Literal Rule Of

Interpretation
By
Dr. Nalini R
The 1st principle of Interpretation is the literal rule or
grammatical interpretation.
Literal rule means that the words of the statute are to
be given their ordinary and natural meaning.
If such meaning is clear and ambiguous, effect should
be given to a provision of a statute whether it leads to
positive or negative consequences.
The main basis or object of this Interpretation
 What the legislature intended.
 And it has been expressed through words which
should be interpreted according to rules of grammar.
 This is the safest rule of Interpretation because literal
rule can be deduced from the language used in the
statute itself.
Similarly the court should give technical meaning for
the technical words.
The term grammatical construction was used by
Salmond.
The words of the statute are understood in their
natural, ordinary or popular sense according to their
grammatical meaning.
Essentials of the literal rule
Legislative intention must be gathered.
Express language of the statute should be construed
literally.
It should not be given restrictive interpretation.
Ita Scrptia----add words ,modify, letter of law
When the language of the provision is plain and clear,
court cannot enlarge the scope of the provision.
Case laws :-

1. Motipur zamindary co. private limited v State of

Bihar ( green vegetable case )
- The question was whether sugarcane fell within the
term “ Green Vegetable” in entry 6 of the schedule.
- No sales tax could be imposed under the Bihar Sales
Tax Act,1947 on its sale.
The Supreme Court held :-

- While dealing with the taxing statute the words should

be taken in their natural and ordinary meaning.
- In the present case, the word “ Vegetables” should be
interpreted in its natural and popular sense.
- Normal people mean that vegetables are those which is
used in the kitchen
- And sugarcane definitely will not fall under this
category(i.e Green Vegetables).
- Sugarcane can be levied tax under Bihar Sales Tax
Act,1947.
2. Ramavatar v Assistant sales tax officer ( Betel Leaves Case)
- The petitioners were the dealers in betel leaves.
- They were assessed to sales tax by the Assistant sales Tax
officer under the provisions Central Provinces and Berar
Sales Tax Act,1947.
- The contention of the petitioners was that under sec 6 read
with second schedule of the Act.
- Betel leaves were not taxable.
- Under sec 6 of the Act articles mentioned in the said
schedule were exempt from sales tax and articles not
mentioned were taxable.
There were 2 items in the schedule item 6 :- Vegetables and
item 36 :- Betel Leaves and the subsequently tem no. 36 was
omitted by an amendment of the Act.
The removal of betel leaves from the scehdule were
indicative of the legislative intention of not exempting betel
leaves from taxation.
The word vegetable must be interpreted not in technical
sense but in its popular sense and natural meaning, i.e
vegetables means which are grown in the kitchen garden.
And subsequently Betel leaves will not come under the
definition of green vegetable and the tax can be levied on it.
3. Lee v Knapp ( Road Traffic Case)
- Sec 77 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 ( England)
imposes the condition that the driver of the Motor
Vehicles “ Shall Stop” his vehicle, if any accident
occurs.
- The issue raised was :-
- with in how many seconds or minutes, the driver
should stop the vehicle.
- Winn L.J of Queens Bench applied Literal rule and
interpreted the word “ Shall Stop”:- means the driver
of the motor vehicle shall stop it and refrain where he
stopped for such a period of as in the prevailing
circumstances .
- Such a period must be given because interested parties
can make inquiries from him about the accident.
4. R v Harris ( Nose biting Case )1836 7 C & P 446
- The defendant had Bit off victims nose
- The Statute made it an offence only :- to stab, cut or
wound.
- Applying the Literal rule the Act of biting did not
come under with in the meaning of stab, cut or wound
as these words implies some instrument has to be
used.
- Therefore the defendant was Acquitted.
- Conviction Quashed
5. Fisher v Bell
- Under the offensive Weapons Act of 1959
- It is an offence to offer certain offensive weapons for
sale.
- Bristol shopkeeper, Jams Bell displayed a flick knife in
his shop window.
- When brought to trial it was concluded that Bell could
not be convicted given the literal meaning of the
statute.
- The law of contract states that having an item in a
window is not the intention of sale but it is an
initiation to treat.
- Given the literal meaning of this statute, Bell could not
be convicted.
5. Sundaram Finance Co. Ltd v NEPC India
Ltd( Arbitration Case)
- The main issue was whether an interim order can be
sought from the court, even before commencement of
arbitration proceedings.
- The Supreme Court applied :-
1. Literal construction
2. Interpreted under section 9 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 (application for interim order)
3. Gave judgment in favour of the Appellant.
- And also gave guidelines for all the courts that :-
1. Before passing interim order court must be satisfied
about
a. Existence of Arbitration Agreement.
b. Applicant’s Intention to take the matter to
arbitration.