The doctrine of purposive interpretation is used in the field of law but could be applied to other fields as well, such as AI or tech in general. Often new discoveries or inventions are simply a matter of interpretation. The same data can lie idle for years until one day a genius interpretation sparks in the mind of an engineer or a scientist and completely changes how we used to look at things.
Interpretation is also something that people are increasingly relying on AI to do. In fact, purposive interpretation is commonly done by most of us in our respective fields. Whether we do it correctly or not is a different matter. At its core, it simply means to find the true purpose and intent of a text.
Usually, in the field of law, the doctrine of purposive interpretation is adopted only when there is manifest ambiguity in the text of a law, and a plain reading does not reveal the true meaning. Over time, however, this rule has evolved. Courts are now increasingly willing to look at the true purpose of legislation even when its bare text appears clear.
In real life too, the general principles of purposive interpretation remain useful. We always try to find the true purpose or object or goal of something, and that helps us give meaning to it. How correct that approach is, remains another matter, but often it does the work.
The Supreme Court of India in Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, (2016) 3 SCC 619, pointed out that purposive interpretation rests on three components:
a. Language – This shapes the range of semantic possibilities within which the interpreter acts as a linguist. “Once the interpreter defines the range, he or she chooses the legal meaning of the text from among the (express or implied) semantic possibilities. The semantic component thus sets the limits of interpretation by restricting the interpreter to a legal meaning that the text can bear in its (public or private) language.”
b. Purpose – “This is the ratio juris, the purpose at the core of the text. This purpose is the values, goals, interests, policies and aims that the text is designed to actualize. It is the function that the text is designed to fulfil.”
c. Discretion – This signifies the method of interpretation that is to be adopted. The literal rule was earlier considered the best, but the judicial trend now seems to be shifting toward purposive interpretation as the starting point.
Thus, purpose or no purpose, the meaning of the text or context must be clear to the reader. Purpose is definitely helpful in many situations, whether one is understanding historical texts or considering different theories in scientific fields. This is where interpretation shows its real strength.
My point is that even in this age of AI, we still need to think very hard to understand. We may outsource the knowledge delivery mechanisms to AI and tech, but the core aspect of understanding cannot be delegated and ought not to be delegated. It would make us devoid of who we actually are and weaken humanity in the long term. AI can never understand our subjective selves in the way we do. Today the AI is not perfect, and tomorrow even if it does, it might be able to do all the thinking for us, but what will happen to our own understanding? Thus, if not the thinking itself, the understanding aspect must be protected.
And this is where interpretative doctrines like purposive interpretation bring some joy to my heart. If we are able to understand the true purpose of something, then we will definitely employ or deploy it in a better manner. And that is one of the purposes of interpretation, to bring out the meaning in a slightly better manner.
