Golden Rule of Interpreation

 The Golden rule, or British rule, 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 Universal Principle of Interpretation that the words of statutes should be

given meaning according to the intention of the legislature and its intention
could be known from the literal or grammatical interpretation of the language
used. But, when it is not so possible and there is a danger of inconvenience,
hardship, injustice, inconsistency, unclarity, ambiguity, and irrelevancy from
such interpretation shall be done to avoid this danger. This is called the Golden
Rule of Interpretation.
The golden rule is a modification of the literal rule. Under the
golden rule of statutory interpretation, where the literal rule
gives an absurd result, which the Parliament could not have
intended, the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in the
light of the statute as a whole.
 Ordinarily, the court must find out the intention of the legislature
by giving the words of a statute their natural and ordinary meaning.
But if the literal meaning leads to absurdity, inconvenience,
hardship or injustice, the court must modify the meaning to such an
extent and no further as would prevent such a consequence.
 This rule solves all the problems before the court. That’s why it is
known as the golden rule.
 As under this rule, the literal meaning is modified to some extent, it
is also known as the modifying method of interpretation.
Rationale

The rationale of the rule is that the legislature may not

possibly have intended what its words signify, and that
modifications thus made are mere corrections of
careless language which used by the parliament.
LORD ATKIN observed that when meaning of the word is
plain, it is not the duty of the courts to busy themselves with
supposed intention. But when grammatical interpretation
leads to absurdity, it is permissible to depart from and to
interpret the provision of the statute in such a manner so as
to avoid that absurdity. In other words, departure from
strict literalness is allowed if the intention of the legislature
is better expressed by some other interpretation.
 Lee v. knapp
(1967)
 In this case, the interpretation of the word ‘STOP’ was involved.
 Under Section 77(1) of the Road traffic Act, 1960, it was provided that a driver causing
an accident shall ‘ Stop’ after the accident. In this case a driver stopped for a moment
after causing an accident and then moved away.
 The Court discarded the literal rule and applying the golden rule. It was held that
requirement of the section had not been followed by the driver as he had not stopped for
a reasonable period requiring interested persons to make necessary inquiries from him
about the accident.
State of Punjab v. Qaiser jehan begum
air 1963 sc 1604
The respondent made an application under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act,
1894 for reference to the civil court within 6 months from her knowledge of the award
regarding compensation whereas the section says that such reference would be made
within 6 months from the date of award.
Holding that the application was within time, the supreme court held that unless an
award of compensation comes to the knowledge, either actually or constructively, how
can a reference, if any, be made against the award. Therefore, justice and fair play
required that the counting of the limitation period must begin from the date of the
knowledge of the award.
 KARNAIL SINGH v. Mohinder kaur
AIR 2003 P&H 135

A testator had made a will in favor of his three sons and had deliberately disinherited his daughters.
During the lifetime of the testator, one of these three sons died issueless leaving only his widow.
The testator did not change his will and died about 2 Years and 9 months after his son’s death.
Interpreting the expression ‘ Lineal Descendent’ in Section 109 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the
court while applying the Golden rule stated that if the testator had any intentions of disinheriting the
widow of his predeceased son he could have made another will or could have executed a codicil to the
existing will.
Thus, his intention was clear to the effect that the widow should succeed to the property in place of his
pre-deceased son.
Luke v/s England Revenue Commissioners (1963 ) 

Lord Ried decided that if words are to be attacked to achieve the

intention of the Legislature then, it should be justifiable.
Belarpur Industries v/s Union of India (A.I.R. 1997, Delhi) – 

Delhi Court Stated that the language used in the statute should firstly have
literal or grammatical interpretation to materialize the intention of the
Legislature. But, if difficulties are arising in doing so. The circumstances
prevailing at the time of making the statute should be considered to remove
those difficulties. This is the Golden Rule of Interpretation.
In fact, the main purpose of the Golden rule of Interpretation is also the same
as that Statutes should be interpreted in such a way that the intention of the
legislature is known and ambiguity, unclarity, inconsistency, hardship,
injustice, etc., arising from language is removed.
ADVANTAGES OF GOLDEN RULE

This rule prevents absurd results in some cases containing situations

that are completely unimagined by the law makers.
It focuses on imparting justice instead of blindly enforcing the law
BY IMPLEMENTING THE LITERAL RULE.
DISADVANTAGES OF GOLDEN RULE

This rule tends to let the judiciary overpower the legislature by

applying its own standards of what is absurd and what it not.
 If the language of Statute is clear, unambiguous, and ordinary, then its meaning
should be in accordance with that.
 Statutes should be interpreted to materialize the intention of the legislature,
 Words leading to more than one meaning should always be understood in the
meaning which is balanced and discretional.
 Should avoid or prevent inconsistent or inconvenient results.
 Such interpretation should be avoided and the result is directly causing injustice.
 Meaningless and Illogical Interpretation should not be accepted
 If the language of Statute is not clear or leads to more than one meaning or not
showing the intention of the legislature, then the language used in Statute could be
reformed and other rules of interpretation can be used for the help. This is the 
Golden Rule of Interpretation.