SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

TOPIC: CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION OF

THE PREAMBLE

Date of Submission: 31th March, 2017

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. Preetham Balakrishnan Lokachari Tejasri
III B.Com LLB (Hons.)
BC0140034

1
 ABSTRACT

A preamble is an amendable, descriptive component of a statute, and it is generally placed after the long
title and before the enacting words and the substantive sections. It is a useful guide to the intention of
the Parliament in that it may detail the mischief to which the Act is directed, it explains the reason,
purpose, object or scope of the Act, and detail facts or values which are relevant to the Act.

Preambles can be seen to have both a contextual and a constructive role in statutory interpretation. The
contextual role is where the preamble assists with confirming the ordinary meaning of the enactments,
and assists with determining if there is any ambiguity in the Act. The constructive role is where the
preamble is effectual in clarifying or modifying the meaning of ambiguous enactments. While there is
substantial consensus on the function of a preamble in relation to the latter role, the contextual role of
a preamble has had the more contested history. It is the contextual role of a preamble which is the
primary concern of this research paper. Differing opinions as to whether such a contextual role existed
earlier in this century particularly in relation to a statute which was not ambiguous need closer
attention. The suggestion that a preamble cannot be referred to at all unless an ambiguity is
independently identified in the statute were not accurately reflecting the accepted state of the law.

2
 INTRODUCTION

In order to evaluate the constitutional significance of the Preamble, it is necessary to begin by examining
the significance of Preambles in ordinary Acts of Parliament. There are also other incentives which
justify a reconsideration of the current and past status of preambles in statutory interpretation. Firstly,
while very few modern statutes have Preambles,1 there is some suggestion that the practice is again
increasing.

A preamble is an amendable, descriptive component of a statute, and it is generally placed after the long
title and before the enacting words and the substantive sections. It is a useful guide to the intention of
the Parliament in that it may detail the mischief to which the Act is directed; explain the reason, purpose,
object or scope of the Act; and detail facts or values which are relevant to the Act.

Preambles can be seen to have both a contextual and a constructive role in statutory interpretation. The
contextual role is where the preamble assists with confirming the ordinary meaning of the enactments,
and assists with determining if there is any ambiguity in the Act. The constructive role is where the
preamble is effectual in clarifying or modifying the meaning of ambiguous enactments. While there is
substantial consensus on the function of a preamble in relation to the latter role, the contextual role of
a preamble has had the more contested history. It is the contextual role of a preamble which is the
primary concern of this article.

1
D C Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (4th ed, 1996) 16; Alastair MacAdam and
Tom Smith, Statutes (3rd ed, 1993) 71.

3
 IMPORTANCE OF PREAMBLE IN INTERPRETATION

The Act starts with a preamble and is generally small. The main objective and purpose of the Act are
found in the Preamble of the Statute. Preamble is the Act in a nutshell.2 It is a preparatory statement.
It contains the recitals showing the reason for enactment of the Act. If the language of the Act is clear
the preamble must be ignored. The preamble is an intrinsic aid in the interpretation of an ambiguous
Act. If any doubts arise from the terms employed by the Legislature, it has always been held a safe
means of collecting the intention to call in aid the ground and cause of making the statute and to have
recourse to the preamble.3

In Kashi Prasad v. State4, the court held that even though the preamble cannot be used to defeat the
enacting clauses of a statute, it can be treated as a key for the interpretation of the statute. In District
Mining Officer and others v Tata Iron & Steel Co. and another5 Supreme Court has observed: It is also
a cardinal principle of construction that external aids are brought in by widening the concept of context
as including not only other enacting provisions of the same statute, but its preamble, the existing state
of law, other statutes in pari materia and the mischief which the statute was intended to remedy.

In Re Kerala Education bill6, the Supreme Court held that the policy and purpose may be deduced from
the long title and the preamble. The Preamble expresses the scope and object of the Act more
comprehensively than the long title. The preamble may recite the grounds and the cause for making a
statute and/or the evil which is sought to be remedied by it. The Preamble like the Long title can
legitimately be used for construing it. However, the preamble cannot override the provisions of the Act.
Only if the Wording of the Act gives rise to doubts as to its proper construction (e.g. where the words
or a phrase has more than one meaning and doubts arise as to which of the two meanings is intended in
the Act) the preamble can and ought to be referred to arrive at the proper construction.

Preamble is considered as a part of statute7 and key source to open the mind of interpreters8. It expresses
the scope and object of the Act in a comprehensive manner.

2
KKHSOU, Kkhsou.in (2017), http://www.kkhsou.in/main/polscience/philosophy.html (last visited Mar 18,
2017).
3
Principles of Interpretation of Statutes | India CA Club, India CA Club (2017),
http://www.indiacaclub.com/principles-of-interpretation-of-statutes/ (last visited Mar 18, 2017).
4
Kashi Prasad Rajgarhia v. State Of Bihar, The-laws.com (2017), http://www.the-
laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=717791570000 (last visited Mar 18, 2017).
5
District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron And Steel Co, The-laws.com (2017), http://www.the-
laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=001002640100 (last visited Mar 18, 2017).
6
Research, Story of 1957 Education Bill in Kerala Slideshare.net (2017),
https://www.slideshare.net/cppr123/education-bill-1957-24014348 (last visited Mar 18, 2017).
7
M.K. Venkatarama Iyer, Contribution of Bharati Tirtha and Vidyaranya to Development of Advaitic
8
In Re: The Berubari Union Case, AIR 1960 SC 845

4
 PREAMBLE A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT? (FAMOUS DEBATE)

The constitution of India was framed by a Constituent Assembly. This Assembly was an indirectly
elected body. It had laid down certain ideals to be included in the Constitution. These ideals included
commitment to democracy, guarantee to all people of India- Justice, Equality and Freedom. It had also
proclaimed that India will be a Sovereign Democratic Republic. The Constitution of India begins with
a Preamble. The Preamble contains the ideals, objectives and basic principles of the Constitution. The
salient features of the Constitution have evolved directly and indirectly from these objectives which
flow from the Preamble.
Imagine reading a beautifully written book without an introduction or preface or say without an
Index, obviously it would create a mess or ambiguity in the mind of a reader who would pick up that
book for the first time. Similarly, the Preamble to a Constitution embodies the fundamental values and
the philosophy, on which the Constitution is based, and the aims and objectives, which the founding
fathers of the Constitution enjoined the polity to strive to achieve. The importance and utility of the
Preamble has been pointed out in several decisions of the Supreme Court of India.
The preamble to an Act sets out the main objectives which the legislation is intended to achieve 9. It is
a sort of introduction to the statute and many a times very helpful to understand the policy and legislative
intent. It expresses what we had thought or dreamt for so long.10It embodies in a solemn form all the
ideas and aspirations for which the country had struggled during the British
Regime.11
Preamble being unenforceable in the court of law, but it successfully brings out and states the objects
which Constitution seeks to establish and promote and also aids the legal interpretation wherever
ambiguousness tend to appear.
Combining the ideals of political, social and economic democracy with that of equality and fraternity,
the Preamble seeks to establish what Mahatma Gandhi described as The India of my dreams, namely -
An India, in which the poorest shall feel that it is their country in
whose making an effective voice? an India in which all
communities shall live in perfect harmony.
The preamble serves the following points:-
1. It indicates the sources from where the constitution has com viz. the people of India.
2. It contains the enacting clause which brings into force the constitution.
3. It declares the freedoms which the people of India intended to secure it all citizens and the basic type
of government and polity which was to be established.

9
Subba Rao. C.J., in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
10
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami- Constituent Assembly Debates. Vol 10, 417.
11
Shelat and Grover, JJ., in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

5
The Preamble is the key to open the mind of the makers. But it does not mean that the Preamble can
override the express provisions of the Act. In Berubaris case12 the Supreme Court held that the
Preamble was not a part of the Constitution and therefore it could never be regarded as a source of any
substantive powers. Such powers are expressly granted in the body of Constitution. What is true about
the powers is equally true about the prohibitions. It has limited application and can be resorted to where
there is any ambiguity in the statute. If the terms used in the Constitution are ambiguous or capable of
two meanings in interpreting them some assistance may be taken from the objectives enshrined in the
Constitution and the construction which fits the Preamble may be preferred.
But in Kesavananda Bharatis case,13 the Supreme Court rejected the above view and held that the
Preamble is the part of Constitution. Though in any ordinary statute not much importance is attached to
the Preamble, all importance has to be attached to the Preamble in a Constitution Statute. Silri, C.J.,
observed, no authority has been referred before us to establish the propositions that what is true about
the powers is equally true about the prohibitions and limitations. Even from the Preamble limitations
have been derived in some cases. It seems to me that the Preamble of our Constitution is of extreme
importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision
expressed in the Preamble.
In fact, the Preamble was relied on in imposing implied limitations on the amending power of
Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution. In that case it was held that the basic elements in
the Preamble cannot be amended under Article 368 of Constitution. In Randhir Singh v Union of India14
the Supreme Court relying on the Preamble and Article 14 and 16 held that Article 39(a) envisages a
constitutional right of equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
A Preamble indicates only the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the
Constitution. It cannot be regarded and has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power
conferred on the Government or any of its departments. Although, it is permissible to look at the
Preamble for understanding the import of various clauses contained in the bill, full effect should be
given to the express provisions of the bill, even though they appear to go beyond the terms of Preamble.
Where the language of the Act is clear, Preamble shall be dis-regarded. Where the object or meaning of
an enactment is vague or unclear the Preamble must be resorted to explain it. It has been rather rightly
put up in the case of Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union Of India15 that, where very general language is
used in an enactment, which, it is clear, must be intended to have a limited application, the Preamble
must be used to indicate to what particular instances the enactment is intended to apply. However, it
can never be a source of Power. A Preamble provides significant help in the interpretation of the
Constitution when words actually are ambiguous. Under such circumstances it is the key to open the

12
(2017), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-study-berubari-union-others-vs-unknown-14-march-1960-
trishna-roy (last visited Mar 31, 2017).
13
Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
14
AIR 1982 SC 879: (1982) 1 SCC 618.
15
AIR 1961 SC 954.

6
minds of the makers of the Act. But if the language of the Article is sufficiently clear, it is not to be
interpreted in the light of the Preamble in preference to the obvious meaning thereof. The objectives in
the Preamble are just a part of basic structure of the Constitution and nothing more than that. So,
Preamble cannot be amended so as to destroy the objectives, but also cannot be used as a law to judge
people on.

7
 CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION MEANING AND ITS RELEVANCE TO
PREAMBLE

To interpret a statute is to find the proper meaning so that it may be applied to a particular case. The
first canon of interpretation that if a statute is plain and explicit it needs no interpretation is
meaningless, one can hardly ever say that a statute is plain and explicit until it has been subjected to the
traditional techniques and processes of interpretation. Little or nothing can be done about interpreting
a statute apart from the facts of the case to which the statute is to be applied, for issues as to statutory
meaning cannot be framed in any other way. Truly, there may be an obvious meaning, and no other
may be apparent even after careful reading of the statute; but to stop there is only to solve the problem
of interpretation by avoiding it. Merely to find that a given case comes clearly within the obvious
meaning of a statute is plain and explicit. Very often the obvious meaning is the correct one, but until
one can say that it is the only sensible meaning, the statute has not been fully interpreted. At this point
in the process the context must be studied so as to be sure there is no other equally justifiable meaning
that the text will bear by fair use of language. Moreover, if the obvious meaning is not in accord with
the meanings of other parts of the statute and with the subject-matter and purpose or reason of the
statute, it is no longer persuasive. A statute is therefore only tentatively plain and explicit until the
necessary interpretative techniques have been applied and a critical analysis of the meanings of all other
parts of the statute or of other statutes in pari materia or of relevant common law doctrines confirm the
obvious meaning so chosen. Hence, every statute must be in the light of 1) the subject-matter with which
it deals; 2) the reason or purpose behind its enactment as found in the text and the evil towards which
it was directed (including here extrinsic aids and the common law); 3) the meanings of the several other
relevant parts of the same statute or of statutes in pari materia. Likewise, the obvious is not the correct
one unless it is sensible. If, then, the literal or obvious meaning is sensible and fulfils these several
demands, any other conflicting meaning (contextual or otherwise) not meeting these essentials cannot
be regarded as the proper one. Thus the obvious or primary meaning the one which is first gleaned by
reading the statute in the light of the case to which it is to be applied may not accord with the subject-
matter, purpose or other parts of the statutes. If it does not, it is clearly inferior to any other meaning,
contextual or otherwise, that does actually meet these tests, provided the latter is a meaning that the
statute will justifiably bear by a fair use of language.16

It is one of the cardinal principles of the interpretation of statutes that, where the language is plain and
unambiguous, and admits of but one meaning, the courts must give effect to it according to its plain
meaning. Courts are not justified in departing from such text even though serious anomalies result or
what the court conceives to have been the intention of the legislature, is not carried out. It is, however

16
Frederick J. De Sloovere, Contextual Interpretation of Statute, 5 Fordham Law Review 22 (1936).

8
equally well-settled that the meaning of the words used in any portion of the statute must depend upon
the context in which they are placed. Moreover, in interpreting an enactment, all its parts must be
constructed together as forming one whole and it is not in accordance with sound principles of
construction to consider one section, or group of sections, divorced from the rest of the statute. Further,
so far as possible, that construction must be placed upon words used in any part of the statute which
makes them consistent with remaining provisions and with the intention of the legislature to be derived
from a consideration of the enactment. The words may be given a wider or more restricted meaning
than they ordinarily bear, if the context requires it.17 In constructing a particular section of an Act, one
must look at the whole Act, and it is necessary to consider the context in which such section occurs. 18
When words in different sections of the same statute, enacted for similar purpose, are susceptible of a
possibly different construction, one which is approved by considerations derived from the policy of the
law has to be adopted.19

The contextual role of a preamble in statutory interpretation relates to the manner in which, as part of
the context of a whole Act, a preamble may assist in confirming the ordinary meaning of enactments,
or indeed, be suggestive of alternative meanings which are consistent with the intentions of the
legislature.

17
Gurcharn Lal v Shiv Narain AIR 1948 Oudh 162.
18
Muthammal v Secy of State 19 IC 68 (Mad): (1913) 24 MLJ 405.
19
Abdul Latif v Jawahar State AIR 1940 Bom 172, p 177, (1940) ILR Bom 225.

9
CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION OF PREAMBLE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

AUSTRALIA
Recent judicial comment in Australia has clarified the significance of a preamble as part of the context
of a whole Act.20 However, differing opinions as to whether such a contextual role existed earlier in this
century particularly in relation to a statute which was not ambiguous need closer attention. There
is evidence to suggest that the proponents of what they call the no recourse rule (the suggestion that a
preamble cannot be referred to at all unless an ambiguity is independently identified in the statute) were
not accurately reflecting the accepted state of the law.
The current state of the law is definitively expressed by the House of Lords in A-G v Prince Ernest
Augustus of Hanover,21 and is mentioned by Mason J in the High Court case of Wacando v
Commonwealth.22 It is further clarified by the amendments to most Acts Interpretation Acts in the 1980s
and subsequent High Court precedents23 providing for purposive approaches to statutory interpretation.
These authorities all support the idea that the preamble may be surveyed as part of the wider context of
a statute when determining the meaning of any section. They also suggest that the preamble, as part of
the context, may be used for checking to see if an ambiguity is present.24 Likewise, Bennion suggests
that it is unsafe to construe the enactment without reference to the preamble.25 In contrast, various
commentators in the past have suggested that in the absence of an ambiguity, a preamble does not have
a contextual role. It is contended in this paper that such a position is no longer the case, and there is
strong evidence to suggest that it never was the legal position.
The contextual role of the preamble in assisting with the ordinary meaning of the enactments, and in
clarifying if the Act is clear or ambiguous, is consistent with current interpretation legislation passed
by most Australian Parliaments. The 1981 amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) requires
that a purposive approach to statutory interpretation be preferred by courts.

20
R v Pierce [1814] EngR 477; (1814) 3 M & S 62; 105 ER 534, 536 (Lord Ellenborough CJ); A-G v Prince
Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436, 474 (Lord Somervell).
21
[1957] AC 436, 463 (Viscount Simonds); 4658 (Lord Normand)
22
[1981] HCA 60; (1981) 148 CLR 1, 23.
23
Saraswati v The Queen [1991] HCA 21; (1991) 172 CLR 1; CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club
Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384.
24
Butterworths, Halsburys Laws of Australia, vol 24 (at 29 March 1999) Statutes, 2 Interpretation and
Construction [385-160].
25
F A R Bennion, Statutory Interpretation: A Code (2nd ed, 1992) 483. The preamble is part of the Act: A-G v
Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436, 467 (Lord Normand); but does not itself have substantive
law-making power: 475 (Lord Somervell).

10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
U.S. Supreme Court: "We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point
for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative
intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive."26 "In interpreting a
statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all othersCourts must presume that a
legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there."27 Indeed, "when
the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is
complete.'"28
In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is
used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.

26
Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al., 447 U.S. 102 (1980).
27
Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992).
28
503 U.S. 249, 254.

11
 CONCLUSION

Preambles have a contextual as well as a constructive role in statutory interpretation. Preambles are part
of the wider context of a statute, and should be referred to during the initial reading of an Act as a whole.
The preamble may, in that role, confirm the plain and ordinary meaning of the words, or it may in fact
raise or confirm alternative constructions which suggest an ambiguity in the substantive sections. An
Act cannot be said to have a clear meaning until it has been read through as a whole document, including
the preamble if one exists. However, the interpretation of an Act will not automatically be affected just
because an alternative meaning (thus an ambiguity) is raised through reference to the preamble. To
restrain or enlarge the enactments, the enactment must be able to bear the alternative meaning, and there
must be a compelling indication that the preamble is the most accurate guide to the intention of the
legislature regarding the meaning of the substantive words.

While the contextual role of a preamble is consistent with English common law and recent High Court
and Supreme Court precedents, the past existence of a contextual role for a preamble has been contested
by those who advocate the rule that a preamble cannot be referred to if there is no ambiguity.

Historically, preambles have been used by the courts, not only to aid the interpretation of ambiguous
sections and to assist in determining the mischief to be remedied by the Act, but also to determine the
intentions of Parliament, as context for clarifying the possible meaning of substantive sections, and as
a guide for when to limit general substantive provisions. Suggestions that the preamble could not be
referred to without an ambiguity in the Act seem to lack strong authority. Taking into account the
differences between ordinary statutes and constitutions, it must also be clarified if the preamble to the
Commonwealth Constitution may or must be considered as part of the context when interpreting a
substantive provision which on its face is unambiguous.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:
1) NS Bindras, Interpretation of Statutes, (LexisNexis, 10th Edition, p. 53).
2) Justice G.P Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, (LexisNexis, 12th Edition, 2010, p.
158-166).
3) D.P Mittal, Interpretation of Statutes, (Taxmanns, 2nd Edition, p. 628-763).
4) Avtar Singh and Harpreet Kaur, Introduction to Interpretation of Statutes, (LexisNexis, 4th
Edition, p. 77).
ARTICLES:
1) Abhinav Gaur, Is Preamble a Part of Constitution, (Symbiosis Law School, Noida).
2) Anne Winckel, The Contextual Role of a Preamble in Statutory Interpretation, (Melbourne
University Law Review, 184, 1999).
3) Anne Twomey, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians in a Preamble,
(University of Sydney Law School, Report No 2, 2011).
4) Mohit Agarwal and Romit Agarwal, Preamble: A Part of the Constitution or Not, (Gujarat
National Law University)
5) Katharine Clark and Matthew Connolly, A Guide to Reading and Applying Statutes, (The
Writing Center, April 2006, GULC).

13
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation Of Statutes, 5th Edition, Eastern Book Company, Chapter IV,
Page No. 265 (Internal Aids)
The present attitude of the courts is that with respect to a) Preamble b) Title (long) c) Headings
d) marginal notes e) Punctuations and brackets f) Illustrations g) Explanations h) Schedules,
these items can be looked into only if there is a doubt about the scope of a particular provision
of an enactment, but not otherwise. According to the Mischief Rule which I am advocating as
the only rule of interpretation all these items have to be looked into always in order to get a
precise idea of the enactment, provisions or words and phrases and then given that meaning
that fits the context and achieves that object. I thought therefore it is necessary to burden the
book with various cases under these items and omitted them in this edition.

2. Avtar Singh and Harpreet Kaur, Introduction to Interpretation of Statutes, 4 th Edition,

LexisNexis, Chapter II (Internal Aids), Page No. 77 (Preamble)
Like the long title of a statute, the preamble of a statute is also a part of the Act and is an
admissible aid to construction. It is not an enacting part, but, it is expected to express the scope,
object and purpose of the Act more comprehensively than the long title.
The role of preamble in interpretation cannot be curtailed or restricted. Preamble can be an aid
in construing a provision when the provision is ambiguous. It can afford useful assistance to
ascertain legislative intention, but, cannot control otherwise the plain meaning of a provision.

3. Justice GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edition, LexisNexis, Chapter III
(Internal Aids to Construction), Page No. 174 (Preamble)
If any doubt arise from the terms employed by the Legislature, it has always been held safe
means of collecting the intention to call in aid the ground and cause of making the statute, and
to have recourse to the preamble, which is a key to open the minds of the makers of the Act,
and the mischiefs which they intended to redress.

4. D.P. Mittal, Interpretation Of Statutes, 2nd Edition, Taxmanns, Para 6.2B (Interpretation of
Words Contextual), Page No. 628
Words are meant to serve and not to govern Plain words are delusion. Since the words must
have spoken as clearly to legislators as to judges, it may be safely presumed that the Legislature
intended what the words plainly say. This is the real basis of the so-called literal rule of

14
 construction that where the words of statutes are plain and unambiguous, effect must be given
to them.
A preamble to a statute is a preliminary statement of the reasons which have made the passing
of the statute desirable, and its position is immediately after the title. It may also be used to
introduce a particular section or a chapter. The policy and purpose of a given measure may be
deduced from the title of the Act and the preamble thereof. Preamble is the key to the
understanding of a statute. The preamble of a statute is a good means of finding out its meaning.

5. N.S Bindra, Interpretation Of Statutes, 11th Edition, LexisNexis, Page No. 198
Preamble precedes the words of enactment, and is in the nature of a recital of the facts operative
in the mind of the law given in proceeding to enact. It is one of the cardinal principles of
construction that where the language of an Act is clear, the preamble must be disregarded
though, where the object or meaning of an enactment is not clear, the preamble may be resorted
to, to explain it. Again, where general language is used in an enactment which, it is clear, must
be intended to have a limited application, the preamble may be used to indicate to what
particular instance the enactment is intended to apply.

6. P. M. Bakshi, Interpretation of Statute, Page No. 53

Textual and contextual interpretation It is well settled that the Court should examine every
word of a statute in its context and to use the context in its widest sense.

7. Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC
1023:(1987) 1 SCC 424
It is observed that interpretation is the best which makes the textual interpretation match the
context. In this case, Chinnapa Reddy, J., nothing the importance of the context in which every
word is used in the matter of interpretation of statutes held thus:
Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the basis of interpretation.
One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be
ignored. Both are important. The interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation
match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this
knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by
clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at in the context of its
enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the
sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute
is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the
Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant
and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statue and no word

15
of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has
a place and everything is in its place.

16