Golden Rule.docx

SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES TOPIC: LITERAL RULE AND GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION Submitted To: Ms. Priyanka Gupta Malhotra

Submitted By: Vritika Arora A11921513028 Mansi Dua A11921513059 BBA LL.B. (H.) 7th Semester

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT work, implementation and dedication. Still, have aresearch support of many individuals. Therefore I and would them. Bhadoria necessary for her support and for providing implementation. Without her superior knowledge experience, thus her support has been essential. and all those who devoted their time project. towards my family and colleagues for their kind come in completion of this projec ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT work, and dedication. Still, implementation have Therefore aresearch support I and would of many individuals. them. Bhadoria for her support and for providing necessary implementation. knowledge experience, Without her superior thus her support has been essential. all those who devoted their time and project. towards kind comy family and colleagues for their me in completion of this projec This project consumed huge amount of work, research and dedication. Still, implementation would not have been possible if I did not have a support of many individuals. Therefore I would like to extend our sincere gratitude to all of them. First of all we are thankful to Ms. Priyanka Gupta Malhotra for her support and for providing necessary guidance concerning projects implementation. Without her superior knowledge and experience, the Project would like in quality of outcomes, and thus her support has been essential. I would like to express my sincere thanks towards all those who devoted their time and knowledge in the implementation of this project. Nevertheless, I express my gratitude towards my family and colleagues for their kind cooperation and encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.

Name: VRITIKA ARORA (A11921513028); MANSI DUA (A11921513059) PROGRAMME: BBA LL.B (H); 7th SEMESTER

INTRODUCTION Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation to decide cases. Interpretation is necessary when case involves subtle or ambiguous aspects of a statute. Generally, the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in some cases, there may be ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. The reason for ambiguity or vagueness of legislation is the fundamental nature of language. It is not always possible to precisely transform the intention of the legislature into written words. Interpreting a statute to determine whether it applies to a given set of facts often boils down to analysing whether a single word or short phrase covers some element of the factual situation before the judge. The expansiveness of language necessarily means that there will often be equally good or equally unconvincing arguments for two competing interpretations. A judge is then forced to resort to documentation of legislative intent, which may also be unhelpful, and then finally to his or her own judgment of what outcome is ultimately fair and logical under the totality of the circumstances. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

Very often occasions will arise where the courts will be called upon to interpret the words, phrases and expressions used in the statute. There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. Over time, various methods of statutory construction have fallen in and out of favour. Some of the better known rules of construction methods are The Golden rule, The Literal rule, The Mischief rule and The Purposive approach. The first and most important rule is the rule dealing with the statute's plain language. In the course of such Interpretation, the Courts have, over the centuries, laid down certain guidelines which have come to be known as "Rules of Interpretation of Statutes" .More often than not the Statutes contain "Statement of Objects and Reasons" and also a "Preamble" both of which provide guidelines for Interpreting the true meaning of the words and expressions used in the Statute. Judges have to interpret statutes and apply them. The judges frequently use this phrase true meaning or literal or plain meaning. Literal Interpretation of a statute is finding out the true sense by making the statute its own expositor. If the true sense can be discovered, there is no resort to construction. It is beyond question, the duty of courts, in construing statutes,to give effect to the intent of law making power, and seek for that intent in every legitimate way,but first of all the words and language employed. The golden rule is an exception to the literal rule and will be used where the literal rule produces the result where Parliament’s intention would be circumvented rather than applied. Golden rule is a principle of statutory construction that the grammatical and ordinary sense of words may be modified so as to avoid an absurdity or inconsistency, but no farther. Whenever literal interpretation leads to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature's intention, the court can depart from that meaning.

LITERAL RULE Literal rule of interpretation is one of the oldest methods of interpretation adopted by the judiciary. A statute often contains a "definitions" section, which explicitly defines the most important terms used in that statute. However, some statutes omit a definitions section entirely, or fail to define a particular term. The literal rule, which is also known as the plain meaning rule, attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself. According to this rule, when a word does not contain any definition in a statute, it must be given its plain, ordinary, and literal meaning. If the word is clear, it must be applied, even though the intention of the legislature may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law means. This is the oldest of the rules of construction and is still used today, primarily because judges are not supposed to legislate. As there is always the danger that a particular interpretation may be the equivalent of making law, some judges prefer to adhere to the law's literal wording. When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. In J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan 2003, Supreme Court observed that the intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition, substitution, or removal of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. This is accordance with the case of Crawford v. Spooner, 1846, where Privy Council noted that the courts cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, they cannot add or mend, and by construction make up for deficiencies which are left there. In Kannailala Sur vsParammindhi Sadhu Khan 1957, J Gajendragadkar says that if the words used in statute are capable of only one construction then it is not open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged objective and policy of the act. In M V Joshi vs M V Shimpi, AIR 1961, relating to Food and Adulteration Act, it was contented that the act does not apply to butter made from curd. However, SC held that the word butter in the said act is plain and clear and there is no need to interpret it differently. Butter is butter whether made from milk or curd. Thus, when the language of a provision is plain and clear, court cannot enlarge the scope of the provision by interpretive process. Further, a construction which requires for its support addition of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided Advantages of the literal rule: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Restricts the role of the judge Provides no scope for judges to use their own opinions or prejudices Upholds the separation of powers Recognises Parliament as the supreme law maker

5) Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues. 6) They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sources and thus depending on the ordinary meaning of the words is the safest route. 7) It encourages precision in drafting. Disadvantagesof the literal rule: 1. Opponents of the plain meaning rule claim that the rule rests on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning. Words are imprecise, leading justices to impose their own prejudices to determine the meaning of a statute. However, since little else is offered as an alternative discretion-confining theory, plain meaning survives. 2. Sometimes the use of the literal rule may defeat the intention of Parliament. For instance, in the case of WhiteleyvsChappel (1868; LR 4 QB 147), the court came to the reluctant conclusion that Whiteley could not be convicted of impersonating "any person entitled to vote" at an election, because the person he impersonated was dead. Using a literal construction of the relevant statutory provision, the deceased was not "a person entitled to vote." This, surely, could not have been the intention of Parliament. However, the literal rule does not take into account the consequences of a literal interpretation, only whether words have a clear meaning that makes sense within that context. If Parliament does not like the literal interpretation, then it must amend the legislation. 3. It obliges the courts to fall back on standard common law principles of statutory interpretation. Legislation is drawn up with these principles in mind. However, these principles may not be appropriate to constitutional interpretation, which by its nature tends to lay down general principles. It is said that it seems wrong to parcel the Constitution as if it were a Finance Act. 4. Clearly, the literal approach has another disadvantage in that one judge’s literal interpretation might be very different from another’s. Casey says: “What may seem plain to one judge may seem perverse and unreal to another.” 5. It ignores the limitations of language. 6. To place undue emphasis on the literal meaning of the words is to assume an unattainable perfection in draftsman ship. 7. Judges have tended excessively to emphasise the literal meaning of statutory provisions without giving due weight to their meaning in wider contexts.

LEADING CASES R v Harris (1836) 7 C & P 446

The defendant bit off his victim'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's conviction was quashed.

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag on it. 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. Partridge v Crittenden The defendant placed an advert in a classified section of a magazine offering some bramble finches for sale. S.6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 made it an offence to offer such birds for sale. He was charged and convicted of the offence and appealed against his conviction. It was held that the defendant's conviction was quashed. The advert was an invitation to treat not an offer. The literal rule of statutory interpretation was applied. London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman [1946] AC 278 A railway worker was killed whilst oiling the track. No look out man had been provided. A statute provided compensation payable on death for those 'relaying or repairing' the track. Under the literal rule oiling did not come into either of these categories. This result although very harsh could not to be said to be absurd so the golden rule could not be applied. There was no ambiguity in the words therefore the mischief rule could not be applied. Unfortunately the widow was entitled to nothing. R v Judge of the City of London Court: In this case court held “If the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity” RELATION BETWEEN LITERAL RULE AND THE OTHER RULES The other types of rules of interpretation are the Golden Rule and the Mischief Rule. The golden rule is a slight modification of the Literal Rule. It is considered a part of the literal construction. In this case the court can depart from the ordinary meaning of the words; here it tends to avoid absurdity. Mischief rule is to remove the mischief in a statute. Literal rule is the most ancient rule used in interpretation. Where there is an inconsistency, the judiciary will attempt to provide a harmonious interpretation.

GOLDEN RULE The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. The Golden rule was first set out in the case of Grey v Pearson1,an old British case. The gist of this rule is that if the words are given their ordinary meaning, and it is clear that this meaning does not correspond with the clear intention of the legislature (as one can find in the whole of the statute or other relevant issues), then one can depart from the ordinary meaning of the statute so that one can give effect to the intention of the legislature. This rule has its own peculiarities. It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further. Under the golden rule for statutory interpretation, where the literal rule gives an absurd result, which Parliament could not have intended, the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole. The case of Adler v George (1964) is a classic example of the courts applying the golden rule. In short, it is an interpretation which will give effect to the purpose of legislation, when the words itself becomes ambiguous, by modification of the language used. On the face of it, this rule solves all problems and is therefore known as the “golden rule.” Further, since the literal meaning is modified to some extent, this approach is called the modifying method of interpretation. This rule, therefore, suggests that consequences or effect of an interpretation deserve a lot more importance because these are clues to the true meaning of a legislation. In the Tongan case of Sione Tu’ifua Vaikona v Teisina (No. 2)2 the court once more set out the golden rule’ The golden rule is based on the word of Parker CB in Mitchell v Torup [1766] Park 227 and may be applied when there is a choice of meanings as a presumption that a meaning which 1 (1857) 6 HLC 106 2 [1990] TLR 68

produces an absurd, unjust or inconvenient result was not intended. However, it is emphasised that the rule is only used in the most unusual cases as a justification for ignoring or reading in words… It is only when a secondary meaning is available that a court can abandon a primary meaning because it produces an absurdity, i.e. a result which cannot reasonably be supposed to have been the intention of the legislature. No judge can decide to apply a provision because it seems to him to lead to absurd results, nor can he, for this or any other reason, give words a meaning they will not bear… APPLICATION OF GOLDEN RULE Golden rule is a compromise between the literal rule and the mischief rule. Like the literal rule, it gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature’s intention, the judge can depart from this meaning. Golden rule applies:  When the application of literal rule is not possible, or when literal rule defeats the purpose of statute, or  Where there are more than one interpretation of rule is possible for a particular word in statute, or  Discovering the intention of the legislature in a better way, if some modification of a particular word is needed. INDIAN CASES In India there are several good examples where the Supreme Court or High Courts have applied the Golden Construction of Statutes. Certain confusion one may face when it appears that even for literal rule, this rule is named. As golden rule initially starts with the search of literal meaning of the provision, and if there is unequivocal meaning, plain and natural and no repugnancy, uncertainty of absurdity appears, apply the meaning. But when there is possibility of more than one meaning, we have to go further to avoid the inconvenience by even modifying the language by addition, rejection or substitution of words so as to make meaning accurate expounding of intention of the legislature. In Lee v. Knapp3, section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 provided that “a driver causing accident shall stop after the accident”, the interpretation of the word “stop” was in question. In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle stopped for a moment after causing an accident and then ran away. Applying the golden rule the court held that the driver had not fulfilled the requirement of the section, as he had not stopped for a reasonable period so as to enable interested persons to make necessary inquires from him about the accident at the spot of accident

3 (1967) 2 Q.B. 442

In Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar 4 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 by the trial court An accused who on the date of offence was below 21 years of age but on the date on which the judgment pronounced, if he was above 21 years, he is not entitled to the benefit of the statute. This conclusion 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. DIFFICULTIES IN THE APPLICATION OF GOLDEN RULE Lord Moulten in Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositor 5 had explained the reasons for adopting caution before application of the golden rule of construction in these words: “There is a danger that it may generate into a mere judicial criticism of the propriety of the Acts of legislature. We have to interpret statutes according to the language used therein, and though occasionally the respective consequences of two rival interpretations may guide us in our choice in between them, it can only be where, taking the Act as a whole and viewing it in connection with the existing state of law at the time of the passing of the Act, we can satisfy ourselves that the words cannot have been used in the sense the argument points. “It may sometimes happen that laws made for the benefit of public at large may come in conflict of some individual interest or take away his legal right and cause injustice to him. That is to say, like public policy, absurdity, uncertainty or repugnance, are very unruly horses. In State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money 6, the Supreme Court said that “it is the duty of all courts of justice, to take care for the general good of the community, that hard cases do not make bad law. Referring earlier cases the court observed that absurdity should be understood in the same sense as repugnance that is to say something which would be as absurd with reference to the other words of the statute as to amount to repugnance Grundi v. Great Boulder Proprietary Cold Mines Ltd.7, Lord Greene M.R. said, “Although absurdity or non-absurdity of one conclusion as capered with another may be and very often is, of assistance to the court in choosing between two possible meanings of ambiguous words. The Golden Rule of Construction is a doctrine, which must be applied with great care, remembering that judges may be fallible in this question of absurdity and in any event it must not be applied so as to result in twisting language into a meaning, which it cannot bear. It is a doctrine which must not be used to re-write the language in a way different from that in which it was originally framed.”

4 AIR 1963 SC 1088 5 [1912] UKHL 3, [1913] AC 107 6 1976 SCC (1) 822 7 [1937] HCA 58; 59 CLR 641; 11 ALJR 272

Advantages of The Golden Rule   



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 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 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 case in the case examples, because allowing the son to benefit from his crime would have been unjust. by avoiding absurdities and injustices, the golden rule puts parliaments true intentions into force, closes loopholes and avoids the need to produce new legislation Disadvantages of The Golden Rule

   

There are no real guidelines as to when it can be used. what seems to be absurd to one judge may not be to another - this means a cases outcome is decided upon the judge, rather than the law. It is very limited in it is use, so it is only used on rare occasions. It's not always possible to predict when courts will use the golden rule, making it hard for lawyers and people who are advising their clients. Criticisms of Golden Rule The Golden Approach can be criticized: The United Kingdom Law Commissions commented in their report that: “There is a tendency in our systems, less evident in some recent decisions of the courts but still perceptible, to over emphasise the literal meaning of a provision (i.e. the meaning in the light of its immediate and obvious context) at the expense of the meaning to be derived from other possible contexts; the latter include the ‘mischief’ or general legislative purpose, as well as any international obligation of the United Kingdom, which underlie the provision”. They also stated that to place undue emphasis on the literal meaning of words is to “assume an unattainable perfection in draftsmanship” This was written in 1969 and in the light of more recent judicial developments; it seems that the courts have shifted somewhat from the literal approach. The golden rule can be criticized for being silent as to how the court should proceed if it does find an unacceptable absurdity. 1. It suffers from the same difficulties as the literal approach vis lack of wider contextual understandings of “meanings.” 2. The idea of “absurdity” covers only a very few cases. Most cases involve situations where difficult choices have to be made between several fairly plausible arguments, not situations where the words lead to obvious absurdities.

3. The use of the “absurdity” safety valve can be very erratic as pointed out by Professor Willis in his famous article, “Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell” (l938) l6 C.B. Rev.l. Willis at l3-l4: What is an ‘absurdity’? ‘Absurdity’ is a concept no less vague and indefinite than plain meaning': you cannot reconcile the cases upon it. It is infinitely more susceptible to the influence of personal prejudice. The result is that in ultimate analysis the ‘golden rule’ does allow a court to make quite openly exceptions which are based not on the social policy behind the Act, not even on the total effect of the words used by the legislature, but purely on the social and political views of the men who happen to be sitting on the case … What use do the courts make of the ‘golden rule’ today? Again the answer is the same – they use it as a device to achieve a desired result, in this case as a very last resort and only after all less blatant methods have failed. In those rare cases where the words in question are (a) narrow and precise, and (b) too ‘plain’ to be judicially held not plain, and yet to hold them applicable would shock the court’s sense of justice, the court will if it wishes to depart from their plain meaning, declare that to apply them literally to the facts of this case would result in an ‘absurdity’ of which the legislature could not be held guilty, and, invoking the ‘golden rule,’ will work out an implied exception. It was defined in Grey v. Pearson “the ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless it would lead to absurdity, when the ordinary sense may be modified to avoid the absurdity” CONCLUSION The ‘Literal rule’ could, thus, be explained as follows:— Literal rule of interpretation is the primary rule. Under this rule of interpretation the Courts interpret the statutes in a literal and ordinary sense. They interpret the words of the statute in a way that is used commonly by all. It is incumbent on the court to use the grammatical meaning. The statutes should be construed in such a manner as though there is no other meaning except the literal meaning. It is an old and traditional rule of interpretation. It is used not only in England where it originated but also in India. The Courts while interpreting statutes have to keep few things in mind. It must realize that a provision is ambiguous only if it contains a word or phrase which has more than one meaning. If the interpretation is open to different meanings in one context it is ambiguous but if it is susceptible to different meaning in different contexts it is plain. The ‘Golden rule’ could, thus, be explained as follows:— 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Literal Rule a) Advantages of Literal Rule b) Disadvantages of Literal Rule c) Leading Cases d) Relation between Literal Rule and the other Rules 3. Golden Rule a) Application of Golden Rule b) Indian Cases c) Difficulties in the application of Golden Rule d) Advantages of the Golden Rule e) Disadvantages of the Golden Rule f) Criticisms of Golden Rule 4. Conclusion