Difference between Interpretation and Construction

The literal meaning of the word "interpretation" is "to provide meaning." However, it also describes a method of combining unrelated facts and the process of presenting your ideas to readers in a way that makes sense based on your interpretation of the law in a particular situation. This structure makes a difficult idea understandable. In cases where there is any uncertainty, the court has the authority to interpret the terms and determine their appropriate usage going forward.

Interpretation helps with word meaning in an ambiguous situation, whereas construction helps with conclusion. Now that we have a more comprehensive look at the interpretation and conclusion let's compare and contrast them.

About Interpretation

"Exploring the aim of the legislature through texts, the subject matter, the effect, and consequences, or the spirit and reason of law" is, in Blackstone's words, "the fairest and rational technique for interpreting legislation." The word "interpretation" comes from the Latin word "interpretaria," which means to define, explain, or elaborate, especially regarding something's true meaning. The court should correctly interpret irregularities and unclear language in the legislation by applying several rules of interpretation to ascertain the meaning of the words as they actually imply. The act of comprehending the meaning of a statute and appropriately applying it to a particular situation is known as the interpretation of statutes. By analyzing statutes and legislation, the court can ascertain the precise intent of the legislature. Interpretation is not necessary when a statute's language is clear-cut, but it should be done when a statute's wording is unclear and specific terms could have many meanings.

Rules for Interpretation

The court must interpret terminology in legislation that is unclear or ambiguous so as to convey the exact meaning of the text. Judges may refer matters to the four criteria of interpretation to clarify the statute if errors go unnoticed. The norms of interpretation are based on the previously described heads. Finding the word's real meaning and proving the purpose of including that particular term in the law are the two basic goals of the interpretation.

• The Literal Rule
• The Golden Rule
• The Rule of Mischief
• The Rule of Purpose

The Literal Rule

One of the rules of interpretation that the court uses to comprehend the foundation of the statutes is the literal rule of interpretation. It is believed that the most fundamental norm of interpretation is this literal one. Though judges are not obligated to alter language when it is in the correct context and can be interpreted correctly in a given case, it is important to apply this rule-also known as the grammatical rule or the plain meaning rule, as its name implies-to determine the literal meaning of the words in statutes.

The definition clause appended to the legislation is the most reliable source of interpretation for the court and judges when interpreting key terms; they should never deviate from it under any circumstances. Judges cannot use their judicial discretion to interpret words in a way that goes beyond what the statute expressly states when using this literal approach of interpretation. Instead, the court must ascertain the words' natural and ordinary meaning. A literal rule of interpretation upholds the parliament's sovereignty while simplifying and making the law clear. Unfortunately, it's not always possible to follow the guidelines, which can result in inaccurate verdicts.

Case law

Harris v. R (1836)

In this instance, the defendant bit the victim's nose. The Court determined that biting did not fall under the literal meaning of "to stab, cut, or wound" since these terms required the use of an instrument. According to the statute, "to stab, cut, or wound" is illegal. Consequently, the defendant's conviction was reversed.

Bell v. Fisher (1961)

In this instance, the respondent owned a retail establishment in Bristol, whereas the appellant held the position of Chief Inspector of Police. A policeman saw that there was a price-tagged flick knife present. The responding police officer informed the respondent that the knife was a "flick knife," that it was against the law to sell flick knives, and that it was unlawful for the respondent to show the flick weapon in public. The respondent, however, didn't agree with it. Since the things on display in stores are more of an invitation to treat than actual "offers," the Court dismissed his conviction by applying the literal criterion of statutory interpretation.

The Golden Rule

Viscount "The golden rule is that the terms of a statute must prima facie be given their customary sense," according to Simon L.C. The golden rule of interpretation is applied to address instances of inconsistency or ambiguity in statutes when the literal rule is unable to provide a clear resolution. It goes by the names "grammatical rule" or "changing rule of interpretation." Regarding the golden rule, inaccuracies in the legislation are promptly corrected by modifying the literal rule of interpretation. Since judges sometimes operate in their favour, they can only minimally modify the terminology when there is a discrepancy.

The statutory rule is the gold standard of interpretation, allowing a term's common meaning to be deviated from when the context of the entire document so dictates. There are two ways to apply the interpretational golden rule. Initially, it is used in the narrowest sense possible when the words themselves include some ambiguity or absurdity. Second, even in cases when there is only one meaning, it is employed in a wider sense to refrain from employing language that is derogatory to public policy values.

Case law

Allen v. R (1872)

Section 57 of the Offences against the Persons Act of 1861 linked the defendant in this instance to the bigamy offence. As per the legal statute, "anyone who, while married, marries another person while their previous spouse is alive is guilty of an infraction." Ignorance of second marriages under civil law would prevent anyone from committing the offence if this provision were to be interpreted literally. It would not be legal to attempt marriage in these conditions.

State of Punjab v. Tarlochan Dev Sharma (2001)

The Punjab Municipal Act of 1911's Section 22 defines "abuse of his power" as an intentional misuse of power. In this instance, the Court interpreted this phrase in accordance with the golden rule of interpretation.

The Rule of Mischief

The third guideline of legislative construction is the Mischief rule of interpretation, which is more permissive than the literal and golden rules of interpretation and allows judges greater leeway in making decisions. A person or piece of property being lost or damaged is typically referred to as "mischief." Creating a fix for the statute's fault is the main objective of this rule.

Case law

Case of Heydon (1584)

The Mischief rule of interpretation was first established in this case, which occurred in the 16th century in England, where the doubling of estates system was in effect at the time, and in which the management of a college decided to give a specific portion of the college's property to W S and G and their sons for their future lives. In order to prevent the doubling of estates, the English Parliament passed "The Statute - 31 Henry VIII."

Heydon challenged the action taken by the crown under this Act, but the Court, using the mischief rule of interpretation, affirmed the action taken by the crown. Protecting religious institutions' assets was the main objective of the laws that the parliament passed. The legislation was upheld because the Court determined that the doubling of estates made it invalid.

Regarding the interpretation of the legislation, Lord Coke made the following four observations:

• Prior to the Act's passage, what was common law?
• What was the wrongdoing and flaw that the common law failed to address?
• What cure had Parliament decided upon and designated to treat the Commonwealth's illness?
• The real justification for the remedy. This equivocal rule of interpretation has been described as flexible since the court used it to justify deviating from the plain text of the Act in order to give remedies.

DHSS v. Royal College of Nursing (1981)

In this instance, the RCN disputed that nurses may be involved in abortions under the illegal Offences Against the Person Act. The 1967 Abortion Act makes it lawful for medical professionals who are registered practitioners to carry out abortions. The mischief rule was interpreted by the court to justify this.

The Rule of Purpose

A common phrase in court decisions and legal writing is "purposeful interpretation." The idea that "purpose" is a personal term is what ties the majority of allusions to purposive interpretation together. The purposive method has become more and more well-liked in recent years. In 1969, the Law Commission advised the courts to employ this tactic. A purposive approach to legislative interpretation looks for the legislation before reading the text of the law. Though the purposive approach starts with the mischief rule to ascertain the purpose or intention of Parliament, it is frequently claimed that it is a hybrid of domestic rules. In contrast, domestic rules require judges to apply the literal rule first in order to evaluate the language of the Act. This makes it a far more flexible approach, giving judges greater latitude to reshape the law to reflect their interpretation of Parliament's intentions.

Case law: Hart v. Pepper (1992)

The question of whether a private school teacher should be forced to pay taxes on the advantage of reduced tuition, in this instance, rested with the House of Lords. The instructor endeavoured to depend on a transcript from a Hansard declaration uttered during the passage of the Finance Act, wherein the minister delineated his particular circumstances as exempt from taxation. In the beginning, courts were not allowed. Unlike in Davis v. Johnson, the House of Lords reached a more favourable view, ruling that the teacher was not required to pay taxes on the benefit he got and that Hansard could be referenced.

About Construction

Salmond defines interpretation and construction as the process by which the court uses the authoritative ways in which the legislature expresses itself to try to determine what the legislature intends to mean. According to Cooley, "Construction" is the process of drawing conclusions while honouring topics that go beyond the text's literal meaning. This is in line with the spirit of the law but not its exact wording. Since construction in law is about assigning meaning to the ambiguous words in the provisions of the law to resolve the discrepancy, judges should consider the factual circumstances before giving a specific significance to the phrase, words, or expression that are included in the legislation.

Interpreting a legal text involves examining its language, context, goal, and legislative history to ascertain its meaning. This entails determining the terms' common and natural meanings in addition to any potentially pertinent technical or legal definitions. Conversely, construction describes the process of interpreting the legal text in light of a certain circumstance or collection of facts. This entails figuring out how to apply the law in a way that accomplishes its goals and ensures consistency with other laws and regulations.

When it comes to contracts, for instance, interpretation entails figuring out what the terms used in the agreement signify, such as what a term means or what the parties intended when they signed it. Contrarily, construction entails interpreting the contract in light of the specific facts of a dispute, including figuring out whether a breach of contract occurred and how much compensation is appropriate.

Similar to this, interpretation in the context of legislation entails interpreting the meaning of the words used in the statute, including the purpose of the legislature in adopting the statute and the extent of any given provision. When legislation is applied to a specific case's facts, on the other hand, construction entails assessing whether a given behavior is covered by the statute and, if so, what penalties apply.

Essentially, construction involves fitting the meaning of the text to a certain scenario or set of facts, whereas interpretation focuses on figuring out what the text means. Legal professionals, including judges and solicitors, rely on interpretation and construction as critical components of legal reasoning when interpreting and applying legal documents.

Difference between construction and interpretation

Below is a list of the main distinctions between construction and interpretation:

1. Interpretation is the process of deciphering a legal document's meaning and wording. The term "construction" describes the process of deriving legal implications from the text that goes beyond its literal meaning.
2. When attempting to determine a legal text's original meaning, interpretation is necessary. The construction phase encompasses all other types of constitutional analysis.
3. Interpretation occurs when a legal text is interpretable and has a clear, unambiguous meaning. Construction occurs when there is uncertainty, ambiguity, or disagreement regarding the text's meaning.
4. A legal text is the only one that a judge can interpret. Interpretations of legal texts by elected officials are permissible.
5. The primary goal of interpretation is to determine the legal text's plain and true meaning. When applying the law text's literal interpretation leads to uncertainty, construction aids in determining whether or not the matter falls under its purview.
6. Understanding a certain language use in context and its semantic significance is the goal of interpretation. Applying the meaning to specific factual situations is known as construction.
7. Interpretation determines the methods for analyzing any statute. Work attempts to bring it to a close.
8. It is possible to ascertain the linguistic meaning of a legal document through interpretation. The legal consequence of the law language can be found through construction. Interpretation eliminates all uncertainty. In order to address the ambiguity, construction establishes new norms.
9. When interpreting a legal text, one can think of interpretation as a broad sort of construction. A literal and forceful interpretation of the language is known as construction.

It is possible to interpret a legal document partially, but complete construction is required. Acts, statutes, clauses, and other legal documents don't usually utilize language that is easy to understand. Therefore, courts seek to ascertain the precise meanings of terms and phrases that are employed in these types of legal texts. For the purpose of explaining legislation, acts, or any other legal language, interpretation comes before construction. Interpretation involves examining the written legal text; construction, on the other hand, aids in figuring out the meaning of the legal text and its implications for the law. As a result, construction is defined more broadly.

Difference between Interpretation and Construction