‘Or’, ‘may’ and ‘And’ - Indian Laws - General

Interpretation of Word Or , may and And - It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that the word or is normally disjunctive and the word and is normally conjunctive. Both of them can be read as vice-versa, but that interpretation is adopted only where the intention of the legislature is manifest. Justice G.P. Singh in the Principles of Statutory Interpretation (Thirteenth Edition 2012) page 485 has stated as follows: The word or is normally disjunctive and and is normally conjunctive but at time they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature as disclosed from the context. As stated by SCRUTTON, L.J.: You do sometimes read or as and and in a statute. But you do not do it unless you are obliged because or does not generally mean and and and does not generally mean or . And as pointed out by LORD HALSBURY the reading of or as and is not to be resorted to, unless some other part of the same statute or the clear intention of it requires that to be done . Where provision is clear and unambiguous the word or cannot be read as and by applying the principle of reading down. But if the literal reading of the words produces an unintelligible or absurd, result and may be read for or and or for and even though the result of so modifying the words is less favourable to the subject provided that the intention of the Legislature is otherwise quite clear. Conversely if reading of and and or produces grammatical distortion and makes no sense of the portion following and , or cannot be read in place of and . The alternatives joined by or need not always be mutually exclusive. [CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES ANR. VERSUS BIKARTAN DAS ORS. - 2023 (8) TMI 1425 - SUPREME COURT ] The word and is normally used in the conjunctive sense (G P Singh on Interpretation of StatutesId. at p. 530). However, this is not always the case. The nuances of statutory interpretation when the expressions may and and are used together, have been succinctly summarised in Statutory Interpretation by Ruth Sullivan . The statement of legal position is thus : 2) And and Or a) Joint or Joint and Several and Both and and or are inherently ambiguous. And is always conjunctive in the sense that it always signals the cumulation of the possibilities listed before and after the and . However, and is ambiguous in that it may be joint or joint and several. In the case of a joint and , every listed possibility must be included: both (a) and (b); all of (a), (b), and (c). In the case of a joint and several and , all the possibilities may be, but need not be, included: (a) or (b) or both; (a) or (b) or (c), or any two, or all three. In other words, the joint and several and is equivalent to and/or .. Which meaning is appropriate depends on the context. When and is used before the final item in a list of powers, for example, it is joint and several : To carry out the purposes of this Act, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting (a) the conditions on which licences may be issued; (b) the information and fees that firearm vendors may be required to furnish; and (c) the annual fees that firearm owners may be charged . In this provision the Governor in Council is empowered to make regulations on any one or more of the listed subjects. However, notice what happens if may is replaced by shall . If the Governor in Council is obliged to make regulations respecting (a) conditions (b) information and (c) fees, the joint and several and becomes joint . [JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.- 2016 (11) TMI 545 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]