{"id":12654,"date":"2025-12-08T06:21:02","date_gmt":"2025-12-08T06:21:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=12654"},"modified":"2025-12-08T07:00:00","modified_gmt":"2025-12-08T07:00:00","slug":"textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/","title":{"rendered":"Textualism vs Legislative Intent in Indian Law: Lessons from Professor Richard Ekins\u2019 Vaughan Lecture on Statutory Interpretation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"abstract-textualism-vs-legislative-intent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Abstract\"><\/span>Abstract<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This article examines the global debate on Textualism versus legislative intent through the influential Herbert W. Vaughan Lecture delivered by Professor Richard Ekins of the University of Oxford and evaluates its deep relevance for Indian statutory interpretation. While Textualism prioritises the ordinary meaning of statutory text, Professor Ekins argues that the true object of interpretation is the intended legal change enacted by the legislature.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#Abstract\" >Abstract<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#If_You_Watch_That_Harvard_Lecture_With_Indian_Eyes\" >If You Watch That Harvard Lecture With Indian Eyes<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#1_The_Big_Fight_Text_Vs_Intention\" >1. The Big Fight: Text Vs Intention<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#2_Why_This_Is_Not_Just_An_American_Problem\" >2. Why This Is Not Just An American Problem<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#3_Language_Is_Messy_%E2%80%93_And_So_Is_Law\" >3. Language Is Messy \u2013 And So Is Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#4_Indias_Own_Version_of_the_Same_Debate\" >4. India\u2019s Own Version of the Same Debate<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#a_The_%E2%80%9CPlain_Meaning%E2%80%9D_Temptation\" >a) The \u201cPlain Meaning\u201d Temptation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#b_The_%E2%80%9CPurpose_At_All_Costs%E2%80%9D_Temptation\" >b) The \u201cPurpose At All Costs\u201d Temptation<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#5_Legislative_Intent_Does_Parliament_Really_Have_a_Mind\" >5. Legislative Intent: Does Parliament Really Have a Mind?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#6_Absurdity_Equity_and_Common_Sense_%E2%80%93_Indian_Style\" >6. Absurdity, Equity and Common Sense \u2013 Indian Style<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#Why_This_Matters_for_India_Right_Now\" >Why This Matters for India Right Now<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#Key_Areas_Affected_in_India\" >Key Areas Affected in India<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#8_So_What_Could_Indian_Courts_Take_From_Ekins\" >8. So, What Could Indian Courts Take From Ekins?<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#Key_Takeaways_for_Indian_Courts\" >Key Takeaways for Indian Courts<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#9_Bringing_It_Home_The_Indian_Readers_Lens\" >9. Bringing It Home: The Indian Reader\u2019s Lens<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-in-indian-law-lessons-from-professor-richard-ekins-vaughan-lecture-on-statutory-interpretation\/#Practical_Reflections_for_Indian_Readers\" >Practical Reflections for Indian Readers<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>Drawing parallels with Indian judicial practice, this article shows how Indian courts have historically balanced textual clarity with purposive reasoning to uphold parliamentary supremacy while preventing injustice. In an era of complex legislation, delegated lawmaking, and regulatory expansion, the article argues that a text-anchored yet intent-driven approach remains essential to preserve the legitimacy of both Parliament and the judiciary in India\u2019s constitutional framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"indian-eyes-on-harvard-lecture\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"If_You_Watch_That_Harvard_Lecture_With_Indian_Eyes\"><\/span>If You Watch That Harvard Lecture With Indian Eyes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>If you watch that Harvard lecture with Indian eyes, it\u2019s not just about American judges arguing over words. It\u2019s really about a deeper question that haunts every legal system, including India\u2019s:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When Parliament writes a law, what exactly are judges supposed to obey \u2013<br>the words on the page, or the mind behind the words?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Let\u2019s turn Professor Richard Ekins\u2019 lecture into a story, and then pull it straight into the world of Indian courts, Indian Parliament, and Indian constitutional debates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-big-fight-text-vs-intention\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_The_Big_Fight_Text_Vs_Intention\"><\/span>1. The Big Fight: Text Vs Intention<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In the lecture, Professor Ekins takes on Textualism \u2013 the idea that judges should focus on the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and more or less stop there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>He says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The statute is not just a text.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It is an act \u2013 a deliberate exercise of legislative power.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>When Parliament enacts a law, it is doing something to the legal world: changing rights, duties, powers, liabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So the real task of a judge, he argues, is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Not \u201cWhat do these words usually mean?\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>but \u201cWhat legal change did the legislature intend to make by using these words in this context?\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Text is crucial, but it\u2019s not holy; it\u2019s evidence of what the legislature meant, not the whole story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"not-just-an-american-problem\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Why_This_Is_Not_Just_An_American_Problem\"><\/span>2. Why This Is Not Just An American Problem<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In the US, this fight is framed as Textualism vs Purposivism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In India, the language is slightly different, but the tension is very familiar:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Literal rule<\/td><td>vs purposive rule<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\u201cPlain meaning\u201d<\/td><td>vs \u201cmischief rule\u201d<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\u201cJudicial restraint\u201d<\/td><td>vs \u201cjudicial innovation\u201d<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Indian courts constantly juggle:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Respect for Parliament\u2019s authority<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The need to avoid absurd, unjust, or unconstitutional outcomes<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The practical realities of bad drafting, massive laws, and rapidly changing technology<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>So when Ekins says, \u201cThe text is not the law; the law is the change that Parliament intended to make,\u201d he\u2019s actually speaking into the heart of Indian statutory interpretation too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"language-is-messy-and-so-is-law\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Language_Is_Messy_%E2%80%93_And_So_Is_Law\"><\/span>3. Language Is Messy \u2013 And So Is Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Ekins makes a simple but powerful point about language that every Indian lawyer will recognise:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Words have a semantic (dictionary) meaning.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>But what a speaker (or Parliament) means by using those words can be:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>narrower than the dictionary,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>broader, or<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>even different in a particular context.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>For example, think of an Indian statute that uses words like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201ccommunication device\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cpublic order\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201ccorruption\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cterrorist act\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Every lawyer knows: if you just pull out the Oxford dictionary and stop there, you will either:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Criminalise half the country, or<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Make the law totally useless.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>So, like Ekins says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The real question isn\u2019t \u201cWhat do these words usually mean?\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It\u2019s \u201cWhat did this legislature, in this legal setting, at this time, intend to achieve by using these words?\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>That is exactly what Indian courts do when they talk about:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201ccontextual reading\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cpurposive interpretation\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201creading a statute as a whole\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cthe mischief sought to be remedied\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"indias-own-version-of-the-debate\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Indias_Own_Version_of_the_Same_Debate\"><\/span>4. India\u2019s Own Version of the Same Debate<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, have long moved away from a rigid, mechanical literalism \u2013 but they also don\u2019t want to be seen as rewriting laws. That\u2019s the same tightrope Ekins is describing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Some familiar Indian patterns mirror what he is criticising or defending:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"plain-meaning-temptation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"a_The_%E2%80%9CPlain_Meaning%E2%80%9D_Temptation\"><\/span>a) The \u201cPlain Meaning\u201d Temptation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Sometimes, Indian judgments say something like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cThe language of the provision is plain and unambiguous; therefore, we must give effect to it, regardless of consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>This is the textualist instinct:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>If the text seems clear, stop thinking too hard.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Ekins would respond:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Be careful.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cPlain meaning\u201d often feels clear only because you have silently assumed a lot of context.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>And even then, Parliament may have meant something slightly different, especially in a complex regulatory or constitutional scheme.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"purpose-at-all-costs\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"b_The_%E2%80%9CPurpose_At_All_Costs%E2%80%9D_Temptation\"><\/span>b) The \u201cPurpose At All Costs\u201d Temptation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On the other side, Indian courts sometimes stretch a statute to achieve broad social justice or policy objectives, even if the text fights back a bit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That\u2019s the hyper-purposive instinct:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cWe know what the law ought to do, so let\u2019s read it that way.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>Ekins is also unhappy with that. He says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>You can\u2019t ignore the text and chase abstract ideals.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Your job is not to become a parallel Parliament.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The purpose that matters is the actual legislative plan, not whatever broader value a judge personally likes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Indian readers will immediately think of cases where:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Court was praised for \u201ccreativity\u201d and \u201cprogressive interpretation\u201d,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>But critics complained, \u201cThis is legislation from the bench.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Ekins would say: both fanatical textualism and unrestrained purposivism betray legislative authority in different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legislative-intent-parliament-mind\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Legislative_Intent_Does_Parliament_Really_Have_a_Mind\"><\/span>5. Legislative Intent: Does Parliament Really Have a Mind?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>One of the most interesting parts of the lecture is Ekins\u2019 defence of legislative intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Textualists often say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cThere is no such thing as legislative intent.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cParliament is a crowd, not a person.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cAll we really have is the text plus the formal process.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Ekins says: that\u2019s a mistake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>His view (which fits India surprisingly well):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>We should treat Parliament as an institutional agent.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The fact that individual MPs or MLAs may not have read every line doesn\u2019t mean the legislature as a body didn\u2019t act intentionally.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Legislative intent is not the private thoughts of 543 MPs; it\u2019s:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The plan of action that the institution of Parliament adopts when it enacts a statute.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In India, this way of thinking is very natural:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>We routinely talk about \u201cthe intention of the legislature\u201d in our judgments.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>We treat Parliament and State Legislatures as rational law-making bodies that:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Identify a problem (mischief),<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Decide on a solution (scheme),<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Enact rules (sections, provisos, explanations) to implement that solution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Ekins is basically giving a philosophical defence of what Indian courts have long said in practical terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"absurdity-equity-common-sense\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"6_Absurdity_Equity_and_Common_Sense_%E2%80%93_Indian_Style\"><\/span>6. Absurdity, Equity and Common Sense \u2013 Indian Style<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>One of Ekins\u2019 worries about strict textualism is this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>it can force judges to embrace absurd or cruel results and say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cWell, that\u2019s what the words say. Our hands are tied.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>He thinks that\u2019s unhealthy and unnecessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Instead, he argues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>If a reading leads to self-contradiction, nonsense, or extreme unfairness, that\u2019s a signal that Parliament probably did not intend that reading.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>So judges should use common sense, context, background rules, and equitable principles as tools to uncover intent, not as a licence to invent new law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Indian law already does this in many ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Presumption against absurdity<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Presumption against retrospective penalisation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Presumption in favour of constitutionality<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Use of equity and fairness in interpreting beneficial statutes, welfare laws, tax exemptions, etc.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Think of Indian cases where the Supreme Court says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cWe cannot assume Parliament intended a manifestly unjust result.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cThe provision must be interpreted in a way that advances the remedy and suppresses the mischief.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cA literal reading would defeat the very purpose of the Act.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>That is exactly the nuanced approach Ekins is defending: intent-based, text-conscious, context-sensitive interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"why-this-matters-for-india-right-now\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Why_This_Matters_for_India_Right_Now\"><\/span>Why This Matters for India Right Now<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This isn\u2019t an abstract seminar topic. In India, it touches:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-areas-affected-in-india\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Areas_Affected_in_India\"><\/span>Key Areas Affected in India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Area<\/th><th>Core Question Raised<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Constitutional Amendments<\/td><td>How do we read amendments that affect federalism, fundamental rights, or institutional design? Literally, or in light of the deeper structure of the Constitution?<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Regulatory Statutes<\/td><td>Telecom, technology, environment, money laundering, data, digital platforms \u2013 these often use broad, vague terms. Do we read them in a broad literal sense, or in a way that reflects the specific policy design behind them?<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Criminal Law Reform<\/td><td>When new offences or procedures are introduced, how strictly do we stick to the bare words, and how much do we look at the mischief and safeguards Parliament had in mind?<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Delegated Legislation &amp; \u201cMajor Questions\u201d<\/td><td>When the executive uses vague statutory powers to make massive policy moves (in India, via rules, notifications, guidelines), courts face a question similar to the US \u201cmajor questions doctrine\u201d: Did Parliament really intend to hand over this much power, or is the executive stretching the text?<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judicial Role<\/td><td>In all these areas, Indian judges are effectively answering the same question Ekins poses: Will we treat Parliament as a real, rational lawmaker whose plan we must respect and uncover \u2013 or as a kind of word-printing machine whose text we mechanically process without asking what it was actually doing?<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-could-indian-courts-take-from-ekins\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"8_So_What_Could_Indian_Courts_Take_From_Ekins\"><\/span>8. So, What Could Indian Courts Take From Ekins?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>If we translate his lecture into Indian judicial practice, the \u201ctakeaways\u201d might look like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-takeaways-for-indian-courts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Takeaways_for_Indian_Courts\"><\/span>Key Takeaways for Indian Courts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Respect the text \u2013 but don\u2019t worship it.<\/strong><br>The statutory text is the primary, authoritative signal of Parliament\u2019s choice.<br>But it is a signal, not the whole story.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Keep legislative intent at the centre.<\/strong><br>Not by rummaging through every debate or speech,<br>but by asking: what legal change, in this legal and social context, was Parliament trying to make?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Use context and canons honestly.<\/strong><br>Read the Act as a whole.<br>Use established presumptions (against absurdity, against retrospectivity, etc.) not to smuggle in your own politics, but to reconstruct a rational legislative plan.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Beware of both extremes.<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Extreme literalism: \u201cWe see the words, we stop thinking.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Extreme purposivism: \u201cWe know the ideal goal, we stretch the words endlessly.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>See Parliament as a constitutional partner, not a rival.<\/strong><br>The court\u2019s dignity lies not in showing how \u201cpowerful\u201d it is,<br>but in being faithful to the law that another constitutional organ had the authority to make.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"bringing-it-home-the-indian-readers-lens\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"9_Bringing_It_Home_The_Indian_Readers_Lens\"><\/span>9. Bringing It Home: The Indian Reader\u2019s Lens<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>For an Indian lawyer, judge, legislator, or student, the lecture is an invitation to do three things:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"practical-reflections-for-indian-readers\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Practical_Reflections_for_Indian_Readers\"><\/span>Practical Reflections for Indian Readers<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Look again at your own habits of reading statutes.<\/strong><br>Do you secretly rely on dictionary meanings and stop there?<br>Or do you wander off into pure policy without anchoring yourself in the enacted scheme?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Ask better questions in court.<\/strong><br>Instead of arguing, \u201cThis is the plain meaning,\u201d or \u201cThis would be socially good,\u201d ask:<br>\u201cGiven the legal background and the structure of this Act, which reading fits best with the kind of change Parliament was enacting?\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Defend legislative authority in a more mature way.<\/strong><br>Respecting Parliament doesn\u2019t mean being a text robot.<br>It means taking Parliament seriously as a reason-giving, plan-making institution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In that sense, Professor Ekins\u2019 debate with American textualists is not foreign to India at all. It\u2019s the same conversation we\u2019re having \u2014 just with a different accent and different case citations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Abstract This article examines the global debate on Textualism versus legislative intent through the influential Herbert W. Vaughan Lecture delivered by Professor Richard Ekins of the University of Oxford and evaluates its deep relevance for Indian statutory interpretation. While Textualism prioritises the ordinary meaning of statutory text, Professor Ekins argues that the true object of<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":12655,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[74],"tags":[3313,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-12654","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-foreign-laws","8":"tag-foreign-laws","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/textualism-vs-legislative-intent-indian-law.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12654\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12655"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}