Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat - Meaning

                                                         

     

The maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat is a legal rules  applied in interpreting statutes. In simple word it means "if and when required".

    The maxim means, if there are two interpretations of a statute, one of them is to be chosen and applied to make the statute effective. The usual practice, Judges follow is that they avoid narrower interpretation that tends to refute a statute to futility. The Judges accepts broader interpretation to make statute effective so that intention of the legislature does not go in vain.

    Where there are alternative, interpretation, that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty or confusion in the working of system and that alternative is to be chosen which will be consistent with the smooth running of the system, the way the statute wants to regulate.

    So the judges should interpret the meaning of the words in such a way so that the objectives of the legislature could be attained. Intention of the legislation should not go in vain. The Parliament makes a legislation with a view to fulfill the purpose for which the legislation is made.

    Therefore the provision of a statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle of 'ut res magis valeat quam pereat'. The maxim means that it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void.

    It is a cardinal rule of construction that normally no word or provision of a statute should be considered redundant or superfluous in interpreting the provisions. The Court always presume that the legislative inserted every part of statute with a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part should have effect.

Read Also: Ejusdem Generis - Maxim - Interpretation of Statute. 

    In Manchester Ship Canal Co. vs. Manchester Race Course Co. (1904), Judge Farewell held " unless the words were so absolutely senseless that I could do nothing at all with them, I should be bound to find some meaning, and not declare them void for uncertainty".

    Again in Fawcett Properties vs Bucchikgham County Council 1960, Lord Denning improved the meaning holding "But when a statute has some meaning even though it is little to choose between them, the Courts have to say what meaning the statute is to bear, rather than reject it as a nullity.

    In Avtar singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1965), Supreme Court applied the principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat.

    In this case, appellant, Avtar Singh  was convicted for theft of electricity under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910. He was convicted for theft of electricity. he argued that proceedings were not initiated against him by anyone mentioned in Section 50 of the Act.

    The respondent, State of Punjab argued that though theft of electricity does not meet the requirements of Section 378 IPC., yet the intention of the legislature was to make the act of theft under Section 39 of the Electricity Act 1910 as effective as theft under Section 378 of IPC and therefore was punishable under the IPC. The  Supreme Court applied the principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat and held that the crime was against the Electricity Act not against the Indian Penal Code and therefore the directions of Section 50 of the Act should have been followed. However, an accused found guilty under Section 39 of the Electricity Act is to be punished under Section 379 of IPC as the Electricity Act creates a fiction that an offence under Section 39 of the Act will be deemed to be an offence under the Indian Penal Code.

    In another case, Tinsukia Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs. State of Assam, AIR 1990, the Supreme Court observed that the Courts go against any /construction, which tends to reduce a statute to futility. The principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat says that the provision should be so construed to make it effective. 

    It was also held, if a statute is absolutely vague and its language is wholly intractable and absolutely meaningless, the statute could be declared null and void by judicial review.

    Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the intention of the Legislature regarding the purpose of the statute and make it effective and operative. However, if a statute is impossible to make workable, it can be declared to be workable. 

Also read: External Aid of Interpretation of Statute.