RELATION BETWEEN

LITERAL RULE
AND
GOLDEN RULE

Submitted to- Submitted by-

Ms. Sikha Gurpreet Kaur
Section B
79/15
Semester 5th
13069

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who provided me the possibility to
complete this report. A special gratitude to my teacher, Ms. Shikha whose contribution in
stimulating suggestions and encouragement helped me to coordinate my project especially in
writing this report.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my friends for helping me in the project who have
willingly helped me out with their abilities.

Gurpreet Kaur

2
 INDEX

Topic Page No.

 Meaning of Interpretation…………………………………………………………………3
 General Principles of Interpretation……………………………………………………….3
 Literal Rule………………………………………………………………………………..4
 Natural and ordinary meaning of the words………………………..……………………..5
 Importance of context ……….…………………………………………………..………..5
 Justification of applying natural and ordinary meaning……………………………..……6
 Application of the rule of natural and ordinary meaning ………………….………..........6
 Advantages………………………………………………………………………………..7
 Limitations……………………………………………………………………………..….8
 Golden Rule………………………………………..……………………………………...8
 Relation between Literal Rule and Golden Rule………………………..……………….10
 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...……..12
 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….….13

3
MEANING OF INTERPRETATION

In India, the law making power rests with the Legislature. It is the Legislature, who enjoys the
authority to legislate. Laws are enacted by the legislature with a definite purpose in mind. The
courts are supposed to administer justice according to the mandate of law enacted by the
Legislature. It is presumed that the legislature has used appropriate, clear and precise words to
express itself. But where a word bears more than one meaning the language of the statute might
be understood in two or more senses out of which only one may be in tune with the true intention
of Legislature. Therefore it becomes necessary to determine what meaning is to be given to a
word used in the legislation. It is this exercise which is the subject matter of interpretation.1

Interpretation can be defined as a process which is adopted for ascertaining the meaning of
writings or intent of the framers of the document.

According to Salmond, “Interpretation is means the process by which courts seek to ascertain the
meaning of legislation through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed”.

THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

(i) The Literal or Grammatical interpretation

(ii) The Mischief Rule
(iii) The Golden Rule
(iv) Harmonious Construction
(v) The Statute should be read as a whole (or construction ex visceribus actus)
(vi) Construction ut res magis valeat quam pereat
(vii) Identical expressions to have same meaning
(viii) Construction Noscitur a sociis
(ix) Construction ejusdem generis
(x) Construction expression unius est exclusion alterius
(xi) Construction Contemporanea exposition est fortissima in lege

1
D.N. Mathur. Interpretation of statutes (Allahabad: Central Law Publications, 2013) 22.

4
THE LITERAL OR GRAMMATICAL INTERPRETATION

The first principle of interpretation is the literal or grammatical interpretation which means that
the words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning, and if such
meaning is clear and unambiguous, effect should be given to a provision of a statute whatever
may be the consequences. This rule is considered to be the most important and most safe rule of
interpretation. This has been called the safest rule because the legislature’s intention can be
deduced only from the language through which it has expressed itself.

The basis of this principle is that the object of all interpretations being to know what the
legislature intended, whatever was the intention of the Legislature has been expressed by it
through words which are to be interpreted according to the rules of grammar.

The words of a statute our first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases
and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some
absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest the
contrary.2

In C. Ronald v .U. T. Andaman & Nicobar Islands3, it was held that where words of a statute are
clear, there is no scope for Court to innovate or to take upon itself task of amending statutory
provisions.

The rule of literal construction therefore demands strict adherence to ordinary and natural
meaning of the words used in the language.

In nutshell, this rule Lays down that the language should be construed according to plain,
ordinary and natural meaning of the words used therein, unless that leads to some absurdity or
unless there is something in the context or object of the statute to suggest the contrary.

What is Natural and Ordinary Meaning

Natural and ordinary sense refer to such a meaning of a particular word that has been drawn in
relation to the subject matter and the context in which it has been used in the statute. It may be
appreciated that a particular word may mean differently when used in different contexts.

2
T.Bhattacharya. The Interpretation of Statutes (Allahabad: Central Law Agency, 2017) 11.
3
(2011) 12 SCC 428

5
For instance the word “award” is popularly understood to mean “to give prize” but in legal sense,
it means “judgment passed by the court”. Therefore when the word “award” is used in general
sense, then it’s natural and ordinary meaning shall be “to give prize” but if the same word is used
in legal context it would take the meaning of “judgment passed by the court”.

Similarly, the word “assign” in its common usage means “to allot” but in legal terminology, it
means “transfer of property or rights”. What natural and ordinary meaning this term is to bear,
shall depend on whether it has been used in its common sense or in legal sense.4

In Commissioner of Customs v. G.C. Jain5, it was held that the words and expression, unless
defined in the statute, have to be construed in the sense in which persons dealing with them
understand i.e. as per trade and understanding and usage.

Importance of Context in Assigning Meaning to a Word

It must be appreciated that every word, apart from having an ordinary meaning, often has a
secondary meaning too, which may be legal, technical or scientific. The secondary meaning is
less common as its knowledge is confined to those who are connected with that specific legal,
technical or scientific field.

Context plays a vital role in giving meaning to a word. It is said that the words take color from
the context in which they are used. As per common understanding, coal, lignite and charcoal are
not distinguished from each other and are included under the term “coal”, whereas geologically,
coal and lignite are minerals but charcoal is not. Even coal and lignite are distinguishable from
each other, when viewed technically. Therefore the meaning of the word “coal” in a language
shall be assigned considering the context in which the word has been used.6

PROF. H.A. SMITH says that no word can be defined without reference to the context.

VISCOUNT HALDANE says that if the language used has a natural meaning we cannot depart
from that meaning unless, reading the statute as a whole, the context directs us to do so.

4
Supra 1 at p. 190
5
AIR 2011 SC 2262
6
Supra 1 at p. 191

6
In State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar7, the Supreme Court held that one of the basic principles of
interpretation of statutes is to construe them according to plain, literal and grammatical meaning
of the words. If that is contrary to, or inconsistent with, any express intention or declared purpose
of a statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical
sense then to be modified, extended or abridged so far as to avoid such inconvenience, but no
further.

Justification of applying natural and ordinary meaning

The justification of the rule that the words are to be understood in their natural, ordinary and
popular sense is well expressed by JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, “After all legislation when not
expressed in technical terms, is addressed to common man and is therefore to be understood
according to sense of the thing as the ordinary man has a right to rely on ordinary words
addressed.”

In Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and Co. v. State of M.P.8, it was held that the common commercial
sense of words and not their scientific or technical sense is to be adopted because our merchants
are not supposed to be naturalists, geologists or botanists.

Application of the rule of natural and ordinary meaning

In R.D.Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma9, it was observed that where the Act does not define a
word, the legislature should be presumed to have used that word in its ordinary dictionary
meaning. Hence, the word “goods” occurring in Section-171 in Contract Act was presumed to
have been used in its ordinary dictionary meaning, i.e. to become goods, it must be something
which can ordinarily come to market to be bought and sold and is known to market as such. In
view of this, it was held that by any imagination the reference to “goods” in Section 171 of
Contact Act could not be stretched to mean “case papers” entitling their retention by the lawyer
as his lien for the purposes of realizing his fees.

In Ramavtar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax officer, Akola10, the word “vegetable”
occurring in C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was interpreted by the Supreme Court. The
7
(2005) 4 SCC 350
8
AIR 1988 SC 563
9
2001 (1) Mh LJ 23 SC
10
AIR 1961 SC 1325

7
contention was that betel leaves or vegetables and as such, exempted from levy of Sales Tax
under the Act. The appellant was relying on the dictionary meaning of the word “vegetable”,
according to which a “vegetable” is that which is pertaining to, comprised or consisting of or
derived or obtained from plants. The Supreme Court observed that betel leaves could not be
given a technical, dictionary of botanical meaning when its ordinary and natural meaning is clear
and unambiguous. Being a word of daily use it must be understood in its popular sense by which
people are conversant with it. Therefore betel leaves were not vegetable and their sale was held
to be liable to sale tax.

In Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise11,it was held that “toilet soap” was
“house hold soap” and not the soap of “other sorts” on the logic that if anyone goes to market
and asks for toilet soap he must ask only for household bathing purpose and not for industrial
purpose.

In many cases, Supreme Court has consistently taken a view that the words and expressions
should be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade by the dealer and the
consumer. The reason is that they understood in that sense by those who are concerned.

Advantages

This rule is considered to be most strong and safe rule due to following presumptions12:

(i) That the language of the statute speaks of the mind of Legislature
(ii) The legislature knows English grammar and is well conversant with the rules thereof
and such what is conveyed by the language, the same was intended;
(iii) That the legislature does not commit mistake;
(iv) That the legislature has inserted every word mindfully and intentionally and there is
no defect in the phraseology.

Limitations of this Rule

11
AIR 1993 SC 2288
12
Supra 1 at p. 201

8
The rule of literal interpretation is of no help under the following circumstances13:

(i) When the words are of doubtful meaning and they do not convey what meaning was
intended by the Legislature;
(ii) When the language suffers from ambiguity and gives out alternative constructions,
only one of which would be taken as reflective of true legislative intent;
(iii) When the results derived from literal construction are absurd, unreasonable, unjust or
anomalous; or create hardship or inconvenience; because the legislature could not
have so intended;
(iv) If the law is turned to futility when literally construed, because such an outcome is
against the basic principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat (it may rather be
operative than null).

GOLDEN RULE

According to CROSS, “Golden rule permits the departure from literal rule by recourse to
consequences of applying natural or the ordinary meaning.”

According to PARK B, “Golden rule is a very useful rule in interpretation of statutes to

adhere to the ordinary meaning of words and to the grammatical construction unless that is at
variance with the intention of legislature to be collected from the statute itself or leads to any
absurdity or repugnancy, wherein the language may be varied or modify so as to avoid such
inconvenience but work further.

LORD ATKIN says departure from strict literalness is allowed if the intention of legislature
is better expressed by some other interpretation.

This rule was laid down in Grey v. Pearson, 1857. In this Lord Wenslaydale observed that in
construing the will and indeed statutes and all written instruments, the grammatical ordinary
sense of words used to be adhere unless that would lead to some absurdity; in which cases
the grammatical sense of words may be modified to eradicate the inconsistencies.

13
Ibid

9
 This rule says that word changes its meaning like a Chameleon changes its color. The gist of
words should not be lost inside that is the actual intent of the Legislature should be kept as
such.

In Lee v. Knapp14, interpretation of the word 'stop' was involved. Under Section 77(1) of the
Road Traffic Act, 1960 a driver causing an accident shall stop after the accident. In this case
a driver stopped for a moment after causing an accident and then moved away. Applying the
golden rule the court held that requirement of the section had not been followed by the driver
as he had not stop for a reasonable period requiring interested persons to make necessary
inquiries from him about the accident.

In State of Punjab v. Qaiser Jehan Begum15, the respondent made an application under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reference to the Civil Court within 6 months
from her knowledge of the award regarding compensation whereas the section says that such
reference would be made within 6 months from the date of the award. Holding that the
application was within time, the Supreme Court held that unless an award of compensation
comes to the knowledge, either actually constructively, how can a reference, if any, be made
against the award. Therefore, justice and fair play required that the counting of the limitation
period must begin from the date of knowledge of the award.

In M. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa16, the respondents were elected members of a Municipal

committee under the Hyderabad Municipal and Town Committee Act, 1951 which was
repealed by the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956. The Act of 1956, however,
provided that the committee constituted that under the Act of 1951 would continue till the
first meeting of the committee elected under the act of 1956 was called. Since no elections
were held the old committee continued in office for more than 3 years, the maximum period
provided for a committee to hold the office under the act of 1951. The Appellant prayed for a
writ of quo warranto. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the prayer, held that if more than
one construction were possible the one which was narrower and failed to achieve the object
of the act should fail. The Act should be so interpreted as to avoid absurdity. In the present
case since the act of 1956 continued with the committee constituted under the act of 1951, till
14
(1967) 2 QB 442
15
AIR 1963 SC 1604
16
AIR 1961 SC 1105

10
 elections took place and the first meeting of the newly elected members held, it is responsible
to hold that the provision of maximum period of tenure of the committee under the old act
should also stand under the new act. Therefore, if no elections are held, the members of the
committee automatically cease to be members after the expiry of the three year period.

RELATION BETWEEN LITERAL AND GOLDEN RULE

 The golden rule is a modification of the principle of grammatical interpretation. It

says that ordinarily court must find out the intention of the legislature from the word
used in the statute by giving them there natural meaning but if this leads to absurdity,
repugnance, inconvenience, hardship, injustice, or evasion, the court must modify the
meaning to such an extent and no further as would prevent such a consequence.17
 Literal meaning is modified to some extent, and the new way of interpretation formed
is called the Golden rule or the modified method of interpretation.
 If literal or grammatical construction of a provision is clear, that construction shall
prevail, but where some doubt exists and there is strong and obvious reason for such
doubt, the strict, literal or grammatical interpretation can be discarded. Where literal
or grammatical construction cannot be reasonably accepted to be true one, then the
true meaning shall prevail, irrespective of the result of literal or grammatical
construction.18
 The departure therefore is permissible only when grammatical interpretation leads to
absurdity and is limited to the extent it avoids such absurdity. The object of the rule is
to avoid absurd and anomalous results.19

CONCLUSION
17
Supra 2 at p. 48
18
Supra 1 at p. 204
19
Ibid

11
Interpretation can be defined as a process which is adopted for ascertaining the
meaning of writings or intent of the framers of the document. Literal or grammatical
interpretation means that the words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary and
natural meaning, and if such meaning is clear and unambiguous, effect should be
given to a provision of a statute whatever may be the consequences. This rule is
considered to be the most important and most safe rule of interpretation. This has
been called the safest rule because the legislature’s intention can be deduced only
from the language through which it has expressed itself. The golden rule is a
modification of the principle of grammatical interpretation. It says that ordinarily
court must find out the intention of the legislature from the word used in the statute
by giving them there natural meaning but if this leads to absurdity, repugnance,
inconvenience, hardship, injustice, or evasion, the court must modify the meaning to
such an extent and no further as would prevent such a consequence. The departure
from Literal rule is permissible only when it leads to absurdity and is limited to the
extent it avoids such absurdity. The object of the rule is to avoid absurd and
anomalous results

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
 Bhattacharya, T. The Interpretations of Statutes, Allahabad: Central Law
Agency, 2017
 Mathur, D.N. Interpretation of Statutes, Allahabad: Central Law Publications,
2013
 Singh, Rattan. Legal Research Methodology, Gurgaon: Lexis Nexis, 2016

Websites

 www.indiankanoon.org
 www.lawctopus.com
 www.lawresources.com
 www.manupatra.com
 www.scconline.com

13