The interpretation of statutes is a good understanding of the law. The courts usually follow this process to determine the true purpose of the legislature. Because the purpose of the Court is not only to study the law but to use it in a meaningful way, which is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It is also used to ensure the true meaning of any law or document with the primary purpose of the legislature.

There may be mischief in the law that needs to be corrected, and this can be done by applying various ethical and higher principles, which can sometimes be contrary to meaning. The purpose of the interpretation is to explain the meaning of the words used in these vague laws.

Parliament passes laws, but the role of judges is to explain what parliament says. There is a limit to reason and creativity in the way they interpret the law. Like other forms of communication, the law contains words that have many meanings or changes meanings depending on their context.

The law should be drafted in a way that can be used effectively in different situations, often without clarity or accuracy. Language can create a vague, vague or meaningless law that fails to achieve the desired results once incorrectly described. In such cases, judges should give effective meaning to the law.

The paper tries to identify the presumptions made and difficulties in interpreting the statutes and find solutions to avoid the difficulties in interpretation.

Introduction
The term is derived from the Latin word "interpretari", which means explanation, expound, understanding or translation. Interpretation is the process of interpreting, expounding and translating anything into any written text or form written. It is essentially a question of finding the true meaning of the language used in the statute. The various sources used are limited to examining the written text and clarifying the words used in the written text or written laws.

According to Salmond, "interpretation" is a process in which the Court tries to emphasize the meaning of the legislature through the official forms expressed.

In simple, construction is a process that derives consequences from things that go beyond the direct expression of the text. The courts draw conclusions after analyzing the meaning of the words used in texts or laws. This process is called legal clarification. There is a certain set of facts in court, and construction uses the conclusion of those facts.

The aim is to assist the judiciary in determining the true purpose of the legislature. It aims to ensure legal influence on the legal text.

The interpretation of any data is to analyze publicly available data and come up with a firm and clear idea. This increases a person's ability to understand and interpret in his or her own way. It helps to find ways to understand and analyze the law, moving the translator from common sense to a new meaning.

It is essential that all law students, lawyers and judges know how to interpret the law whenever the legislator proposes a new law or amendment because they deal with these laws every day. The main objective of the analysis is to know the new changes resulting from the effects of this law on the law and society.

Objectives of the study
The objective of the study is to try and identify the problems in making presumptions in interpreting the statutes and check for any possible solutions to avoid difficulties in interpreting statutes.

Research Problem
The words used in the law must always be clear, open and explicit so that in such cases it is very important for the courts to determine the clear meaning of the words or expressions used by the legislator while removing all doubts. Therefore, all the laws mentioned in the article are important for justice.

There are two contrasting views as to how judges should go about determining the meaning of a statute – the restrictive, literal, controlled and direct approach and the more permissive, purposive, realistic and pure approach. Therefore, it is difficult in understanding the method of interpretation of statutes.

Research Questions:

1. What are the methods to interpret the statutes and when and how it is used?
2. What are the presumptions made in interpreting the statutes? What are the difficulties?
3. What are the remedial measures given to avoid difficulties in interpreting statutes?

Research Methodology
The subject matter of my research is, "Analysis of presumption and difficulties in interpreting the statutes". My study is based totally on "DOCTRINAL METHOD." There are many concepts or doctrines in this challenge. And additionally, this venture contains maximum of the issues related to this subject matter. This undertaking is really primarily based on studies methodology.

The source materials are secondary. I even have used secondary assets like books, articles, and journals, and Internet-based research.

Literature Review
Given the precise nature of its work, which is to define the purpose of Parliament and give judges greater discretion than any other statute, much work has been done on this particular issue, a legal interpretation that effectively defines the purpose of Parliament. But, at the same time, it can be argued that it ignores the dominance of Parliament and is undemocratic because it takes legislative decisions from the legislature.

Judicially, this controversy has been considered by many writers in their books, some of them Kafaltiya, B. M Gandhi, Maxwell's "Interpretation of statutes" and GP Singh's "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" and many more in this regard. The purposive interpretation is used when courts use external documents at the pre-legislative level, including drafts, Hansard, committee reports, etc. The purposive interpretation includes the rejection of the exclusionary rule.

Analysis
Interpretation is the art of finding a common sense of law by giving the words of the law their natural and public meaning. It is a process that guarantees the true meaning of the words used in the act. The Court does not expect its interpretation, and therefore the continuing education of the courts has developed some policies. These principles are called 'rules of interpretation'.

Legislators could be expected to draft legal laws, particularly modern laws and laws, and could be expected to give less room for linguistic or constructive interpretation. But the experience of all those who have to bear and share the law is different.[1]

Detailed rules of interpretation laws evolved in the early stages of Hindu civilization and culture. The first rules presented by the author Of Mimamsat Sutras, 'Jaimini' also used the interpretation of smritis to explain Srutis.[2]

In the interpretation process, many aids are used. They are statutory or non-statutory. Statutory aid can be interpreted by the General Clauses Act 1897 and the specific definitions of individual Acts, while non-statutory aid describes legal interpretation laws (including some interpretation presumptions) and case law on the interpretation of laws.

Legal interpretation is a process that confirms the true meaning of the words used in the law. When the wording of the law is clear, explanatory laws are not needed. But in some cases, the same word or phrase can create many meanings. Therefore, it is necessary to explain the law to know the exact purpose of the law.

Scope and Nature of Interpretation
The need for interpretation arises only when the language of the statutory provision is vague or unclear, when there are two possible ideas, or when another meaning is given that runs counter to the meaning of the statute.

If the wording is clear and regulated, there is no need for clarification. A constitution bench of five judges of the Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v A.R. Antulay[3] stated that the:
"… If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self-defeating."

Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay[4], has observed:
"Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions."

The purpose of interpreting statutes is to assist judges in confirming the intention of the legislature - not to control that intention or to confine it within the limits, judges may deem reasonable or expedient.

The correct is one that best harmonizes the words with the object of the statute.[5] As stated by Iyer J. "to be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul. The judicial key of construction is the composite perception of the deha and the dehi of the provision."[6]

According to Blackstone the fairest and rational method for interpreting a statute is by exploring the intention of the Legislature through the most natural and probable signs which are 'either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law'.[7]

Interpretation of Statutes is required for two basic reasons:

1. Legislative language - legislative language can be complex for the common man, and therefore the need for interpretation;
2. Legislative objectives - The purpose of the legislative or legislative purpose combines two elements: a. The concept of meaning, i.e., what the meaning of the word is; b. the concept of 'object' and 'purpose' or 'spirit' or the 'reason' pervading through the statute.

Need for interpretation

1. Ambiguity of words used in the statute:
   Sometimes there are words with many meanings. It may not be clear what to use. This can lead to many interpretations made.
    
2. Change in the environment:
   We all know that society changes from time to time and that new development may occur in a society that does not portend future events and is not taken into account.
    
3. Complexities of the statutes:
   Generally, the statutes are complex and large, it is not easy to understand complex words and words and there are a few technical words that can cause this complex confusion.
    
4. When the law does not cover a particular area:
   It does not cover all areas that help to bridge the gap between certain grey areas and interpretation helps in filling the gaps.
    
5. Drafting error:
   The draft can be done without sufficient information. This can happen because there are no necessary words or appropriate grammar. This makes the draft unclear and creates ambiguity in the legislative assembly.
    
6. Incomplete rules:
   Some implied laws and regulations are not specified in the law and some implied powers and privileges cause ambiguity if they are not properly defined in the statute.

Some Important Points to be taken care of in the context of interpreting Statutes:

• The intention of the Legislative Assembly.
• The law must be read in context as a whole.
• The law should be defined in such a way as to make it effective and practical - if the legal system is vague and capable of a different interpretation, construction should be approved, and other provisions of the law should have meaning and influence.
• If meaning is plain, the effect must be given to it irrespective of consequences.
• The construction process combines purposive and literal approaches. The purposive construction rule states that you should shift from literal construction when it leads to absurdity.
   

Rules of Interpretation
Literal or Grammatical Rule
This is the first rule of explanation. According to this law, the words used in this text must be given or interpreted in their general or ordinary sense. After the explanation, if the matter is completely clear and unambiguous, whatever the outcome, the rule of law is given the effect.

The basic law should be expressed through words and thus whatever the purpose of the legislature in making any law should be explained according to the rules of grammar. It is a safe rule of interpretation of laws as it originates from words and language used with the intention of the legislature.

According to the rule, if the wording of the law was clear and there was no work to determine the consequences, the court's only duty was to have an impact. The purpose of the law was to interpret the law, and if there were serious consequences, the legislator would seek and preserve the solution.

Case Laws
Maqbool Hussain V. State of Bombay [8]
Did not announce on the occasion that an Indian national was carrying gold with him after arriving at the airport. During their search, gold was found in their possession as it was against government notification and seized under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.

He was subsequently charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The appellant questioned the investigation into the violation of Article 20 (2) of India's Constitution. According to this article, no one is punished or tried more than once for the same offence. This is double jeopardy.

The court said the Seas Act was not a court or a judicial tribunal. Thus, accordingly, he has not been prosecuted before. So, his case was considered valid.

Manmohan Das versus Bishan Das[9]
The case is regarding the interpretation of Section 3(1) (C) of the U.P Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. In this case, the tenant was liable for evidence if he had made an additional and choice in the building without proper authority and created an informal assumption that the accommodation had been physically altered or likely to be reduced in value. The appellant said only a constitution depreciating property can be controlled and the word 'or' should be read as land.

Literally according to the law of interpretation, the word 'or' requires a wise man to understand the fundamentals of the event, which must be included and not included.

State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others[10]
A person was caught using fake currency "dollar" and read using Sections 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for possessing fake currency under sections 120B, 498A, 498C and 420 read with sections 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for possessing counterfeit currency. The accused argued in the court that charges can be framed only under Section 498A and 498B of the Indian Penal Code in the case of counterfeiting of Indian currency and not in the case of counterfeiting of foreign currency. The court said the word currency notes or banknote cannot be prefixed. That person was charged-sheeted.

Criticism:

• Judges started giving great importance to the literal meaning of statutory provisions without considering the broader meaning of the reference.
• This method ignores the limitations of language.
• Words go through a change in their spirit as time passes.
• On the basis of a false assumption that a word has only one definite meaning.
• Lack of clarity in the law
• It leads us to prejudices and determines the meaning of the law.
• Mischief Rule

The Mischief rule originated in the Hayden case in 1584. This is the rule of retrospective construction because the purpose of this rule is very important while implementing this rule. This is called Hayden's law because it was given by Lord Poke in 1584 in the case of Hayden. This is called the mischief rule as the focus is on curing the mischief.

In Hayden's case, it was said that four subjects were generally to be followed for true and definite interpretation of all the inscriptions, which are as follows:

1. What was the general law before drafting an Act.
2. What mischief was the present law made for?
3. What solution did Parliament seek or address and appoint to treat the disease of the Commonwealth?
4. Real reason for the solution.

The purpose of this rule is to suppress mischief and lead the solution.

Case laws
Smith v. Huges [11]
In this case around the 1960s, prostitutes took to the streets of London the 1960s and this creates a big problem in London. This has created a lot of problems in maintaining law and order. The Street Offences Act 1959 was enacted to prevent this problem. After the law was enforced, prostitutes started soliciting from windows and balconies.

Further, prostitutes transported to search from roads and balconies were charged under Section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes argued that they were not asked for from the streets.

The Court stated that even if they did not ask the street, the Act should be used to prevent prostitutes from claiming and the matter should be investigated. The Court stated, in the implementation of the law, that the words "windows" and "balcony" should be an extension of the street and that the indictment should be correct.

Pyare Lal v. Ram Chandra [12]
A case has been registered against the accused of selling sweet supari with the help of artificial sweetness. He was convicted under the Food Adulteration Act. Pyare Lal argued that supari is not a food item. The court observed that the dictionary does not always mean the right meaning so that the mischief rule should apply and the definition of leading the solution should be considered. Therefore, the court said that the word food is used by mouth and orally. Thus, his prosecution was held as valid.

Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration[13]
The issue of the case is as follows: Section 418 of the Delhi Corporation Act, 1902 empowered the Corporation to graze cattle on Government land. MCD rounded up cattle belonging to Kanwar Singh. The words used in the law empowered the corporation to round up abandoned cattle. Kanwar Singh argued that means it was his loss of ownership and round cattle and hence it was not spared. The court said that this mischief rule should be enforced, the dropped word rest and it will also be added that it will also leave it at the temporary loss of rights.

Criticism:

• It is considered an old rule because it came to the picture in the 16th century.
• Gives additional powers to the unelected judiciary and is considered undemocratic.
• This makes the law uncertain.
• In the 16th-century kings gave the judiciary all the powers to make laws, so at that time they were well qualified for mischief acts.
• The Golden Rule

This is called the golden rule as it solves all the problems of interpretation. But if the explanation provided by the literal rule leads to any kind of ambiguity, injustice, restlessness, trouble and inequality in all such situations, the literal meaning is discarded and interpreted in the manner the purpose of the law is fulfilled.

The literal rule really follows the idea of explaining the natural meaning of words used in law. But if explaining natural meaning leads to repugnance, absurdity or hardship, it means that it should be revised to the level of injustice or stupidity caused by the court and the consequences cannot be prevented.

This law says that the results and consequences of interpretation are of great importance, as they symbolize the true meaning and purpose of the words used by the legislature. Sometimes, when this law is used, the explanation produced may be quite contrary to the law, but it is justified because of the golden rule. The assumption here is that the legislature does not want certain objectives. Therefore, such an explanation leading to unintended items is rejected.

Case laws
Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh [14]
In this case, it was difficult to issue a notice under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on corrupt practices involved in elections.

As per the rule, notices should be issued to all persons who are parties to the election petition as well as those who are not a party to it. Tirath Singh argued that no such notice was served to him under the said provision. Notices have been issued only to those who were party to the election petition. An enquiry was conducted on the specific basis that it is invalid.

The court said that even if given twice, information remains the same. The petitioning party already has notice regarding the petition and therefore Section 99 only requires notification against the parties and should be very detailed by enacting the golden rule.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company [15]
A company was challenged and accused of the transport of parcel carrying apples. The parcel contained opium along with Apple and seized the transport company's truck. Meanwhile, only Apple was on the invoice shown for transportation.

Section 11 of the Opium Act, 1878 requires seizure and confiscation of all vehicles carrying banned goods. The transport company seized it saying they did not know that the truck was full of apples and blacks.

The court said that although the words of Section 11 of the above Act were given to seize the vehicle, the introduction of direct law of interpretation in the Act would create injustice and inequality and therefore this definition should be avoided. The words 'shall be confiscated' should be described as 'maybe confiscated'.

State of Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum [16]
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1844 states that the verdict should be appealed within six months of the declaration of compensation. Quiser Jehan was awarded. She was informed after a period of six months. The appeal was filed after a period of six months. Lower courts rejected the appeal.

The court said that since the explanation led to absurdity, knowledge had been in place for six months from the time of Quiser Jehan. The court passed an appeal to enforce the golden rule.

Criticism:

• This infringes the separation of power among the wings of the government that is between the judiciary and legislature.
• Here judges can technically change the law by changing the meaning of the words in the statute.
• This method can be used only when there is an absurdity in the statute.

Other Rules

• Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
  It is a Latin phrase that says 'Express Mention and Implied Exclusion', which means that the clear context of a subject does not include everything else. It is believed that items not on the list do not come under the purview of the law. When something is clearly mentioned in the law, it leads to the assumption that things not specified in the law are excluded.
  
  In a law, general words must obtain a general structure if they do not specify any specific meaning for common words. Whenever something is included in the law, it is truly included. If there is nothing involved in the law, there should be a reason behind it, which should be exempted from a particular statute.
   
• Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima Et Fortissima in Lege
  It is one of the best and strongest ways to explain. The words used in law change in their meaning over time, but when defined, the prescribed law should have the same meaning as its origin and when it is passed.
  
  In the event of the formulation of the law, the meaning of the law should be explained. The purpose of enforcing old laws should be explained in a manner that defines it. It will also consider the implementation of previous application, interest or law during the implementation of the law.
  
  If this word has been misinterpreted over the years, such words are not entitled to an explanation. The conditions can be explained by the court only if the ownership part of the property is affected or daily transactions are affected.
   
• Noscitur a Soclis
  Noscitur a soclis is a Latin word that means that the meaning of related words, vague words or phrases must be determined or interpreted based on its context and the words and phrases around it.

The related words try to explain the meaning of common words and try to reduce the interpretation of specific words. When the word used in law is vague or vague, the meaning of such words is determined by looking at the relevant words around it. The associate words around it give it a clear and distinctive meaning.

The importance of this rule is that it is aimed at reading it and explaining the entire law. It does not emphasize any particular word but describes the word by looking at its preceding and succeeding words. These words are clearly understood and the purpose of legislatures can be easily understood.

Conclusion
Every country has its own judicial system and its aim is to do justice to all. The purpose of the court is to define the law to ensure that justice is done to every citizen and all. It was explained to ensure justice to all ideas of interpretive systems. These are established laws to determine the true purpose of the legislature.

Therefore, judges can use all the resources and assumptions mentioned above while interpreting the law. But it should be in line with the reading of all primary and secondary laws in the European Conference on Human Rights (ECHR), S. 3 the Human Rights Act of 1998 which requires judges to read all primary and secondary laws in a way that fits ECHR.

Thus, if section or law means more than one - courts should interpret it according to ECHR. If the law does not match, the judge directed the minister of the government and left it to resolve it. This explanatory approach takes precedence over the general legal methods of statutory interpretation prepared by Parliament. But this does not make the common legal procedures unnecessary.

For example, the question of the relevant law cannot include the issue of human rights. This legislation can be interpreted after the judges use the above resources and beliefs and they are in conformity with the ECHR.

Bibliography:

1. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT. AIR 1965 SC 1636, p. 1644
2. Law Commission of India, 60th Report, Chapter 2, para 2.2
3. AIR 1984 SC 684
4. (2002)4 SCC 297
5. Justice GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Lexis Nexis, 14th Edition, 2016, p. 21
6. State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963SC 1604, p. 1606
7. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1, p.59
8. 1953 SCR 730
9. AIR 1967 SC 643
10. 1987 AIR 33 SCR (1) 317
11. 1960 WLR 830
12. 1979 WLN 591
13. AIR 1965 SC 871
14. AIR 1955 SC 850
15. AIR 1967 SC 276
16. AIR 1963 SC 1604