What are the three internal aids?

In Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55 at [39], the High Court of Australia summarised the basic approach to statutory interpretation (sometimes called statutory construction) as follows:

"'This Court has stated on many occasions that the task of statutory construction must begin with a consideration of the [statutory] text.' So must the task of statutory construction end. The statutory text must be considered in its context. That context includes legislative history and extrinsic materials. Understanding context has utility if, and in so far as, it assists in fixing the meaning of the statutory text. Legislative history and extrinsic materials cannot displace the meaning of the statutory text. Nor is their examination an end in itself."

Here are some practical tips to follow when interpreting NSW Acts:

The ordinary meaning of text is always the most important starting point. If the text has a clear and unambiguous meaning, the courts will give it that meaning.
To understand an Act, you need to look at it as a whole document rather than as a discrete set of provisions. It is wrong to read provisions in isolation without considering other provisions (for example definitions that might be located somewhere else in the Act or savings and transitional provisions located at the end of the Act).

If a provision of an Act could have more than one meaning, section 33 of the Interpretation Act 1987 requires the meaning that promotes the purpose or object of the Act to be preferred to a meaning that would not.

The purpose or object of an Act can sometimes be found by looking for purposes or objects expressly stated in the Act. However, often there will not be an express statement in the Act.

Sometimes the purposes or objects are obvious simply by looking at what the Act is dealing with. In some cases, looking at relevant extrinsic material will be useful. Extrinsic material is material that is not included in the text of the Act. Section 34 of the Interpretation Act 1987 permits the use of certain extrinsic material to confirm the ordinary meaning of an Act or to determine the meaning of ambiguous or obscure provisions or provisions whose ordinary meaning would lead to manifestly absurd or unreasonable results.

Examples of relevant extrinsic material are the explanatory note for the Bill introduced in Parliament that resulted in the Act and speeches made by Ministers and other members of Parliament about that Bill.

Although the definitions for terms used in the Act will ordinarily be included in the Act, sometimes they will be found in the Interpretation Act 1987. For example, section 21 of that Act defines certain words and expressions that are commonly used in legislation.

Introduction:

The most basic function of any court is interpretation. Whenever a dispute reaches a court, the court is supposed to interpret the statutes. The statute finds in itself the formal expression of the legislative wing of the government. The will of the legislature finds its formal expression in the statute; it is the primary duty of the court to find out what was intended by the legislature by the use of particular kind of language in the statute. There are already some set rules which the courts have to go by and there can be no room left for arbitrariness.

Many times, it so happens, the terms construction and interpretation get used synonymously but the reality being that the two are actually different in the jurisprudential sense. Interpretation involves the assigning of a true sense to the words of a statute, going by the natural and ordinary meaning while construction means, to draw conclusions, focusing on the true character of the enactment even though on reading them, the words may not ordinarily give the same conclusion, especially when the most ordinary meaning of the words point at something slightly different.

Aid is a device which helps or assists the courts for interpreting and constructing. The court has to take help from certain internal plus external aids to facilitate construction.

Internal Aids may include those parts which the statute contains, and these may not form part of the Act or statute. These include essentially, the short title, the long title, preamble, headings, marginal notes, illustrations, punctuation, provisos, schedules etc. There comes a point where the internal aids might not suffice the job of construction and at that point, the Courts have to take resort in the External Aids. The External Aids consist of parliamentary material, historical background, reports of a committee or a commission, official statement, dictionary meanings, foreign decisions etc.

In the case of B. Prabhakar Rao and Others vs. State of A.P. and Others[1] it was observed by O. Chennappa Reddy, J. that, “Where internal aids are not forthcoming, we can always have recourse to the external aids to discover the object of the legislation.”

The honourable Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer Ernakulam[2] has held that “interpretation of statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible.”

By the internal aids to construction, it is meant that those aids to the construction which have been provided in the Act itself[3]. The whole enactment aids in the process of interpretation; all the components of the enactment are resourceful in constructing.

1. The Short Title

Given solely for facilitating the reference, the short title basically indicates the name of the Act. It consists, for the most part, the name which has been given to the enactment for identification and is then followed by the year enactment in which the enactment was passed. For e.g.:- The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Contract Act, 1972 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 etc. Provided generally at the commencement of the statute, it usually begins with the words, “This Act may be called…”, for e.g.:- the short title of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says, “This Act may be called, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872”. The short title of the statute is a vital part of the Act but it does not play a big role in the process of construction as it can neither be an extension to or delimitation on any terms of the statute.

2. The Long Title

For putting down the general explanation of an Act, it is provided with a long title, clearly stating the object of the Act. It has been experiential in many cases that it usually begins with words like “An Act to…”, for e.g.: the long title of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 states, “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to criminal procedure”. Earlier, the long title was not used for the process of construction. A trend has been taken note of in the recent times when the long title has come in handy for interpretation of certain Acts but not more than the mere removal of doubt or for clearing out certain confusions. If in a particular statute the words are themselves clear then there is no need for taking help from the long title.
In Re Kerala Education Bill case, the honourable Supreme Court has held that the long title and the preamble of a statute can be utilized to construe the guiding principle and reason behind an Act. In the case of Manohar Lal vs. The State of Punjab, the verdict pertaining to the scope of the Act was assisted by the Long Title of the Act.

3. Preamble

The main essence of an Act is contained within the preamble of that Act and thus it forms a part of the statute. The preamble is the Act in a nutshell; it may even be given the stature as a preparatory statement. Therefore, the preamble is considered an essential part of the statute and thus considered an indispensable internal aid. It contains the important underlying principles which tell the reasons behind the coming in force of an Act. In case there is no uncertainty with regard to the meaning of the provisions then the preamble of the statute need not be sought. Where the Act is inherently ambiguous there the preamble turn into an important help to the interpretation. If any doubts occur with regard to certain provisions of the legislature then it is considered safe to rely on the preamble as a dependable aid for making out the meaning of a certain provision. It was the verdict in the case of Kashi Prasad vs. State that even though the preamble cannot be employed in defeating the sections of a statute but still the preamble can be used in the construction of an Act.

4. Headings and Title of a Chapter

These are supplemented before sections or a group of sections and such headings are used for indicating a group of sections or as a preface to those sections by the courts. Thus, these headings can be crucial in the course of interpretation and the preface can prove a great pointer for the sections that follow. Headings can be of two kinds, one type of headings is added to a particular section while the other kind is added to a group of sections. The court may use the headings in case of ambiguity in interpreting the wordings of an Act but in case of complete clarity in the meaning of the Act then the headings would not be employed for the interpretation. A heading which has been given to a particular group of sections cannot be employed to interpret the other group of sections, while the heading to a chapter can be employed in the interpretation of the confusing provisions under that particular chapter.
In Krishnaih vs. State of A.P. (AIR 2005 AP 10), the honourable Supreme Court gave the verdict that headings which are added to the sections cannot be construed to be controlling the simple words of the sections.

5. Marginal Notes

These are added to the sides of some provisions of an Act and these notes help in conveying whatever is meant by some particular sections. Another name used for these marginal notes is side notes and these were used in the construction of a statute when clear meaning was difficult to be inferred from the Act. According to the modern view of the courts, the marginal notes ought not to be used for the process of interpretation of statutes and the reason given is that these were not inserted by the law-making body and thus are not parts of an Act. These can be inaccurate as they have been inserted by drafters. But exceptions are there in many cases and the fit case is that of the Indian Constitution, wherein the marginal notes which have been added to the Articles by the constitution-makers are very much the part of the constitution and therefore must be used in the construction of various provisions in an Act.
In Wilkes vs. Goodwin, the side notes cannot be used reference as they were held not to be a part of the enactment.

6. Definition or Interpretation Clauses

The definition clauses are mostly added in the statutes so that the accepted meaning of certain words may be applied so that the words may be assigned clear meaning in the definition section only. It is generally so that the meaning which is given to a word in the interpretation clause is the meaning which will be given to that particular term wherever it will be used in the Act. There is just one exception to this rule that wherever the court feels that assigning a particular word would bring in absurdity, there the definition clause will not be assigned while constructing. Another rule to be observed with respect to the definition clause is that the definition which has been assigned to a particular word will not be used for the same word in some other Act.

7. Illustrations

Illustrations are oftentimes attached to the sections so as to illustrate the provision provided in an Act so that the law point can be made clear. These illustrations help in understanding the intention of the legislature in putting a particular provision in an Act. But if any provision is clear within an enactment it ought not to be assigned an extensive meaning or a narrower meaning by relying on the illustrations. In the case of Mahesh Chandra Sharma vs. Raj Kumari Sharma (AIR 1996, SC 869), the verdict was given that illustrations are the part of statutes and they facilitate the clarification on the principles of the section.

8. Proviso

The significance of putting a proviso which is added to a section is to give a clear indicator that but for the proviso the said words would fall in the same sense in the body of that section. It is for facilitating the construction that the proviso is not to be read in its strictest sense and it has to essentially be taken as a component of and interpreted in the light of the section to which it belongs. It may also happen that the words of an Act are in itself very clear and it is in those cases that the provisos are taken to be as the substantive clause. But it is immaterial whether the proviso is taken to be a limit on the main provision or is considered as a substantive clause though the proviso cannot be separated from the section to which it is a proviso and should be considered as an important constituent of the main Act[4].

9. Exceptions and Saving Clauses

Exceptions are provided with the sections so that something which would have in other circumstances formed a part of the Act may be exempted from the light of that main section. There are, for example, five exceptions given under the explanation of Murder under Section 300 of the IPC. An exception makes it clear that the things which have not been exempted from the section are an extension of it. If in some case, an inconsistency arises between the main clause and the exception clause then the main part will have more significance. But, in certain cases, the view taken by the courts is that the exceptions convey a subsequent will of the law-making body and thus it must be given prevalence over the substantive part.
The saving clauses are added to the statutes wherever there is repeal or re-enactment of a statute. The motive behind adding the saving clause is that the rights which were provided under the repealed enactment ought not to be disturbed by the new rights which are created consequently. A saving clause most of the times is contained in the repealing statute itself. The prevalence is always given to the main constituents of the enactment over the saving clause in case a repugnancy arises.
The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs vs. M/s. Modi Rubber Limited[5], has given the verdict that whenever an exception is there to the principal clause, there the exception must be interpreted with regard to the principal clause.

10. Explanation

An explanation is affixed to a section so that the meaning which is behind the language of a section may be elaborated and explained clearly. The explanation ought to be put to use and read as a component of the very provision of which it is a constituent. An explanation does not exist independently apart from being the part or the section or sub-section to which it is appended. An explanation does not exist so as to restrict the scope of the main section. An explanation is distinct from a proviso, the proviso mostly excludes, excepts and restricts. On the other hand, the explanation mostly explains, clarifies or subtracts or adds something to the section.
In the case of Bihta Co-operative Development Cane Marketing Union vs. State of Bihar[6], the honourable Supreme Court gave the verdict that in case a conflict arises between the main section and the explanation appended to it, in that case, general responsibility of the court is to create harmonization between the two.

11. Schedules

Schedules form an important component of the statute and they are generally appended to the Act at the very end, and provide the minute and comprehensive details which could not be provided in the section. Such details are essential for making work, the sections of an Act. Something which has been provided in the schedule cannot go on to have an overriding effect over the sections of the Act. Statutes form the part of the Act and they can be used by the courts to find logic in something given in the main body of the Act[7].

12. Punctuation

In the old times, the punctuation was not given much regard and statutes were, for the most part, passed without any punctuations, but in modern Acts there are punctuations and therefore courts look at the existence and application of punctuation so that they can construct something meaningful from the words of a statute. Punctuation plays a smaller role in the construction of the various enactments, but, it is also true that only when there is an accurate use of punctuation in an Act and leaving no room for ambiguity with regard to the meaning conveyed by it, then the punctuation can be relied upon. It though cannot be deciding factor with regard to the interpretation of any enactment.

Conclusion

Internal aids to the construction are of great assistance for the courts in facilitating the interpretation and application of certain statues. Being a part of the statue itself, they make it easier to construct, as no other external aids need to be sought. Many Acts themselves provide definitions and explanations, therefore there is no need to seek meaning from somewhere else. These internal aids have come in handy by the courts while delivering important judgements and therefore their importance cannot be trivialized.