DOCTRINE OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

One of the method of interpretation of statute is ‘purposive construction’ of the enactment which gives effect to the legislative purpose/intendment, if necessary must be followed and applied.

The doctrine of purposive construction is well accepted. It has been applied in India by the Supreme Court following the English law on the subject.  Lord Smith in ‘R.(Haw) V. Secretary of State for the Home Department’ - (2006) 3 All ER 428 observed that a purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by-

• Following the lieral meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this code called a purposive and literal construction); or
• Applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the code called a purposive and strained construction).

The Supreme Court quoted the passage from Bennion - “I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language used would lead to results which would clearly defeat the purposes of the Act. But in doing so the task on which a court of justice is engaged remains one of construction, even where this involves reading into the Act words which are not expressly included in it.

The case law “kammins Ballromm Co. Limited V. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Limited’ - (1971) AC 850) provides instance of this; but in that case the three conditions that must be fulfilled in order to justice this course were satisfied.

• It was possible to determine from a consideration of the provisions of the Act read as a whole preciously what the mischief was that it was the purpose of the Act to remedy;
• It was apparent that the draftsman and Parliament had by inadvertence overlocked, and so omitted to deal with, an eventually that required to be dealt with if the purpose of the Act was to be achieved;
• It was possible to state with certainty what were the additional words that would have been inserted by the draftsman and approved by the Parliament had their attention been drawn to the omission before the Bill passed into law.

Unless the third condition is fulfilled any attempt by a court of justice to repair the omission in the Act cannot be justified as an exercise of its jurisdiction to determine what is the meaning of a written law which Parliament has passed.

The above said principle has been followed and applied by the Supreme Court in India in the following cases:

• ‘KL. Gupte V. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay’ - 1967 (8) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT;
• ‘Reserve bank of India V. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited’ - 1987 (1) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT;
• ‘Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited V. Presiding Officer’ - 1990 (5) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA;
• ‘Balaram Kumawat V. Union of India’ - 2003 (8) TMI 221 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA;
• ‘Maruti Udyog Limited V. Ram Lal’ - 2005 (1) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA;
• ‘Pratap Singh V. State of Jharkhand’ - 2005 (2) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT;
• ‘Dilip S. Dahhanukar V. Kotak Mahindra Co. Limited’ - 2007 (4) TMI 667 - Supreme Court of India

In New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Nusli Neville Wadia and another 2007 (12) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court referred to Aharon Barak, Purposive Interpretation in Law (2007) at Page 87 and quoted the following passage:

“Hart and Sachs also appear to treat ‘purpose’ as a subjective concept.  I say ‘appear’ because, although Hart and Sacha claim that the interpreter should imagine himself or herself in the legislator’s shoes, they introduce two elements of objectivity:

• The interpreter should assume that the Legislature is composed of reasonable people seeking to achieve reasonable goals in a reasonable manner;
• The interpreter should accept the non-rebuttable presumption that members of the legislative body sought to fulfill their constitutional duties in good faith.

This formulation shows the interpreter to inquire into the subjective intent of the author, but rather the intent the author would have had, had he or she acted reasonably”.

The Supreme Court also referred to an followed its earlier decisions in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Versus Maddula Ratnavalli & Ors - 2007 (4) TMI 666 - SUPREME COURT and Oriental Insurance Co. Limited V. Birj Mohan  - 2007 (5) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT for taking recourse to the doctrine of purposive interpretation.

The Supreme Court also applied the doctrine of purposive interpretation in fiscal statutes also that would be evident from the decision in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax V. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala’ - 2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court.