Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A section of an Act is ambiguous, and Mr Rao argues that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill should decide its meaning. The opposing counsel says it is irrelevant. Which is the correct position under the settled rules of interpretation?

The Statement of Objects and Reasons may be consulted as an external aid to understand the background and the mischief the legislation targets, but it cannot override or control the clear words of the section. It is helpful, not binding.

  1. AThe Statement of Objects and Reasons is binding and overrides the text of the section
  2. BIt can be referred to for understanding the background and the evil sought to be remedied, but it cannot override the plain words of the sectionCorrect
  3. CIt can never be looked at for any purpose
  4. DIt can be used only if the Act is a money Act

Explanation

Courts may look at the Statement of Objects and Reasons as an aid to understand the background, the antecedent state of affairs and the mischief the law addresses. It is not a controlling guide and cannot displace clear statutory language. Option A overstates its force; option C ignores its limited use.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Interpretation of StatutesFree diagnostic mock

More Interpretation of Statutes questions