No word in a statute has to be construed as surplusage and word can not be rendered ineffective or purposeless.

An interpretation which renders a provision otiose should be avoided otherwise it would mean that in enacting such a provision, the legislature was involved in “an exercise in futility” and the product came as a “purposeless piece” of legislation and that the provision had been enacted without any purpose and the entire exercise to enact such a provision was “most unwarranted besides being uncharitable

[See the full post at: No word in a statute has to be construed as surplusage and word can not be rendered ineffective or purposeless.]