Why does the ICSI material insist that a statute be construed 'in its context' rather than only by the bare dictionary meaning of its words, citing *RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.* (1987) 1 SCC 424?

1. In ***RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.*** (1987) 1 SCC 424, the Supreme Court observed that **if a statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute makers provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context**. 2. With these glasses, the Court must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say so as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. 3. The principle was reaffirmed in *Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 2458*. 4. So context guides construction; the bare dictionary meaning does not. _Source: ICSI CS Executive — Lesson 3, 'Rule of Reasonable Construction', p. 87._