest to an ideal interpretation of the law, where the court is concerned with finding out the true intent behind the legislation and then applying that philosophy into the case laws with which it deals. Let us now look at the second aspect of the Judiciary, which involves the application of the law to real life issues and then discharging judgments which are binding on the parties. The judiciary after interpreting the law applies the spirit of the law in the case, which might be different from the letter of the law. The letter of the law is the code in which law has been designed, but it is the spirit of the law which matters more than the letter of the law, as the spirit id the effect which the law wants to have on the society. The judiciary also makes the law, albeit in a different way as compared to the legislature. Once a case comes to the judiciary, it looks at the relevant law which is in place to govern the case at hand. It analyses the case and the facts, and then applies the law to the facts. At the time it applies the law to the facts, it also interprets the law. Once the law is interpreted and understood by the judiciary, it then takes that form of interpretation to the facts of the case. At this level, the law is now merged with the facts, and then the judiciary passes its judgment. Only the Courts which have gone through this proper formal procedure have the power to pass the judgments. Once the law is understood with respect to the facts, and the judiciary has made up its mind with respect to the direction of the judgment, it then passes the judgment where it finally declares the law. Therefore, the interpretation and the declaration of the law is bound together by one string of thread. It is important to understand this thread as it holds the spirit of the law as well as the direction in which the law is applied, since the spirit of the law is in thin air and can be maligned, but once the spirit of the law goes on the paper then it becomes the letter of the law, and after this there is not chance that the philosophy of the law can be misused by any forum. Therefore, this process and the power of the court gives the opportunity of free and fair trial. Work Cited http://www.richinstyle.com/masterclass/smallerblack/interpretation.html http://legal-directory.net/english-law/interpretation-mischief-rule.htm http://cssonline.forummotion.com/t1735-golden-rule-of-interpretation http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Literal-rule.php Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830 Maumsell v. Olins, (1975) AC 373 Read More