Accueil > Rule of Noscitur a Sociis in Indian Legal System

Rule of Noscitur a Sociis in Indian Legal System

by admin_lg

All these conditions make it clear that the mention of a singular class does not imply or amount to a category[7], and the fact that if the object in question may be part of two different classes of objects, the rule does not apply.[8] [2] Noscitur a Sociis, Merriam Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/noscitur%20a%20sociis (last visited 5 June 2020) There have been several cases before the courts where the rule of noscitur a socii has been applied. In certain circumstances, although the rule was made applicable, it was not known as noscitur a socii. This chapter deals with some of these landmark cases in no particular order. The Constitution of India is the highest legal authority in India. It embodies the rights, powers, procedures, principles and duties of the government and the people. As stated in the preamble, the constitution of India is by the people by the people and for the people. The Constitution of India follows the theory of separation of powers between the three organs, namely: the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. In his book « L`esprit des lois » (1748), Montesquieu explains his theory of the separation of powers. Montesquieu directed power, which was expressed in three organs of the State, namely legislative, executive and judicial. It is the task of the legislator to enact laws. that is, to make laws for every person and every person under the jurisdiction of India. The judiciary deals with the application of these laws through real cases, while the executive branch enforces these rules in society. Sophisticated rules of interpretation were developed at a very early stage of Hindu civilization and culture.

U.C. Sarkar stated in his book Epoch in Hindu Legal History (1958), page 167: The rules of `Jaimini`, the author of the Mimamsat Sutras, originally intended for the Srutis, were also used for the interpretation of Smritis. All Niband commentators and authors have invariably adopted these canons of interpretation for their own purposes, so much so that these interpretations or commentaries have sometimes become more difficult and abstruse than the original annotated texts. K.A. Nikanta Sastry, a distinguished scholar, noted: « With regard to the system of Jamini (Mimamsa), its main purpose is the determination of questionable points in the elaborate rituals prescribed by the Vedas through discussion and interpretation. By the way, this raises and answers some questions of great interest. The importance of avoiding literal interpretations has also been emphasized in various ancient textbooks: « If one only follows the texts of the law, decisions should not be made, for if such decisions want injustice, a blatant failure of the Dharmai is caused. » According to the 60th report of the Law Commission of India, the Bhavishya Purana has a proper verse dealing with the rule to be followed for the resolution of conflicts between Smriti and Artha, as well as for the resolution of inconsistencies between the rules of Smritis himself. And Kalidasa described in words that sound and have become immortal, the inseparable link between « word » and « meaning ». According to Narada, if Smritis and Artha Shastra are incompatible, Artha Shastra`s conjecture is replaced by Smritis. However, in case of mutual contradictions, this rule is authentic and corresponds to equity.

The interpretation was carried out by scholars of the rules guided by ancient manuscripts. But in today`s modern era, where each country has its own constitution and set of rules, the interpretation of laws is made either by the legislature or by the established judiciary. In countries like India, justice is of great importance. The main task of the judiciary is to interpret the provisions of the Constitution in order to better understand and evaluate the laws promulgated. The ad idem consensus of the judiciary and constitutional legislators is an important factor for a synchronized and successful evaluation of statutory interpretation. James Bryce, British Ambassador to the United States to the American Commonwealth in 1888, understood most profoundly the role of justice in India when he said: « The Supreme Court is the living voice of the Constitution – that is, of the will of the people, expressed in the Basic Laws which they have promulgated. It is the conscience of the people. It is a guarantee for the minority which, if threatened by the impatient vehemence of the majority, can invoke this permanent law by finding the interpreter and his executor before a court that stands above the attack of the factions. General rules of interpretation of the Constitution – 1.Si the terms are clear and unambiguous, they must be fully effective. 2. The Constitution must be read as a whole. 3.

The principles of harmonious construction must be applied. 4. The Constitution must be interpreted broadly and liberally. 5. The court must derive the spirit of the constitution from the language. 6.Internal and external tools may be used for interpretation. 7. The Constitution takes precedence over other laws. Interpretation is therefore a familiar process of considerable importance.

With respect to statutory law, interpretation is important because of the inherent nature of legislation as a source of law. The legislative process and the statutory interpretation process are conducted separately, and two different bodies are involved.