This document provides the course manual for "Interpretation of Statutes and Judicial Process" offered in Semester 1 of 2014. It outlines the following key details: 1. General course information including the course code, credits, instructor, and medium of instruction. 2. The course description outlines that the course will introduce theories of judicial process and canons of statutory interpretation to enable students to understand and apply various rules of interpretation. 3. The course aims to make students aware of the need for statutory interpretation and familiarize them with theories and canons of interpretation. It also aims to develop skills in legislative drafting. 4. Assessment includes a mid-semester exam, legislation drafting exercise, case presentation

1. COURSE MANUAL
Interpretation of Statutes and Judicial Process
Course Instructors:
Raadhika Gupta
Office Hours- TBA
SEMESTER I
2014

2. CONTENTS
1. Part I
a. General Information 1-2
2. Part II
a. Course Description 2
b. Course Aims and Intended Outcomes 3
c. Grading 3
d. Grades 3
e. Online Resources 5
f. Plagiarism 5
3. Part III
a. Keyword Syllabus 5
4. Part IV
a. Lecture Programmes and Reading Materials 5-16

3. 1
PART I
General Information
Information on Interpretation of Statutes and Judicial Process offered by Jindal Global
Law School Semester 1 in 2014.
The information provided herein is by the Course Coordinator. The following information
contains the official record of the details of the course.
Course Title: Interpretation of Statutes and Judicial Process
Course Code: LW 1505
Course Duration: One Semester
No. of Credit Units: 4 credits
Level:
Medium of Instruction: English
Pre-requisites: Nil
Pre-cursors: Nil
Equivalent Courses: Nil
Exclusive Courses: Nil
The above information shall form part of the University database and may be uploaded to
Dspace into the KOHA Library system and catalogued.

4. 2
PART II
A. Course Description
This course introduces students to various theories of judicial process and canons of statutory
interpretation. The aim of the course is to enable students to understand and apply various rules
of interpretation. The course will also engage with various judicial approaches towards the use of
canons of construction and the implications of these approaches.
This course is a cross-cutting one, relevant to the understanding of statutory interpretation and
judicial process in all other law courses. The course also holds relevance for legal practice by
students in future as it aims to improve legal argumentation. Students will learn how to channel
their legal arguments through the use of rules of interpretation, thus learning how to draft good
legal memos as lawyers or write sounds judgments as judges.
The course will also engage with various aspects of legislative drafting. A study of the canons of
construction and their judicial interpretation will reveal how ambiguities in the statute create
difficulties in interpretation. Further, there are inherent limitations of the legislature and the law
making process. Aiming to develop an awareness of these limitations and an understanding of
the rules of interpretation, the course will encourage students to critically think about better ways
of drafting legislative provisions so as to give better guidance to the persons it applies to, law
enforcement officers and judges.
The various theories of judicial process and interpretation will be introduced through the study of
scholarly articles. The cannons of interpretation will be taught through a case based study. The
specific canon will be introduced followed by an examination of cases as examples of the
application of the canon. The emphasis will be on logical reasoning and the ability to apply the
canons to reach a conclusion, instead of the correctness of the conclusion.

5. 3
B. Course Aims and Intended Outcomes
The course seeks to:
1. Make students aware of the need for statutory interpretation given the imprecision of
language and impossibility of anticipating all future events.
2. Introduce students to various theories of interpretation and familiarize them with
positions of scepticism and faith in judicial process.
3. Enable students to understand and apply various canons of statutory interpretation
followed in the common law legal system.
4. Introduce students to alternative rules of interpretation such as the mimansa rules of
interpretation.
5. Introduce students to rules of interpretation under international law.
6. Develop among students the skills involved in legislative drafting.
C. Grading
Mid-semester exam: 20%. To be held in class in the mid-semester week.
Class exercise on legislation drafting: 20%. To be held in class near the end of the semester.
Students must divide themselves in groups of 3 students each for the purpose of this exercise.
Case presentation: 10%. To be held during the last three weeks of the semester. Each student will
select a case involving the use of a canon of construction and make a presentation in class.
End-semester exam: 50%.

6. 4
D. Grades
Letter Grade Grade Value Marks and Grade
Grade Definitions and
Explanation
O
7 70 and above Outstanding
Sound knowledge of the subject
matter, excellent organizational
capacity, ability to synthesize
ideas, rules and principles,
critically analyse existing
materials and originality in
thinking and presentation.
A+ 6 65 to 69.75 Excellent
Sound knowledge of the subject
matter, thorough understanding
of issues; ability to synthesize
ideas, rules and principles and
critical and analytical ability.
A 5 60 to 64.75 Good
Good understanding of the
subject matter, ability to identify
issues and provide balanced
solutions to problems and good
critical and analytical skills.

7. 5
B+ 4 55 to 59.75 Adequate
Adequate knowledge of the
subject matter to go to the next
level of study and reasonable
critical and analytical skills.
B 3 50 to 54.75 Marginal
Limited knowledge of the
subject matter and irrelevant use
of materials and, poor critical
and analytical skills.
F 0.0 Below 50 Failure
Poor comprehension of the
subject matter; poor critical and
analytical skills and marginal
use of the relevant materials.
Will require repeating the
course.
E. Online Resource
Not all resources available online are authentic and reliable. Therefore, caution must be
exercised before citing online resources. Acclaimed newspapers and academic journals are
reliable whereas websites such as Wikipedia are not always reliable. In case of doubt over
whether to rely on a particular online source, please consult with the instructor.
F. Plagarism
Any idea, phrase, sentence or paragraph borrowed from another [source] must be cited. Strict
action will be taken against those who are found lacking in the aforementioned academic
integrity.

8. 6
PART III
Keyword Syllabus
Statutory Interpretation, jurisprudence, cannons of interpretation, literal rule, role of judges,
golden rule, mischief rule, purposive rule, strict rule, liberal rule, harmonious construction,
Ejusdem Generis and Noscitur a sociis, interpretation of treaties, internal aids to interpretation,
external aids to interpretation.
Recommended Books:
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (12th edition 2010, Reprint 2013)
• P. St. J. Langan, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (2006 edition)
• Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation of Statutes (5th
ed. 2010)

9. 7
PART IV
LECTURE PROGRAMMES AND READING MATERIALS1
WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION TO STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Day 1
The Need for Interpretation: The Impossibility of Precision
Andrew Morisson Stumpff, The Law is a Fractal: The Attempt to Anticipate Everything, 44 LOY.
U. CHI. L.J. 649 (Spring 2013)
Exercise: The Case of the Legalistic Child, pg. 14, Some Food for Thought, HOW TO DO
THINGS WITH RULES (William Twinning and David Miers, Cambridge University Press,
2010)
Day 2
When to Interpret
Frederick Schauer, A Critical Guide to Vehicles in the Park, 83 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW
REVIEW 1109 (2008)
WEEKS 2-3: JUDICIAL PROCESS: POSITIONS OF SCEPTICISM AND FAITH
Max Radin, Statutory Interpretation, 43 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 863 (1930).
Ronald Dworkin, “Integrity in Law”, in Law’s Empire (Universal Law Publishing Co)., pp.225-
250
1
Please note that this syllabus is a guide. It is subject to revision as per the needs of the class and the assessment of
the instructor. The students will be given prior notice of the revisions and the revised syllabus will be emailed to the
students.

10. 8
Ronald Dworkin, “Statutes”, in Law’s Empire (Universal Law Publishing Co)., pp.337-353
Upendra Baxi, “The Travails of Stare Decisis in India”, in Legal Change: Essays in honour of
Julius Stone (A.R. Blackshield ed.)
WEEK 4: JUDGES AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Lon L. Fuller, The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, 62 (4), Harvard Law Review (February
1949).
Jane S. Schacter, Metademocracy: The Changing Structure of Legitimacy in Statutory
Interpretation, 108 HARV. L. REV. 593 (1995), pp. 606-608; 611-646
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 234
WEEK 5: PRIMARY RULES OF INTERPRETATION
1. Literal Rule
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 85-113 (12th edition 2010)
Illustrative cases:
• B.N. Mutto v. T.K. Nandi, (1979) 1 SCC 361
• Ramavtar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1325
• M/s. Motipur Zamindary Co. (Private) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 660
• State of West Bengal v. Wasi Ahmed, (1977) 2 SCC 246
2. Golden Rule
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 131- 154 (12th edition 2010)

11. 9
• P. St. J. Langan, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, pages 44-45 (2006 edition)
Illustrative cases:
• Narayanaswami v. Pannersevan, (1972) 3 SCC 717
• S.R. Batra & Anr. v. Smt. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169
3. Mischief Rule and Purposive Interpretation
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 131- 154 (12th edition 2010)
• P. St. J. Langan, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, pages 137-152 (2006 edition)
Illustrative cases:
• Heydon’s case, (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7
• R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628
• Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661
Week 6: SUBSIDIARY RULES OF INTERPRETATION
This part of the course will discuss the various subsidiary rules of interpretation enumerated
below. The recommended reading is: Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation of Statutes, pages 30-236
(5th
ed. 2010). Some of the illustrative cases are also mentioned here.
• Intention of the legislature predominates
• Statute must be read as a whole in its context

12. 10
o Regional Provident Commr., Bombay v. Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co.,
AIR 1962 SC 1536
• Rule of harmonious construction
o Generalia specialibus non derogant (General things do not derogate from the special
things)
o Leges posterioris prioris contrarias abrogant (Later laws abrogate earlier laws which
are inconsistent)
o Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044
• A statute must be construed to make it effective and workable/Presumption of constitutional
validity/Ut res magis valeat quam pereat
o Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 666
o M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallapa, AIR 1961 SC 1107
o Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 661
• Same word to have the same meaning
o Anand Nivas (P) Ltd v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi, AIR 1965 SC 414
• Different words different meaning
o Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
o Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 2 SCC 22
• Noscitur a sociis
o Commrs. v. Savoy Hotel, (1966) 2 All ER 299
o DPP v. Jordan, (1976) 3 All ER 775

13. 11
• Ejusdem generis
o Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. UoI, AIR 1989 SC 1019
o AG v. Brown, (1920) 1 KB 773
WEEK 7: PRESUMPTIONS
This part of the course will discuss the presumptions listed below. The recommended reading is:
Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation of Statutes, pages 237-331 (5th
ed. 2010). Some illustrative cases
are also mentioned below.
• Words in a statute are used precisely and not loosely
o Mayor, Councillors & Burgesses v. T Electric Power Board, AIR 1933 PC 216
• Mens Rea is generally required for a criminal act
o Hari Prasad Rao v. State, AIR 1951 SC 204
o Sarjoo Prasad v. State of UP, AIR 1961 SC 631
o Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881
• Government if affected by a statute
o Union of India v. Jubbi, AIR 1968 SC 360
• Retrospective operation
o Pyare Lal sharma v. Managing Director, J&K Industries Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 1854
o Craxfords (Ramsgate) Ltd v. Williams & Steer Manufacturing Co., [1954] 1 WLR
1130

14. 12
o Anotenelli v. Secretary of State, (1998) 1 All ER 997 (CA)
• Statutes are not intended to be inconsistent with international law
o ADM, Jabalpur v. Shiva Kant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521
• The legislature does not commit mistakes or make omissions
o Nalinakshya v. Shyam Sunder, AIR 1953 SC 148
• Presumptions relating to jurisdiction of courts
o Pyx Granite Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, (1960) AC 260
(HL)
o Barraclough v. Brown, (1895-99) All ER rep 239 (HL)
• Legislature knows the existing law and does not intend to alter it except by express
enactment
o Abdur Rahim v. Abu Mohd. Barkat Ali, AIR 1928 PC 16
• Legislature does not intend what is inconvenient and unreasonable
WEEK 8: INTERNAL AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION
Internal aids:
• Title
• Preamble
• Headings
• Marginal notes
• Punctuation

15. 13
• Illustrations
• Definitions
• Proviso
• Explanation
• Schedule
Recommended reading: G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 155-218 (12th
edition 2010, Reprint 2013)
Subsidiary rules of interpretation of:
• Non obstante clause
o Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A Irani, AIR 1954 SC 596
o PEK Kalliani Amma v. K Devi, AIR 1996 SC 1963
• Legal fiction
o Dargah Committee, Ajmer v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 574
o CIT, Bombay v. Amarchand N. Shroff, AIR 1963 SC 1448
• Mandatory and directory provisions (may and shall)
o TV Usman v. Food Inspector, AIR 1994 SC 1818
• Conjunctive and disjunctive words (or, and)
o Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry, (1974) 2 All
ER 97 (HL)

16. 14
o R v. Oakes, (1959) 2 All ER 92
Recommended reading: G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 364-480 (12th
edition 2010, Reprint 2013)
WEEK 9: EXTERNAL AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION
This part of the course will discuss some of the external aids that may be used to aid
interpretation of a statute as listed below. The recommended reading is: G.P. Singh, Principles of
Statutory Interpretation, pages 219- 355 (12th edition 2010). Some of the illustrative cases are
also mentioned here.
• Parliamentary history
o R v. Allen
o Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2007(6) BomCR 294
• Historical facts and surrounding circumstances
• Later social, political, scientific and economic developments
o R v. R, (1991) 4 All ER 481
• Dictionaries
• Foreign decisions
o MV Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 1014
• Reference to other statutes (Statutes in pari materia)
o Thiru Manickam & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1977 SC 518

17. 15
• Effect of Usage and Practice; Contemporanea Expositio
o N Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 564
WEEK 10: INTERPRETATION OF TAX, PENAL AND REMEDIAL STATUTES
Strict construction: Interpretation of tax statutes
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 809-848 (12th edition 2010,
Reprint 2013)
Illustrative cases:
• State of Punjab v. Jullunder Vegetables Syndicate, AIR 1966 SC 1295
• Atlas Cycles Industries Ltd. v. Haryana State, AIR 1972 SC 121
• CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 1175
Strict construction: Interpretation of PENAL STATUTES
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 865-968 (12th edition 2010,
Reprint 2013)
Illustrative cases:
• M Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 SC 1116
• Fisher v. Bell, (1960) 3 All ER 731
Liberal CONSTRUCTION: INTERPRETATION OF REMEDIAL STATUTES

18. 16
• G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, pages 865-968 (12th edition 2010,
Reprint 2013)
Illustrative cases:
• MCD v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), AIR 2000 SC 1274
• Western India Plywood Ltd v. P Ashokan, AIR 1997 SC 3883
WEEK 11:
Day 1: Introduction to General Clauses Act
Day 2: MIMANSA RULES OF INTERPRETATION
• Justice MARKANDEY KATJU, THE MIMANSA PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION,
(1993) 1 SCC (JOUR) 16
• Justice B.N.Srikrishn, MAXWELL V. MIMANSA, (2004) 6 SCC (JOUR) 49,
HTTP://WWW.EBC-INDIA.COM/LAWYER/ARTICLES/2004V6A5.HTM
WEEK 12: TREATY INTERPRETATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Articles 31-33, Vienna Convention of the Law Treaties (1969)
D J Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 6th
ed., 832-844
WEEK 13: LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING
While discussing concepts in judicial process, the rules of interpretation and internal and
external aids, we will also be thinking about how this knowledge helps us in improving
legislative drafting. This week will enable the students to apply this knowledge in a
legislative drafting exercise. A demonstration exercise will be held before the assessment

19. 17
exercise. Students may refer to the chapter on legislative drafting in Vepa P. Sarathi,
Interpretation of Statutes, pages 702-715 (5th ed. 2010).
WEEKS 14-16: STUDENT CLASS PRESENTATIONS