Transcription
[Praise] [Music] Let's now look at Chapter Three. We have a total of five chapters remaining. Okay? Out of which the IT Act is very short. We are going to look at the Constitution from notes as well, and what will remain is Arbitration and Negotiable. Okay? Now, the Interpretation of Statutes explains how you interpret all the laws, all the acts you have studied. For example, if it is written in the Income Tax Act that a certain tax will be levied on a plant, what will you understand by the word "plant"? Plant and machinery, factory plant, or a tree? You won't understand it as a tree, right? But if the word "plant" is written somewhere in the Environment Act, what will you understand its meaning to be? "Plant" will mean a tree. Okay? Now, how did you do this? Because you have studied so many acts, you will understand what the purpose of the act is. It is talking about imposing tax. The Income Tax Act is talking about imposing tax. So, it won't impose tax on a tree, right? That would be covered under GST. Okay? Now, because we are saying "plant," "plant and machinery" will come along with it. All these things have been clarified by the Interpretation of Statutes. How to read any law, how to understand it, how to derive its meaning, is written in the Interpretation of Statutes. Sometimes, even the person who made the law, who drafted the law, makes mistakes. Why is this written, ma'am? The meaning of this should be like this. Sometimes, you read something and derive a different meaning, and then when I explain the same thing to you, you understand its real meaning, oh, it's saying it in a roundabout way. You would have understood this the most in Company Law so far, and when we studied EBCL, when you were studying Company Law, you know its main purpose, its main objective, is related to the company, how a company should run. So, if you keep reading the entire law keeping this purpose in mind, it will be easy for you. Okay? Now, if a director is being punished for something, a normal human being who doesn't study law might think, why is the director being punished? The company is a separate legal entity. Why is the director being punished? But because the object of Company Law itself is to secure companies, to put companies on a legal path, to give companies a legal structure, therefore, if something goes wrong with it, we will punish the person who runs it. So, all these things are Interpretation of Statutes. Now, Interpretation of Statutes has some rules. Primary rules and secondary rules, just like we studied in the Source of Law. Okay? Now, they have first explained "statute." You tell me, what does "statute" mean? Act, law. Okay? They have given its meaning as the "written will of the legislature." Legislature means law. Normally, it denotes the act enacted by the legislature. Simply, written law means statute. There is no term like "statute" in the Constitution. In the Constitution, there is only the term "law." Law means ordinance, rule, as we studied, custom, everything. Okay? As written here, order by law, regulation, notification, customs, usage, made by the legislature. Now, the meaning of interpretation. It is a process of establishing the true meaning of the words of the law. You all have read a term in many places. "Proviso to the above section." You have read the word "shall" somewhere, "may" somewhere, and "notwithstanding any other provision" somewhere. None of these are defined anywhere in your law, but your teacher explains their meaning to you, saying, children, this is what it means. So, where did the teacher get this knowledge from? Interpretation of Statutes. Good lawyers, when they understand the law and present it in court, they also study Interpretation of Statutes to understand how to interpret a particular line. Okay? So, interpretation means the process of establishing the true meaning of the law. Say it with me. What does interpretation mean? Okay? If a rule is not required. If you understand the law clearly. If it is plain, if it has a straightforward meaning, then there is no need for interpretation. We can see what is written, ma'am. We don't need any understanding from anywhere else. Now, what is its need, children? So that the law is not read in two ways. Everyone should think in the same way. There should be uniformity in the universe, similarity. Therefore, we need interpretation. To have clarity, but this is not always achieved. In certain cases, more than one meaning can be derived from the same word or sentence. The intent of the draftsman, the person who drafts the legal document like the legislature, is not clear from plain reading. In such situations, the judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman, saying, the law is written incorrectly. Now, justice cannot be done for you. He will say, wait, I will look at the Interpretation of Statutes, and then I will tell you the correct meaning of this. Okay? Different laws are read in different ways. Now, when you study Criminal Law, it is written very straightforwardly. If you have committed theft, punishment; if you have committed dacoity, punishment; if you have committed robbery, punishment. Everything is defined in one particular offense. In fact, theft is also covered under robbery. Theft is also covered under extortion. Theft is also covered under dacoity. But still, they have given a straightforward meaning for each. There is no talk of ambiguity anywhere. But if you study Torts, if you study Negotiable Instruments now, there is a bit of a turn and twist because it covers civil law. So, civil law thinks from a broader perspective. Criminal law thinks from a straightforward perspective. Okay? The rules of interpretation, which we will study now, are used only when the intention of the legislature is not clear. When we don't understand what the law is saying, then we have to look at the rules of interpretation. The rules are not binding, but if you have any doubt, you prefer the rules. Now, they have mentioned two types of rules. What is the first one, children? Primary, and what is the second one? Secondary. Now, primary ones can be read easily. The secondary ones are given in a lot of Latin words. Okay? What is given in primary? First, Literal Construction. Then, Reasonable Construction. Then, Mischief Rule, where there is doubt. And then, Harmonious Construction. And finally, Ejusdem Generis. Let's remember the names once. What are they in primary rules? Literal Construction, Reasonable Construction, Mischief Rule, Harmonious Construction, and Ejusdem Generis. Okay? Now, the first one, Literal Construction. Understand it as it is written. Okay? First rule, to read the meaning of the rule. This means that the word written should be taken with its ordinary, dictionary meaning. We don't need to use our brains. Now, you can understand the general meaning like this: in many laws, the word "person" is written, but it is defined above it to include company, AOP (Association of Persons), Body Corporate, individual, partnership, everything. Okay? But the dictionary meaning of "person" is something else, children. So, in this rule, they are saying that whenever you have to do a literal construction of some words, it means you don't need to look for any other meaning. Whatever is written in the dictionary is also the meaning in the law. We have to take its natural meaning. Okay? Now, when is it used? When is it used? Applicability: If the words are clear, the rule will apply. If the language is plain, then we only have to do literal construction. The meaning is unambiguous, meaning only one meaning is possible. Okay? Non-applicability: When will this rule not be applicable? If the words are not clear, then we will have to apply another rule instead of literal construction. Okay? When the language is not plain, the meaning is ambiguous. And the application of literal construction will defeat the purpose of the statute. If we take the dictionary meaning, then the purpose of the statute, for example, the definition of "person," if we take it as per the dictionary, then what will be the purpose of the statute? It will be defeated. We will not be able to understand the law properly. And last, when literal interpretation leads to absurd or irrational results. Meaning, if we take the literal construction of the law as it is, its result might be bad. Okay? Therefore, literal construction will not be used then. What does the principle say? Every word in law should be given meaning, as the law never wastes its words. One should not presume any omission or addition in the statute. If it is literal construction, it means there is no mistake. No word is missed. Whatever is written is in the act, and the court has no power to legislate. Meaning, you have to take the meaning as it is. Is it clear to everyone? This is the first rule. The second rule is to take Reasonable Construction. What is the second rule saying? Reasonable. Meaning, you have to arrive at a construction based on reason. Okay? Now, before we read this, let's look at an example. Meaning, there will be a case law below, children. In this, there is an offense of bigamy. The offense of bigamy means that if a married person goes to get married a second time, it is a punishable offense. Meaning, if they get married a second time, it is a punishable offense. Okay? So, the defendant is a person against whom the suit has been filed. He was charged with the offense of bigamy. Bigamy means a person is already married and then is getting married. But tell me one thing, in our Hindu Law, we have not considered a second marriage as valid, right? In Hindu Law, there is only one marriage. We do not consider a second marriage as valid. Meaning, your first marriage will be valid. Now, you can perform seven rounds around the fire multiple times, second, third, fourth, but that marriage is not valid. Okay? So, now what to do? Will it fall under the offense or not? Now, what does criminal law say, children? That if you have performed one marriage and then performed a second marriage, it is an offense. But civil law says that this is not even valid. So, can he argue that, sir, the second marriage is not valid. You consider it invalid. Why are you punishing me? So, now we have to resort to Reasonable Construction. Okay? Reasonable Construction. Now, understand the purpose of the law. Why is bigamy an offense where it is given as an offense? So that a person does not get married a second time. It will be a loss for that girl, right? How many marriages will he perform? Okay? So, we have to make it a punishable offense. Because in civil law, we do not give punishment, only compensation. If you have performed one marriage and then go to perform a second or third marriage, then we have to give you heavy punishment so that you do not perform a second or third marriage. According to Hindu Law, it is not allowed, and according to civil law, a second marriage is not valid. So, now, when we have to apply the offense to you, we have to come to a reasonable construction of the law. So, here the judgment came that if you are already married and are going to get married a second time, even if you are in the process, if your talks are going on in your mind and a process has also started, even if you have taken one round, you will still be punishable. You will still be punished. So, here, when the judge was struggling between two laws, thinking, what should I do now? I am stuck. He is saying the second marriage is not valid. And this person is saying it is an offense, punish him. So, by resorting to a reasonable construction, he passed this judgment. Is it clear to everyone? Let's read it completely once. "Whoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife, is guilty of an offense." Guilty of an offense. Now, look at the line. If a person who is already married goes to marry someone else while their former husband or wife is alive, we will say that they will be punished. This is a punishable offense. Under literal interpretation, if we go for its literal interpretation, the first rule was, carefully retained, that a person will be punishable only when they go to get married a second time while they are already married. This line simply means this: if you are married once and get married a second time, you will be punished. If you go to get married, you won't be punished. If we go by the literal meaning, it means a second marriage is essential for getting punished under the act. Meaning, it is necessary to get married a second time to commit the offense. If it is in the process of marriage, then nothing. Now, imagine. A girl is married. Her husband is telling her that he is going to get married a second time. If she goes to court and says, he is going to get married a second time. Judge, stop him. Punish him. The judge will say, he has not committed the offense yet. The marriage has not happened yet. No punishment will be given. Why? Because the literal construction is: if the marriage has happened, it is an offense. If he is going to get married, it is not an offense. Understood? So, which construction are we doing? Reasonable. Why? Because we have to understand the purpose of the act, why such offenses are committed. But as civil laws do not recognize the second marriage as valid, the defendant can always take a plea that since the law does not recognize the second marriage as a marriage, he or she is not punishable under the act. It clearly states if a person marries a second time only then he is punishable. Any attempt to marry and circumstances would not be recognized as a valid marriage. Therefore, no offense. If he even attempts to marry, then it is not an offense. This is what came out of literal construction. Look at the judgment. "To go through a marriage ceremony." The marriage has not happened yet. But even if you go through the marriage ceremony, it will be considered as married. So, we derived the meaning of that word to be that if you even try to get married, you will be punishable. Is it clear to everyone? Yes. See, when it comes to law interpretation, it is the responsibility of judges and lawyers to study Interpretation of Statutes. So, which law to take in what way? Now, when we are studying Literal Construction, meaning when the words are clear, plain, then you don't need to resort to reasonable construction. You have to do literal construction. But now let's see when to use Reasonable Construction. When the words are not clear, when the words are not plain. Okay? Now, Rule of Reasonable Construction. Yash, read it. Children, that's what I'm telling you, that if you go by the literal meaning of the law, the literal meaning, it means an attempt is not an offense. Okay? If you have attempted marriage, it is not an offense. If you have married, a second marriage has happened, then it is an offense. That's why I gave the example of that girl. She is alone. She is saying, sir, punish him. He is going to get married. So, what is the judge saying? No, there is no such law. He will not be punished. But, but the judgment actually came. The judgment was for your explanation. Now, actually, the judgment came that even if you attempt to marry or are going through that marriage, you will be punished. Okay? Because he did not change the law. He changed the interpretation. Let's read Reasonable. Yash was reading. Simply, it is written that give importance to the main purpose of the law. If you have any doubt anywhere, why is this written? Why is it written? Because you understand the purpose of the act. When we study the Constitution, the most important thing it says is that the Preamble of the Constitution is its soul. So, the five points in the Preamble continue all the subsequent acts and articles. The meaning of the Preamble is that everyone should be sovereign, everyone should be free, there should be freedom. So, whatever comes next, all the articles derive their purpose from there. So, if there is any doubt anywhere, what should you always read? The Preamble. Okay? Similarly, if there is any doubt in any act, what should you read? Its purpose, that its purpose is that no one should be harmed by such offenses. Now, when is it applicable? When literal construction is absurd. When the application of literal construction fails to achieve the intention or purpose. If we tell that girl, no, no, your husband will not be punished. He is just attempting to get married. He is not getting married. Is that right or wrong? Wrong. She is asking for protection beforehand, right? To stop that person beforehand. So, here we will apply the purpose of the law, not the literal meaning of the law. Non-applicability: When the words are clear, do not come to this. When the words are clear, where to go? To literal meaning. When the words are plain, then literal. When the words are ambiguous, the application of reasonable construction will lead to absurdity or injustice. When the intention of the law is unknown or not clear. Now, if you don't know the intention of the law, then do not resort to reasonable construction. Okay? What does the principle say? The spirit, the soul of the law, write "purpose" here. Give it utmost importance. It does not ignore the chance of faulty drafting, meaning, assume his mistake and leave it. No, if there is a mistake, correct it through Interpretation of Statutes. It's possible they made a mistake, no problem. Okay? Now, let's understand one more case law like this. Okay? What is one more case law saying, children? An act, Probation of Offenders. Bhavika, read the facts. Judgment. Tell me one thing. They are saying that if an offender is below 21 years of age, because they are young, we will send them to a probation center, like rehabilitation. So, they are saying we will send them under an officer, where they will be taken care of so that they do not re-offend. Now, the question arose here. On the day he committed the offense, he was below 21 years old, which is why we were saying, okay, you will go for probation, you won't go to jail. But on the day the sentence was to be passed, it takes six-seven years for a law to come through and a judgment to come. Okay? So, it was six-seven years, and he had turned 21 years old. On the day we had to pass the sentence. So, the judge said that we have to look at the purpose of the act. What is the purpose of the act? That if someone is young, they should not get depressed by going to jail. Therefore, where should we send them? To probation, so that they do not commit such an offense again. But if he is above 21 years old, he has enough understanding, he will sit in jail, and even then he will learn that such things should not be done. So, on the day I am passing the sentence, the judgment said, we will not look at the date of the offense. We will look at the date when I give the jail sentence. On that day, he had become older than 21 years, so he was given jail, and this benefit was not given. Okay? Because we have to read the intention, not the literal meaning. Let's look at the third rule. Mischief Rule. What is the third rule, children? Mischief. Now, if you get a question, "Explain the Golden Rule of Interpretation," what will you have to explain? Reasonable. So, instead of direct questions, they might ask in a roundabout way. Now, like Mischief.
They called the rule the Hades' Rule, the Rule of Beneficial Construction, and Purposive Construction. So, any word can be asked by you. Okay? The rule says, by following the literal meaning, if the purpose is not achieved, the interpretation should be done in such a way that it suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. Just mark this line. Suppress all the unnecessary talk written in the law, and that which advances the remedy. Even the literal meaning is not working, sir. Even the reasonable meaning is not working, because we are not able to understand the intention, and we are not able to take the law in its literal sense. Then where will you reach? In the mischief rule. Where will you come? In the mischief rule. You lessen the mischief and advance the remedy. Let's look at the case law first. There was an act called the Street Offences Act. What is it? Street Offence. Meaning, if any molestation happens to you while walking on the street, it will be covered under this act. Now what happened? There was a prostitute. Okay? What was the prostitute doing? She was molesting people while walking on the street. So, according to the Street Offences Act, it is wrong. You cannot do this. Okay? Now what did she do? She stood on the balcony and was snapping her fingers, calling a man. Okay? That man filed a case against her. This is literally what happened. Okay? That man filed a case against this prostitute, saying that she was molesting him. He was feeling very uncomfortable while passing the street. Every day when I pass the street, I hear noises and molestation from above. Now, according to the Street Offences Act, how did we define "street"? Road. But did we define "balcony"? No. So, that prostitute could escape, right? Saying, "Sir, I was molesting from above, not from below." Here, here, you cannot do it based on intention. So, sir, she was not doing it from there. Okay? We are not able to go by the literal meaning either, because the word "balcony" is not in the definition of "street." So, where will we go? To the mischief rule. We have to lessen the mischief and advance the remedy. So, the judge included "balcony" in the definition of "street." Let's see what is written. A suit was filed against the defendant. Who was the defendant? The prostitute. The aforesaid act restrained the prostitute from soliciting passersby on the street. Now, this act states that you cannot bother anyone passing by the street. With the enactment of the act, the prostitute started soliciting passersby from the window and the balcony. The question arose whether the balcony and window shall be construed as a street or not. The judgment came. Which rule did he apply? The Hedges' Rule, i.e., the Mischief Rule, and he construed the word "street" as it was. There was no law before the enactment of the Street Offender Act. Mischief was not provided for before the enactment of the Street Offence Act. What was the mischief? People were harassed by prostitutes when they walked along the street. Before this, there was no offense. Nor was there any offense that if prostitutes harassed people on the street, they would be jailed. There was no such offense, no such act either. The act provided the remedy that prostitutes were restrained from soliciting passersby on the street. So, the new act that came, the Street Offender Act, yes, the Street Offence Act, we specifically stopped prostitutes from bothering people passing by the street. You don't need to bother them. If they want to come, they will come themselves; you don't need to bother them. The reason for the remedy was to enable people to walk along the street without being harassed by prostitutes. Its meaning was only this, so that anyone could walk freely on the street. So, the court then construed the word "street" and held that it would also cover prostitutes attracting attention from passersby through windows and balconies. Understood by everyone? Where the intention is not understood, and the literal construction is also not understood, which one should we apply? Mischief. There, the mischief, like "balcony" and "window" are not written in "street," is a mischief, a missing element. This should be reduced, and the remedy should be advanced. Because what was the intention of the law? No one should be harassed while walking. So, what did we do to the remedy? Advanced it. There is no need to harass from windows and balconies either. Clear to everyone? Let's go. Applicability: When will it apply? When the words are ambiguous. When words are capable of more than one meaning. Because the girl is saying, "I did it from the balcony, not from the street." An extended meaning is possible, or the literal meaning fails to achieve the purpose of the act. Now, when the words are clear, or ambiguous, or in a physical state, then this does not apply. Factors to be considered: What are the factors to be considered? What was the law before enactment? So, before this, there was no law. What was the mischief for which this law was made? What remedy was provided? What was the remedy, and why the reason for the remedy? What is the reason for that remedy? After considering these, what will you apply? The Mischief Rule. The intention is only this: suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Which is the first rule, children? Literal Construction. The second one, Reasonable Construction, and what is it also called? The Golden Rule. The third one, the Mischief Rule, is also called the Hedges' Rule. Let's go to the fourth rule, the Rule of Harmonious Construction. Rule of Harmonious Construction, meaning if two laws conflict, we have to bring harmony between both. We have to give some effect to both somewhere. So, when does construction apply? When there is a conflict between two laws. Now let's look at an example. There is Section A. Okay? Where it is stated. Now, you must have read in Company Law that you have to file the annual return within 60 days of the AGM. Meaning, MGT-7 has to be filed. When does it have to be filed? 60 days of the AGM. Okay? But then they write a line below in a section. Also, for small companies, the annual return is filed in a simplified way. What happens practically? Big companies file MGT-7. Small companies and OPCs file MGT-7A. It is called a simplified form of the annual return. Okay? So, now they have said that everyone has to file it within 60 days. And below, they have said that small companies have a simplified way. Now, which section should we understand, sir? Is 60 days applicable to them or not? Because we have understood small companies as small companies, and they have to file a simplified return. Now, since you have studied Company Law so much, you are interpreting it yourself: "Ma'am, this means that whether it is a small company or a big company, it has to be filed within 60 days, and only small companies have to file it in a simplified way." You also know this. So, which construction did you apply? Harmonious Construction. Okay? So, it simply means if we read Section A alone, it means all companies have to file the return within 60 days. But if we read Section B, it is only for small companies. They don't need to file. But if we read both together, because they are conflicting, we will read both sections together. So, everyone has to file within 60 days. But small companies have to file in a slightly simplified way. Clear to everyone? As per the doctrine, the court tries to avoid the conflict between the provisions of the statute. The rule believes every provision is made for a purpose, and any interpretation that reduces another provision to a dead letter shall be avoided. Every provision must be given effect; they should not kill each other. Okay? The statute should be read as a whole and interpreted accordingly. Therefore, it is very important to give effect to both. When does it apply? When there is a conflict within a section, or between two or more sections of the same act, or between two or more sections of different acts. Wherever you find a conflict, you will apply harmonious construction. Non-applicability: When does it not apply, children? When there is no conflict, and the entire law is understood together. Now, they have explained some terms to you. You must have read a word, "overriding provision," which has "notwithstanding," and you must have read "subject to provision," meaning exceptions are given below. Okay? So, what is written in "provided that." Now, in overriding, they write, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary." Meaning, whatever is written anywhere in the world, we only have to follow this line, this line written below "notwithstanding." We call this "it has overriding effect over the others." If we write this, and there is a conflict, which one will we choose then? One line says, the return has to be filed within 60 days. Below that, it is written, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary, small companies have to file their return in a simplified form." Now tell me, the one below will override everything. The section for small companies will stand out separately. Because what have we written before it? "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary." Meaning, even if there is any contrary बात, we don't care. What I am saying is that small companies have to follow this. They have to. Understand? Now, there is a conflict between two sections. But there is a line written. What? "Notwithstanding." Meaning, "it has an overriding effect to any other provision." So, no matter what provision comes before it, stands against it, this one will prevail. Because what line is written before it? "Notwithstanding." The provision which overrides the other provision shall prevail over the other provision. The one that has "notwithstanding" will always be above. The provision can override other provisions, or provisions of the same act, the entire act, or any act prevailing in the country. Okay? Now, somewhere it is written "subject to the provision." Okay? A provision which is subject to another provision shall not prevail. It is the exact opposite. It is inconsistent with another provision. A provision can be subject to another provision, or provisions of the same act, the entire act, or any other prevailing act. Meaning, here you have to consider two provisions together. In "notwithstanding," we discard one. In "subject to the provision," we have to consider both the upper and lower ones together. Meaning, if the law is written somewhere, and below it is written "subject to the provision" and one thing, then somewhere it is its exception. So, you have to read the upper one and the lower one as well. Okay? The provision which is subject to another provision shall not prevail over the other provisions. Just the opposite. Which one is this? Harmonious Construction. Here are the steps of harmonious construction. What is your name? Shubhi. Shubhi, please read. Step one: Give full effect to both the conflicting provisions. Because in harmony, what did we read? We have to give effect to both provisions. Next: If full effect is not possible, sir, if one has to be given precedence, then the other provision must be given partial effect. Sanskruti, read the third point. This is unnecessary writing. If step one, step two are not possible, then come to step four. So, they should have just told us step four directly. Okay? What is step four? If "notwithstanding" is written, then that provision will prevail. What is written after that? If "subject to provision" is written, then exceptions will also give precedence to the one above somewhere. After that, our acts, before them, there are also some acts, right? Now, like we are reading the new CrPC, the BNSS, so which one are we giving precedence to? BNSS. What have we done to the old one? Left it. So, the new one has the prevailing act over the earlier one. But if both were made at the same time, then harmony has to be maintained. So, the latest one made has to be given precedence. Okay? The steps are written in a very simple and very poor way. First, they wrote that in conflict, give effect to both. If you cannot give effect to both, then give partial effect. If you cannot give partial effect either, and cannot give effect to both, then directly come to the next step. What is written in the next step? That sir, if there is an overriding effect, then give the override. If it is "subject to provision," then give precedence to the latter one. And if both are from different times, then give precedence to the latest one. And if they are made at the same time, then give effect to both. Okay? This chapter is easy. Now we have come to the fifth rule. Adjus Adjudicatum Generis. What is the fifth rule, children? Adjudicatum Generis. Meaning, if a word is written, then include all the people of its class. Okay? The word means the same class or species. Same class or species. Meaning, if "document" is written, then which document? Sir, only the paper one, sir, the parchment ones used earlier, the printed one, the WhatsApp one, the email one, sir, include everything. Okay? Same class and same species. So, if you have doubt about a particular word, whether it is included or not, then which rule will we apply? Adjudicatum Generis. The meaning of this rule is: when general words follow a particular specific word, the general words should be construed in light of the specific words. In other words, general words following specific words should be interpreted with reference to the specific words and the words preceding them. Where "general" is written, everything is covered, and where "specific" is written, it should also follow the general words. Okay? For example, it is written: If a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, or other motor-powered vehicles, will "vehicles" include airplanes? Will it include? No. So, a specific thing is written, "vehicle." So, we will not include airplanes in "vehicle." But we will include all these: automobiles, trucks, bicycles, buses, and tractors, motorcycles. These will all be included. But airplanes will not be included. Because will they come with general words? No. If I take "vehicle" as a specific word, can we include airplanes in it? Which is another specific word. No. Okay, next is children, Secondary Rules of Interpretation. Okay? These were the primary ones. Which were the primary ones? First, Literal. The second one, Reasonable. What else is it called? Golden Rule. Then the third one, Mischief. In Mischief, which case did we study? The harassment case, the Street Offence case. Okay? After that, Harmonious Construction, and the last one, Adjudicatum Generis. Let's go to the Secondary ones. There are four rules in the Secondary ones. First is Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius. Okay? This is a Latin word. I am telling you, if you remember which word to remember, you will remember. Okay? First, let's see the meaning. Bhavika, please read the meaning. It is just like "notwithstanding." If we have expressly mentioned one thing, then everything else will be excluded. The example they have given you, children, you will come across a section, 196 or 197, Managerial Remuneration. Okay? Managerial Remuneration, meaning, in a company, if there is a Managing Director, a Manager, then his remuneration is as per Section 198. Meaning, your net profit calculation for concluding how much remuneration to give is only and only in this section. Now, in Section 198, it is only written what to add, what to deduct. Only this is written. So, meaning, if you have a net profit, and you deduct depreciation from it, then add it back. But actually, your net profit comes after deducting depreciation. But for managerial remuneration, depreciation is added back. So, can we calculate managerial remuneration in any other way? No. The law has stated it. Meaning, they will call all other things nonsense. Only Section 198 is to be used for the calculation of managerial remuneration. Meaning, only 198 is to be used. If you try to do any other calculation, it will not be considered valid. Okay? So, which section is this? Remember the word "Expressio." It means, "expression of one thing implies exclusion of another." Is there anything else written? No. Non-applicability: When does it not apply? When the application of this rule leads to injustice, or when the language is plain, the meaning is clear, the exclusion was accidental, meaning this rule will not apply. Okay? So, which example did I give you? Net profit will be calculated as per 198, so no other calculation will be accepted. Which word did I teach you in this? Expressio. Expression of one thing excludes all other things. Okay? Now, what is next? Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege. Okay? The meaning of this maxim is: the law should be read in a manner as it would have been read when it was made. On the day it was made, what was the situation of the country? Exactly thinking that, today's law has to be read. Remember the word "Contemporanea." Contemporanea means, the law has to be read today as it was when it was made, with that intention. In modern progressive society, it would be unreasonable to restrict the intention of the legislature to the meaning attributable to the words used at the time the law was made. In other words, the words of a statute must be given the meaning they had at the time of enactment. Let's read its example, Vaishnavi. Manuscript document. Earlier, people used to make contracts on walls. They used to write on walls with stones, and then the contract would be there. Then it would be signed there. Today, you do it on paper. Then, if you become more modern, you can do it on emails. It can also be done electronically. So, now what will the law cover? Electronic, email, printed, written form, manuscript, and that stone one too. Okay? Because we have to read the law in the way it was when it was made. So, what was in practice then? Manuscripts were in practice. Therefore, that will also be included. What is in practice today in modern times? Printed, so that will also be included. Okay? So, what was the first word I taught you, children? I taught you "Expressio," meaning, once something is expressed, then other things are excluded. Then I taught you a word, "Contemporanea." Okay? Its meaning is, as the legislature thought and made it at the time of enactment, you have to derive its intention today in the same way. Then, Noscitur a Sociis. Okay? You have to read Noscitur a Sociis. It is known by its associates. The words in an act should be read in correlation to its companion words. If two or more words are capable of an analogous or parallel meaning or are grouped together, they take color from each other. For example, the plant example was given. The meaning of "plant" can be "plant and machinery." The meaning of "plant" can also be "plant and trees." It also means a sapling. Okay? So, we have to think about it from its association. For example, in the Income Tax Act, what is associated with it? Machinery. So, "machinery" will also be included with "plant." But in the environment, what is associated with it? Trees, etc. Okay? So, we have to include them with it. If the word "plant" is used in the context of "plant and trees," it should be interpreted as: what associated words will come with it? Shrubs, herbs, bushes, grasses, vines, fences, etc. But if "plant" is used in "plant and machinery," it would mean some kind of equipment, like he said, a factory. Clear to everyone? So, the first word was "Expressio," expression.
And the second word was Contemporanea. After that, the third word was Necessiter. It is known by its associates. Now the fourth one is Strict and Liberal Construction. The fourth one is the last one. So you had to remember only three words, not much. Okay? You only had to remember three Latin words. Now what is the last one? Strict and Liberal Construction. Strict, as we saw in Torts. It was strict construction. Strict liability for that thing will definitely come. Whether you are at fault or not. And liberal means we can take it a little easy. So don't confuse literal and liberal. Okay? Let's read strict now. In strict, you yourself understand that it means to take the rigid meaning, and in liberal, become a little flexible. Okay? Let's see the examples. Criminal law is covered under strict. Okay? For example, if theft is punishable with imprisonment, then the judge will not put any flexibility in this. If it is written within three years, then it means any punishment up to three years can be given. A person cannot be punished for cheating under this section unless theft is strictly proved. Okay? If theft has been committed, then only the punishment for theft will apply. The punishment for theft will apply. The punishment for cheating will not apply. If you can prove it, then the punishment for cheating can also be applied. Similarly, tax law. Tax laws also come in a very strict sense for us. And penal statutes, like murder, you cannot stretch murder. Killing a person means killing a person. We will not consider anything flexible here. Sir, he was hit here. He was not hit here. If murder has been committed, then it will be covered in the definition of murder in a strict sense, no matter where he was hit. Liberal comes in. Labor laws, factories are interpreted in favor of workers to ensure safety and welfare. These are not very deep laws. You might have studied a little bit of labor in civil law. You might have studied it. It will come. Okay? Then the Consumer Protection Act regarding services is interpreted broadly to include services like telecom, banking, insurance. So the consumer gets protected. After that, last is constitutional rights. Article 21 in the constitution has a very liberal construction. It means it is very flexible. It can include the right to livelihood, clean environment, dignity, everything. In labor too, whatever needs to be included for the safety of laborers, include it. In consumer too, whatever needs to be included for the protection of the consumer, include it. They are a bit flexible. But in a strict sense, you cannot include things according to your own will. Okay? Take a photo of this once, the examples. Generally, this is not a law because children, this is an explanation of how to read a law. So when there is an act, you have to write it as it is. Now, as I have explained the meaning to you, reasonable construction. Suppose you close the book and I tell you to write. Whatever comes to your mind that a law can be interpreted in a reasonable way, even if some other terminology comes to your mind that it should be read in the simplest form, that will also work. Okay? That's why I made it easier for you. Now if you open the module, it is written in difficult language. There is no sense to learn that kind of language for this chapter. That's why I have made it in very easy language, but you have to mention at least what is written here. Okay? Let's read strict. We have read that it is rigid, and in liberal, it is a bit flexible. They have written it in other words, meaning read it in a strict sense and read it in a more modern and simple sense. They have given an example. For instance, when an act provided punishment for causing a wound by cutting or stabbing, the accused caused a wound by biting. It was not covered under the provision as cutting and stabbing. This means that an act had punishment for stabbing someone or cutting someone. But there is no punishment for biting. So they are saying that we have not covered that. So you have punishment for cutting and stabbing because cutting and stabbing are written in a strict sense. Therefore, if you have bitten, its punishment is not written. So we will not cover it in a strict sense. When the punishment for biting comes separately, then you will be punished for it. Very strict. We cannot make this flexible. Now, liberal construction. Liberal construction is a flexible approach. Generally, labor and welfare laws are dealt with under liberal construction. The primary focus is covered in it. These are the only rules you had to read. Okay? Your next class is probably not there, so give it some time. There is not much left now. Now, children, external and internal aids of interpretation. It says that some things are written internally in the act, so you have to understand them in that way. For example, they have given the title. Title means the heading of your law. Okay? Indian Penal Code so and so here. This is the title of your act. What is written after that? Preamble. Preamble means your purpose. Okay? After that, it is written, Heading and Title of the Chapter. So do you remember? I taught you CPC that there are so many orders. There are 158 sections. 541 orders. How many orders were there? 51, right? 51 orders, 158 sections. So then it came, they have given the heading of each chapter. Your company law, children, has it very well. Chapter one, then chapters within it. Then Chapter two, I will show it to you. One minute. Look here, you can see chapters on the side. So your main heading is The Companies Act. After that, Chapter One is Preliminary, Chapter Two is Incorporation, Chapter Three is Part One relating to Companies, Chapter Four is relating to Share Capital. So wherever rules are also written, they will write it in brackets like this. Chapter Rules, Share Capital, Share Capital and Debenture Rules 2011, and so on. So first came your title, the long title. After that, what came? Preamble. Preamble is your purpose. After that, heading and title of a chapter. Now comes the marginal note. What are marginal notes, children? Sometimes they are given in the constitution. These marginal notes are sometimes given as explanations below. Meaning, a line is drawn, and here there is an explanation of some points. What do we call it? Marginal notes, or they have made notes on the side. They are not always for our reference. But if the meaning of a word is new, if the meaning of a line is not understood, that's why the draftsman has created a marginal note in the law. Okay? Marginal note. The more preferred view is that marginal notes should not be referred to for interpretation. First of all, we have not kept it for interpretation. But if you need another view, if you need another perspective of the law, then you have to read the marginal note. Then your interpretation clause, meaning definition. We have seen definitions in many acts at the beginning. If you want to see the definition of a person in our book, then the definition is given here, which is also in your company law, like look at this Section Two, your definition. So this is your interpretation clause, definition clause. Then comes the proviso, meaning an exception to the provision. After that, illustrations are given in some places. And in IPC, which we read, there are Explanations 1, 2, 3, 4. So there are also explanations. And what was at the end of the Limitation Act? Schedule. So that is also covered under internal aids. Quickly tell me, the question will be direct. Tell me five or six internal aids. So the first internal aid is Title. The second one is Preamble. The third one is Heading and Title of the Chapter. After that, Marginal Note. After that, Interpretation Clause, meaning Definition. After that, Proviso. After that, Illustrations, Explanations, and Schedule. It is explained easily. You can remember it this way. If anyone has any doubt in any internal aid, then we move on to external aids. Then what are your external aids? In external aids, first, what is given? Parliamentary History. So this is our external aid. Why was the bill passed? What must have been decided in Parliament before this law was made? So, this is our external aid to interpretation. For example, in GST, there are debates. The Finance Minister's speech was used to understand why certain exceptions were given. Okay? After that, what is your? Committee Report. So, what is our external aid for the interpretation of law? Committee Report. Committee reports include Law Commission reports. They were used to interpret the provisions of CrPC. Okay? So these are the reports that our law officers, when it was being made in Parliament, some committees. Those who have read the Competition Act, the Competition Act was developed by two committees. One is the Sachar Committee, and the Raghavan Committee. So these people, many big officers, meaning big educators, formed committees saying, "Hey, the Competition Act has been applied internationally, we also need to do it." So these committee reports, they gave reports to Parliament saying, "Here, this law is needed." So this law came from these committee reports. So it has the full report of both those committees, what Sachar Committee said, and what Raghavan Committee said, and then finally a law came, which is the Competition Act. Both told the need for the Competition Act. One said repeal the old act. One said there is a great need for a new law. Okay? So the first one is Parliamentary History. The second one is your Committee Report. The third one is Other Statutes, like the Companies Act and SEBI Act run together. If a company is listed, then we need another act. So for us, the SEBI Act is an external aid. After that, Dictionaries. Dictionaries are external for us. So there are separate dictionaries for law that only define legal words. After that, our Judicial Decisions. Our judgments. Sometimes we interpret through judgments. So judicial decisions are also our external aids. Last is Technology and Social Condition. Sometimes we interpret the law by looking at the current condition. For example, in documents, what was used before? Manuscripts and written documents on walls. Today, printed, email, everything is covered. So we derive interpretations based on current social conditions. Quickly tell me all five or six external aids. What is the first one? Second one, Committee Reports. Third one, Other Statutes. Then Dictionaries. And then Judicial Decisions. After that, Technology and Social. Once, for examples, children, take a picture of this. And I am giving you some homework, do it. This is done for you. Okay? Write the page numbers of your module. Page numbers, you do one thing, write the topic, because the page numbers are different in everyone's book. Legal Terminology. Oh dear, bring the module tomorrow. Yes, all legal terminologies and legal magazines. You just have to read this once. There are many. Yes. Use of May and Shall. Use of And. And the topic below it, meaning Use of May and Shall. From where it is written, Use of May and Shall, read till the end, where it is written Strict Construction of Penal Statutes. Read all these read-only topics once. So just read them once. Tomorrow we will just discuss them. Main Interpretation of Statutes is done. This is the last topic. Meaning, you have to read all the topics in between. Don't say, "Ma'am, you only wrote this and this." You didn't write the rest. So read from there to here. Then you have a separate act. That is the General Clauses Act. We will finish that in class tomorrow. So within the Interpretation Act, you have another act, the General Clauses Act. Okay?