NAME : SYED IBTESSAM AHSAN

ROLL NO : 44805

SEMESTER : 10TH

SUBJECT : INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTES

ASSIGNMENT : GOLDEN RULE

WITH PAKISTANI CASES

SUBMIT TO: SIR ARIF

INTRODUCTION :-
Maxwell’s ‘Interpretation of Statutes’ has defined statute as the will of the
legislature. Usually, it refers to the act that is enacted by the legislature. The term
statute is generally applied to laws and regulations of every sort law which ordains,
permits or prohibits anything which is designated as a statute, without considering
from what source it arises.
Constitution of Pakistan has no particular definition for the word statute but it uses
the term “law” for denoting the actions of legislature and its primary power.
Statutes are divided into classes as mentioned below:
 Codification: It is one when they codify the unwritten law on a particular
subject.
 Declaration: When there is no change in the existing law but merely
clarification or explanation of what it is.
 Remedial: This is when they alter the common law or the judge makes a
non-statutory law on a particular subject.
 Amendment: This is when the judge or the legislature changes or alters the
statute law.
 Consolidation: This is combining several previous statutes relating to the
same subject matter with or without making changes in the same.
 Enabling: Removal of restriction or disability.
 Disabling or Restraining: Restrain on the alienation of property.
 Penal: When there is imposition of penalty or forfeiture.

NEED AND OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION :-

Salmond directed that, “Interpretation or construction is the process by which
the Court’s seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium
of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.”
Lord Denning commented on the need of interpretation in Seasford Court Estates
Ltd. V. Asher. He said that it is not within an ordinary man’s power to realise
what new facts will arise from a case at hand. Considering the facts, all laws
cannot be free from ambiguity when applied to them. There can be no legislature
or judge that can make a perfect law written in perfect English for ordinary people
to understand and not get criticized. Therefore, interpretation of a law is very
important as what one writes can be converted into various meanings and various
judgments. A judge should ask himself the question: If the makers of the Act had
themselves come across this luck in the texture of it, how would they have straight
ended it out? He must then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the
material of which it is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.
The main and most important objective of interpretation is to see the intention that
has been merely expressed by the words. The words of the statute are to be
interpreted so as to ascertain the mind of legislature from natural and grammatical
meaning of the words which it has used.

GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION :-

It is a form of statutory interpretation that allows a judge to depart from a word’s normal
meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.
It is a compromise between the rule of interpretation and the rule of mischief. To be used in two
ways-
It is applied most frequently in a narrow sense where there is some ambiguity or absurdity in the
words themselves.
It is used in a wider sense to avoid a result that is obnoxious to the principles of public policy.
It is known as the golden rule because it solves all the problems of interpretation. The rule says
that to start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the interpretation given through the
literal rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity, injustice, inconvenience, hardship, inequity,
then in all such events the literal meaning shall be discarded and interpretation shall be done in
such a manner that the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled.
The literal rule follows the concept of interpreting the natural meaning of the words used in the
statute. But if interpreting natural meaning leads to any sought of repugnance, absurdity or
hardship, then the court must modify the meaning to the extent of injustice or absurdity caused
and no further to prevent the consequence.
This rule suggests that the consequences and effects of interpretation deserve a lot more
important because they are the clues of the true meaning of the words used by the legislature and
its intention. At times, while applying this rule, the interpretation done may entirely be opposite
of the literal rule, but it shall be justified because of the golden rule. The presumption here is
that the legislature does not intend certain objects. Thus, any such interpretation which leads to
unintended objects shall be rejected.
IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION :-
The court must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.
The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provisions in another unless the Court,
despite all its efforts, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences.
When it is impossible to reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions completely, the
court must interpret them in such a way so as that effect is given to both the provisions as much
as possible.
It is not a harmonious construction if the interpretation reduces one provisions to be useless and
not to destroy it or render it to loose.

PAKISTANI CASES :

 P L D 2020 Peshawar 105

Before Waqar Ahmad Seth, C.J. and Muhammad Nasir Mahfooz, J
ALI AZIM AFRIDI, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR---Petitioner
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and
3 others---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4817-P of 2019, decided on 30th April, 2020.
(a) Interpretation of statutes---
----Golden rule of interpretation---Scope---Golden rule of interpretation allows judges to
depart from a normal meaning of a word in order to avoid absurd results.
(b) Interpretation of statutes---
----“Literal interpretation”---Meaning---Literal interpretation means that text is to be interpreted
according to ‘plain meaning’ conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context.
(c) Interpretation of statutes---
----Reason behind positive approach---Object---Reason behind positive approach is to clarify
meaning of words used in statutes which might not be that clear.
(d) Interpretation of statutes---
----Mischief rule---Connotation---Mischief rule is a principle used by Courts to determine
intention of legislators---Such principle aims at finding out the mischief and defect in a statute
and to implement a remedy for the same.
 (e) Interpretation of statutes---
----Ouster clause---Scope---Courts while applying and interpreting principle behind ouster
clause tries to find out real intention behind enactments---Rules of interpretation have one thing
in common, that is to assist Courts in identifying proper construction of statutory wording
according to the original intention of legislators not only to avoid absurdity but to elucidate its
true meaning.
(f) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---
----Ss. 27, 80, 81, 82, 141 & 172---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 175---Vires of law---
Judicial functions---Revenue Officers, jurisdiction of---Petitioner sought declaration to the
effect that provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967 under which Revenue
Officers were performing judicial functions, were ultra vires the Constitution---Validity---All
those provisions wherein revenue officers performed functions as a revenue Court were against
the provisions of Art. 175 of the Constitution and were non est in law---High Court directed the
authorities to amend the law accordingly within reasonable time---High Court directed that all
cases which fell within the purview of Ss. 27, 80, 81, 82, 141 & 172 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Land Revenue Act, 1967, stood transferred to the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrates
concerned and would be entrusted to the Court of District Judges---In such circumstances when
such new occasion would arise resort was to be had to S.195, Cr.P.C. before a criminal Court---
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
PLD 2000 SC 869; PLD 2012 SC 923; PLD 2013 SC 501; PLD 2010 SC 61; PLD 2013 Lah.
386; 2017 SCMR 683; PLD 2010 SC 265; Gul Shah and others v. Hafiz Ghulam
Muhammad and others 2009 SCMR 1058; University of Punjab v. Miss Wajuha Arooj
2008 SCMR 1577; Mubeen us Salam’s case PLD 2006 SC 602; 1999 SCMR 1477; Sharaf
Faridi’s case PLD 1994 SC 105; PLD 2013 SC 501; 2000 SCMR 567; 2003 SCMR 370; PLD
2009 SC 879 and Ali Azim Afridi v. Federation of Pakistan and others W.P. No. 3098-P of
2018 ref.
Ali Azim Afridi, Advocate/Petitioner in person.
Qazi Babar Irshad, A.A.G. (F) and Arshad Ahmad Khan, A.A.G. (P) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th April, 2020.

 When the text of the legislation gives rise to two Interpretations, the court should avoid
absurd construction leading to Injustice and should adopt the construction in accord with
reason and Justice. See e.g. case titled Pakistan Tobacco Co. V. Employees Union
Cited as PLD 1961 SC 403; See also PLD 1964 Lah 101; PLD 1966 AJ & K 38.

 While interpreting one has to fill in the gaps in a piece of legislation where a plain
construction would lead to absurd results. See e.g. case titled Lt.Col.Nawabzada Ahmad
 Amir Khan v. Controller Estate Duty etc. cited as PLD 1961 SC 119; See also PLD
1964 Dacca 773..

 If the meaning, due to merely punctuation of a statute leads to An absurd result or in

conflict with some other provisions of the statute the Punctuation must yield to an
interpretation that is reasonable and makes it Consistent with the other provisions. See
e.g. case titled Majid Khan etc. V. Mujahid Khan etc. cited as PLD 1966 Pesh. 264;
Also see generally PLD 1971 Kar. 535; 1972 DLC 91