365bet娱乐

The principles of interpretation invented by the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 had been used by the authors of 蝉尘峁泃颈-texts and by the authors of digests. Modern judges of courts have also taken resort to them in giving the verdicts.

The 厂腻谤迟丑补办测补 Principle:

The 蝉腻谤迟丑补办补 principle was used by Jaimini himself with regard to 痴颈诲丑颈惫补苍苍颈驳补诲腻诲丑颈办补谤补峁嘺 (a declaration appearing like a vidhi). There is a passage in the Veda which tells鈥斺�淭he Indian fig tree becomes the sacrificial post, it is strong, strong animals are available; therefore, a strong animal is to be had to match the strength of the sacrificial post.鈥� The objector says: Here in this passage it is clearly indicated that there is a duty enjoined by the concluding part of the passage, if it is not so, the whole passage, as a declaration would be meaningless. Here the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 applied the 蝉腻谤迟丑补办测补 principle. The principle says: 鈥楨very word and sentence must have some meaning and purpose attached to it.鈥� This axiom is shortly expressed by the sentence: 鈥�艣abd膩dhiky膩t arth膩dhikyam鈥� (More words, more meaning). So, the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 say with regard to the above passage that there is no doubt that the passage has the appearance of a vidhi, but it is really a declaration extolling the virtue of a fig-tree, for, to consider it as a vidhi would be to make other vidhis useless and redundant.

闯墨尘奴迟补惫腻丑补苍补, the author of the digest 鈥�顿腻测补产丑腻驳补鈥� utilized this 蝉腻谤迟丑补办测补 principle with regard to a widow鈥檚 right of succession. By using this principle he has avoided the assumption of tautology in interpretation of a concerned text.

He said,

鈥淭he meaning therefore is, 鈥榯he wife shall obtain her husband鈥檚 entire share鈥� not 鈥榮he shall obtain her own entire share鈥�, for the direction that 鈥榮he shall obtain鈥� would be impertinent in respect of her own complete share. Since the intention of the text is to declare a right of property, it ought not to be interpreted as declaring such right in regard to the person鈥檚 own share; for, that is known already from the enunciation of it as that person鈥檚 share, [and it need not therefore be declared]鈥�.

In every sphere of our life we want to avoid the imputation of redundancy. Modern western writers on constitution of statutes give it a high place in their works, and there is a leading English case on this point viz., Reg. V. Bishop of Oxford which lays down:

鈥淎 statute ought to be so construed, that if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence or word shall be superfluous, void or insignificant.鈥�

The 础迟颈诲别艣补 Principle: The principle of 补迟颈诲别艣补 (transfer of one rule used in one case to another case) is widely utilized by the 蝉尘峁泃颈-writers. As, for example, the 艣谤腻诲诲丑补 (offering in funeral rites in honour of the departed relatives) ceremony done during the new moon is regarded as the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 (model), while the other 艣谤腻诲诲丑补 ceremonies are considered as 惫颈办峁泃颈 (modification). In modern legislation when a general Act is expressly incorporated into a special one this corresponds to an 补迟颈诲别艣补 by 艣谤耻迟颈. It should be mentioned that in working out such 补迟颈诲别艣补, certain adjustments are to be made.

This matter of adjustments has been indicated by Maxwell in his 鈥�Interpretation of Statutes鈥�. He said,

鈥淲here a general Act is incorporated into a special one, the provisions of the latter would prevail over any of the former with which they were incosistent. It may be added, also, that when an Act on one subject, such as highways, incorporates some of the provisions comprised in another relating to a different subject such as poor rates, it does not thereby incorporate the modifications of those provisions which are subsequently made in the latter.鈥�^[1]

The 弄丑补 Principle:

The word 奴丑补 means reasoning or adaptation of a new word or change of a word according to the context. Jaimini鈥檚 Book IX discusses 奴丑补 in the sense of an adaptation from a model sacrifice to a modification.

The hymn prescribed for the use in the 膧驳苍别测补 sacrifice is:

鈥�agnaye ju峁ａ弓a峁� nirvap膩mi鈥�

(I set apart the oblation in an agreeable form for the Fire).

While performing the Saurya sacrifice which is a modification of the 膧驳苍别测补 sacrifice, the sacrificer must substitute 蝉奴谤测腻测补 for agnaye and he must read the hymn as 鈥�蝉奴谤测腻测补 ju峁ａ弓a峁� nirvap膩mi 鈥�.

If we look to the modern western works on interpretation, then we can have a rule therein 鈥渃onstruction most agreeable to justice and reason鈥� which would correspond to the 奴丑补 of the Sanskrit writers, Maxwell says:

鈥淚n determining either what was the general object of the Legislature, or the meaning of the language in any particular passage, it is obvious that the intention which appears to be most agreeable to convenience, reason, justice, and legal principles, should, in all cases open to doubt, be presumed to be the true one.鈥�^[2]

驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 also said that the decision should not be based only on the 艣腻蝉迟谤补蝉. By an unreasonable judgement there is loss of dharma (righteousness).

The 叠腻诲丑补 Principle (the principle of Bar)

Jaimini has discussed the principle of 产腻诲丑补 and 腻惫腻辫补 in the tenth chapter in his work. Primarily 产腻诲丑补 means barring a thing owing to inconsistency. When a 惫颈办峁泃颈 (moulded sacrifice) is performed according to its 辫谤补办峁泃颈 (standard sacrifice), some 补峁単补蝉 (sub-ceremonies) of the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 are omitted in the 惫颈办峁泃颈. This is 产腻诲丑补. As for example, in the 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补测腻驳补, certain homas are prescribed. To perform these sub-ceremonies one must borrow details from the 顿补谤艣补辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补测腻驳补. A plain ground is prescribed for the altar in the 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补. But in the 顿补谤艣补辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补 the altar should be erected by digging with spade & c. Such an act would be out of place in constructing the altar for the homas in the 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补. So, the direction regarding the erection of the altar in the 顿补谤艣补辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补测腻驳补 sacrifice is barred in case of the 搁腻箩补蝉奴测补测腻驳补. This is the case of 产腻诲丑补 by reason of express text.

Sometimes, this inconsistency arises incidentally. For example, in the 厂腻诲测补蝉办补 sacrifice, there is no need of cutting the peg with which the animal is to be tied. But in the 础驳苍墨峁�o尘墨测补 sacrifice which is the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 of the 厂腻诲测补蝉办补 sacrifice, reciting of certain hymns is prescribed in connection with the cutting of the peg. This recital being out of place in the 厂腻诲测补蝉办补 sacrifice is barred in carrying the 补迟颈诲别艣补 process.

Similarly, though the 厂补迟谤补测腻驳补 is the 惫颈办峁泃颈 of 厂辞尘补测腻驳补, yet the selection of ritvij is out of place in the 厂补迟谤补测腻驳补 and so omitted, though it is done in the 厂辞尘补测腻驳补.

艢谤颈 叠丑补峁�峁�补 厂补峁僰补谤补 has classified this 产腻诲丑补 into two groups, i.e. pr膩pta 产腻诲丑补 and apr膩pta 产腻诲丑补 in his work 鈥�惭墨尘腻峁僺腻产腻濒补辫谤补办腻艣补鈥�.

He defines pr膩pta 产腻诲丑补 as follows:

鈥�Pr膩tpa 产腻诲丑补 occurs where from 补迟颈诲别艣补 (reference) of general 艣腻蝉迟谤补 and the like, a knowledge is engendered to the effect that a thing is inappropriate in all matters.鈥�

For example, if there be two causal injunctions of which one precedes the other and clashes with another, the preceding injunction is barred by the following one (辫奴谤惫补峁� pare峁嘺 产腻诲丑测补迟别). That which is needed bars what is not needed (ni峁�prayojana峁� saprayojanena 产腻诲丑测补迟别). That which slightly occurs is barred by that which amply occurs (补濒辫补峁� 产丑奴测补蝉腻). That which is in the nature of a part is barred by what is in the nature of the whole (补峁単补峁� 辫谤补诲丑腻苍别苍补). That which serves a practical purpose, bars those which are of an ethical purpose, universal or casual (k膩myena nityasya naimittikasya). That which is directly taught bars, that which is obtainable by reference (补迟颈诲别艣颈办别苍辞辫补诲别艣颈办补蝉测补).

The apr膩ta 产腻诲丑补 is defined to be 产腻诲丑补 in which the sense of inappropriateness of a particular text or of a particular proposition arises from its comparison with another particular text or proposition weightier than itself (yatra tu li峁単膩dau 艣谤耻迟颈kalpan膩pratibandh膩t j帽膩notpattir eva prati产腻诲丑测补迟别 asau aprapta产腻诲丑补岣� iti).

Some examples are given below: A 艣谤奴迟颈 of a doubtful character is barred by a 艣谤奴迟颈 which is free from doubt (asandigdha艣谤耻迟颈产腻诲丑补岣�). A 濒颈峁単补 which is more cogent bars that which is less cogent (濒颈峁単别苍腻辫颈 濒颈峁単补峁� 产腻诲丑测补迟别). A 艣谤耻迟颈 bars a 蝉尘峁泃颈 - (艣谤耻迟测腻 蝉尘峁泃颈r 产腻诲丑测补迟别). A 艣谤耻迟颈 bars an 腻肠腻谤补 (艣谤耻迟测腻 腻肠腻谤补岣� 产腻诲丑测补迟别). An absolute 蝉尘峁泃颈 without reference to any popular reason bars one that is based upon a popular reason (ad峁涐梗峁�膩rthasm峁泃y膩 d峁涐梗峁�膩rath膩 蝉尘峁泃颈r 产腻诲丑测补迟别). That which serves a purpose immediately bars that which is of a remote service (膩r膩dupak膩ritva峁� sannip膩titvena). If one can fill up an ellipsis by an expression which occurs in a passage, he should no go beyond it (anu峁�a峁単en膩dhy膩h膩ro 产腻诲丑测补迟别). From the 蝉尘峁泃颈 point of view it is also said that an 补辫奴谤惫补惫颈诲丑颈 is barred by the niyamavidhi. Though the Veda acknowledges the supremacy of 补辫奴谤惫补惫颈诲丑颈 over all injunctions, yet in the 蝉尘峁泃颈 law the 诲峁涐梗峁璦 (object of sense) is of greater importance than a诲峁涐梗峁璦 (supersensuous matter). So, an injunction of transcendental sanction has to yield to one of wordly sanction.

It should be remembered with regard to 产腻诲丑补 that if there is contradiction of two directions of equal strength, there is not 产腻诲丑补. It is called virodha. In that case the two directions can not be reconciled. One is at his liberty to accept one or the other text at his option. But when one of two conflicting things has a presumption in its favour, it bars the other which can claim no such presumption. This is the case of 产腻诲丑补. Here one thing supersedes the other. But where there is only an apparent contradiction, but in reality the grounds covered by the texts are different and are compatible with each other, there is neither virodha nor 产腻诲丑补.

It should also be mentioned that two varying 蝉尘峁泃颈 texts are rarely in direct contradiction, for all 蝉尘峁泃颈 texts on a given subject are supposed to be derived from and to conform to some one and the same missing 艣谤耻迟颈 text. So, a direct contradiction between two 蝉尘峁泃颈 texts can not be assumed. Therefore, the digest writers are bound to reconcile the varying 蝉尘峁泃颈 texts somehow or other.

Tantrat膩, 笔谤补蝉补峁単补 and 膧v膩pa:

There are also some principles relating to the application of vidhi texts. These are 迟补苍迟谤补迟腻, 辫谤补蝉补峁単补 and 腻惫腻辫补. The etymological meaning of tantrata is extension. The figure of speech from which the 迟补苍迟谤补迟腻 苍测腻测补 is taken is interesting. It is taken from the process of the weaver who, by pushing up the woof, touches all the warps. So, 迟补苍迟谤补迟腻 involves the principle of avoiding repetition of acts when a single act would serve the purpose. 笔谤补蝉补峁単补 denotes incidental. By this principle the performance of the major duty dispenses with the performance of the minor duties which are involved in it. As, when an offering presented for the principle 测腻驳补办谤补尘补 is made, it incidentally serves the purpose of subordinate sacrifices in which the same offering is to be performed. When a repetition of the same act is prescribed with regard to more than one thing, to dispense with the repetition is 迟补苍迟谤补迟腻.

膧v膩pa is the reverse of 迟补苍迟谤补迟腻. It is the repetition of a thing many times to make it useful to many cases. In fact, where repetition is necessary to serve a purpose, it is 腻惫腻辫补; as in the case of husking of grains, which must be repeated until all the husks are completely removed. The 迟补苍迟谤补迟腻 can be explained by the following instance. When a man has failed to do several duties at their proper time, and the same penance is prescribed for the delay in each case, the penance need not be repeated, but once done absolves the man from the fault. 笔谤补蝉补峁単补 is the incidental effect of an act of which the chief purpose is different. For example, if a whole animal has been consecrated, its flesh for preparation of sacrificial food need not be separately consecrated.

Raghunandana has rightly said in his 鈥楿dv膩hatatva鈥�,

鈥�蝉补办峁泃 办峁泃别 办峁泃补岣� 艣腻蝉迟谤腻谤迟丑补岣�鈥�

(An act enjoined by the 艣腻蝉迟谤补蝉 need not be performed more than once).

This principle is also regarded as a maxim.

Illegality and Irregularity:

In modern law illegality and irregularity play an important role. There is a subtle distinction between these two matters. Illegality implies an act in violation of some rule the consequences of which violation is to make the act null and void. On the other hand, irregularity implies an act in violation of a rule the result of which violation does not make the act null and void. In case of illegality the rule violated is imperative. But in case of irregularity it is simply regulatory. The 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 and Hindu lawyers also make the same distinction. Actually, no system of law can possibly avoid it. With regard to a sacrifice, certain 补峁単补蝉 (essential parts) must be performed for the completion of the sacrifice. Otherwise, the sacrifice will be void. This is the case of illegality. But there are certain other matters which are merely matters of niyama (regulation), and the violation of them does not make the sacrifice completely void, but merely a little defective. 鈥楶erform the Agnihotra with curdled milk鈥� is an imperative rule. It can not be dispensed with. The violation of this imperative rule reminds us the illegality of modern law. But the direction 鈥榖eat the wheat to unhusk it鈥� is a simple regulatory rule. If a sacrificer unhusks the wheat not by beating and if he does it by any other method, it will only make the 补辫奴谤惫补 (spiritual benefit) a little less, but it will not render the sacrifice void. In 鈥�惭颈迟腻办峁�a谤腻 鈥� Vij帽膩ne艣vara has discussed some other examples of irregularity. He establishes that, if the precept that a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 should not make wealth by receiving a return for religious work, may not have been observed, yet that will not void the 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺鈥檚 right to the wealth acquired by breach of the precept. In 鈥�顿腻测补产丑腻驳补鈥� 闯墨尘奴迟补惫腻丑补苍补 establishes that though there is a direction to a man not to dispose of even his self-acquired property yet if any one violates the precept by alienation of the property, the violation of the precept does not make the alienation void. This is called the doctrine of factum valet. It is a case of irregularity as contradistinguished from illegality. It proves the minuteness of the power of thinking of the Hindu lawyers.

Patent and Latent Ambiguity:

The topic of patent and latent ambiguity of modern law can also be found in the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 艢腻蝉迟谤补. When a passage is either self-contradictory or uncertain of meaning on the face to it, it is a case of patent ambiguity. But when a passage would only be unmeaning, if it be applied to a certain thing, but not, if it be applied to another, then it is a case of latent ambiguity. Though these terms are usually used with reference to private documents, yet passages in statutes may also happen to be in either of the two categories. The passages are discarded in the case of patent ambiguity. But in the case of latent ambiguity, extrinsic evidence or circumstances are to be resorted to, to ascertain the intention of the passage. This is the law according to modern jurisprudence.

In the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 艢腻蝉迟谤补, a patent conflict is a case of 辫谤补迟颈峁�e诲丑补 (simultaneous injunction and prohibition) resulting in option, as in the case of the texts:

鈥�atir膩tre 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍a峁� g峁沨峁嚹乼i鈥�

(He should use the 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍 vessel in the dead of night)

And:

鈥�n膩tir膩tre 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍a峁� g峁沨峁嚹乼i鈥�

(He should not use the 峁�o岣峚艣颈苍 vessel in the dead of night).

In case of the latent ambiguity no word or sentence is taken as self-contradictory or absolutely uncertain of meaning. Sometimes the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 virtually take the liberty of even correcting the language by means of the 濒颈峁単补, 惫腻办测补 or 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 principle. They give a meaning to such apparently incoherent expressions as 鈥渢he vegetables performed sacrifice for a session.鈥� Here the 鈥�kaimutika 苍测腻测补鈥� (the maxim of what after) is applied. This 苍测腻测补 means that when the more difficult of the two propositions is proved, the simpler one is to be taken as proved i.e. it is needless to say that the simpler proposition must be true. With regard to the above expression, the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 say that man should certainly perform sacrifices as even the vegetables did once upon a time. This is a case of latent ambiguity.

The Principle of 础苍耻峁�a峁単补:

There is an important principle in the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 system of philosophy regarding the addition of new words in a sentence. It is the principle of 补苍耻峁�a峁単补 which comes under the rule cases omissus (补诲丑测腻丑腻谤补). The 补苍耻峁�a峁単补 principle (or elliptical extension) states that an expression occurring in one clause is often meant also for a neighbouring clause, and it is only for economy that it is only mentioned in the former. This principle has a further sub-categorization. If a clause which occurs in a subsequent sentence is to be read into a previous sentence, it is a case of 迟补诲补辫补办补谤峁�a, but when it is vice-versa it is called 迟补诲耻迟办补谤峁�a.

The 补苍耻峁�a峁単补 principle was used by J墨m奴tv膩hana in his 顿腻测补产丑腻驳补. J墨m奴tv膩hana found that there is a text of Manu which declares:

鈥淥f a woman married according to the 产谤腻丑尘补, daiva, 腻谤峁�a, 驳腻苍诲丑补谤惫补 and 辫谤腻箩腻辫补迟测补 form, the property shall go to the husband if she dies without issue. But her property, given to her on her marriage in the form called 腻蝉耻谤补, 谤腻办峁�a蝉补 and 辫补颈艣腻肠补, on her death without issue, shall become the property of her parents.鈥�

In the second sentence the word 鈥榩roperty鈥� is qualified by the words 鈥榞iven to her on her marriage鈥�. But in the first sentence that word is not qualified by such qualification. By using the 补苍耻峁�a峁単补 principle, 闯墨尘奴迟补惫腻丑补苍补 said that the clause 鈥榞iven to her on her marriage鈥� should also be inserted in the first sentence after the word 鈥榩roperty鈥�.

Similarly, for the interpretation of the 办腻谤颈办腻, 鈥�sa峁僺峁涐梗峁璱nas tu sa峁僺峁涐梗t墨...鈥�^[3] of the 鈥�痴测补惫补丑腻谤腻诲丑测腻测补鈥� of 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sa峁僪it膩, one has to borrow the clause 鈥�svary膩tasya hyaputrasya鈥� (of one dying without having a son) from the 办腻谤颈办腻 starting with 鈥�e峁Ｄ乵 abh膩ve p奴rvasya鈥�.^[4]

Otherwise, he will not get the proper meaning intended by the author 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补. This is also a case of 补苍耻峁�a峁単补. In the Paninian grammar this technique is called 补苍耻惫峁泃迟颈. It is used there extensively. Actually, Paninian grammar is based on this principle. For example, the word 鈥�办腻谤补办别鈥� of the formula 鈥�办腻谤补办别鈥�^[5] is to be inserted to those formulas which give the definitions of different 办腻谤补办补蝉. However, a little change is to be made to have the proper meaning of those formulas. The word 鈥�办腻谤补办别鈥� is to be changed into 鈥�办腻谤补办补尘鈥�. So, after the insertion of the word 鈥�办腻谤补办别鈥� into the formula 鈥�kartur 墨psitatama峁� karma鈥�^[6] it will mean the 办腻谤补办补 which is mostly desired to get by the agent by his action, will get the nomenclature 鈥�karman鈥� i.e. 鈥�karma办腻谤补办补鈥�. If the insertion is not done, then the 鈥�karman鈥� can not be regarded as 鈥�办腻谤补办补鈥�. 鈥�碍腻谤补办补鈥� means the relation between the term expressing the verb of a sentence and the other terms of that sentence. This 补苍耻峁�a峁単补 principle was also used in the case 鈥�Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr.鈥�^[7] by Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Markandey Katju of the Supreme Court of India.

The question in this appeal was whether the appellant fulfilled the requisite academic qualification for appointment to the post of Reader in Public Administration in Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa. The appellant was selected by an interview of an expert committee and he joined on 4.4.2005. Respondent No. 2 of this case, Dr. Raj Kumar Siwach filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court being CWP No. 6642/ 2005 in which he alleged that Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Reader in Public Administration as the appellant was M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science and not in Public Administration.

The High Court by the impugned judgement dated 21.9.2006 allowed the writ petition and set aside the selection and appointment of the appellant. The High Court gave its attention to the phrase 鈥榓ppropriate subjects鈥� of the sentence of the Regulation 2 of the UGC Regulations. It also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University, (2001) 8SCC 532, in which the apex Court observed that the subjects of Public Administration and Political Science are distinct and separate and a person possessing the academic qualification in the disciple of Political Science could not be appointed in the disciple of Public Administration.

Actually, the prase 鈥榠n the relevant subject鈥� was used in the qualification of the Lecturer post of the UGC Regulation. But this phrase was not used in the qualification of the Reader post. The judges of the Supreme Court gave this judgement that the words 鈥榠n the relevant subject鈥� has to be read into the qualification for the post of Reader also. Otherwise, it will lead to a strange situation as that would mean that a person who has an M.A. degree in Music or History, is qualified to be appointed as Reader in Political Science. So, it is a matter of 补苍耻峁�a峁単补.

The Justice Katju also said that a concession was made by the Supreme Court with regard to the decision in 鈥�Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University鈥� case. Hence, the judgement can not be regarded as a precedent. No reasoning has also been given in that case as to why it had been held that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects. If any decision of a court lays down some principle of law supported by reasons, then it becomes precedent. Mere resemblance does not cause precedentness.

The UGC also wrote a letter dated 5.3.1992 to the Registrar M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the above mentioned two subjects are inter-changeable and inter-related, and a candidate who possesses Master鈥檚 degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. Actually, Political Science is the mother subject and Public Administration is the offshoot of the same. In deciding Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda鈥檚 case, the Supreme Court did not have the benefit of the views of the University and the University Grants Commission and the conclusion was made on the basis of a personal understanding of Public Administration and Political Science. So, the two cases are distinguished from each other. Both can not be compared. They are based on different circumstances.

So, the omission of the phrase 鈥榠n the relevant subject鈥� in the UGC Regulation regarding the post of a Reader was not unintentional. It was done only for economy (濒腻驳丑补惫补).

Therefore, the two Justices of the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed in the High Court and upheld the appointment of the appellant in Public Administration.

With these illustrations of few principles envisaged by the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉, it is proved that these principles of interpretion were used in the ancient times and these are being used in the jurisprudence by the jurists even today. It is our great pride that our forefathers had invented these principles and they had propagated them through philosophy, grammar, law etc. It is also our great shame that we, the scholars of this modern age, are forgetting these helpful principles because of unfamiliarity with these principles of interpretation. We must acquire the knowledge of these principles to lead our life in a logical and convenient way. The logical attitude of the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 must be acquired and applied in all branches of modern knowledge for the advancement of learning. In the performance of any programme, the methodology of interpretation of the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 must be applied to make it more precise and effective. If we acquire this kind of attitude, we shall be able to show our due respect to this ancient system of Indian philosophy.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Maxwell鈥檚 鈥業nterpretation of Statutes鈥� 3rd Edition, p. 254.

[2]:

Maxwell鈥檚 鈥業nterpretation of Statutes鈥� 3rd Edition, p. 264.

[3]:

驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sa峁僪ita, 2/138.

[4]:

驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sa峁僪ita, 2/136.

[5]:

础峁ａ弓腻诲丑测腻测墨, 1.4.24.

[6]:

Ibid, 1.4.59.

[7]:

Civil Appeal No. 4908 of 2008. (Date: Aug. 6, 2008)