External Aids

They are the Statement of Objects and Reasons when the Bill was presented to Parliament, the reports of the Committee, if any, preceded the Bill, legislative history, other statutes in pari material and legislation in other States which pertain to the same subject matter, persons, things or relations.

The history of legislation, the enactments which are repealed, the parliamentary debates, dictionary commentaries etc. are external aids to construction. It is important to point out here that the legislature adopts the device of making a statute by “reference” and by “incorporation”. When the statute is incorporated in another statue by the legislature, the incorporated statute or statute referred to therein is external aid for interpreting the statute in question. There has been a controversy in India regarding the use of parliamentary debates for interpreting the Constitution. It is now settled that the court can always refer to the debates in the legislature while interpreting the statute to know the intention if there is a doubt about the provision. More often than not, a provision is introduced in the Bill and after some debate either it is altered or modified or amended before finally it receives the assent of the President. Such external aids are helpful in interpreting the law.

Where the Legislature has not chosen to define the expression the court of law have, therefore, to fall back upon other aids for finding the intention of the Legislature; for example by reference to the context and object and purpose of the legislative measure in question. The court may further have resort to dictionaries and judicial interpretation of this award as used in other statutes; but it cannot be denied that these methods are not as satisfactory as a precise and clear legislative definition in the statute itself.

External Aid for interpretation are those which are not contained in the statute but are found else-where. They may be as follows:-

1. Historical background.

In order to arrive at the intention of the legislature, the state of law and judicial decisions antecedent to and at the time the statute was passed are material matters to be considered.

Evidence of matters relating to such surrounding circumstances and historical investigation of which judicial note can be taken by court, including reports of select committees and statements of objects and reasons, can be resorted to for ascertaining such antecedent law and for determining the intention of the legislature.

But the bill and reports of select committee are not legitimate material for arriving at the construction of a statute, that is, for finding the meaning of words.

Parliamentary debates on the floor legislature are also inadmissible, because, the court is concerned only with what the legislature actually said in the statute.

Moreover, plain words in the statute cannot be limited by any considerations of policy.

An erroneous assumption by the legislature as to the state of the law has no effect and would not become a substantive enactment.

In the construction of a statute the worst person to construe it is the person who is responsible for its drafting.

Courts sometimes make a distinction between legislative debates and reports of committees and treat the latter as a more reliable or satisfactory source of assistance.

The speeches made by the members of the House in the course of the debate are not admissible as extrinsic aids to the interpretation of statutory provisions.

It cannot be said that the acceptance or rejection of amendments to a Bill in the course of Parliamentary proceedings forms part of the pre- enactment history of a statute and as such might throw valuable light on the intention of the Legislature when the language used in the statute admitted of more than one interpretation. The reason why a particular amendment was proposed or accepted or rejected is often a matter of controversy and without the speeches bearing upon the motion, it cannot be ascertained with any reasonable degree of certainty. And where the Legislature happens to be bicameral, the second Chamber may or may not have known of such reason when it dealt with the measure.

1. Statement of objects and reasons.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons, seeks only to explain what reasons induced the mover to introduce the bill in the House and what objects he sought to achieve. But those objects and reasons may or may not correspond to the objective which the majority of members had in view when they passed it into law. The Bill may have undergone radical changes during its passage through the House or Houses, and there is no guarantee that the reasons which led to its introduction and the objects thereby sought to be achieved have remained the same throughout till the Bill emerges from the House as an Act of the Legislature, for they do not form part of the Bill and are not voted upon by the members. The Statements of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill should be ruled out as an aid to the construction of a statute.

4. Debates in the Legislature.

The documents and minutes of the legislature are also a very good piece of external aid to understand the will and objective of the legislature. These documents contain the verdict of both opposition and government benches. The question answer session, objections from the opposition side and clarifications and explanations from the government side help the judiciary to understand the spirit of the legislation. 

6. Precedents.

Under this rule, a principle of law which has become settled by a series of decisions is generally binding on the courts and should be followed in similar cases. The rule is based on expediency and public policy. It is however not universally applicable. For example, if grievous wrong may result, a court will not follow the previous decisions which, they are convinced, are erroneous.

While dealing with the provision of Sec. 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakkar in the case of Ramkrishna Bus Transport and Ors v. State of Gujarat and Ors,866 at Para. 43 held that, whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory depends upon intention of the Legislature and not only upon the language in which it is used. The meaning and intention of the Legislature must be treated as decisive and they are to be ascertained not only form the phraseology used but also by considering the nature, design and consequences which would flow from construing it one way or the other. It is also true that in certain circumstances, the expression ‘may’ can be construed as ‘shall’ or vice versa. At the same time, however, it cannot be ignored that  ordinarily ‘may’ should read as ‘may’ which is permissive and not obligatory. For the purpose of giving effect to the clear intention of the legislature, ‘may’ can be read as ‘shall’ or ‘must’.

7. Legal dictionaries.

The meaning of particular words in an Indian statute is to be found not so much in a strict etymological propriety of language nor even in popular sense, as in the subject or occasion on which they used. But it is well known that words are generally used in their ordinary sense and therefore, though dictionaries are not to be taken as authoritative in regard to the meanings of the words used in statutes, they may be consulted.

In Voltas Ltd. v. Rolta India Ltd.,864 the Supreme Court has held