• Generally speaking, qualifying words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they are immediately associated. They do not qualify words or phrases which are distantly or remotely located. • In other words, in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, preferential and qualifying words and phrases must be applied only to their immediate or last antecedent, and not to the other remote or preceding words or association of words. This rule of legal hermeneutics is commonly known as the doctrine of last antecedent. • The maxim expressive of this rule is ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sententia or relative words refer to the nearest antecedents, unless the context otherwise requires.

2. Rule of the Last Antecedent
PRESENTED BY: NISHIDH PATEL

3. Consider the following example
•
A probationary police officer walks into an attorney’s office, believing that
he has been unfairly passed over for promotion. He had gained some
weight while under the stress of taking and passing the three tests
required for promotion to police officer. Instead of receiving the
promotion he believed he deserved, however, he was turned down by a
committee that said he failed to meet one of the four requirements for
promotion:
•
To qualify for police officer, the candidate must be within the weight
range for his/her height, score 85 on the first test battery, score 90 on the
special placement battery, and achieve an 85% accuracy score on the
shooting range WITHIN SIX WEEKS OF HIRING.

4. •
Although the police rookie’s weight was within the weight range when he applied
for officer, he now weighs too much.
•
Does “within six weeks of hiring” modify only the shooting
range score (see Illustration 1), or all four of the promotion
requirements (see Illustration 2)? As written, the modifier is
ambiguous, and therefore the rookie has good reason to feel
unfairly treated.

8. •
Rookie would be entitled to promotion because the closest noun to the (commaless) modifier “within six weeks” is the shooting-range requirement.

9. What is Rule of the Last Antecedent?
•
Generally speaking, qualifying words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they
are immediately associated. They do not qualify words or phrases which are distantly or
remotely located.
•
In other words, in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, preferential and qualifying
words and phrases must be applied only to their immediate or last antecedent, and not to the
other remote or preceding words or association of words. This rule of legal hermeneutics is
commonly known as the doctrine of last antecedent.
•
The maxim expressive of this rule is ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur
sententia or relative words refer to the nearest antecedents, unless the context otherwise
requires.
•
The use of a comma to separate an antecedent from the rest exerts a dominant influence in
the application of the doctrine of last antecedent. Thus, it has been held that the qualifying
effect of a modifying word or phrase will be confined to its immediate antecedent if the latter is
separated by a comma from the other antecedents.

10. Example 2
•
Violation of the legal doctrine may also change the meaning of the statement
when a comma is inserted in a list. Consider this duo:
1.
Missing after the burglary were two rings, and a bracelet worth $5,000.
2.
Missing after the burglary were two rings and a bracelet worth $5,000.
•
The last antecedent doctrine states, additionally, that when “contrary intention”
appears, the doctrine does not apply. Placement of a comma separating the
clause in which the modifying language appears is considered “contrary
intention.”
•
Thus, in the first sentence, only the bracelet is said to cost $5,000 because a
comma appears before the clause beginning with “and.”
•
In the second sentence, however, since there is no comma, the entire cost of the
rings and the bracelet is $5,000.

11. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam
and Ors.
AIR 1966 SC 1910
•
Our duty is to listen to the clear words of the Constitution, understand its message
and then interpret it.
o
•
Every person is prima facie entitled to his personal liberty. If any person is arrested,
he is entitled to know forthwith why he is being deprived of his liberty, so that he may
take immediate steps to regain his freedom.
o
•
Article 22(1) reads : "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being
informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.........".
Article 22(1) then continues : "nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be
defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice."
Who is this "he" in the second part of Art. 22(1) ?
o
The pronoun "he" must refer to the last antecedent. "He" therefore means "any person who
is arrested". He has the right to consult his lawyer and to be defended by him, so that he
may guard himself against the accusation for which he is arrested.

12. Anatha Bandhu Mandal v. State Of Orissa And
Others
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK. W.P. (C) No. 22753 of 2010. decided on on 20
June, 2012.
•
The rules under our consideration is "The Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and
Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980". "Disposal of forest offence" would
literally mean the process or method of dealing with the offence or the offender.
"Disposal of forest offence" does not embrace seized property, which is to be
dealt with by the confiscation proceeding, which is independent of criminal
prosecution.
•
Taking the literal meaning of "disposal of forest offence", as premise, if we
proceed to interpret the rule, the "rule of last antecedent" applied generally in
matters of interpretation of statutes may be applied in the present case and
applying the said rule the qualifying phrase "disposal of forest offence" would
certainly refer to the preceding word "enquiry".
•
The rule therefore relates to "enquiry" in connection with "disposal of forest
offence" which has nothing to do with confiscation of property.

13. Doctrine of the Last Antecedent is
problematic
•
It contradicts other linguistic principles.
•
It contradicts the historical use of the comma.
•
It does not provide a concrete conclusion to the problem of ambiguous
modifiers.

14. Thank You