LITERAL MEANING:
- Let the thing be more valued than it perishes.
- It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made it void.
ORIGIN:
Latin
EXPLANATION:
Sir George Farwell said, “Unless the words were so senseless that I could do nothing with them, I should be bound to find some meaning, and not declare them void for uncertainty.”
It is an important rule in interpreting any statute to interpret it in such a manner to ensure that the intent of the legislation is achieved. If it appears that there is any uncertainty or ambiguity in a statute or provision, it should be interpreted in such a manner that the provision or statute is not rendered ineffective.
In layman’s terms, ut res magis valeat quam pereat means that when interpreting legal provisions or statutes, the judiciary is responsible for giving meaning to or interpreting the statute or provision in such a manner that the intention of the legislative body behind the formation of such law is ascertained and the law that is formed does not render ineffective or futile. A statute should not be declared void solely because of its vagueness.
The survival of the law is the most important requirement. An interpretation that renders any provision unworkable or inoperable would be contrary to the intent of the legislature. The legislature alone has the authority to enact and amend laws; the courts are responsible for interpreting the law. Any interpretation that renders a statute or provision meaningless under these circumstances amounts to a rejection of the law, and courts have no jurisdiction over that.
CASE LAWS:
- Ravindra Babu Shriwas and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.- “A statute must be construed as a workable instrument. “Ut-res-magis-valet-quam-pereat” is a well-known principle of law and on this principle the provision of a statute must be construed as to make it effective and operative. The Courts will reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though, there may be some in exactitude in the language used. Reducing the legislation to futility shall be avoided and in case where the intention of the legislature cannot be given effect to, the Court should accept the bolder construction for the purposes of bringing about an effective result.”
- Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab– In this case, the question arose regarding the interpretation of Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The appellant was convicted for theft of electricity from the Punjab State Electricity Board under Section 39 of the Electricity Act and the respondent proceeded against him under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the appeal filed by the appellant, he did not challenge the finding that he had committed the theft but only raised a question of law that his conviction was illegal in view of certain statutory provisions. The Supreme Court ruled that since the offence was related to the Electricity Act and not the Indian Penal Code, the procedure outlined in Section 50 must have been adhered to. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction was overturned. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine of ‘ut res magis valeat quam pereat,’ ensuring that the interpretation adopted did not render Section 50 ineffective and pointless.
- Sankar Ram and Co. v. Kasi Naicker– the Supreme Court established a presumption that legislative intent is to give effect to every part of a statute. It is a fundamental rule of interpretation that no word or provision should be considered redundant or unnecessary unless there are compelling reasons to do so based on the statute’s scheme and objectives, i.e. application of doctrine of ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
