Safest Rule of Interpretation

A project submitted to

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

Under the guidance of

Dr. K P Singh

In the partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Degree of

B.A.LL.B. (5th year) 2023-2024
Interpretation of Statutes

Submitted by

INDERJEET KAUR (1976)

PUNJABI UNIVERSITY PATIALA (PUNJAB)

 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project work presented in this project entitled, “Safest Rule of
Interpretation” submitted by me to Army Institute of Law, Mohali is a record of bonafide
project work carried out by me under the guidance of Dr. K P Singh. All the ideas and
references are duly acknowledged.

Date- 19-04-2024

Place-Mohali

Name- Inderjeet Kaur

Roll no. 1976

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to Dr. K P Singh who gave me valuable
suggestions while doing this project as well as our principal Dr. TejinderKaur who gave me
this golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic “Safest Rule of
Interpretation”, which helped me in doing a lot of research and I came to know about so
many new things. This project has enhanced my knowledge.

Name- InderjeetKaur

Roll no. 1976

Contents
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION ................................................................ 2

RATIONALE OF LITERAL RULE ........................................................................... 4

GUIDELINES TO APPLY LITERAL RULE............................................................. 4

SUMMARY OF LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION ..................................... 6

IMPLEMENTATION OF LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION ....................... 6

ADVANTAGES OF LITERAL RULE....................................................................... 7

CRITICISM OF LITERAL RULE ............................................................................. 7

SUB RULES UNDER THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION .................... 8

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 9
INTRODUCTION

The responsibility of the Legislature is to determine what is best for the public good
and provide for it by proper legislation. The Judge’s duty is to expound the law or to
interpret the legislation in case there is some ambiguity in the text of the statute or
some words or phrase etc. need clarity of their meaning.
In a democracy like ours, whosoever has the absolute authority to interpret any
written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the law giver for all intent and purposes
and not the person who first wrote or spoke. Article 141 of the Constitution of India
provided that law declared by the SC to be binding on all courts. But, if judges were at
liberty to decide what the law is according to their notion, the greatest confusion and
uncertainty would be caused. This statement is substantiated from the decision of the
SC whereby women were allowed to enter ‘garbhagriha’ of the Sabarimala temple,
resulting in social tensions and ultimately the SC had to stay the order and refer it to a
9 judges Constitutional Bench.
The Maxims of British Jurisprudence- ‘Optima est Lex Minimum
relinquitarbitrio, Optimus judex qui minimum sibi’ explains that that system of law is
best which relinquishes as little as possible to the discretion of the judge, and that
judge is the best who relies as little as possible on his own opinion.
Therefore it is said that the duty of a judge is to ascertain the intention of the
legislature and not to control that intention. The Rules of Interpretation help the judges
to confine the interpretation within limits which the judges may deem reasonable or
expedient.
There are 6 main rules of interpretation of statutes, including the Literal Rule,
the Mischief Rule, the Golden Rule, the Beneficial Rule etc.

1
LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

The Literal Rule is also called the Primary or the most elementary rule of
construction. Lord Eversted, as quoted by Maxwell, said, “The literal Rule of
Construction is the only safe Rule of construction”

The Literal Rule means that the words need to be interpreted in the strict ordinary
meaning and the scope of words should not be considered more than its ordinary
meaning. The words are to be understood in their ordinary and natural meaning unless
the object of the statute suggests otherwise1

This is the first rule to be applied by the Judges while interpreting the statute. Brett,
MR called it a "cardinal rule" that "Whenever you have to understand or interpret a
statute or document you do not interpret it according to the mere ordinary general
meaning of the words, but according to the ordinary meaning of the words as applied
to the subject matter with regard to which they are used.2

The exact meaning of a provision is always preferred over loose meaning of the same
provision. In a case, it was held that “there is a presumption that the words are used in
an Act of Parliament correctly and exactly and not loosely and inexactly”. This means
that the framers of the Act have used the word in reasonably after understanding the
meaning of the word and not with an absurdity

The Rule has two connotations-

(1) Firstly, the words and phrases of technical legislation are used in their technical
meaning if they have acquired one, and otherwise in their ordinary meaning. [R.Vs
Commissioner of Income Tax (1888)]

(2) Secondly, the phrases and sentences are to be construed according to the rules of
grammar. [R. Vs Ramsgate (1827)]

1
Crawford v Spooner, (1846) 4 Moo Ind App 179, p 181
2
Lion Insurance Association v Tucker, (1883-84) 12 QBD 176

2
It is one of the rules in which grammatical meaning of the word or phrase is used and
this rule is also called the grammatical rule of interpretation. Under this rule, the
verbal expression of law is taken into consideration and the courts do not travel
beyond the literialegis or the literal construction.

In Jugal kishore v. Raw cotton co.3 It was held that the cardinal rule of
construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is by giving to the words
used by the legislature their ordinary natural and grammatical meaning.

In Tasmania v. Commonwealth 4 It was held that the cardinal rule for the construction
of acts of parliament is that they should be construed according to the intention
expressed in the acts themselves.

The words of the statute have to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular
sense and the phrases and sentences are constructed according to their grammatical
meaning unless it leads to some absurdity or ambiguity.(Crawford v. Spooner) 1846.

The Literal Rule is called the safest rule because the object of interpretation is to
discover the intention of Parliament, and it is well accepted that the beliefs and
assumptions of the legislature cannot make law unless they are expressed in words.
Only expressed words can become law. Therefore, the intention of Parliament must be
deduced from the language used. [Capper Vs Baldwn (1965)]

The Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India provides for the qualification of an
Advocate as the District Judge. The Statute reads as “a person shall only be eligible to
be appointed as a District Judge if he has been, for not less than seven years, an
advocate or pleader, and is recommended by the High Court for appointment”.
Applying Literal Interpretation, the Supreme Court of India held that, “it is clear from
the expression "has been" that the present perfect continuous tense is used for a
position which began sometime in the past and is still continuing, and that therefore

3
AIR 1955 SC 376
4
(1904) 1 CLR 329

3
such person must, with the requisite period, still be continuing as an advocate on the
date of his application”5.

In one of the most recent judgment, the counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted
that, “it is a settled principle of law that a criminal statute has to be construed strictly.
In cases where two interpretations are possible, the Courts must lean towards the
construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which
imposes the same”6

RATIONALE OF LITERAL RULE

Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking sides in
legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do
not have extensive access to secondary sources.. Therefore, it is argued, extrinsic
evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used or their meaning. It can help to
provide for consistency in interpretation.

According to Lord Brougham, it is to take the literal meaning of the words that the
legislature has given them, as well as the meaning that the words naturally imply
unless the construction of such terms is regulated or altered by the preamble or the
framework of the question words.

GUIDELINES TO APPLY LITERAL RULE

(1) Where the language is plain and admits of one meaning of a word or phrase, the
question of interpretation does not arise, and it must be enforced however harsh or
absurd or contrary to common sense the result may be. [Mitter Vs Salomons (1853)].
The duty of the court is to expound the law as it stands and to leave the remedy to
others.[Sutter Vs Briggs (1922)]

In Kenyon Vs Eastwood (1888), the importance of plain language was illustrated. The
Act in question provided that orders for committal to be made “in open court”. An

5
Deepak Aggarwal v Keshav Kaushik, (2013) 5 SCC 277, p 331
6
The State Of Gujarat vs Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah on 27 April, 2020

4
order of committal was made, not in the actual courtroom, but in the room next to it
which was also open to the public. It was held to be an invalid order.

In Rutherford Vs Maurer (1962), the point of interpretation was section 1(2) of the
Agricultural Holding Act 1948 which defines “agricultural land” as “land used for
agriculture which is so used for the purpose of trade and business. The words “trade
and business” were to be interpreted - Should it mean trade and business related to
agriculture only or otherwise also. It was held otherwise. It was held to include the
keeping of the riding school as well.

(2) Exact meaning is to be preferred to lose meaning. Because the presumption is

that words in an Act of Parliament are used exactly and correctly and not loosely and
inexactly. [Prithpal Singh Vs Union of India (1982 SC)]7

(3) Technical words to be construed in a technical sense. Some words are attached
with special meaning in trade, commerce and engineering or in a specific branch.
These words are to be construed in terms of the special meaning. Example- “to lop
trees” as per the Highway Act 1835 means to cut the branches of the trees growing
near a highway but not to cut the top of the tree.

(4) When a word acquires a specific meaning because of its consistent use by the
legislature in a particular sense or because of its authoritative use by the superior
court, it is called the legal sense of a word. Legal sense of a word is to be adopted in
interpretation of the statute. Example- “Zero Hour” in Parliament means an hour when
issues of public importance may be raised. “Default bail” in Cr.PC means bail due to
failure of police in submitting the police report to the court within the time limit
prescribed under section 167(2).

(5) Nothing is to be added to or taken from a statute, unless there are adequate
grounds to justify the inference that the legislature intended something which it
omitted to express. [Thompson V. Goold (1910)]. This is also known as a corollary to
the Literal Rule. R Vs Ellis (1844)

7
1982 AIR 1413

5
In R V. Ellis (1844), the point of interpretation was a provision in the Act which
authorised the removal of lunatics to a hospital when there was no lunatic asylum
established in the country. The Act never provided for removal of lunatics to a
hospital when a lunatic asylum existed in the Country but it was so full to receive a
lunatic. The removal of a lunatic to hospital in the latter case was held invalid.

(6) Every word in a statute is to be given a meaning. A construction which would

leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be
rejected.[Salmon V. Duncombe (1886)]. The main part of a section must not be
construed in such a way as to render a provision to the section redundant. [Irving V.
National Provincial Bank Ltd. (1962)]

(7) The literal rule prevents the undue restriction of wide language, so as it
precludes the undue extension of narrow language. In Young Vs Harkwaorth
Properties Ltd (1965), an agreement for the sale or purchase of property was held
inapplicable to a contract for the grant of lease

SUMMARY OF LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

On the basis of above discussion, the Literal Rule may be summarised as under-

The words of the statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary or
popular sense and the phrases and sentences are construed according to their
grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity, or there is something in the
context or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary. [Crawford V Spooner
(1846)]

IMPLEMENTATION OF LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

A single word can change the whole meaning of the law that is why it becomes more
important to interpret that word without any mistakes. When a court starts doing literal
interpretation of statute, firstly, the court should identify the natural, ordinary or
popular meaning of that word. Secondly, the court should check whether:

6
  Was the interpretation done by the court creating some absurdity or not?
 Does the interpretation solve the purpose of the statute?
 Is the interpretation contrary to the object of the statute?

If the interpretation done by the court is not creating absurdity and it is not contrary to
the object of the statute then the court will apply the literal rule of interpretation. But
in a case, where the literal interpretation done by the court is contrary to the purpose
or creates absurdity, then the court should apply another rule for the interpretation of
that word.

ADVANTAGES OF LITERAL RULE

Literal rule was defined by Lord Tindal as, “the words themselves alone do…best
declare the intention of the lawgiver”. The rationale behind this was to maintain the
faith of the general Npublic on the Legislative bodies and not giving the power to
make laws in the hands of the Judges the way of Interpreting Statutes. The Literal
Rule follows the words of the Legislature.

According to Lord Diplock, “it is not for the Judge to invent fancied ambiguities”. As
the Act is framed by the Legislature, the Literal Rule basically forces the Judges to
follow the same. The Literal rule of interpretation is most preferable when there are
issues related to politics as the Judge cannot make any decision according to his
discretion and needs to be stick to the provisions framed. This also helps restricting
the Judiciary from creating laws contrary to the provisions of the Statute. This also
makes the Act and its provisions easy to understand for the general public. Because of
interpreting only the ordinary meaning of the words, the process of interpretation
becomes more certain and brings consistency in interpreting the Statute.

CRITICISM OF LITERAL RULE

Literal Rule rests on the assumption that there is only one meaning for a particular
word. This restricts the scope of deriving meaning from the context of the Statute and
depending solely upon

7
the plain wordings. As stated by Krishna Iyer J “to be literal in meaning is to see the
skin and miss the soul”8. This is the reason the Judges prefer to apply the golden rule
instead of the Literal rule so as to consider the intent of the Statute and not the plain
words.
According to Salmond, “The essence of law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, for the
letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that
underlies it”. The implication of Literal Rule creates absurdity which means that it
makes the provision vague and inconsistent with the whole Statute, departing the
meaning from the intention of framing the particular Statute. Lord Reid in DPP v
Ottewell affirmed that “the imprecision of the English language… is such that it is
extremely difficult to draft any provision which is not ambiguous in that sense”.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala9, J. Homes was quoted by J. Krishna Iyer
as follows-

“A word is not crystal, transparent and unchanged. It is the skin of a living thought
and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and that in
which it is used”.

The strict adherence to the Literal Rule may cause injustice and sometimes it might
give results which are quite contrary to general intention of the statute or common
sense10. Due to the absurdity that may be brought in by the use of literal rule of
interpretation, the court may assign a literal meaning to a word, which was not
intended by the legislature. If the court applies literal rule and feels that the
interpretation is logically and morally wrong in the context, then, they cannot avoid
giving the interpretation.11 Therefore, the Literal Rule needs not to be applied blindly.

SUB RULES UNDER THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

There are a few sub-rules that are followed in the literal rule of interpretation:

8
Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965
9
(1973) 4 SCC 225
10
P. Ramanathan Aiyer, Law Lexicon 2nd Edition
11
Justice G.P Singh, ‘PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION’ 11th Edition.

8
Ejusdem Generis: When particular words pertaining to a class, category or genusare
followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of the
same kind as specified. [Kavalappra K. Kochuni Vs State of Madras (1960 SC)]12

Casus Omissus: It literally means cases omitted. It can also be interpreted as a point
which is not provided for by the statute. Where a point is not provided for by the
statute, it is governed by case laws. It is basically a situation not provided for by a
statute or contract and therefore governed by case-law or new-judge made law. It is a
canon of construction, requiring the court to draw up principles of statutory
construction, which are then going to be followed by subsequent judges in their
judicial decisions.

ExpressioUniusExclusioAlterius: means the express mention of one thing implies the

exclusion of another. Express enactment shuts the door for further implication.

It means if a thing has been expressly mentioned in an enactment, it cannot be

construed to include anything else. At the same time, general words in a statute must
receive a general construction unless there is some ground in the statute itself for
limiting and restraining their meaning.

These sub-rules shall be discussed in detail elsewhere in the book.

CONCLUSION

There cannot be a fixed rule for the purpose of interpretation when dealing with cases
that are all unique in some sense or the other. In a similar way, there cannot be a
statute without the scope of Interpretation. According to Justice Donaldson, the
interpretation of statutes is a craft as much as a science and the judges, as craftsmen,
select and apply the appropriate rules as the tools of their trade.

According to Gray, it is the duty of the judiciary to ascertain the true legal meaning of
the words used by the legislature. And for achieving this, the Judges need not be
required to stick to one certain principle or rule of interpretation. The courts should
12
1960 AIR 1080

9
not select any one of the Rules of Interpretation and apply it to the case, but, the courts
should take the purview of all the possible means and arrive at a balanced conclusion
as the Courts are the places of Justice.

10