Purposive Interpretation and Updating Construction

Purposive interpretation reads the words of a statute in the light of what the statute as a whole is designed to achieve. Grown out of the mischief rule, it is now the dominant approach in India and England. A related idea treats a statute as always speaking, so that its words apply to developments its drafters could not have foreseen.

1. The Purposive Approach

The court identifies the purpose of the statute from its text, scheme and context, and then prefers the reading of the words that best serves that purpose. In Reserve Bank of India v Peerless General Finance (1987), Chinnappa Reddy J said that interpretation must depend on the text and the context, that a statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted, and that the best interpretation makes the textual reading match the contextual.

• Purpose from the whole. The purpose is found in the long title, preamble, scheme, objects and reasons and the mischief remedied (Topics 12, 13)
• Text still governs. The court chooses among meanings the words can bear; it does not substitute words of its own.
• Recognised by the Court. In Shailesh Dhairyawan v Mohan Balkrishna Lulla (2015) the Supreme Court discussed purposive interpretation at length, accepting that the court should give the provision the meaning that best fulfils its purpose.

2. Purposive and Mischief Approaches Compared

Figure 1: From the mischief rule to purposive interpretation

The mischief rule looks back at the defect in the old law and applies where the words are ambiguous. Purposive interpretation looks at the whole design of the statute and reads its text in context from the outset. The first is a historic rule; the second is the general approach that now frames the use of all the other rules.

3. Purposive Interpretation in Indian Courts

Figure 2: Purposive readings by the Supreme Court

• Workmen of American Express (1985). Days actually worked under the employer in s.25B of the Industrial Disputes Act were held to include Sundays and paid holidays; the Court said semantic luxuries are misplaced in interpreting bread and butter statutes (Topic 8)
• Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse (2014). A woman who married a man who concealed his existing marriage was held entitled to maintenance as a wife under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court adopting a purposive reading to advance social justice.
• Abhiram Singh (2017). By majority, a seven-judge Bench read his religion in s.123(3) of the Representation of the People Act purposively, so that appeals to the religion of voters as well as the candidate are corrupt practices, in line with the secular purpose of the provision.

4. The Statute Always Speaks

A statute is presumed to be always speaking: its general words apply to things and circumstances that come into existence after it was enacted, if they fall within the words read in the light of their purpose. This is called updating construction.

• Laxmi Narayan Chopra (1961). The Supreme Court held that a wireless receiving apparatus fell within a telegraph line under the Telegraph Act 1885, observing that in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the legislature's intention to the meaning the words bore when the law was made.
• Praful B. Desai (2003). Evidence recorded by video conferencing was held to be taken in the presence of the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the law being read in step with technology.
• The limit. Updating applies only where the new thing falls within the genus of the words; it cannot extend a statute to a subject of a different kind.

5. Limits of the Purposive Approach

• Words must bear the meaning. Purpose selects among available meanings; it cannot override clear words (Topic 3)
• No judicial legislation. Courts may not fill a casus omissus or supply a remedy Parliament withheld (Topic 11)
• Penal and taxing statutes. Purpose cannot be used to widen liability beyond the words; such statutes are construed strictly (Topics 9, 10)
• Purpose must be the statute's. The purpose is the one disclosed by the statute, not one the judge thinks desirable.

6. Frequently Asked Questions

What is purposive interpretation?

It is an approach in which the court reads the words of a statute in the light of the purpose the statute is designed to achieve, identified from its text, scheme and context. Where the words can bear more than one meaning, the court prefers the one that best advances that purpose.

What is meant by a statute always speaking?

It means that a statute is to be applied to circumstances as they exist when it is applied, not frozen at the date of enactment. General words can cover new technologies and situations that fall within their meaning. In Senior Electric Inspector v Laxmi Narayan Chopra (1961) a wireless apparatus was held to be a telegraph line under an 1885 Act, and in Praful B. Desai (2003) video conferencing satisfied the requirement of the accused's presence.

Can purposive interpretation override clear words?

No. Purpose guides the choice among meanings the words can reasonably bear, but it does not authorise the court to substitute different words or to supply something the legislature deliberately left out. Where the words are clear, the court must apply them.

7. Related Topics

• Topic 5: The Mischief Rule. The historical root of the purposive approach.
• Topic 8: Beneficial Construction. Purpose in welfare legislation.