CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PATNA

TOPIC- LITERAL RULE AND GOLDEN RULE OF

INTERPRETATION

SUBMITTED TO:
PROF.

SUBMITTED BY:-
SONAKSHI

ROLL NO: 1054

SEMESTER: VII

SESSION: 2013-2018

1|Page
 CONTENTS

No. Heading Pg no.

1 Acknowledgment 3

2 Research Methodology 4

3 Introduction 5

4 Literal Rule 6

5 Leading Cases 7

6 Golden Rule 8

7 Indian Cases 10

8 Difficulties In The Application Of Golden Rule 10

9 Conclusion 13

10 Bibliography 14

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Any project completed or done in isolation is unthinkable. This project, although prepared by
me, is a culmination of efforts of a lot of people. Firstly, I would like to thank our Professor
for Taxation law, G.P.Pandey for his valuable suggestions towards the making of this project.

Further to that, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who were a lot of
help for the completion of this project. The contributions made by my classmates and friends
are, definitely, worth mentioning.

I would like to express my gratitude towards the library staff for their help also. I would also
like to thank the persons interviewed by me without whose support this project would not have
been completed.

Last, but far from the least, I would express my gratitude towards the Almighty for obvious
reasons.
Sonakshi

3|Page
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Method of Research

The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made
extensive use of the available resources at library of the Chanakya National Law University
and also the internet sources.

Scope and Limitations

Though the study of the this topic is an immense project and pages can be written over the
topic but due to certain restrictions and limitations the researcher has not been able to deal
with the topic in great detail.

Sources of Data:

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

1. Cases

2. Books

3. Journals

Method of Writing:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation

The researcher has followed the bluebook method of citation throughout the course of this
research paper.

4|Page
 INTRODUCTION
Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation to decide cases.
Interpretation is necessary when case involves subtle or ambiguous aspects of a statute.
Generally, the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in some cases,
there may be ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the
judge. The reason for ambiguity or vagueness of legislation is the fundamental nature of
language. It is not always possible to precisely transform the intention of the legislature into
written words. Interpreting a statute to determine whether it applies to a given set of facts often
boils down to analysing whether a single word or short phrase covers some element of the
factual situation before the judge. The expansiveness of language necessarily means that there
will often be equally good or equally unconvincing arguments for two competing
interpretations. A judge is then forced to resort to documentation of legislative intent, which
may also be unhelpful, and then finally to his or her own judgment of what outcome is
ultimately fair and logical under the totality of the circumstances. To find the meanings of
statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional
canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law
jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by
the legislature or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

Very often occasions will arise where the courts will be called upon to interpret the words,
phrases and expressions used in the statute. There are numerous rules of statutory
interpretation. Over time, various methods of statutory construction have fallen in and out of
favour. Some of the better known rules of construction methods are The Golden rule,
The Literal rule, The Mischief rule and The Purposive approach. The first and most important
rule is the rule dealing with the statute's plain language. In the course of such Interpretation,
the Courts have, over the centuries, laid down certain guidelines which have come to be known
as "Rules of Interpretation of Statutes" .More often than not the Statutes contain "Statement of
Objects and Reasons" and also a "Preamble" both of which provide guidelines for Interpreting
the true meaning of the words and expressions used in the Statute. Judges have to interpret
statutes and apply them. The judges frequently use this phrase true meaning or literal or plain
meaning. Literal Interpretation of a statute is finding out the true sense by making the statute
its own expositor. If the true sense can be discovered, there is no resort to construction. It is
beyond question, the duty of courts, in construing statutes,to give effect to the intent of law
making power, and seek for that intent in every legitimate way,but first of all the words and
language employed.
The golden rule is an exception to the literal rule and will be used where the literal rule produces
the result where Parliaments intention would be circumvented rather than applied. Golden rule
is a principle of statutory construction that the grammatical and ordinary sense of words may
be modified so as to avoid an absurdity or inconsistency, but no farther. Whenever literal
interpretation leads to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature's intention, the
court can depart from that meaning.

5|Page
 LITERAL RULE
Literal rule of interpretation is one of the oldest methods of interpretation adopted by the
judiciary. A statute often contains a "definitions" section, which explicitly defines the most
important terms used in that statute. However, some statutes omit a definitions section entirely,
or fail to define a particular term. The literal rule, which is also known as the plain meaning
rule, attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not
defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself. According to this
rule, when a word does not contain any definition in a statute, it must be given its plain,
ordinary, and literal meaning. If the word is clear, it must be applied, even though the intention
of the legislature may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule
is what the law says instead of what the law means. This is the oldest of the rules of construction
and is still used today, primarily because judges are not supposed to legislate. As there is always
the danger that a particular interpretation may be the equivalent of making law, some judges
prefer to adhere to the law's literal wording.

When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e. they are reasonably
susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective
of consequences. In J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan 20031, Supreme Court observed that
the intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means
that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a
consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition, substitution, or removal
of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. This is
accordance with the case of Crawford v. Spooner, 18462, where Privy Council noted that the
courts cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, they cannot add or mend, and
by construction make up for deficiencies which are left there.

In Kannailala Sur vsParammindhi Sadhu Khan 19573, J Gajendragadkar says that if the
words used in statute are capable of only one construction then it is not open to the courts to
adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more
consistent with the alleged objective and policy of the act.
4
In M V Joshi vs M V Shimpi , relating to Food and Adulteration Act, it was contented that
the act does not apply to butter made from curd. However, SC held that the word butter in the
said act is plain and clear and there is no need to interpret it differently. Butter is butter whether
made from milk or curd.

Thus, when the language of a provision is plain and clear, court cannot enlarge the scope of the
provision by interpretive process. Further, a construction which requires for its support addition
of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided

Advantages of the literal rule:

1) Restricts the role of the judge

2) Provides no scope for judges to use their own opinions or prejudices
3) Upholds the separation of powers
1
In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 5982 of 2001 .
2
(2008) 13 SCC 369
3
1957 AIR 907, 1958 SCR 360
4
1961 AIR 1494, 1961 SCR (3) 986

6|Page
 4) Recognises Parliament as the supreme law maker
5) Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking sides in
legislative or political issues.
6) They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to
secondary sources and thus depending on the ordinary meaning of the words is the
safest route.
7) It encourages precision in drafting.

Disadvantagesof the literal rule:

1. Opponents of the plain meaning rule claim that the rule rests on the erroneous
assumption that words have a fixed meaning. Words are imprecise, leading justices to
impose their own prejudices to determine the meaning of a statute. However, since little
else is offered as an alternative discretion-confining theory, plain meaning survives.
2. Sometimes the use of the literal rule may defeat the intention of Parliament. For
instance, in the case of Whiteley v. Chappel5, the court came to the reluctant
conclusion that Whiteley could not be convicted of impersonating "any person entitled
to vote" at an election, because the person he impersonated was dead. Using a literal
construction of the relevant statutory provision, the deceased was not "a person entitled
to vote." This, surely, could not have been the intention of Parliament. However, the
literal rule does not take into account the consequences of a literal interpretation, only
whether words have a clear meaning that makes sense within that context. If Parliament
does not like the literal interpretation, then it must amend the legislation.
3. It obliges the courts to fall back on standard common law principles of statutory
interpretation. Legislation is drawn up with these principles in mind. However, these
principles may not be appropriate to constitutional interpretation, which by its nature
tends to lay down general principles. It is said that it seems wrong to parcel the
Constitution as if it were a Finance Act.
4. Clearly, the literal approach has another disadvantage in that one judges literal
interpretation might be very different from anothers. Casey says: What may seem
plain to one judge may seem perverse and unreal to another.
5. It ignores the limitations of language.
6. To place undue emphasis on the literal meaning of the words is to assume an
unattainable perfection in draftsman ship.
7. Judges have tended excessively to emphasise the literal meaning of statutory provisions
without giving due weight to their meaning in wider contexts.

LEADING CASES
R v Harris6

The defendant bit off his victim's nose. The statute made it an offence 'to stab cut or wound'
the court held that under the literal rule the act of biting did not come within the meaning of
stab cut or wound as these words implied an instrument had to be used. Therefore the
defendant's conviction was quashed.

5
(1868; LR 4 QB 147)
6
(1836) 7 C & P 446

7|Page
Fisher v Bell7

The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag on it. Statute
made it a criminal offence to 'offer' such flick knives for sale. His conviction was quashed as
goods on display in shops are not 'offers' in the technical sense but an invitation to treat. The
court applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation.

Partridge v Crittenden8
The defendant placed an advert in a classified section of a magazine offering some bramble
finches for sale. S.6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 made it an offence to offer such birds
for sale. He was charged and convicted of the offence and appealed against his conviction. It
was held that the defendant's conviction was quashed. The advert was an invitation to treat not
an offer. The literal rule of statutory interpretation was applied.

London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman9

A railway worker was killed whilst oiling the track. No look out man had been provided. A
statute provided compensation payable on death for those 'relaying or repairing' the track.
Under the literal rule oiling did not come into either of these categories. This result although
very harsh could not to be said to be absurd so the golden rule could not be applied. There was
no ambiguity in the words therefore the mischief rule could not be applied. Unfortunately the
widow was entitled to nothing.

R v Judge of the City of London Court:

In this case court held If the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though
they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the
legislature has committed an absurdity

GOLDEN RULE

The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.
It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and
unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the
consequences.

The Golden rule was first set out in the case of Grey v Pearson10,an old British case. The gist
of this rule is that if the words are given their ordinary meaning, and it is clear that this meaning
does not correspond with the clear intention of the legislature (as one can find in the whole of
the statute or other relevant issues), then one can depart from the ordinary meaning of the
statute so that one can give effect to the intention of the legislature. This rule has its own
peculiarities.

7
[1961] 1 QB 394
8
[1968] 1 WLR 1204
9
[1946] AC 278
10
(1857) 6 HLC 106

8|Page
It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the
words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention
of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or
repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such
inconvenience, but no further.

Under the golden rule for statutory interpretation, where the literal rule gives an absurd result,
which Parliament could not have intended, the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in
the light of the statute as a whole. The case of Adler v George (1964) is a classic example of
the courts applying the golden rule.

In short, it is an interpretation which will give effect to the purpose of legislation, when the
words itself becomes ambiguous, by modification of the language used. On the face of it, this
rule solves all problems and is therefore known as the golden rule. Further, since the literal
meaning is modified to some extent, this approach is called the modifying method of
interpretation. This rule, therefore, suggests that consequences or effect of an interpretation
deserve a lot more importance because these are clues to the true meaning of a legislation.

In the Tongan case of Sione Tuifua Vaikona v Teisina (No. 2)11 the court once more set out
the golden rule

The golden rule is based on the word of Parker CB in Mitchell v Torup12 and may be applied
when there is a choice of meanings as a presumption that a meaning which produces an absurd,
unjust or inconvenient result was not intended. However, it is emphasised that the rule is only
used in the most unusual cases as a justification for ignoring or reading in words It is only
when a secondary meaning is available that a court can abandon a primary meaning because it
produces an absurdity, i.e. a result which cannot reasonably be supposed to have been the
intention of the legislature. No judge can decide to apply a provision because it seems to him
to lead to absurd results, nor can he, for this or any other reason, give words a meaning they
will not bear

Application Of Golden Rule

Golden rule is a compromise between the literal rule and the mischief rule. Like the literal rule,
it gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to
an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislatures intention, the judge can depart from
this meaning.

Golden rule applies:

When the application of literal rule is not possible, or when literal rule defeats the
purpose of statute, or
Where there are more than one interpretation of rule is possible for a particular word in
statute, or

11
[1990] TLR 68
12
[1766] Park 227

9|Page
 Discovering the intention of the legislature in a better way, if some modification of a
particular word is needed.

INDIAN CASES

In India there are several good examples where the Supreme Court or High Courts have applied
the Golden Construction of Statutes. Certain confusion one may face when it appears that even
for literal rule, this rule is named. As golden rule initially starts with the search of literal
meaning of the provision, and if there is unequivocal meaning, plain and natural and no
repugnancy, uncertainty of absurdity appears, apply the meaning. But when there is possibility
of more than one meaning, we have to go further to avoid the inconvenience by even modifying
the language by addition, rejection or substitution of words so as to make meaning accurate
expounding of intention of the legislature.

In Lee v. Knapp13, section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 provided that a driver causing
accident shall stop after the accident, the interpretation of the word stop was in question. In
this case, the driver of the motor vehicle stopped for a moment after causing an accident and
then ran away. Applying the golden rule the court held that the driver had not fulfilled the
requirement of the section, as he had not stopped for a reasonable period so as to enable
interested persons to make necessary inquires from him about the accident at the spot of
accident

In Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar14 in construing section 6 of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958, the Supreme Court laid down that the crucial date on which the age of
the offender had to be determined is not the date of offence, but the date on which the sentence
is pronounced by the trial court An accused who on the date of offence was below 21 years of
age but on the date on which the judgment pronounced, if he was above 21 years, he is not
entitled to the benefit of the statute. This conclusion reached having regard to the object of the
Act. The object of the Statute is to prevent the turning of the youthful offenders into criminals
by their association with the hardened criminals of mature age within the walls of the prison.
An accused below 21 years is entitled to the benefit of the Act by sending him under the
supervision of the probation officer instead of jail.

DIFFICULTIES IN THE APPLICATION OF GOLDEN RULE

Lord Moulten in Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositor 15 had explained the
reasons for adopting caution before application of the golden rule of construction in these
words: There is a danger that it may generate into a mere judicial criticism of the propriety of
the Acts of legislature. We have to interpret statutes according to the language used therein,
and though occasionally the respective consequences of two rival interpretations may guide us
in our choice in between them, it can only be where, taking the Act as a whole and viewing it
in connection with the existing state of law at the time of the passing of the Act, we can satisfy
ourselves that the words cannot have been used in the sense the argument points. It may
sometimes happen that laws made for the benefit of public at large may come in conflict of

13
(1967) 2 Q.B. 442
14
AIR 1963 SC 1088
15
[1912] UKHL 3, [1913] AC 107

10 | P a g e
 some individual interest or take away his legal right and cause injustice to him. That is to say,
like public policy, absurdity, uncertainty or repugnance, are very unruly horses.

In State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money16, the Supreme Court said that it is the
duty of all courts of justice, to take care for the general good of the community, that hard cases
do not make bad law. Referring earlier cases the court observed that absurdity should be
understood in the same sense as repugnance that is to say something which would be as absurd
with reference to the other words of the statute as to amount to repugnance

Grundi v. Great Boulder Proprietary Cold Mines Ltd.17, Lord Greene M.R. said,
Although absurdity or non-absurdity of one conclusion as capered with another may be and
very often is, of assistance to the court in choosing between two possible meanings of
ambiguous words. The Golden Rule of Construction is a doctrine, which must be applied
with great care, remembering that judges may be fallible in this question of absurdity and in
any event it must not be applied so as to result in twisting language into a meaning, which it
cannot bear. It is a doctrine which must not be used to re-write the language in a way
different from that in which it was originally framed.

Advantages of The Golden Rule

It respects the words of the parliament except in limited situations, the golden rule provides an
escape route where there is a problem with using the literal meaning.
It allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning where there is more than one meaning
to the words in the Act or Statute.
It can also provide reasonable decisions in cases where the literal rule would lead to repugnant
situations (this goes for the wider meaning) - This is present in the Re Sigsworth case in the
case examples, because allowing the son to benefit from his crime would have been unjust.
by avoiding absurdities and injustices, the golden rule puts parliaments true intentions into
force, closes loopholes and avoids the need to produce new legislation

Disadvantages of The Golden Rule

There are no real guidelines as to when it can be used.

what seems to be absurd to one judge may not be to another - this means a cases outcome is
decided upon the judge, rather than the law.
It is very limited in it is use, so it is only used on rare occasions.
It's not always possible to predict when courts will use the golden rule, making it hard for
lawyers and people who are advising their clients.

Criticisms of Golden Rule

The Golden Approach can be criticized:

The United Kingdom Law Commissions commented in their report that:

16
1976 SCC (1) 822
17
[1937] HCA 58; 59 CLR 641; 11 ALJR 272

11 | P a g e
There is a tendency in our systems, less evident in some recent decisions of the courts but still
perceptible, to over emphasise the literal meaning of a provision (i.e. the meaning in the light
of its immediate and obvious context) at the expense of the meaning to be derived from other
possible contexts; the latter include the mischief or general legislative purpose, as well as any
international obligation of the United Kingdom, which underlie the provision.

They also stated that to place undue emphasis on the literal meaning of words is to assume an
unattainable perfection in draftsmanship This was written in 1969 and in the light of more
recent judicial developments; it seems that the courts have shifted somewhat from the literal
approach.

The golden rule can be criticized for being silent as to how the court should proceed if it does
find an unacceptable absurdity.

1. It suffers from the same difficulties as the literal approach vis lack of wider contextual
understandings of meanings.
2. The idea of absurdity covers only a very few cases. Most cases involve situations
where difficult choices have to be made between several fairly plausible arguments, not
situations where the words lead to obvious absurdities.
3. The use of the absurdity safety valve can be very erratic as pointed out by Professor
Willis in his famous article, Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell (l938) l6 C.B. Rev.l.
Willis at l3-l4:

What is an absurdity?

Absurdity is a concept no less vague and indefinite than plain meaning': you cannot reconcile
the cases upon it. It is infinitely more susceptible to the influence of personal prejudice. The
result is that in ultimate analysis the golden rule does allow a court to make quite openly
exceptions which are based not on the social policy behind the Act, not even on the total effect
of the words used by the legislature, but purely on the social and political views of the men
who happen to be sitting on the case

What use do the courts make of the golden rule today?

Again the answer is the same they use it as a device to achieve a desired result, in this case
as a very last resort and only after all less blatant methods have failed. In those rare cases where
the words in question are (a) narrow and precise, and (b) too plain to be judicially held not
plain, and yet to hold them applicable would shock the courts sense of justice, the court will
if it wishes to depart from their plain meaning, declare that to apply them literally to the facts
of this case would result in an absurdity of which the legislature could not be held guilty, and,
invoking the golden rule, will work out an implied exception. It was defined in Grey v.
Pearson the ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless it would lead to absurdity,
when the ordinary sense may be modified to avoid the absurdity

12 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

The Literal rule could, thus, be explained as follows:

Literal rule of interpretation is the primary rule. Under this rule of interpretation the Courts
interpret the statutes in a literal and ordinary sense. They interpret the words of the statute in a
way that is used commonly by all. It is incumbent on the court to use the grammatical meaning.
The statutes should be construed in such a manner as though there is no other meaning except
the literal meaning. It is an old and traditional rule of interpretation. It is used not only in
England where it originated but also in India. The Courts while interpreting statutes have to
keep few things in mind. It must realize that a provision is ambiguous only if it contains a word
or phrase which has more than one meaning. If the interpretation is open to different meanings
in one context it is ambiguous but if it is susceptible to different meaning in different contexts
it is plain.

The Golden rule could, thus, be explained as follows:

1. It is the duty of the Court to give effect to the meaning of an Act when the meaning can
be fairly gathered from the words used, that is to say, if one construction would lead to
an absurdity while another will give effect to what common sense would show, as
obviously intended, the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must be
rejected even if the same words used in the same section, and even the same sentence,
have to be construed differently. Indeed, the law goes so far as to require the courts
sometimes even to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words, if by doing
so absurdity and inconsistency can be avoided.
2. The Court should not be astute to defeat the provision of the Act whose meaning is, on
the face of it, reasonably plain. Of course, this does not mean that an Act or any part of
it can be recast. It must be possible to spell the meaning contended for, out of the words
actually used.
3. Unless the words are without meaning or absurd, it would be safe to give words their
natural meaning because the framer is presumed to use the language which conveys the
intention and it would not be in accord with any sound principle of construction to
refuse to give effect to the provisions of a statute on the very elusive ground that to give
them their ordinary meaning leads to consequences which are not in accord with the
notions of propriety or justice entertained by the Court.

13 | P a g e