Difference Between Interpretation And Construction

The word 'interpretation' actually means 'to provide meaning', but it also happens to be a technique for bringing together unrelated data and the process of presenting something to readers based on your ideas in a situation in which the interpretation of the law would reveal its true meaning and intention. The construction conveys the sense of a complex concept. If there is ambiguity, then the court might decide the meaning of the words to be used further in that case. Construction helps when there is uncertainty in a conclusion, whereas interpretation assists in understanding the meaning of the words.

In this article, we will delve into the interpretation and construction from a broader scope to understand their distinct roles in the legal process. By the end, you will have a clear understanding of how these two concepts differ and how they are both essential in law.

Interpretation

Interpretation and construction are the principles followed in analysing statutes so courts can efficiently apply and uphold the rule of law. Although such concepts go hand-in-hand, they serve purposes in the perception and implementation of statutes. Interpretation refers to understanding and discerning language's meaning as a fine art. In a statute, lawmakers use words and phrases to describe their intentions and set of rules. Still, due to the intricacies of language and the multi-dimensionality of matters that statutes deal with, the meaning of statutes may not always be clearly expressed. Thus, it becomes a duty for courts to interpret language to find legislative intent.

When some irregularities and ambiguous words are present in the law, the court should interpret them properly by determining the real meaning of the words applying various rules of interpretation. Interpretation of statutes is merely the process of interpreting the meaning of the text in the law and applying it to the case in the proper manner. It is through the interpretation of legislation and the interpretation of statutes that the court can determine the exact intent of the legislature. Interpretation is not always necessary when the wording of a statute is clear and plain.

The objective of interpretation is to answer the question of what the law says and what it was meant to do. It encompasses the law’s intent, purpose, and objectives to discern the meaning behind its words. Judges, with their careful analysis of the wording, sentence structure, and arrangement of the statute, play a crucial role in understanding what the law is meant to say. Law construction and application deals with its interpretation in specific cases or situations. Once the court has grasped what a statute means, how that meaning is to be implemented should be followed in real-life scenarios. This then calls for construction.

Construction

Construction involves the explanation and application of the law. It means adapting the words of statutes to situations while finding a way to apply the law in cases. By implementing construction, courts decide how to apply the law in practice to resolve disputes, protect rights, and ensure justice. According to Salmond, “interpretation and construction is the process by which the court seeks to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.” According to Cooley, “construction is the process of concluding, respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text, which is in the spirit though not within the letter of law”.

The distinction between interpretation and construction mainly lies in their scope and emphasis. Interpretation primarily serves the purpose of being able to understand and reveal intent, whereas construction involves the act of applying that intent to situations. Interpretation provides guidelines so construction is done inside those boundaries and courts can apply the law consistently and fairly. In practice, interpretation and construction tend to be closely connected. The court's interpretation of a statute will influence the construction of its judgments in the cases.  For this reason, we can also assume safely that the results of the case laws will be considered during the construction of future statutes.

Construction is the process of translating the semantics of a legal text into legal rules. This, in other words, relates to the drawing of conclusions from a subject that cannot be understood directly from

the text. In law, construction relates to the process of legal explanation that makes sense of difficult and hard terms written in statutes and gives a conclusion based on logic and reasoning. A court extracts findings after scrutinising the meaning of the words used in the text. The intent behind the construction is to determine the legal effect of the legal text. The basic rule of construction is to read the text, laws or statutes literally.

For example, in a situation that involves a contract, interpretation defines whether any term in the contract, be it the meaning or definition of a term or the intent that parties had when entering the said contract, means. Construction, on the other hand, applies the contract to the facts involved with a particular dispute, like whether a breach of contract is involved and what damages should result.

Similarly, in the case of a statute, interpretation provides what words have been used to say how broad the given provision is or what the legislation's intent behind enacting the given statute. In contrast, construction involves how the statute can be applied to the facts of a particular case, such as whether a certain activity falls within the scope of the statute and what penalties are to be imposed.

Case Laws Illustrating The Difference

1. Heydon’s Case (1584)

Here, the rule of interpretation, which is narrow as compared to the literal and the golden rules of interpretation, provides judges with more discretion to decide than the other two rules, and it is therefore regarded as the third rule of statutory construction. The word generally "mischief" refers to loss or damage caused to a person or property. The development of a remedy for the flaw in the statute is what is mainly aimed for through this rule.

2. Marbury v. Madison

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted and construed the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted the language of the Constitution to make the claim for the power of judicial review on behalf of the court. He also applied principles of construction to work out how that power was to be exercised in practice and shaped the role of the judiciary in American law.

Differences Between Interpretation And Construction

1. Purpose

The interpretation process primarily focuses on determining the precise meaning of the words used in a legal text. This involves the discovery of the true intent or meaning as expressed behind the use of the words by scrutinizing the plain and literal meaning, canons of interpretation, legislative history, and other aids.

In construction, on the other hand, meaning is decided about how the text should be applied in real life. While applying broader principles to language, especially when the text is vague, ambiguous, or simply silent on a certain issue, construction is involved.

2. Methodology

The methodology for interpretation can, therefore, be considered to include such aspects as looking into the grammatical structure of the legal text, the ordinary meaning of the words, and the context in which they are employed. Judges also make use of some rules of interpretation when determining the intended meaning of words-including the literal rule, the golden rule, or the mischief rule.

However, in construction, law is applied to specific circumstances, and courts may exercise judicial discretion or refer to broader legal principles to clear up how a statute or contract should be enforced. Construction may also require the meaning that is intended, beyond the literal meaning of the text itself, in order that law might be administered equitably and uniformly.

3. Role of Context

Interpretation is essentially concerned with words of the legal text itself and looks at the internal context, or it takes into account the words immediately around. However, if there is the possibility of more than one interpretation of a word or phrase, then external aids such as legislative history, precedents, or established legal definitions are brought in.

Construction typically tends to look to the broader context of the law, such as the whole legal system itself, the values and mores of society, and often the underlying purpose of a statute or contract. In such a way, construction affords the ability to make more general considerations when applying the rule to peculiar circumstances, especially when there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the text.

4. Ambiguity and Vagueness

Perhaps one of the more significant differences between interpretation and construction is even in those instances where the words of a legal document are ambiguous. Interpretation seeks clarity in ambiguity through further inquiry into the language, context, and intent behind the use of those words.

When ambiguity persists, construction becomes an element. It is aimed at clarifying the actual application of ambiguous or vague terms in practice. Construction may include filling gaps, reconciling conflicting provisions, or giving effect to the underlying purpose of the text.

5. Judicial Discretion

Interpretation by judges is usually controlled by the words of the text and the intent of the lawmakers who drafted the text. There would be little scope for judicial ingenuity or room for discretion since faithful conformity to the text is what interpretation is after.

But then again, in construction, it appears that judges can stretch their discretion even further. Construction of statutes often obliges courts to balance different interest considerations but ensure that the application of the law is congruent with or expressive of the relevant legal principle, social policy, and public interest. The call for judicial discretion is well amplified in construction when the involved legal concepts are abstract or constantly evolving.

Conclusion

Interpretation and construction often represent two different yet complementary processes in the world of law. One deals with understanding the literal meaning of legal texts, whereas the latter necessitates the application of that meaning for specific cases and the elimination of ambiguities arising. Both very much go along in ensuring that legal documents, statutes, and constitutions are understood and that they function properly in a fair and just manner. This is important in the sense that for any legal expert to navigate the language of law successfully, it would be desirable to know the basic difference between these two concepts. The coherent application of the law in a changing society depends on the understanding of the meanings.