Author: Geethika Katakam, Student of Alliance School of Law, Bengaluru
1. INTRODUCTION:
Meaning:
The legal maxim “Generalia verba sent generilita intelligenda” is a Latin phrase which literally translates to: ‘Words shall be understood in general sense’. It is a rule which states that what is generally spoken shall be generally understood.
So according to this maxim the words in the statues are to be understood in their general sense until and unless there is another contrary meaning provided in the interpretation clause of the statute.
This maxim is used as the basic rule of construction in the Rule of Literal Construction or Golden Rule of Interpretation it tells to interpret the words given in the statute with their natural meaning unless it is revealed that intention of the legislation while making the law is contrary to what is interpreted in the general sense.
Scope:
The scope of the legal maxim is as follows:
A. The two approaches:
This maxim can be applied in a narrow sense and broader sense, narrow sense is when there are multiple meanings or interpretations to a word then the court will choose one meaning which will fit exactly in the statute and deliver the purpose for which it is by the legislation, in the broader sense there will be only one meaning or one interpretation for a word, in some cases if that interpretation causes any ambiguity in the statute then the court may try to interpret it differently but still within some limitations which wont deviate from the actual intention of the legislation.
B. To avoid ambiguity:
The maxim aims to provide general meaning to general terms, unless there is need for a different interpretation to avoid ambiguity.
C. Natural and Grammatical meaning:
This maxim tells that the words in the statute should not be deviated from their natural and ordinary sense and sentences should be interpreted in their grammatical sense until unless there is a requirement of interpreting it in a different sense and if the general word has no ambiguity.
2. ANALYSIS:
Relevant rule where the maxim can be applied and cannot be applied:
Used in interpreting statutory provisions:
A. This maxim can be used in one of the section of Copyright Act, 1956 where it talks about ‘reproduction of work’ if we go by literal meaning of reproduction it would be reproduction of offspring, so here if we go take the literal meaning or the natural meaning in understanding the statute there would be absurdity then the second meaning which is reproduction means copying has to be taken and interpret the statute to avoid the absurdity.
Let’s look into the word ‘exclusive’, when we hear the word ‘exclusive’ we generally tend to understand it referring to something special for suppose ‘an exclusive sale’, ‘an exclusive room for the guests’ etc.. but ‘exclusive’ is used to define any clause, to tell what all the clause includes and excludes we use two terms ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive’ so here we cannot take the general meaning of ‘exclusive’ to interpret the statute or clause as it leads to absurdity so here we need to go to the another meaning of the word to remove the absurdity.
B. Used in Contract Law:
This maxim can be used in the contract law, to resolve the ambiguities in contract language, following the broader interpretation of the general terms in the absence of clear definitions or limitations.
Imagine a contract between a landlord and a tenant that simply states, “The tenant is responsible for maintaining the property.” If a dispute arises over whether this includes both indoor and outdoor maintenance, the maxim would be invoked. In the absence of specific details, the maxim suggests that “maintaining the property” should generally encompass both indoor and outdoor responsibilities.
3. APPLICABILITY:
This maxim is used in the Golden Rule of Interpretation.
Golden Rule of interpretation is the first principle of interpretation, it was put forward by Lord Wensleydale in Grey Vs. Pearson. This rule can be used only when the words or language in the statute is ambiguous or grammatically incorrect. It will consider the context in which the words are used to check if the words with their natural meaning are contextually making sense and not leading to any absurdity so that justice can be done to the intention of the legislation. So, only in case of absurdity, words in the statute should be deviated from their natural meaning. Thus, the judges need to be extremely careful with their interpretation and only exercise this power when it is necessary.
This Golden Rule of interpretation can be applied in two senses: the first one is the Narrow approach and the second is the Broad approach.
Narrow Approach: When words in a law can will have different meanings, judges use this approach to pick the meaning that makes the most sense and matches what the law was meant to do.
Broad Approach: If a word in a law has only one clear meaning but using that meaning would lead to an absurd result, judges can use this approach to slightly change the meaning, but only a little, so it still matches what the law was supposed to achieve.
4. CASE LAWS:
A. Case name: The commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. Indore Vs. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh.
Facts: In the case of The Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. Indore vs. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh, the issue at hand was the interpretation of the term “Coal” as used in a Sales Tax Act. The question was whether the term “Coal” should be understood narrowly to include only coal obtained as a mineral or in its broader sense to also include charcoal.
Decision in the lower court: The High Court ruled that charcoal would be subject to taxation at 2% and would be covered under Entry I of Part III of Schedule II.
Need for Interpretation: The need for interpretation arose because there was ambiguity regarding the scope of the term “Coal” in the Sales Tax Act. Specifically, it was unclear whether the term should be limited to coal obtained as a mineral or if it should encompass charcoal as well. This ambiguity had practical implications for the application of the Sales Tax Act, as it could affect the taxation of charcoal sales.
What the Supreme Court said:
In the case of The Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. Indore vs. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh, the Supreme Court applied the “popular meaning test” to interpret the term “Coal” in a Sales Tax Act. The Court determined that in the context of the Sales Tax Act, “Coal” should be understood in its natural, ordinary, and popular sense, particularly as it pertains to its use as a fuel. Consequently, the term “Coal” was interpreted broadly to include both coal obtained as a mineral and charcoal, aligning with how people commonly perceive and utilize the term in the context of fuel consumption. This interpretation was based on the principle that words should be understood in their general or popular sense unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them differently.
B. Case name: Ballabhdas Agarwala v. J.C Chakravarty Supreme Court of India.
Facts: The appellant was granted a vendor’s license in 1952 to sell sweetmeats, betel, bidi, and cigarettes at the Howrah goods yard, but was discovered selling butter from glass jars during a visit by the Howrah Municipality Section Health Officer.
Decision in the lower court: The High Court remanded a new trial, finding the appellant guilty under Sections 406 and 407 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, and sentenced her to Rs. 200 fine or 30 days simple imprisonment.
Need for interpretation: Here there is a need for interpretation of the Calcutta Municipal Act, and conclude if the Act provided a legal foundation for the actions taken by the Howrah Municipality Health Officer.
What Supreme Court said: The court ruled that the Howrah Municipality’s Health Officer lacked jurisdiction to bring criminal charges against the appellant, and that legal processes must follow the Municipal Act’s rules. The court upheld the appeal, overturned the conviction and penalty, and mandated the refund of the appellant’s fine.
C. Case name: M. Pentiah And Ors. Vs. Muddala Veeramallappa And Ors.
Facts: Some people were elected to be part of a municipal committee in a place under a law called the Hyderabad Municipal and Town Communities Act, 1951. But then, a new law called the Hyderabad District Municipal and Town Committees Act, 1956 came along and replaced the old law.
The new law said that the old committee would keep going until the new committee was formed, but the problem was, they didn’t hold new elections for more than three years, even though the old law said three years was the maximum time for a committee.
The appellant (the person who brought the case) wanted to use a legal writ called “quo warranto” to question the authority of the members of the old committee.
Need for Interpretation:
The need for interpretation here is whether the old committee’s continued existence for more than three years is okay under the new law. This involves figuring out if the new law should be interpreted in a way that avoids absurd or unreasonable results.
Decision in the lower court:
The lower court (the court before the Supreme Court) didn’t agree with the appellant and ruled against them. They thought that the old committee could keep going even if it went beyond three years.
What the Supreme Court Said:
The Supreme Court said that when there’s more than one way to understand a law, we should pick the one that makes the most sense and doesn’t lead to absurd or unfair results. In this case, they believed that the new law should be understood to allow the old committee to continue beyond three years if necessary to avoid an unreasonable outcome.
So, in the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of letting the old committee continue even if it went beyond the three-year limit, based on what made the most sense and avoided an absurd result according to the new law.
5. CONCLUSION
So, the legal maxim “Generalia verba sent generalita intelligenda” tells us to understand words in their everyday, natural or ordinary sense unless there’s a good reason not to. This rule is super handy in law because it helps prevent confusion and make things clear and fair.
Sometimes, laws or contracts use words that could have multiple meanings, this maxim says we should go with the usual or natural meaning unless there’s something in the statute that tells us to do otherwise.
It’s like a helpful tool for judges and lawyers when they’re trying to figure out what a law or contract really means. If reading or understanding the words in their ordinary or normal sense would lead to an improper result or created any absurdity to the context, this maxim lets them interpret things the right way.
So, in a nutshell, it’s all about making sure that the statutes are understood, used the way they’re supposed to be and interpreted in way to do justice to the intention of the legislature.
FAQS
1. What does the legal maxim “Generalia verba sent generaliter intelligenda” mean?
It means that words in a statute should be understood in their general, natural, or ordinary sense unless specified otherwise.
2. When is the maxim applied in statutory interpretation?
It is applied when interpreting statutory language to avoid ambiguity and absurdity, adhering to the intention of the legislature.
3. How does this maxim relate to the Golden Rule of Interpretation?
It supports the Golden Rule by ensuring words are interpreted naturally unless doing so results in absurdity or contradicts legislative intent.
4. Can this maxim be used to interpret contractual language?
Yes, it helps resolve ambiguities in contracts by defaulting to the general or natural meaning of terms.
5. What is the significance of case laws in applying this maxim?
Case laws illustrate the practical application of the maxim in clarifying ambiguous terms and ensuring justice aligns with legislative purpose.