Commonsense Construction Rule - Indian Laws - General

Commonsense Construction Rule- In Halsbury s Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume 44(1) (Reissue), it is stated: 1392. Commonsense Construction Rule. It is a rule of the common law, which may be referred to as the commonsense construction rule, that when considering, in relation to the facts of the instant case , which of the opposing constructions of the enactment would give effect to the legislative intention, the court should presume that the legislator intended common sense to be used in construing the enactment. 1477. Nature of presumption against absurdity. It is presumed that Parliament intend that the court, when considering, in relation to the facts of the instant case , which of the opposing constructions of an enactment corresponds to its legal meaning, should find against a construction which produces an absurd result, since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. Here absurd means contrary to sense and reason, so in this context the term absurd is used to include a result which is unworkable or impracticable, inconvenient, anomalous or illogical, futile or pointless, artificial or productive of a disproportionate counter- mischief. 1480. Presumption against anomalous or illogical result. It is presumed that Parliament intends that the Court, when considering, in relation to the facts of the instant case , which of the opposing constructions of an enactment corresponds to its legal meaning, should find against a construction that creates an anomaly or otherwise produces an irrational or illogical result. The presumption may be applicable where on one construction a benefit is not available in like cases, or a detriment is not imposed in like cases, or the decision would turn on an immaterial distinction or an anomaly would be created in legal doctrine. Where each of the constructions contended for involves some anomaly then, in so far as the court uses anomaly as a test, it has to balance the effect of each construction and determine which anomaly is greater. It may be possible to avoid the anomaly by the exercise of a discretion. It may be, however, that the anomaly is clearly intended, when effect must be given to the intention. The court will pay little attention to a proclaimed anomaly if it is purely hypothetical, and unlikely to arise in practice. [ROSALI V VERSUS TAICO BANK ORS.- 2007 (1) TMI 550 - SUPREME COURT]