1.

LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

The literal rule means that a judge has to consider what the statute says ‘literally’, i.e its
simple plain meaning without any ambiguity. It is said that the words themselves best
declare the intention of the law.
In the literal rule of interpretation, the law has to be considered as it is and the judges cannot
go beyond ‘litera legis’. The literal interpretation is a means to ascertain the ’ratio legis’ of the
statute.
The literal rule accepts supremacy of the Parliament: the right to make laws, even though
sometimes, they seem absurd. In the literal rule of interpretation, there is no contrary
meaning within the statute.

Where there is no ambiguity in words, the question of intention ought not to be admitted.[8]
The words are plain and clear under literal rule. The literal rule helps the judge in
administering justice in a neutral manner.

When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous it is not necessary to look into
the legislative intent or object of the Act[9]. The literal rule puts a virtual boundary upon the
judges from not deviating from the ordinary or literal meaning of the words used in the
statute.

Cases studies relating to literal rule of interpretation of statute:

R v. Harris (1863) 7C
In this case, the defendant bit the plaintiff’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 was acquitted.

Fisher v. Bell (1961) 1 QB 394

In this case, the defendant displayed flick knife with price tag in his shop. The 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 in this case.

CIT v. T. V Sundaram Iyyengar (1975) 101 I.T.R 764 SC

The meaning of Literal Rule was given in this case as, "If the language of the statute is clear
and unambiguous, the Court cannot discard the plain meaning, even if it leads to an
injustice."

Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT (1990) Taxmann 87 SC

The meaning of literal rule is stated that, As long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory
language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes
impermissible.
 2. WHEN GOLDEN RULE IS APPLICABLE

The golden rule of interpretation is an expansion or extension of the literal rule, allowing
judges to deviate from the strict literal meaning of words to prevent absurd outcomes.

According to the golden rule, when interpreting a statute, the Court must generally adhere to
the ordinary meaning of the words used.

The golden rule can be applied in both a narrow and wider sense.

In the narrow approach, the judge employs this rule when the word used in the statute is
ambiguous, meaning it has multiple possible meanings. It is then up to the judge to choose
the most appropriate meaning in the case context.

In the wider approach, the golden rule is often utilised when there is only one literal
meaning of a word, but using that meaning would lead to an absurd result. Therefore, the
Court may modify the interpretation of the word to avoid such absurdity.

Application of the Golden Rule of Interpretation of Statutes in India

State of Punjab v. Qaiser Jehan Begum (1963)

In the case of State of Punjab v. Qaiser Jehan Begum (1963), the respondents owned
land that the appellant acquired without their knowledge or presence during the award
process. The Collector awarded compensation, but the respondents later contested the
valuation of their land. The senior subordinate judge rejected their application because it was
beyond the limitation period as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The issue
was whether the limitation period started from the day of the sale or from the day the
respondents became aware of the award.

The Supreme Court ruled that for the parties to apply for reference under Section 18, they
must first be aware of the award. Since the parties were not informed of the award through
notice, the limitation period would start from the date they became aware of the award rather
than the date of compensation. The Court applied the golden rule of interpretation to modify
the provision’s meaning and include the start of the limitation period from the date of
receiving notice of the award.

Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar (1962)

In the case of Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar (1962), the appellant and his brother were
charged with different sections of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting a person. It was
established that the younger brother, 19 at the time of the offence, had no intention to cause
harm and was charged under a less severe section. The appellant argued that since his
younger brother was under 21 years of age at the date of the offence, Section 6 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, should be applied.

The issue before the Court was whether the age of the accused should be determined on
the date of the offence or the date of the guilty verdict.

The Supreme Court ruled that the younger brother’s age was below 21 years at the time of
the offence, making him eligible for the benefits under Section 6 of the Act. The Court
applied the golden rule of interpretation to conclude that the age determination for Section 6
should be based on the date of the guilty verdict rather than the date of the offence.
 3. INTERPRETATION OF STATUE

Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the
words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining
the true meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is not expected to interpret
arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved out of the
continuous exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of
interpretation’.

The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature

conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used. As stated by SALMOND, "by
interpretation or construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the
meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is
expressed." Interpretation is as old as language. Elaborate rules of interpretation were
evolved even at a very early stage of the Hindu civilization and culture. The importance of
avoiding literal interpretation was also stressed in various ancient text books – “Merely
following the texts of the law, decisions are not to be rendered, for, if such decisions are
wanting in equity, a gross failure of Dharma is caused.”

Interpretation thus is a familiar process of considerable significance. In relation to statute

law, interpretation is of importance because of the inherent nature of legislation as a source
of law. The process of statute making and the process of interpretation of statutes are two
distinct activities.

In the process of interpretation, several aids are used. They may be statutory or non-
statutory. Statutory aids may be illustrated by the General Clauses Act, 1897 and by specific
definitions contained in individuals Acts whereas non-statutory aids is illustrated by common
law rules of interpretation (including certain presumptions relating to interpretation) and also
by case-laws relating to the interpretation of statutes.

4. INTERNAL AIDS FOR JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION

“Internal aids” mean those aids which are available in the statute itself. Each and every part
of an enactment helps in interpretation. However, it is important to decipher as to whether
these parts can be of any help in the interpretation of the statute.

The Internal aids to interpretation may be as follows:

1) Title

The Long Title of a Statute is an internal part of the statute and is admissible as an aid to its
construction. Statute is headed by a long title and it gives the description about the object of
an Act. It begins with the words- “An Act to ………….” For e.g. The long title of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 is – “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to criminal
procedure”. In recent times, long title has been used by the courts to interpret certain
provision of the statutes. However, its useful only to the extent of removing the ambiguity
and confusions and is not a conclusive aid to interpret the provision of the statute.
2) Preamble

The main objective and purpose of the Act are found in the Preamble of the Statute.
Preamble is the Act in a nutshell. It is a preparatory statement. It contains the recitals
showing the reason for enactment of the Act. If the language of the Act is clear the preamble
must be ignored. The preamble is an intrinsic aid in the interpretation of an ambiguous act. If
any doubts arise from the terms employed by the Legislature, it has always been held a safe
means of collecting the intention to call in aid the ground and cause of making the statute
and to have recourse to the preamble.

3) Headings and Title of a Chapter

Headings are of two kinds – one prefixed to a section and other prefixed to a group or set of
sections. Heading is to be regarded as giving the key to the interpretation and the heading
may be treated as preambles to the provisions following them.

4) Marginal Notes
Marginal notes are the notes which are inserted at the side of the sections in an Act and
express the effect of the sections stated. Marginal notes appended to the Articles of the
Constitution have been held to constitute part of the constitution as passed by the
constituent assembly and therefore they have been made use of in construing the articles.

5) GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT

Generalia specialibus non derogant is a Latin maxim. It is a maxim used for statutory
interpretation.

 Generalia stands from general;

 Specialibus stands for special.

When interpreted, it means that general laws do not prevail over special laws or, the general
does not detract from specifics.

Justice Griffith said in R v Greenwood, [2]

“The maxim generalia specialibus non derogant means that, for the purposes of
interpretation of two statutes in apparent conflict, the provisions of a general statute must
yield to those of a special one.” [3]

When a law is questioned before the courts, the courts assume that the legislature enacted
the law (under discussion) keeping in mind the welfare of society at heart. Thus, repealing a
law is not favoured and is done only under exceptional circumstances. In case of conflict of
interpretation of statutes, this maxim is applied.
This maxim has been widely used in cases, where there is a conflict between general and
special provisions of an act or different acts. It has helped our judiciary in the interpretation
of statutes.

During interpretation of statutes when we are looking for context and purpose we use:

 Noscitur a sociis;
 Ejusdem Generis;
 Generalis Specialibus non derogant.

Using this maxim along with other interpretation tools provides a better understanding of
various statutes thus aiding in implementing the law in a better fashion and preventing
repeal.