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
2019 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation 2019 Jun 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 2019 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2019 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2019 Jun 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 · 13 questions answered
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'Statute must be read as a whole in its context'. Elucidate.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: meaning of the rule and the maxim ex visceribus actus; why a statute must be read as a whole; what "context" includes (the rest of the Act, other Acts, the mischief and the setting); the leading statement in Peerless; how the rule works in practice: (1) a section read with the other sections (J.K. Cotton Spinning), (2) the main provision read with its proviso and explanation (S. Sundaram Pillai), (3) definitions and headings read in context (P. Kasilingam; Bhinka), (4) the same word read in its context (Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar), (5) the purpose of the whole Act controlling a wide word (Tirath Singh; Abhiram Singh), (6) the non obstante clause read with the enacting part (Aswini Kumar Ghosh); a worked example; a table; limits; conclusion.
Meaning of the rule
The rule says that no word, phrase or section of a statute is to be read in isolation. The court reads it as part of the whole Act and in its full context. The meaning of a provision is found by looking at it together with every other part of the Act. The court also keeps in view the purpose for which the Act was made.
The Latin maxim is ex visceribus actus, which means "from within the Act". The meaning of a provision is to be drawn from the Act as a whole.
Why a statute must be read as a whole
- The Act is one instrument. It is made by one legislature, for one purpose, at one time. Its parts are meant to fit together.
- Words take colour from their surroundings. The same word can mean different things in different settings. Only the context shows which meaning was intended.
- The legislature does not contradict itself. Reading a section alone may produce a clash with another section that a reading of the whole would avoid.
- No provision is useless. Reading the Act as a whole lets the court give effect to every part, rather than making some section a dead letter.
What "context" includes
- The rest of the Act. The title, preamble, definitions, headings, other sections, provisos, explanations and schedules.
- Other statutes on the same subject. Statutes in pari materia are read together.
- The mischief and the setting. The state of the earlier law, the problem the Act was passed to cure, and the conditions of the time.
The leading statement: Peerless
In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1023, the Reserve Bank and the West Bengal Government treated Peerless's long-term savings scheme as a "prize chit". The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978 banned prize chits. Its definition used the word "includes". The Calcutta High Court held the scheme outside the Act, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.
Chinnappa Reddy J. said that interpretation "must depend on the text and the context". In his words, "if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour". A statute is best read when we know why it was enacted. It must then be read "first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word". Reading the definition in context, the Court held that "includes" covered arrangements of the nature of prize chits under other names. It did not widen the meaning of "prize chit".
How the rule works in practice
1. A section is read with the other sections. In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1170, clause 5(a) of a Government Order let an employers' association refer a dispute to a Conciliation Board. Clause 23 forbade an employer to dismiss a workman during a pending inquiry without written permission. Read alone, clause 5(a) seemed to allow a reference in every case. Read with clause 23, it did not apply where an inquiry was pending. Otherwise clause 23 "will be a dead letter". The Court said "to harmonise is not to destroy".
2. The main provision is read with its proviso and explanation. In S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582, a rent law allowed eviction for wilful default. A proviso spared a tenant whose default "was not wilful". An Explanation added in 1973 treated default as wilful if it continued after two months' notice. The Supreme Court read the three together. It held that the Explanation did not destroy the proviso but supplied the test of wilfulness. An Explanation "cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment".
3. Definitions and headings are read in context. In P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1995 SC 1395, "means and includes" in a definition of "college" was held exhaustive, so engineering colleges were outside it. In Bhinka v. Charan Singh, AIR 1959 SC 960, the Court used the heading of section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 to confirm that "possession in accordance with the law" meant "possession with title". Headings "cannot control the plain words" but "may explain ambiguous words".
4. The same word is read in its context. A word is usually given the same meaning throughout an Act. But context can displace that. In Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar v. District Magistrate, Thana, AIR 1957 SC 23, the "grounds" of detention meant one thing in section 3(3) and another in section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950. The Court said the presumption of one meaning "is not of much weight".
5. The purpose of the whole Act controls a wide word. In Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 830, a proviso required notice to a person before he was "named" as guilty of a corrupt practice. Read alone, it covered parties to the election petition. Read with the rest of the section and its purpose, it covered only persons who were not parties, since parties had "every opportunity of taking part in the trial".
In Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, AIR 2017 SC 401, section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 forbade an appeal to vote on the ground of "his religion, race, caste, community or language". By four to three, the Court read "his" purposively. It covered the religion of the candidate, his agent, the person appealing and the elector. The majority read the clause together with provisions enacted at the same time in 1961 to curb communal appeals.
6. The non obstante clause is read with the enacting part. In Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369, the Court said that "it should first be ascertained what the enacting part of the section provides". The non obstante clause does not define the reach of what follows. It only removes obstacles in other laws.
A worked example
A fictitious Shops Act says:
- Section 2: "'employee' means a person employed in a shop for wages".
- Section 7: "Every shop shall remain closed one day a week."
- Section 9: "No employee shall be required to work more than nine hours a day."
- Section 15: "Nothing in sections 9 to 14 applies to members of the employer's family."
A shopkeeper who runs his shop alone argues that section 7 does not apply to him, since he has no employees. Read alone, section 7 says "every shop", so it applies. Read as a whole, the Act shows that section 15 exempts family members only from sections 9 to 14. Section 7 is outside that exemption. So the closing-day rule applies to every shop, including one run by its owner alone. In Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 418, the Supreme Court upheld a similar closing-day rule applied to a shop run by its owner's family. It held the rule a reasonable restriction, since it also prevented evasion.
Summary
| Part of the context | How it helps | Case |
|---|---|---|
| The whole Act | Text read with context | Peerless |
| Other sections | Avoids making a section a dead letter | J.K. Cotton Spinning |
| Proviso and explanation | Read with the main provision | S. Sundaram Pillai |
| Part of the context | How it helps | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Definitions and headings | Fix or explain meaning | P. Kasilingam; Bhinka |
| The same word elsewhere | Usually one meaning, but context prevails | Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar |
| Purpose of the Act | Controls a wide word | Tirath Singh; Abhiram Singh |
| Non obstante clause | Read with the enacting part | Aswini Kumar Ghosh |
Limits
- Context explains words. It does not replace clear words. Where a provision is plain, it is applied even if the court thinks another section points elsewhere.
- The rule does not let the court import words into a section from somewhere else in the Act without good reason.
- Context must be drawn from the Act and its proper setting, not from the judge's own view of policy.
Conclusion. A statute must be read as a whole and in its context. Its parts are made to work together, and words take colour from their surroundings. Peerless states the rule: text and context are both bases of interpretation, and the statute is read "first as a whole and then section by section". The cases apply it to sections, provisos, definitions, headings and repeated words. The rule helps the court find the true meaning, but it never permits rewriting plain 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.