Chander Gupta
The medium of interpretation is employed when the meaning of a written text is ambiguous and vague. Ancient scriptures and literary poetry are the quintessential examples of texts that are commonly the subject matter of interpretation. Belonging to bygone epoch, ancient texts were composed in scripts which are no longer in vogue. Erudite scholars decipher the knowledge and wisdom hidden in ancient texts. Poetry is also predisposed to interpretations because it is replete with similes, metaphors, symbolism, etc. Poetry, like abstract painting, is judged through interpretations by critics. Laws – though written in modern prose – are also occasionally subjected to the process of interpretation. The authority for interpreting the Constitution and the predicated laws is vested with the Apex Court.
Has the provision for interpretation of the statutes of law been made on the assumption that semantic nuances of legalese are liable to be ambiguous, vague, complex, etc? The elaborate process that framing of laws undergoes should ideally preclude the imperative of interpretation. The proposed laws are drafted by domain experts. Bills are also scrutinised and discussed by committees often. Finally, before a new law is enacted, there is a thorough debate in which all the parties speak for and against it on the floor of the Parliament. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the intent and implications of the bill would have been crystal clear before its passage to become a Law. It therefore appears that laws have been kept amenable to interpretation to deal with infirmities which permeate the drafting despite best efforts. The practice of interpretation has established firmly as a method for defining the law.
The next question is why not to entrust the interpretation of legislations to the legislature itself where laws are framed? The transcripts of all the relevant debates and discussions can be requisitioned from archives for understanding the intent of the concerned law. But referring laws to the legislature would be fraught with risk as the reigning majority of the day might tweak interpretation as expedient to them. It is therefore fair enough that the powers to interpret laws should be in the hands of the Judiciary.
Confusion and ambiguity, which are the hallmark of ordinary day-to-day communications and conversations, should be avoided at all costs while framing the statutes. The meaning of the law texts should be self-evident even to a layman. The interpretations, despite bonafide efforts of the interpreter, will be prone to digression from the original intent. The job of interpretation requires the uncanny skill of reading the mind of the author whom interpreter might not have met, seen or even known. Interpretation is bound to be influenced by the prejudices and biases of the interpreter.
The texts of laws should be inscribed in such a lucid manner that enables both layman and lawman to draw the same conclusion without the need for recourse to the procedure of interpretation.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel