GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

1.The golden rule of interpretation is a modification of the literal

rule of interpretation.

Where the literal rule lays emphasis on the literal meaning of the
words used in legal language, the golden rule interprets the
words in such a way that the absurdities and anomalies of
literal interpretation are avoided.

2. The golden rule modifies the language as well as the

grammar of the words used in statutes and other documents of
interpretation, thus providing the actual meaning of the words.
It brings forth the context in which the words have been used in
a particular stance.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The golden rules departs from its strictly literal rules, it is

elaboration or extension of literal rule. Golden rule of
interpretation allows judges to depart from a word normal
meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.

6. The judges of the courts must be aware of the consequences of

interpreting the statutes using the golden rule, and it must only
be used where it is absolutely necessary.
1. LEE VS KNAPP 1967 (2) QB 422- 

 In this case, interpretation of the world '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, the 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
stopped for a reasonable time of period requiring interested
persons to make necessary inquiries for him about the
accident.

2. UTTAR PRADESH BHOODAN YAGNA SAMITI V. BRIJ

KISHORE,

 The Supreme Court held that the expression “landless person”

used in Section 14 of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953, which
made provision for grant of land to landless persons, was limited
to “landless labourers”.
 A landless labour is he who is engaged in agriculture but having
no agricultural land.
 The Court further said that “any landless person” did not include
a “landless businessman” residing in a city.
 The object of the Act was to implement the Bhoodan movement,
which aimed at distribution of land to landless labourers
who were verged in agriculture.
 A businessman, though landless cannot claim the benefit of the
Act.

3. RAMJI MISSAR V. STATE OF BIHAR,

 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.
 This conclusion is 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.

FAQs on Golden Rule of Interpretation:

1. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LITERAL RULE

AND THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION?
The literal rule of interpretation focuses on the literal meaning of
words used in a legal statute, but the golden rule brings out any
secondary or hidden meaning of those words.
2. WHY IS THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION
CRITICISED?
The golden rule of interpretation may not always prove to be
useful in determining the meaning of a statutory expression,
because it can create more than one possible constructions of
that expression, thus putting the judges in confusion. It does not
determine the extent or existence of an absurdity present in the
expression, but simply calls for its modification.
3. WHAT DOES UNCERTAINTY OR ABSURDITY MEAN IN
CONTEXT OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES?
Uncertainty in terms of interpretation of statutes would mean
that the meaning of the words used in the statute is unclear, and
therefore cannot be applied to a given case. An absurdity would
mean that the meaning so derived from the interpretation of a
statute is actually the opposite of what the statute wants to state.