KSLU Solved Question Papers
Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2012 Jan Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation 2012 Jan Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2012 Jan examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2012 Jan examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2012 Jan examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all 5 questions. (2) Figures to the right indicate marks. (3) Answer should be written either in English or in Kannada completely.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Explain any two basic principles of interpretation of statutes.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what interpretation is and why basic principles are needed; Principle 1, the plain meaning of the words (the literal rule): its statement (Sussex Peerage, as adopted in Hansoli Devi; Raghunath Rai Bareja), applications (Nelson Motis; Raghunath Rai Bareja), what it requires (no words added, Nalinakhya Bysack; none dropped, Aswini Kumar Ghosh), its limit (Tirath Singh; Hansoli Devi); Principle 2, the statute read as a whole in its context: its statement (Peerless), applications (Aneeta Hada; K.P. Varghese), what it requires (same word, same meaning, Bhogilal; harmony between provisions, J.K. Cotton), its limit (context cannot override clear words); how the two work together; a table; conclusion.
Why basic principles are needed
Interpretation is the process by which a court finds the meaning of the words of a statute and applies them to a case. Words are often doubtful, and drafters cannot foresee every case. So courts have developed basic principles to guide the search for the legislature's intention. Two of the most important are explained below.
Principle 1: The plain meaning of the words
The statement. The first principle is that the words of a statute are given their plain, natural and ordinary meaning. In Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, (2002) 7 SCC 273, a five-judge Bench said that the rule in the Sussex Peerage case (1844) "still holds the field". Where the words are "precise and unambiguous", nothing more is needed than "to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense". It called it "a cardinal principle". The court must give effect to plain words and not adopt "a hypothetical construction" based on the supposed policy of the Act.
In Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230, Katju J. put it simply: "we should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its language".
Applications.
- In Nelson Motis v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1981, a rule deemed a dismissed government servant to be under suspension after his dismissal was set aside. The Court applied it as written. Clear words "must be construed by giving effect to that meaning, irrespective of consequences".
- In Raghunath Rai Bareja, a bank's decree of 1987 was sent for execution to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. But section 31 of the 1993 Act covered only cases pending when the Tribunal was set up. The Court held that the section was "plain and clear", so "the literal rule applies". Equity favoured the bank, but "dura lex sed lex", the law is hard, but it is the law.
What it requires.
- No words added. In Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar, AIR 1953 SC 148, the Court refused to read an order for possession as a "decree". A court cannot "aid the Legislature's defective phrasing of an Act".
- No words dropped. In Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369, as Hansoli Devi recalled, the Court held that words are not to be brushed aside "as being inapposite surplusage".
Its limit. Where the plain meaning leads to absurdity or injustice that cannot have been intended, the court may modify it. In Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 830, a proviso requiring notice before a person was "named" for a corrupt practice was read as covering only non-parties. In Hansoli Devi itself, a literal reading of a beneficial provision "would cause great injustice", so the Court looked to its purpose.
Principle 2: The statute is read as a whole, in its context
The statement. A provision is never read in isolation. It is read with the rest of the Act, its scheme and its purpose. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1023, the Court said that interpretation depends on the text and the context: "if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour". As the Court later recorded in Aneeta Hada, Peerless laid down that the entire statute must be "first read as a whole, then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word".
Applications.
- In Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661, the question was whether a director could be prosecuted under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 without the company. Reading the section as a whole, the Court gave weight to the words "as well as the company". It held that "arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative".
- In K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam, AIR 1981 SC 1922, the Court read section 52(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 with section 52(1), its marginal note and its place in the section. Read as a whole, section 52 dealt with understatement of price, so section 52(2) applied only where the price was in fact understated.
What it requires.
- Same word, same meaning. In Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 356, the Court said that words "are generally used in the same sense throughout in a statute unless there is something repugnant in the context".
- Harmony between provisions. Where two provisions seem to clash, each is read so that both work. In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1170, the Court applied the rule that "general provisions yield to special provisions" within a single instrument.
Its limit. Context helps to choose between meanings the words can bear. It cannot give the words a meaning they cannot bear.
How the two work together
The two principles are not rivals. The court begins with the plain meaning of the words. But it finds that meaning by reading the words in the setting of the whole Act. Most of the time the two agree. Sometimes a word read alone seems to mean one thing, while the whole Act shows another. The whole Act then decides, provided the words can bear that meaning.
Why these two principles come first
- They respect the legislature. The legislature speaks through the words it enacts, and through the Act as a whole. Starting anywhere else would substitute the judge's view for the legislature's.
- They give certainty. A citizen reading an Act can rely on its words and on the way its parts fit together.
- They frame the other rules. The golden rule, the mischief rule and the aids to interpretation are used only when these two principles leave a real doubt.
A worked example
A Shops Act says in section 3 that "every shop shall remain closed on one day of the week". Section 2 defines "shop" to include an office. Section 9 exempts "shops selling medicines".
- Plain meaning. "Every shop" includes a shop with no employees (Raghunath Rai Bareja).
- The whole Act. Section 2 extends "shop" to offices, and section 9 removes chemists. Read together, an office must close one day a week, but a chemist need not (Peerless).
Summary
| Point | Plain meaning | Read as a whole |
|---|---|---|
| Core idea | Give words their ordinary sense | Read each part with the rest |
| Leading statement | Hansoli Devi; Raghunath Rai Bareja | Peerless |
| Application | Nelson Motis | Aneeta Hada; K.P. Varghese |
| Requires | Nothing added or dropped | Consistency and harmony |
| Limit | Absurdity, injustice (Tirath Singh) | Cannot override clear words |
Conclusion. The first basic principle is that clear words are given their plain meaning, read "as it is" (Hansoli Devi; Raghunath Rai Bareja). It is subject to the golden rule (Tirath Singh). The second is that the statute is read as a whole in its context, "first read as a whole, then section by section" (Peerless; Aneeta Hada). Together they ensure that the court finds the legislature's meaning from all of its words.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 9 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.