Difference between Interpretation and construction
The words Interpretation and construction are generally used synonymously even though jurisprudentially they are perhaps different.
Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words their natural and ordinary meaning. Whereas construction means drawing conclusions on the basis of the true spirit of the enactment even though the same does not appear if the words used in the enactment are given there natural meaning.
Thus, in simple terms it can be said that, in Interpretation, we find out the true meaning of the words used in the enactment but in construction we draw the real sense of the enactment itself which might not prima facie reflected by the words used in the enactment.
However a thin line of distinction was often drawn between Interpretation and construction in the good old days when the judges had uncharted freedom of judicial legislation. Cooley made an effort to distinguish between Interpretation and construction. According to him, Interpretation is the art of finding out the true sense of any form of words and enabling others to derive from them the same meaning which the author intended to convey, Whereas construction is the process of drawing conclusions, respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text, which are in the spirit though not within the letter of law.
However in modern times when statutes are enacted after great deliberation and careful scrutiny, the freedom of judicial legislation curbed to a great extent and as such the distinction between Interpretation and construction hardly exist.
Regarding the distinction forwarded by Cooley, Sutherland stated that the distinction is 'erroneous'. Such distinction is, according to him is based on the wrong assumption that Interpretation determines the meaning of words, and construction determines the application of words to facts, for one process cannot exclude the other, or if one does, it means that Interpretation must include construction or that there is no such thing as Interpretation and that all is construction.
Salmond does not distinguish between the terms Interpretation and construction.
Justice White also confirmed the above view of salmond.
In United States vs F.W. Keitel (211 US 370 : 53 Law Ed 230) Justice White observed that although there is some distinction between them, they are so hard to disentangle that they cannot afford a suitable basis for discussion; and in common usage Interpretation and construction are usually understood as having the same significance.
According to Dias, it is difficult to distinguish between Interpretation and construction, since it is difficult to say when Interpretation leaves off and construction begins. He further stated that the distinction between the two is so thin that it is hard to distinguish between them.
References :
D.N.Mathur, Interpretation of Statutes
T.Bhattachariya, Interpretation of Statutes
K.P. Chakraborty, Interpretation of Statutes
Cooley, Constitutional Limitations
Sutherland, Statutory Construction
Dias, Jurisprudence
Babu Sarkar, Legal Method
