GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

The golden rule of interpretation is a variation of the literal rule of interpretation. While the
literal rule focuses on the exact meaning of the words in legal language, the golden rule
interprets the words to avoid absurdities and inconsistencies that may arise from a literal
interpretation. The golden rule alters both the language and grammar of the words used in
statutes and other interpretative documents, thereby giving the intended meaning of the
words.
Meaning of Golden Rules of Statutory Interpretation
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.
According to Maxwell, “The golden rule is that words of Institute must prima facie be given
their ordinary meaning”.
According to Gray, “the process by which a judge (or indeed any person, lawyer or layman,
who has occasion to search for the meaning of a statute) constructs from words of a statute
book, a meaning which he either believes to be that of the legislature, or which he proposes to
attribute to it, is called interpretation”.

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.

In the case of homographs, where a word can have more than one meaning, the judge can
choose the meaning which is suitable in that particular case if the word only has only one
meaning, but applying that would lead to a bad decision where the judge can apply that
decision and arrive at a completely different meaning.
This rule is used in two main situations:
1. When the meaning of the word is too narrow.

1
2. When the word itself has ambiguity or absurdity.
For example:
1. Whenever you stand near the lift it will be written that ‘’Do not use lifts in case of fire.’’ if
you consider it in a literal sense you should never use the lifts, this would be an absurd result
because the intention of the person who put the sign is to prevent use of lift when there is live
fire burning anywhere near the lift.
2. When a son murdered his mother and committed suicide, now the court has to decide who
will inherit the property is its mother’s family or the son’s descendants. The judgment came
out in favour of the mother’s family, here what we have observed here is that the son never
had the intention of making a profit by his crime, but now this judgment will be binding on
all the lower courts.
R v. Allen, 1872 The defendant was charged with an offence of bigamy under section 57 of
‘offence against person act 1861’. The statutes states “whoever being married shall marry any
other person during the lifetime of husband and wife is guilty of an offense.”
Under the literal rule of interpretation of this section, the offense would be impossible to
commit since the civil law will not recognize a second marriage as an attempt to marry in
such circumstances would not be recognized as a valid marriage. Court applied the golden
rule and held that the word marriage should be interpreted as ‘to go through a marriage
ceremony.’ The defendant was convicted and held guilty.
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.

2
 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.

Significance of the Golden Rules

The golden rule holds significant importance in the field of interpretation. It imposes a duty
upon the Court to give effect to the intended meaning of the law when following the literal
interpretation would lead to absurdity or defeat the purpose of the enactment. In such cases,
the Court may need to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words used in the
law.
However, the Court must exercise caution and not deviate from the provision of a law that
has a reasonably plain and clear meaning on its face. This means that the Court can only
partially redefine or rewrite the law. The Court must strive to find the intended meaning
within the words used in the statute.
Unless the words of the law are absurd, ambiguous or lack a proper meaning, it is generally
preferable to interpret them based on their natural and ordinary meaning. This approach
ensures consistency and maintains the integrity of the legislative intent.
ADVANTAGES OF GOLDEN RULE
 It allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning where there is more than one
meaning to the words in the Act or Statute.
 It respects the words of the parliament except in limited situations, the golden rule
 provides an escape route where there is a problem with using the literal meaning.
 It can also provide reasonable decisions in cases where the literal rule would lead to
repugnant situations (this goes for the wider meaning) – This is present in the Re Sigsworth

3
 case in the case example, because allowing the son to benefit from his crime would have been
unjust.
 A major advantage of the Golden Rule is that judge can technically change the law by
changing the meaning of words in statues. They can, potentially infringing the separation of
power between legal and legislature.
 Another main advantages of the Golden Rule is that drafting errors in status can be corrected
immediately. This is seen in the R V Allen (1872) case where the loopholes were closed, the
decision was in line with parliament’s intentions, and it gave a more just outcome.
DISADVANTAGE OF GOLDEN RULE
 There is no real guidelines as to when it can be used
 It is very limited in it is use, so it is only used on rare occasions.
 It’s not always possible to predict whether courts will use the golden rule, making it hard for
lawyers and people who are advising their clients.
 What seems to be absurd to one judge may not be to another so this means a case outcome is
decided upon the judge, rather than the law
 The Golden Rule won’t be help if there is no absurdity in the statute. For example, in the
case of London and North Eastern Railway v. Berriman [1946] AC 278, where the widow
couldn’t get compensation because the wording of the statute didn’t allow for this
circumstance.
Criticism
One of the biggest criticisms against the Golden Rule of Interpretation is the very limited
scope for judges to interpret. Much like the Literal Rule, the golden rule lays that first priority
shall always be given to the natural meaning of the statute and judges do not hold much of
discretion or freedom in analyzing the meaning of provisions.
The word “absurdity” is a vague concept and arises only in a few cases where it necessary for
the court to apply the golden rule of interpretation. Golden rule suffers from the same
problems which were faced by the Literal approach i.e. lack of wider contextual
understanding of “meanings.” The majority of the cases contain tough scenarios where touch
choices have to be made between many credible arguments, not scenarios in places where
wordings of the legislation take you to obvious ambiguity.
 This infringes the separation of power among the wings of the government that is between
judiciary and legislature.
 Here judges can technically change the law by changing the meaning of the words in the
statute.

4
 This method can be used only when there is an absurdity in the statute.
Only when some kind of absurdity or repugnancy is caused in pursuant to the literal meaning
would the Judges be allowed to alter the natural meaning of the Statute. Absurdity is a term
no less vague or ambiguous than the plain meaning of any statutory provision.
Placing reliance on the applicability of the rule entirely upon vague, undefined and subjective
concept defeats the purpose of the rule as its ultimate applicability depends on the social and
political views of the judge. It is how the judge perceives the word absurdity upon which the
entire applicability of the rule is depended.
CONCLUSION
The usage of the Golden rule in today’s scenarios is that the court uses a tool to achieve the
desired results. In the rare cases where the disputed wordings are either narrow or accurate
and too plain to be held by the judges to be not accurate but make them applicable would and
too plain to be held by the judges to be not accurate but make them applicable would original
meaningful sense, hold that in making them applicable on the situations of the said case that
would result in a ‘vague’ to which the law-making body cannot be made accountable, and,
adducing the ‘golden rule,’ will work out an implied exception.
1. It is the duty of the Court to give effect to the meaning of an Act when the meaning can be
fairly gathered from the words used, that is to say, if one construction would lead to an
absurdity while another will give effect to what common sense would show, as obviously
intended, the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must be rejected even if the
same words used in the same section, and even the same sentence, have to be construed
differently. Indeed, the law goes so far as to require the courts sometimes even to modify the
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words, if by doing so absurdity and inconsistency can
be avoided.
2. The Court should not be astute to defeat the provision of the Act whose meaning is, on the
face of it, reasonably plain. Of course, this does not mean that an Act or any part of it can be
recast. It must be possible to spell the meaning contended for, out of the words actually used
3. Unless the words are without meaning or absurd, it would be safe to give words their natural
meaning because the framer is presumed to use the language which conveys the intention and
it would not be in accord with any sound principle of construction to refuse to give effect to
the provisions of a statute on the very elusive ground that to give them their ordinary meaning
leads to consequences which are not in accord with the notions of propriety or justice
entertained by the Court.