ROLE OF LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION IN THE LANDMARK CASE OF MAQBOOL

HUSSAIN V. STATE OF BOMBAY

Synopsis submitted to Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai

In fulfilment of the requirement of Internal Evaluation for Interpretation of Statutes

SYNOPSIS

SUBMITTED BY:

NAME- ATHARVA NIKAM

ENROLMENT NO.- 2019 056 (SECTION – A)

SUPERVISED BY:

PROF. ABHIJIT MORE

B.A. LL.B. (HONS.), FIFTH YEAR, NINTH SEMESTER

INTRODUCTION

The courts employ numerous concepts to help them comprehend the principles while interpreting
legislation. The "Literal Rule of Interpretation" is one of the principles. The primary rule of
interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation. The literal rule of interpretation, as the name implies,
requires the judge to read the legislation literally. It is also known as the grammatical rule or the plain-
meaning rule. Statutes are written with the common sense of the language in mind, and judges are not
obligated to interpret the phrases in any other way. In other words, the requirements must be read
word for word, and no other interpretation of the legislation is permitted.

This rule states that the words used in the text must be read in their natural or usual meaning. If, after
interpretation, the meaning of a legislative provision is completely clear, the provision will be given
effect, regardless of the ramification. The court's sole job is to give effect to the clear terms of the act,
and it is not required to consider any potential ramifications. The only job of the court is to interpret
the law as stated, and if any unfavorable consequences arise, the legislature must seek and impose a
solution. According to Lord Brougham, it is to assume the literal meaning of the words that the
legislature has given them, as well as the meaning that the words naturally indicate, unless the
preamble or the framework of the question words regulates or alters the construction of such terms.

In the present context, I will elaborate upon the landmark case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of
Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325, and how the court followed the literal rule of interpretation while
delivering its verdict.

A person landed at an Indian airport from overseas in the landmark case of Maqbool Hussain v. State
of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325. He was discovered in possession of gold, which was illegal at the
time. Customs authorities took action against him, and the gold was confiscated. He was later charged
in a criminal court under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The question was whether Article
20(2) allowed the plea of autrefois acquittal. The Supreme Court determined that the procedures
before the customs authorities did not constitute a 'prosecution' of the appellant and that the penalty
imposed on him did not constitute a 'punishment' by a judicial institution. In these conditions, the
petitioner's criminal court trial was not banned. It is obvious that in order for a citizen to use the
protection of Article 20(2), there must have been a prosecution and punishment in relation to the same
offense before a court of law.
The very wording of Article 20 and the words used therein would indicate that the proceedings
contemplated are of the nature of criminal proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal,
and prosecution in this context would mean the initiation or commencement of criminal proceedings
before a court of law or a judicial tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statute
that created the offense and regulated the procedure. The Supreme Court ruled that the sea customs
authorities are not a judicial tribunal and that the confiscation, increased rate of duty, or penalty
imposed pursuant to the provisions of the Sea Customs Act do not constitute a judgment or order of
a court or judicial tribunal required to support the Double Jeopardy plea.

RESEARCH QUESTION

• Whether the Literal Rule of Interpretation was used by the Hon’ble Apex Court while
delivering its judgment in the landmark case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study will take a broad approach, including legal examination of India's data protection
legislation, comparisons with worldwide data privacy standards, and case studies of firms negotiating
cross-border data transfers. The study relies on the secondary research approach, often known as
armchair research. The secondary research approach is based on the examination of secondary data.
Secondary data is information that has previously been gathered, collated, and disseminated by other
researchers. This study is based on genuine secondary data gathered from a variety of sources,
including books, research papers, and internet sites.