The State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s Linde India Ltd.- The words of a statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary

 SCI (2020.04.13) The State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s Linde India Ltd.(Formerly BOC India Ltd) [Civil Appeal No 2230 of 2020, Special Leave Petition No (C) 19208 of 2016] held that;

• The words of a statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary

Excerpts of the Order;

# 16. The term „medicine‟ is not defined in the 1940 Act. It is a trite principle of nterpretation that the words of a statute must be construed according to the plain,  literal and grammatical meaning of the words. Justice G P Singh in his seminal work Principles of Statutory Interpretation states:

• “The words of a statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary…in the statement of the rule, the epithets „natural‟, „ordinary‟, „literal‟, grammatical‟ and „popular‟ are employed almost interchangeably. 

• …

• It is often said that a word, apart from having a natural, ordinary or popular meaning  including other synonyms i.e. literal, grammatical and primary), may have a secondarymeaning which is less common e.g technical or scientific meaning. But once it is accepted that natural, ordinary or popular meaning of the word is derived from its context, the  distinction drawn between different meanings loses much of its relevance.”

Similarly, Craies on Statute Law states:

• “One of the basic principles of interpretation of Statutes is to construe them according to plain, literal and grammatical meaning of the words. If that is contrary to, or inconsistent with, any express intention or declared purpose of the Statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended or abridged, so far as to avoid such an inconvenience, but no further. The onus of showing that the words do not mean what they say lies heavily on the party who alleges it. He must advance something which clearly shows that the grammatical construction would be repugnant to the intention of the Act or lead to some manifest absurdity.”

The words of a statute should be first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences should be construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary. Where a word has a secondary meaning, the assessment is whether the natural, ordinary or popular meaning flows from the context in which the word has been employed. In such cases, the distinction disappears and courts must adopt the meaning which flows as a matter of plain interpretation and the context in which the word appears.

-------------------------------------------------