D M Harish School of Law, HSNC University, Mumbai recently hosted Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Counsel, Oasis Counsel & Advisory, to deliver a lecture on ‘Interpretation of Statutes’.
In her opening remarks, Col. Dr. Hemlata K. Bagla, Vice Chancellor, HSNC University, Mumbai, spoke of her tryst with interpretation of statutes which commenced when she came up with the idea of KC College becoming a University and she went through the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 trying to decipher what every clause actually means. She realised the intricacy of each statute and how it can be interpreted differently. She encouraged students to engage actively in the Master Lecture and said “This is a wonderful opportunity to expand our knowledge, ask questions and participate in meaningful discussions. Your curiosity and involvement can lead to richer conversations and deeper understanding of the topic”.
Col. Dr. Hemlata K. Bagla, Vice Chancellor, HSNC University, Mumbai |
In his address, Mr. Anil Harish, Trustee and President, HSNC Board; Partner, D. M. Harish & Co. warmly welcomed everyone to the Master Lecture on ‘Interpretation of Statutes’ - a topic that can be as dry as a legal text-book or as engaging as a debate on the latest Netflix courtroom drama. Mr. Jagtiani, a stalwart in the legal profession, is known to transform the driest of legal topics into fascinating and insightful sessions. Mr. Harish shared that he has had unique insight into Mr. Jagtiani’s brilliance (both in & out of courtrooms) and his interpretation skills go beyond statutes. Mr. Harish gifted three copies of the book “My loves and likes” - a book written by Mr. Jagtiani. It is a collection of sharp intellectual reflections on life with his trademark keen sense of humour.
Mr. Anil Harish, Trustee and President, HSNC Board; Partner, D. M. Harish & Co. |
Mr. Jagtiani started the lecture by explaining the need for interpretation of statutes and its critical role in application of the law. From bar rooms to random tea stalls, often there's a lively debate about the judgments issued by the courts—were they truly right? This is because statutes can be interpreted differently by different people and therefore judges also give dissenting opinions. Statutes are the foundation of our legal system. However, their language can be complex and ambiguous, necessitating interpretation to ensure fair and consistent application of the law. While statutes govern various aspects of society, their interpretation is not always straightforward.
He pointed “Since society is always evolving, so is the law. Because of the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of law, it is impossible for even the legislature to predict the ambiguities that may arise in a seemingly well-drafted law. This is where the need for interpretation arises”. He cited an example, “There is no possibility of mistaking midnight for noon; but at what precise moment twilight becomes darkness is hard to determine.”
Over the course of his insightful lecture, he explored the process of statutory interpretation and fundamental aspects of the legal system to uncover the true intent of the legislature. He explained that by its very nature, a statute is an edict of the legislature and often the intent of the legislature has to be gathered not only from the language but the surrounding circumstances that prevailed at the time when that particular law was enacted. If any provision of the statute is open to two interpretations, the court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature. He pointed out that it is not within human powers to foresee the manifold set of facts which may arise in the future and even if it were so, it is not possible to provide for them, free from all ambiguity. Hence interpreting statutes requires consideration of the broader legal and factual context in which the statute operates. This includes examining related statutes, legal principles, societal norms and contemporary events relevant to the subject matter of the statute.
Using his long and rich experience, Mr. Jagtiani delved into the methods and principles used to interpret statutes, ultimately aiming to clarify the object and intent of the legislature. He then briefly elaborated on Literal Rule, Golden Rule and Mischief Rule. These rules of interpretation do not help only the judges to interpret the law, but also the lawyers to understand the law and prepare their pleadings better.
He deep dived into specific cases - some of which he had taken up. For instance, in 2015, he had filed a writ petition to challenge the ban on consumption of beef in Maharashtra against the State government in the Bombay High Court. Senior counsels Aspi Chinoy and Navroz Seervai appeared on his behalf in court. “We felt that a petition to challenge the ban on consumption would be sustainable on the touchstone of the right to privacy which includes permitting an individual to choose his own diet so long as what he eats did not violate any law. The logic that we followed was that the right to choose one’s diet is an aspect of one’s right to privacy which in turn is an aspect of one’s right to live life the way he wishes and thereby live a life of dignity. Our petition was grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except by legal due process,” Mr. Jagtiani elucidated.
Another case he won was for the Air India cabin crew, where the term “day” (in the layover policy) during long layovers for transatlantic flights was not defined and hence was open to interpretation. “Day” could mean 24 hours period or sunrise to sunset or it could even mean 6 hours till the flight is ready to take off again (chocks-on to chocks-off in airline parlance). In other words, let’s call it a day! Mr. Jagtiani was canvassing for it to be 24 hours and Mr. Y V Chandrachud (father of the current CJI Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud), as the arbitrator eventually ruled in their favour.
Under literal rule, the judge considers what the legislation actually says, rather than what it might mean. Golden rule of interpretation allows courts to modify the meaning of a law in order to avoid absurd or unreasonable results. However this rule is only applied when the literal meaning of the law is clear and unambiguous. The Mischief Rule (originally developed by English judges in the 16th century to ensure that laws achieve their intended purpose) helps to determine the intention of the legislature when the language of a statute is unclear or ambiguous. This rule gives a judge more discretion than either the literal or the golden rule and requires the court to look at what the law was before the legislation was passed in order to discover what gap or mischief the legislation was intended to cover.
Mr. Jagtiani also employed hypothetical instances to translate academic concepts into practical contexts, so as to augment the understanding and foster critical analysis. In lighter vein, Mr. Jagtiani quipped that interpreting statutes is like interpreting human behaviour in relationships.
The lecture was followed by Q&A where students asked many questions ranging from Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissenting opinion in the Sabarimala judgment despite being a woman herself to the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction. Students gained a deep understanding of interpretation of statutes as a result of his detailed approach and captivating teaching style.
