Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

Ex praecedentibus et consequentibus optima fit interpretatio - The best interpretation is made from things preceding and following.

Historical background leading to enactment of a statute has been recognized in law as one of the relevant considerations while interpreting a statutory provision and even while examining the extent of its scope and application. Legislative intent and object and reasons of enactment are also accepted as legitimate tools of the law of interpretation. In Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes (Twelfth Edition by P. St. J. Langan) the observation of Sir George Jessel M.R. are noticed when he said, “the court, is not to be oblivious… of the history of law and legislation. Although the Court is not at liberty to construe an Act of Parliament by the motives which influenced the Legislature, yet when the history of law and legislation tells the Court, and prior judgments tell this present Court, what the object of the Legislature was, the Court is to see whether the terms of the section are such as fairly to carry out that object and no other, and to read the section with a view to finding out what it means, and not with a view to extending it to something that was not intended.”

2. It is significant to note that the traditional English view earlier held that Legislative intent is not to be gathered from the Parliamentary history and felt that introduction of the measures in Parliament cannot be used as evidence for the purpose of showing the intention. The Law then gradually changed its course and it was held that the courts are entitled to consider such external or historical facts as may be necessary to understand the subject matter to which the statute relates. The House of Lords in BlackClawsan International Ltd. v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg, A.G., [(1975)1 All ER 810 (HL)] Referred in Principles of Statutory Interpretation (11th Edition 2008) Justice G.P. Sing Wadhwa & Co. Nagpur) unanimously held that the report of a committee presented to Parliament preceding the legislation could be seen for finding out the then state of the law and the mischief required to be remedied. The earlier traditional view came to be criticized and the entire Law tilted more in favour of considering the surrounding circumstances and permitted use of such aid for better interpretation of the provisions. The school of thought that limited but open use should be made of Parliamentary history in construing statutes has been gaining ground as indicated in English Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission as contended in (1970) 33 Modern Law Review 197. Lord Browne Wilkinson said, “Reference to parliamentary material should be permitted as an aid to the construction of legislation which is ambiguous or obscure or the literal meaning of which leads to absurdity. Even in such cases references in court to parliamentary material should only be permitted in given circumstances.

3. Under the American practice, the traditional English practice was relaxed much earlier and now, the law liberally permits reference to historical background. In India, the modern view prevalent in these two systems have been applied with greater freedom and free of restrictions. Right from the case of State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap, AIR 1973 SC 2555, it has been seen that Courts have now veered to the view that legislative history within circumspect limits may be consulted by courts in resolving ambiguities. The use of such remedy has to be purposive that is to achieve the purpose and for finding of the mischief dealt with by the statute or for better attainment of the object of the Legislature. To put it more simply the provisions of a statute and particularly of a procedural code need to be examined very objectively while applying the rule of plain construction at the same time keeping in mind the need to examine the attending circumstances in the backdrop of legislative history. It is a settled principle o