Golden Rule of Interpretation

Prof. S. P. Srivastava
Department of Law and Governance
Central University of South Bihar Gaya
 Basics
• Sometimes, it appears to the court that to apply the
words literally may defeat the obvious intention of the
legislation and produce a wholly unreasonable result.
• To find out the obvious intention of the legislature and
to produce a reasonable result, the Judge must do
some violence to the words. ( Lord Reide)
• Where the main object and intention of a statute are
clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the
draftsman’s unskilfulness or ignorance of the law.
• It is more usual for the court to read the provisions in
dispute in the context of the statute as a whole, thus
giving meaning to the language in a broader context.
 Continued:
• When a statutory provision or interpretation
thereof, brings about a startling and
inequitable result, this result may lead the
Court to seek another possible interpretation
which will do better justice.
 Evolution of Golden Rule
• Golden Rule of Interpretation was called ‘Logical
Interpretation or Logical Rule of Interpretation.
Lord Wensleydale for the first time ever called it
‘Golden Rule’.
• It is stated that if the literal rule produces an
absurdity, then the court should look for another
meaning of the words to avoid that absurd result.
The rule was closely defined by Lord Wensleydale
in Grey v Pearson (1857) HL Cas 61
 Meaning of Golden Rule
• The grammatical and ordinary sense of the
words is to be adhered to unless that would
lead to some absurdity or some repugnance
or inconsistency with the rest of the
instrument in which case the grammatical and
ordinary sense of the words may be modified
so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency,
but no farther.
 Maxim Related to Golden Rule
• Reductio ad absurdum meaning--"reduction
to absurdity.“---You may vary the words of a
statute when there are two interpretations in
order to reduce absurdity.
• The law has nothing to do with absurd or in
the eyes of law ‘nothingness’ does not
matter. They are just garnishing that never
matter.
 Scope of the Rule
• When the language of a statute, in its ordinary
meaning and grammatical construction, leads
to a manifest contradiction of the apparent
purpose of the enactment, or to some
inconvenience or absurdity which can hardly
have been intended, a construction may be
put upon it which modifies the meaning of the
words and even the structure of the sentence.
 Continued:
• The Court may depart from the rules of grammar, by
giving an unusual meaning to particular words, or by
rejecting them altogether, on the ground that the
legislature could not possibly have intended what its
words signify and that the modifications made are
mere corrections of careless and really give the true
meaning.
• The duty of the court shall be to construct a viable
synthesis out of all the possible synergy of the
enactments in consistency thereof along with context
with regard to objects of the particular legislation
 Continued:
• Judges are entitled and indeed bound to discard the
ordinary meaning of any provision and adopt some
other possible meaning which will avoid unreasonable,
absurd, inconsistent and repugnant result(s) or literal
meaning to the documents gives the anomaly or
absurdity.
• Fitzgerald in Bradlaugh v. Clarke observed that “if the
enactments are contrary to, or inconsistent with, any
expressed intention or declared purpose of the statute,
or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnancy or
inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be
modified, extended or abridged, so far as to avoid such
an inconvenience, but no further.”
 Continued:
• Lord Denning observed that if the literal
construction leads to impracticable results, it
would be necessary to do little adjustment so
as to make the section workable.
 Absurdity
• An absurd word, clause, statement or thinking
means an irrational, unreasonable, meaningless
and sometimes a stupid or nonsensical
approach. That conveys opposite to the actual
meaning of the law and results illogical decision
based on injustice.
• In Grey v. Pearson, the court observed, “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”.
 Indian cases
• In the case of Polester & Co., Ltd. v. Addl.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi,the Supreme
Court has observed that: “Decisions of this Court,
where the letter of the Statute was not deemed
controlling and the legislative intent was determined
by a consideration of circumstances apart from the
plain language used, are of rare occurrence and
exceptional character, and deal with provisions which,
literally applied, offend the moral sense, involve
injustice, oppression or absurdity, or lead to an
unreasonable result, plainly at variance with the policy
of the statute as a whole.”
 Continued:
• In M. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa, it was also observed,
accepting the contention and holding that Section 320
was only of a transitory character, that one of the
established rules of construction is that if the choice is
between two interpretations, the narrower of which
would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the
legislation, we should avoid a construction which
would reduce the legislation to futility and should
rather accept the bolder construction based on the
view that Parliament would legislate only for the
purpose of bringing about an effective result, and that
Manifest absurdity of futility, palpable injustice or
absurd inconvenience or anomaly is to be avoided.
• Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L.V.A. Dixitulu,
 Cases
• In the case of S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.
Pattabhiraman, the Supreme Court observed
that : “It has been observed that statutory
provisions must be so construed, if it is
possible, that absurdity and mischief may be
avoided.
 INCONSISTENCY WITH THE
INTENTION
• According to Black's Legal Dictionary, means
'mutually repugnant or contradictory: contrary,
the one to the other so that both cannot stand,
but the acceptance or establishment of the one
implies the abrogation or abandonment of the
other'.
• It is settled law that the proviso and the main
part of the Act or Rule are to be harmoniously
read together and interpreted to give effect to
the object of the provision.
 Cases:
• In Mohan v. State of U.P., the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed, “if two
constructions are possible then the court must
adopt that which will ensure smooth and
harmonious working of the Constitution and
eschew the other which will lead to absurdity
or give rise to practical inconvenience or make
well established provisions of existing law
nugatory.”
 Cases
• In State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Azad
Bharat Finance Co., the Supreme Court held
that, “The High Court was right in reading the
section as permissive and not obligatory. It is
well settled that the use of the word ‘shall’
does not always mean that the enactment is
obligatory or mandatory. It depends upon the
context in which the words ‘shall’ occurs and
other circumstances.”