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
2021 Mar Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation 2021 Mar 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 2021 Mar examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2021 Mar examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2021 Mar 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 80 · 20 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
(a)The duty of judicature is to act upon the true intention of the legislature. Explain.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: meaning of interpretation and of "intention of the legislature"; why intention is the object; intention is found first in the words, read in context (Peerless); purpose and mischief (Kanwar Singh, Sodra Devi); the court's duty, and its limits (Magor and St. Mellons, Seaford Court, the split in Abhiram Singh); the aids used; criticism that "intention" is a fiction; conclusion.
Meaning
Interpretation is the process by which a court finds the true meaning of the words of a statute. The statement in the question says that the object of this process is to find the intention of the legislature. The court does not ask what it thinks the law should be. It asks what the law-maker meant by the words it enacted.
The rule is often put as the duty of the judicature to act upon the true intention of the legislature. It is called the "cardinal rule" of interpretation, and every other rule serves it.
Why intention is the object
- Separation of powers. The legislature makes law and the courts apply it. If judges substituted their own views, they would be legislating.
- Democratic authority. The intention to be found is that of the elected body that passed the Act.
- Consistency. All the rules of interpretation (literal, golden, mischief, harmonious) are different routes to the same goal.
Intention is found in the words
The intention of the legislature is not a fact to be found in the minds of individual members. It is the meaning of the words the legislature actually used. So the first step is always to read the words in their ordinary sense. Where they are clear, they are themselves the best evidence of intention.
But words are read in context, not in isolation. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1023, the question was whether a savings scheme was a "prize chit" under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978. The Court said "Interpretation must depend on the text and the context". It added that "if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour". It read the definition in the light of the expert study groups that preceded the Act.
Intention is found in the purpose
Where the words are doubtful, the court looks at the purpose of the Act and the mischief it was meant to cure.
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 SC 871, concerned section 418(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, which allowed "abandoned" cattle to be impounded. The accused, who had attacked an impounding party, said cattle with owners were not abandoned. The Supreme Court held that "abandoned" here meant "let loose" or "left unattended", not "ownerless". It said it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the legislature. A literal meaning that defeats the object may be departed from.
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal v. Sodra Devi, AIR 1957 SC 832, shows the same search. The majority found the word "individual" in section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act 1922 ambiguous. It looked at the Income-Tax Enquiry Report of 1936 and the Statement of Objects and Reasons. These showed the mischief was husbands and fathers using nominal partnerships with their wives and children. So "individual" meant only a male.
The limits of the search
The search for intention does not permit the court to rewrite the Act.
- No gap-filling. In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, (1949) 2 All ER 155, Denning L.J. said a judge "must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases". In Magor and St. Mellons v. Newport Corporation, (1951) 2 All ER 839, the House of Lords disapproved his wider gap-filling remarks. The Indian Supreme Court noted both in Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, AIR 1994 SC 1775.
- Purpose cannot override plain words. In Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, AIR 2017 SC 401, the majority read "his religion" in section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 purposively. The dissenting judges held that imperfections "cannot be attended to by an exercise of judicial redrafting of a legislative provision". The case shows where the line is drawn.
Aids used to find intention
| Kind | Examples |
|---|---|
| Internal | Long title, preamble, definitions, headings, provisos, explanations |
| External | Statement of Objects and Reasons, committee and Law Commission reports, earlier and later statutes, dictionaries |
| Rules | Literal, golden, mischief and harmonious construction; maxims such as ejusdem generis |
Criticism
Some writers say the "intention of the legislature" is a fiction. A legislature has hundreds of members, many of whom never read the Bill. The reply is that the phrase means the objective meaning of the enacted words, read in context and with their purpose. It does not mean the private wishes of members.
Conclusion. Interpretation is the search for the intention of the legislature, which is the cardinal rule all other rules serve. That intention is found first in the words, read in their context (Peerless). Where the words are doubtful, it is found in the purpose and the mischief (Kanwar Singh; Sodra Devi). The court must give effect to that intention but may not rewrite the statute. Magor and St. Mellons and the dissent in Abhiram Singh show this limit.
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.