purposive construction of a statute

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9828 OF 2013

D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND

MANAGEMENT SOCIETY & ORS.                    …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC 

INSTRUCTIONS & ORS.                              …RESPONDENT(S)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9844­9845 OF 2013

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9846­9857 OF 2013

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9860 OF 2013

20.     The principle of purposive construction of a statute is a wellrecognised   principle   which   has   been   incorporated   in   our

jurisprudence.   While giving a purposive interpretation, a court is

required to place itself in the chair of the Legislature or author of the

statute.   The provision should be construed in such a manner to

ensure   that   the   object   of   the   Act   is   fulfilled.     Obviously,   if   the

language of the Act is clear then the language has to be followed, and

the court cannot give its own interpretation.  However, if the language

admits of two meanings then the court can refer to the Objects and

Reasons, and find out the true meaning of the provisions as intended

by the authors of the enactment.  Justice S.B. Sinha in New India

Assurance Company Ltd.  v.  Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr.5

 held

as follows:­

“51. …to interpret a statute in a reasonable manner, the court must

place itself in the chair of reasonable legislator/author.  So done, the

rules of purposive construction have to be resorted to which would

require the construction of the Act in such a manner so as to see

that the object of the Act is fulfilled; which in turn would lead the

beneficiary under the statutory scheme to fulfil its constitutional

obligations as held by the court inter alia in Ashoka Marketing Ltd.”

Justice   Sinha   quoted   with   approval   the   following   passage   from

Barak’s treatise on Purposive Interpretation in Law,6

 which reads as

follows:­

“52. …Hart and Sachs also appear to treat ‘purpose’ as a subjective

concept.  I say ‘appear’ because, although Hart and Sachs claim that

the interpreter should imagine himself or herself in the legislator’s

shoes,   they   introduce   two   elements   of   objectivity:   First,   the

interpreter   should   assume   that   the   legislature   is   composed   of

reasonable   people   seeking   to   achieve   reasonable   goals   in   a

reasonable manner; and second, the interpreter should accept the

non­rebuttable  presumption  that   members   of  the  legislative   body

sought   to   fulfil   their   constitutional   duties   in   good   faith.     This

formulation allows the interpreter to inquire not into the subjective

intent of the author, but rather the intent the author would have

had, had he or she acted reasonably.”

21.        Justice M.B. Lokur speaking for the majority in  Abhiram

Singh  v.   C.D.  Commachen   (Dead)   by   L.Rs.   and   Ors.

  held as

follows:­

“39.   …Ordinarily,   if   a   statute   is   well   drafted   and   debated   in

Parliament there is little or no need to adopt any interpretation other

than a literal interpretation of the statute.   However, in a welfare

State like ours, what is intended for the benefit of the people is not

fully   reflected   in   the   text   of   a   statute.     In   such   legislations,   a

pragmatic   view   is   required   to   be   taken   and   the   law   interpreted

purposefully   and   realistically   so   that   the   benefit   reaches   the

masses...”