Question

The maxim noscitur a sociis is most relevant for
 

• A. Extrinsic aids to help interpretation
• B. Historical context for interpretation
• C. Contextual interpretation of words
• D. Judicial precedent-based interpretation
• A. What is expressed excludes what is implied
• B. What is implied excludes what is expressed
• C. What is implied includes what is expressed
• D. What is expressed includes what is implied
• A. Kesavananda Bharati’s case
• B. Maneka Gandhi’s case
• C. Heydon’s case
• D. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy’s case
• A. Judicial interpretation coexists with legislative supremacy in common law.
• B. Literal rule of interpretation provides that court is bound to give effect to the text, only if it leads to convenient consequences.
• C. Golden rule of interpretation permits departure from the literal meaning of the text in order to avert absurdity.
• D. Mischief rule directs the court to examine the defect in prior law that legislation intended to cure.
• A. Judicial activism
• B. Transformative constitutionalism
• C. Judicial restraint
• D. Purposive Interpretation

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The maxim noscitur a sociis is a principle used in statutory interpretation, which asserts that the meaning of a word can be determined by the words surrounding it. This means that a word is understood by the company it keeps. It helps in interpreting ambiguous or vague terms by considering the context in which they appear. This maxim is primarily used in contextual interpretation of words (Option 3). It guides courts to interpret a word in a manner that is consistent with the surrounding words and the overall context of the statute, rather than interpreting it in isolation. 
For example, if a statute refers to “vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and motorcycles,” the term “vehicles” should be interpreted in the context of the other items listed, implying that it refers to road-going transportation methods and not, for example, trains or airplanes. This is a classic example of contextual interpretation. Thus, the maxim noscitur a sociis} helps clarify the meaning of a term by looking at how it relates to other words in the statute. 
Other options are less relevant in this context: 
Option (1) Extrinsic aids to help interpretation refers to materials outside the text of the statute, such as legislative history or external documents, which are not the focus of the maxim noscitur a sociis. 
Option (2) Historical context for interpretation involves interpreting laws based on the historical circumstances or the situation when the law was passed, which differs from the principle of interpreting words by their surrounding context. 
Option (4) Judicial precedent-based interpretation involves interpreting laws based on previous court decisions, which is a different approach from the contextual interpretation based on the surrounding words. 
Therefore, the correct answer is Option (3): Contextual interpretation of words. 
 

Answer 2

The legal maxim expressum facit cessare tacitum} refers to the rule that what is expressly stated in a legal document excludes what is implied or not explicitly mentioned. It essentially means that if something is explicitly stated, any implied provisions that could contradict it are excluded. This principle helps in preventing ambiguity by ensuring that what is clearly stated overrides what is not said. 
For example, if a statute specifically grants a right or permission, anything impliedly suggesting the contrary is disregarded. 
Thus, Option (1), which states "What is expressed excludes what is implied," is the correct interpretation of this maxim. 
To further clarify:
Option (2) "What is implied excludes what is expressed" would be incorrect because implied provisions are generally excluded when the statute explicitly addresses a matter.
Option (3) "What is implied includes what is expressed" is also incorrect because it goes against the maxim's purpose of emphasizing explicit language over implied meaning.
Option (4) "What is expressed includes what is implied" is similarly incorrect, as it suggests that implied meanings should be included even when contradicted by explicit statements in the statute. 
Thus, the correct answer is Option (1): What is expressed excludes what is implied. 
 

Answer 3

Purposive interpretation is an approach where the court seeks to understand the law based on its purpose and the intention behind the statute. This approach prioritizes the spirit of the law over its literal meaning. In the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the courts employed purposive interpretation to expand fundamental rights and apply the Constitution in a transformative manner.
On the other hand, Heydon’s case is significant for the mischief rule, which focuses on identifying the mischief or defect in the law that the statute was meant to address. This approach is not about understanding the broader purpose or spirit of the law but rather about fixing the gaps in existing law, and it is not a purposive approach.
Thus, the correct answer is Option (3): Heydon’s case.
To further clarify:
Option (1) "Kesavananda Bharati’s case" was a landmark case where the court employed purposive interpretation to preserve the basic structure of the Constitution.
Option (2) "Maneka Gandhi’s case" is another example where the court used purposive interpretation to expand the scope of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Option (4) "Justice K.S. Puttaswamy’s case" is an example of purposive interpretation where the court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Therefore, the correct answer is Option (3): Heydon’s case.

Answer 4

The literal rule requires the court to follow the exact text even if it leads to inconvenient consequences. The statement in Option 2 misrepresents the literal rule's approach, as it emphasizes convenient outcomes, which is not the essence of the rule.

Answer 5

The legal maxim judicis est jus dicere non dare emphasizes judicial restraint, which means judges are to declare the law and not to legislate or make new laws. This aligns with the idea of the judiciary interpreting existing laws rather than creating them.